Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 August 21

August 22 - Iran
What's the significance of Iran's revealing of their response to the UN's deal on August 22nd? Are the planning something to coincide with that date or are they just biding their time?

--Shadarian 03:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You are probably thinking of the op-ed piece Bernard Lewis wrote for the WSJ a few weeks ago, in which he suggested that Iran might consider August 22 "an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world". My view is that Lewis is a complete idiot and his article propagandistic fearmongering. (Should the world end tomorrow, I will apologize for this statement.) 145.222.138.134 07:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't "complete idiot" a bit strongly expressed? Would you go for "incomplete idiot"? --Lambiam Talk 18:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

History ?
What is the desert past Casa Grande? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.189.36 (talk • contribs)

Casa Grande is in Pinal County, Arizona, Google searching that talks about the Sonoran Desert, which we also have an article for. This the desert you're looking for? :) --Mnemeson 12:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't the title be "Geography" instead of "History" ? StuRat 04:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Figure
http://img151.imageshack.us/my.php?image=11hf2.jpg

Can someone tell me who the bearded figure higlighted in this picture is? the familiarity is annoying.


 * I think it's Shylock, demanding his pound of flesh. David Sneek 14:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed - it's clearly Shylock in a picture depicting one of the later scenes from Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice. --  THE GREAT GAVINI  {T|C| # } 15:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And looking at the image a little more carefully, I think it's also possible to say which verse is being depicted - Act 4, Scene I
 * PORTIA: Tarry a little; there is something else.
 * This bond doth give thee here no jot of blood;
 * The words expressly are 'a pound of flesh:'
 * Take then thy bond, take thou thy pound of flesh;
 * But, in the cutting it, if thou dost shed
 * One drop of Christian blood, thy lands and goods
 * Are, by the laws of Venice, confiscate
 * Unto the state of Venice.


 * GRATIANO: O upright judge! Mark, Jew: O learned judge!


 * SHYLOCK: Is that the law?


 * PORTIA: Thyself shalt see the act:
 * For, as thou urgest justice, be assured
 * Thou shalt have justice, more than thou desirest.
 * David Sneek 20:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Definitely Shylock. With the knife in one hand to take his pound of flesh, and the the scale in the other, literally depicted to display his intent to weigh the flesh as well as symbolically, as the scale is a symbol of justice. The Merchant of Venice has been one of the most ambivalently interpreted works of art in human history. Did Shakespeare intend Shylock to be sympathised with, or despised? It's hard to say, especially since he was quoted with one of the most meaningful verses in English literature:


 * Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs
 * dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with
 * the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject
 * to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means
 * warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer
 * as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?
 * If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us,
 * do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?
 * Act III, scene I


 * Nevertheless, Shakespeare tends to have written three types of plays: The "comedies", the "tragedies", and the "histories". The histories have no significance here as The Merchant of Venice was clearly not meant to be any sort of historical account. So we're left with the "comedies" (not like today's "comedies" designed to invoke laughter, but rather Shakespearean "comedies" which seem to be defined by their "happy endings",) and his "tragedies" (the opposite, those with "sad endings"). The ending to The Merchant of Venice was clearly a happy one. Antonio's ships finally come in, all the various love stories are happily fulfilled, and Shylock, the Jew, by means of a silly (almost comedic) technicality is forced to submit to the most humiliating of possible treatments. Seems like a happy ending to me! Loomis 22:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Physical differences between Japanese/Chinese/Koreans
Can a Japanese person, for example, tell (more or less) if somebody is Chinese, Korean or Japanese based just in their physical appearance? Thanks.


 * Even I can tell the Chinese from Japanese, the Chinese have broader faces. StuRat 17:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not always. While the averages are different, the appearances have considerable overlap. --Lambiam Talk 18:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ofcourse they can tell. As an example, a person of european union can tell the ethnicity or even the native country of fellow european, while for mongoloids or astroloids, they are just caucasians. Similarly, it is difficult for us to distinguish between mongoloids, but those living there can find out the nativity of another person, with relative ease. nids 18:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It does seem that, viewed objectively, there is more variation in European's appearance than in other groups, however, with more types of hair texture, hair color, eye color, and skin color, specifically. StuRat 18:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ask a non-european to identify the native country of a european, and then ask a european the same question. There will be a difference, in response and in response time. As a further example, try figuring out the native state of Indian person. It wont be easy for you. Then ask the same question to an Indian.nids 18:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree with nids. I doubt Europeans can actually identify the ethnicity of other Europeans with any reasonable amount of accuracy. Yes, some basic features are far more common than others, such as the fact that most blond, blue eyed Europeans are from one of the Germanic countries, but even then, not all Swedes, for example, are blond. Some can be quite dark actually. Just as not all Irish have red hair and freckles. I remember a story Gabriel Byrne, an Irishman, told of a visit to Spain where all the locals seemed to think he was a Spaniard fluent in Spanish, simply because he looks more Mediterranean than Irish. At best I'd imagine a Europan could give a good guess as to which region of Europe another European is from. I just can't possibly imagine a European, based on physical appearance alone, can accurately say to another: "I can tell by your features that you are most definitely Czech". I could only imagine the same to be true of Orientals. Loomis 20:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't said that they will definately identify the ethnicity of fellow europeans. I said that they can speculate better than others. Similar argument holds for mongoloids. they wont be able to perfectly identify the ethnicity between a chinese and japanese, but they can definately speculate for that in a better way than us. nids 20:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "I didn't said that they will definately identify the ethnicity of fellow europeans". Actually, yes you did: "As an example, a person of european union can tell the ethnicity or even the native country of fellow european". "I said that they can speculate better than others". No you didn't. You said nothing of the sort regarding "speculation". I actually agree with the rest of the above paragraph. I just don't see why you couldn't be honest and say something like: "Upon further reflection, I see that my above posts were not entirely accurate. That said, I'll rephrase my position". I think you're taking the fact that I disagreed with your earlier posts far too personally. You originally thought one thing, read a few posts, and changed your opinion. Nothing wrong with that. I do it all the time. That's how I learn new things. Loomis 20:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed.nids 21:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And any of these populations are going to have very high rates of interbreeding and genetic linkages (they've been in geological proximity for a long time and share very similar cultures), so you're going to have a lot of overlap in individuals. But our eyes and brains are trained to draw out careful differentiations in very similar features among those groups we know well; less so for groups we have less experience with. There was a wonderful Far Side cartoon with two jellyfish outhouses with identical looking drawings on the doors with the caption "Only they can tell the difference," or something to that effect. It makes good evolutionary sense that humans have a hyper-sensitive view of the details of in-group individuals and a considerably less powerful one of out-group individuals, even if it does lead to all sorts of social difficulties in the long run. Just as one can be "trained" to recognize differences in jellyfish I imagine one can "learn" to see other human groups as an insider too if one spends enough time immersed in them, though I've no experience with this myself. --Fastfission 20:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Obesity
What is the long-term projection for obesity in America? Is it likely to "burn itself out" over the next 20 years, like a flu epidemic? Or will it just get worse and worse during the next 100 years? Will the average American in 2106 weigh over 600 pounds? Will that average American have to move about in some sort of cart or wheelchair? Does the human race have any natural weight-regulating instinct? Slim


 * I would expect more resources will be put into the problem and how to cure it. A combo of new technology (drugs, foods, exercise equipment, etc.) and government regulations (banning trans fat additives and junk food vending machines in schools, for example) will eventually start to pay off and weights will start to taper off.  Eventually, I'd expect to have pills available which can control appetites without serious side effects.  StuRat 18:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A possible cause for this is that one extreme leads to another (a pehnomenon I notice in many fields). The US beauty ideal, I believe, includes being very thin (skin and bones even). Since for most people that is not a real option they think they're fat and also by US standards (stop me if I'm over-generalising) if you're not a winner you're a loser (no gradation), so if you're fat you're FAT, so you might as well be FAT - what's the difference. Just a little theory of mine. Also, calling fat 'obese', as if it's normal, doesn't really help either, I suppose. DirkvdM 18:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I really think it's unfair to call it "the US body ideal". It's more of a western thing. The models on the runways of Paris and Milan are just as "skin and bones" as those in New York. Also, maybe this is a language thing, but the term "obese" doesn't seem to be a euphemism for fat, quite the opposite. Obesity is actually considered by the American medical community to be a serious health issue, and many would very straightforwardly call it a disease. To us regular laypeople, while the term "fat" is often used to describe those who are somewhat overweight, the term "obese" is generally restricted to the most extreme cases. Loomis 19:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You're talking about models. I was talking about the real world. There, people are more influenced by movies and such. People in non-US movies have a tendency to look more 'normal'. DirkvdM 04:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And then there is morbidly obese, which is the worst yet. StuRat 19:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In reference to the original question, I can't see the average American being anywhere near 600lbs in 100 years. I don't see it as much different from, let's say, height in that sense. Most people in North America these days are taller than their parents. I'm taller than my father, and my father was taller than his father before him. But that doesn't mean that 100 years from now the average North American will be 7 feet tall. From what I understand, it's more about fulfilling one's height potential than any sort of evolutionary process. Had my grandfather lived in the far more prosperous, medically advanced North America of today, he'd probably have come closer to his real height potential than he did. Loomis 19:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * When talking about trends like obesity it makes more sense to think about them as they incidence in the population, not as "every increasing sizes". The current worry is not that there will be 600 lb Americans but that, say, 70% of all Americans will be obese (I made the percentage up). Unlike a flu epidemic, obesity is not a contagious disease which one can become immune to over time (or will eventually be unable to infect others for some reason)—it is a "lifestyle disease" and has a totally different sort of "tranmission". Thinking of it as analogous to contagious diseases is not, in my opinion, very useful (though there was recently a New York Times article on some sort of proposed causal link between microbes and obesity or something like that but I didn't read it closely). As for weight regulating instincts—most likely they do (rats seem to, and you can turn it on and off with genetic knockout procedures), but whether or not this inclination can battle the instinct towards high-fat foods (which evolutionarily makes sense, even if in today's production system it is not very healthy) or a culture in which healthy food is rather expensive and exercise is entirely optional is precisely the problem at hand. --Fastfission 22:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to the NYT article: . To read it you have to register, but then it is free. --Lambiam Talk 05:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right that obesity is a "lifestyle disease." No one can predict the future, but the relevant question is whether the American lifestyle is sustainable far into the future. It is fairly clear to me that it is not.  I think that rates of obesity are likely to fall. Marco polo 00:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This question should be moved to Science. I am disappointed in some of you. A lifestyle disease? Obesity is not a disease, it is a state— A state in which you have extra fat (what it used to mean), or in which it is thought to have negative effects on your health.


 * Healthy food expensive? It's junk food and desserts and crisps and such which are expensive. The cheapest food is home-cooked and that can be as healthy as you wish it to be. Also, more food is more expensive and a lot of obesity is caused by eating to much. I love eating fatty foods. I just don't eat too much of them. DirkvdM 04:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In the US, at least, it's possible to get a day's worth of calories much cheaper if you are willing to eat unhealthy food than healthy. For example, a box of mac & cheese can be had for $0.25, or ramen noodles for less than $0.10 a package.  You can't get a healthy meal anywhere near that cheaply. StuRat 04:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And additionally, in many poor neighbourhoods in the US there is no greengrocer or other shop selling fresh produce within a reasonable distance. Either you eat from a can, or bars and cookies, or fast food. --Lambiam Talk 05:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * True, but there's a cause and effect question here. It's not entirely correct to conclude "people in poor areas can't eat healthy food because stores don't stock it".  It would be more correct to say "stores in poor areas don't stock healthy food because it doesn't sell well". StuRat 07:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

public board proceedings Canada
When a public board has been in camera and wishes to conclude the in camera discussion and move back to the regularly convened public meeting, what is the appropriate wording of the motion to effect this transition?

Alternative outcomes from WW2
If America had not joined in WW2, who would have won? In other words could Britain and our former empire have won on our own? Could Britain, for example, have continued by itself the research it started on the nuclear bomb and won that way? (By the way, people in the UK are still very grateful for the great amount of help received from the US).

And, irrespective of the US joining in or not, if the Nazis had won, what would Europe and the world be like now in 2006? Would there have been a revolution that overthrew the Nazis? Would European society be similar to what it is nowerdays except we'd all learn German and there'd be a lot of euthenasia and eugenics?


 * Well, people can engage in What If history all day but never know for sure. It seems unlikely to me that the UK would have had the resources during the war—in terms of manpower, funding, and physical space—to set up a nuclear effort on the scale of the Manhattan Project; though the Manhattan Project wasn't the only way to the bomb (it was very redundant in many ways), it was probably the fastest way for the time (you'd have to know things that nobody knew until it was completed in order to do it any faster), and while fighting a war in which their homefront was getting bombed frequently I don't think the UK could have probably managed it on their own. Maybe if they exported everything to Canada they wouldn't have to worry about the bombings, but even that would have taken a herculean effort. I don't think they would have had the time or the resources to spare. --Fastfission 22:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd imagine that Germany would've eventually invaded Britain and the war on the eastern front would've ended in a stalemate and uneasy peace once both sides began to run out of meat for the grinder. The developed world would be split pretty much equally between America, The Third Reich and the Communist powers with a cold war-type situation lasting for the rest of the century, with the occasional proxy war in the Third World to liven things up. I'd imagine that the world would actually be *more* stable than it is now... --Kurt Shaped Box 22:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The "Third World" would be the "Fourth World", if those three spheres of influence were all to exist independantly and simultaneously. Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * IMHO, the allies didn't stand a chance without the US intervention. Hitler had succesfully closed off Europe's coastline (counting Franco as an ally), and he would have made soon made mincemeat of the remaining Soviet forces had the Allies, spearheaded by the US, not opened the famous "second front" at Normandy.  Hitler and his military advisors are known to have greatly feared that second front, which is why they tolerated US aid to Britain for so long.  The US provided the crucial heavy machinery and manpower to break through German fortifications and turn the tables of the war.  --Bmk 00:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I would think that, if Germany had not declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor (figuring they could defeat the US in conjunction with the Japanese), then the US would not have declared war on Germany, preferring to finish off Japan first. Let's assume that the Manhattan project goes forward as planned, and Japan is defeated, perhaps a bit earlier than in the real timeline. By this time, Germany would have defeated the UK, Russia, and any other opposition in Europe, Africa, and mainland Asia. Now, there would be a fierce debate in the US: "We have nuclear weapons, and could defeat the Nazis if we attack now, but if we wait, they will get the bomb and we will have a stalemate." On the other hand will be those who would argue: "They haven't attacked us, so a preemptive nuclear war is morally unjustifiable." We may have ended up with a policy somewhere in between, like an ultimatum that Germany withdraw to the pre-war borders or be attacked. Then, if they complied, we would be left with Germany in it's pre-1939 borders, but, eventually, with nuclear weapons. At that point, a cold war with Germany would likely result. StuRat 02:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * German generals seemed to agree that the war was lost the moment Germany started a second front by attacking the USSR. Contrary to popular belief, the eastern front was decisive in the outcome. As an indication, of the 17 million allied military casualties, 10 million were Soviet (and 4 million Chinese). (Yes, StuRat, I know it is only an indication.) DirkvdM


 * It's not even an indication, taking heavy casualties is more of a counter-indication, showing that you are not fighting effectively. Using your logic, China was the most important in defeating Japan, because China had so many casualties in Manchuria. Now, if you measured how many of the German casualties were caused by Soviet forces vs US forces, there you would have a bit of an indication, but that's hardly conclusive.  Most of what the US did was "behind the lines" in Europe, especially early in the war, in providing weapons, money, equipment, etc., to the Allies, as in the phrase the Arsenal of Democracy.  This type of support, while critical for victory, neither inflicts or incurs heavy casualties. StuRat 02:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The question was what if the US had not entered the war at all. So that would be if neither Germany nor Japan had attacked and declared war on the US. A world with three central powers would be interresting. Countries always strive for having only one enemy (keeps it simpler for the home front). If there are two, alliances are made. The US would have had to choose between nazis and commies. In reality they were forced to cooperate with the commies. In a stable situation (if such a thing would arise), my guesss is they would have figured that both were dictatorships, which is bad, but that one had the wrong economic system (which somehow seems to be a big deal). Then again, I believe Hitler regarded the US lifestyle as degenerate, so if he would have secured Europe, he might still have attacked the US.


 * Locally, non-cooperation, resistance (nowadays called terrorism) and occasionally even guerrilla warfare would keep on pestering the nazis, ultimately possibly sapping their resources. Even without external help that would eventually defeat them, but that might have taken a century. DirkvdM


 * Wrong. Terrorism only works, and just barely at that, against democracies, by influencing public opinion.  The Nazis would have just responded with genocide.  If there is any resistance in an area, they would kill everyone in that area.  Eventually, such a method is bound to work, as there will be nobody left to resist.  More likely, after a few rounds of genocide, the remaining resistance would decide they were doing more harm than good and stop fighting. StuRat 02:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What, democracies don't do that? What about the US then? Oh, right, that's not a proper democracy. :) DirkvdM 20:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Another factor is the nature of nazism. Hitler encouraged spontaneous actions and people (even lowranking military) taking control locally. Eventually, this might have led to the empire falling apart. But that is really wild speculation. DirkvdM 05:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The key second question you have to ask, assuming that the US didn't enter the war in Europe, was whether they would continue to support the other Allies financially and materially. Even before December 1941 Britain would have been in terrible trouble without US financial support. However if the US had continued, or even stepped up, financial and material support to both the UK and the Soviets there is good reason to believe that the Allies would have been victorious in Europe. Britain was probably capable of taking back North Africa without US troops, freeing up her supply lines to the Far East. They key question then would have been whether Britain alone could have maintained enough of a threat against Western Europe to prevent the Germans reinforcing the Eastern front. If so then the Eastern front campaign would have gone pretty much as it did, still resulting in an Allied victory. Alright, really a Soviet one. Which would have made a big difference to the shape of Europe today. DJ Clayworth 15:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The U.S was bound to go to war with Japan as soon as they attacked Pearl Harbor successfully. Japan felt they had to move because they lacked native petroleum supplies and they lackedproduction of metals needed to build ships, planes, and tanks. Roosevelt had cut off shipments of oil and scrap iron which the Japanese required, to punish them for their continued occupation of China. Had the US detected the Japanese attack (not too hard, since they spotted the planes on radar and ignored them) or if our carrier based planes had spotted the Japanese ships, and we had repulsed the attack, we could have defeated the Japanese empire fairly quickly. Knowing this, Hitler might not have declared war on the US. Then we (the US) would have devoted all forces to the Pacific War. Hitler would have likely invaded Britain and obtained an armisticve, and installed a puppet regime there, as was his fond wish. The US would have had no reason to invade Britain or Africa. We would have "pacified" Japan by invasion or armistice. Without the Pearl Harbor motivation, we would have had no ned to demand unconditional surrender. Hitler cold have defeated Russia, using the troops he had to station in France to defend against Britain, and the troops he had to station in Africa to defend against the US. Germany would have completed their fleet and their advanced weapons, including nukes. The US would have completed our nukes. A different cold war would have ensued. . Germany would likely control the middle east oil supply. There might possibly be a Jewish state, since deportation was one way the Nazis considered for removing the Jews from Germany and nearby German speaking areas. They considered Madagascar, but who can say they would not have sent them to Israel. They would have been under German control, and perhaps hostages against attack by the US on the German empire. South America would have been an area of great tension, with Germany seeking naval bases in this hemisphere. Japan might have become a allied with the US after the war regime there was defeated politically, as would have happened after defeat of their navy. China's future status would be questionable: world power or vassal of the Third Reich or the US- Japan alliance? Would the Reich control Indochina by their Vichy puppets? What of India Likely the Reich would follow their conquest of Europe, Russia, and the Middle East with expansion into the Indian subcontinent. Goods would be cheaply produced by slave labor to enrich the German homelands, whose Homeland Security would be assured by the armies and navies of Britain, France, and Italy in addition to Germany's own navy, which never amounted to much other than the Uboat fleet, because the war did not not last long enough. The Germans would likely have built naval bases at each island or country which had been controlled by Britain, France, or the Dutch. Edison 17:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The best philosophy to live by?
What is the best philosopher or philosophical school to follow in this modern era? Personlly I think I tend to follow the stoics, but Hitler was said to read Schopenhauer while in the trenches of WW1.


 * For me, Marx is the only one worth paying any attention to in one's daily life. --Fastfission 22:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Jesus... although he wasn't a a philosopher, you would be hard pressed to find anything that has the insight to life that the Bible does. BenC7 00:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Humanism. No mumbo jumbo, no justification for mass murder, no hope of salvation from on high.  Just the terrible reality that we're in this together,

and we can choose to live together, or we can choose to die together :) --Mnemeson 01:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Jesus. Or if you choose to ignore such an expected answer, the categorical imperative. AdamBiswanger1 02:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You guys?? Duh, it is definitely absurdism! Albert Camus r0xxs my sox :D There's Friedrich Nietzsche too. — [  Mac Davis ] (talk)


 * It's stoicism all the way for me. Live long and prosper. Anchoress 05:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why you mentioned Hitler. Do you really think his life and works are worth emulating? JackofOz 05:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned Hitler because he is the only person I've heard of where his philosophical interests are known. Apart from fadingUK TV presenter Esta Rantzen who follows Existentialism, whatever that is. Besides, Shopenhauer seems to be all about Will with a capital double-u, and Hitler must have been one of the most willful people of all time.


 * The right philosophy for this modern era? Philosophy is above that. Philosophy is timeless. The right philosophy is always your own. Follow your own thoughts, not those of others. Well, that would be my philosophy, so you can't follow that either then. Damn! DirkvdM 05:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Forget philosophy. "Try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations." (The Meaning of Life)--Shantavira 06:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Forget philosophy? That's what he asked about. Not sure what the purpose of your list is, but eating no fat sounds pretty unhealthy to me. DirkvdM 08:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Study the great works of Niccolò Machiavelli and Sun Tzu besides many others. Understand the world as it really is, and not as it should be. I try to follow realism to the best of my meager ability. Flamarande 10:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Machiavelli's advice was so nice good. Just fucking kill everybody else so you can run the place. — [  Mac Davis ] (talk)
 * It will shock you, but politics are not supposed to be nice. If you are willing to seize a throne by force, you must slay all heirs of the former ruling family, or they will try to reclaim the throne and kill your descendants. The attempts of James Francis Edward Stuart and Bonny Prince Charlie killed a lot of ppl and for what? Flamarande 16:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with the Jesus answer - he covers quite a bit of stuff and it isn't too difficult to understand. I like some of the other answers too (except the Hitler one, no offence!). I suppose there's not really a correct answer.  It is an odd, unexpected question though.  --  THE GREAT GAVINI  {T|C| # } 16:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Records of NZ Communist Party
I am researching my uncle, Alec Ostler, who was secretary of the CP until about the mid 60's. I understand the records of the party were archived at Auckland University, but my own search on Wikipedia has not been successful. I am particularly interested in the Party's (and Ostler's) links with Viet Nam and Ho Chi Minh, who I understand was a personal friend of Ostlers, and hosted him on more than one occasion in Hanoi.There must be records of these trips, probably in the late 40's or 50's. They may have been official party delegations. I would also appreciate anything from the records on the 'split' in the Party in the mid 60's and its major cause. Was it the Sino/Soviet debate? If anyone could find anything about Ostler re the above questions, I would be most grateful. Mary Jerram


 * Mary, you might be better off directly contacting the authors of the Communist Party of New Zealand article, either by asking on the article's discussion page, or contacting them individually by having a look at that article's history and clicking on the author names to get to their user pages.  You can then contact them either through their "user talk pages" or clicking on the "e-mail this user" link on the left of their user page, if they've enabled that functionality.  Good luck.  --Robert Merkel 05:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you contacted the CPNZ (now Socialist Workers Organization (New Zealand)) itself? If not, I suggest you try the email addresses or telephone numbers on this page.-gadfium 09:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Complex synthesised music
My lecturer, at the start of the year, played a composition that was obviously put together using a non-real time system. It was pure synthesis, the sounds of bees and rain, with bizarre physical instruments making complex but incredibly realistic sounds, undoubtedly the product of a physical modelling system of some kind.

Can anyone point me to particular composers / compositions of this type? I'm looking for examples of amazing feats of synthesis, especially ones that mimic real-life sounds or sound incredibly real. I'm thinking that the music of John Chowning or Paul Lansky was a place to start, but that seems more bog-standard FM synthesis, one voice stuff that isn't particularly interesting. I may be wrong. 82.46.89.15 22:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Examples on Wikipedia: Check out Yannis Xenakis (more academic) or Brian Transeau (more electronica style). For techniques check out granular synthesis and time correction (no article). ---Sluzzelin 08:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Who is that Hizbullah parliament member + Lebanese parliament for dummies
Hello,

there is a Hizbullah member of parliament who appears on television quite frequently. He speaks English (with some fallacies) and French quite well. He spoke French on Flemish television, but English on Dutch television. He wears glasses. Recently, when the war was over, he said "Yes I am terrorist. But what is a terrorist" and then he referred to Qana. Who is he?

Now some questions about the Lebanese parliament :

as I understand the system of a parliament (this is how it goes in Belgium as far as I know), is that the country is divided into certain areas, and each area can choose its own representatives, a number which depends on the area in question. But in Lebanon there have to be 64 seats taken by muslims, and 64 by christians. So how does this work? What if almost all people in all areas voted for christian parties, who decides which areas have to provide the muslim seats?

And a last question : I see Amal and Hizbullah participated in the 2005 elections in one "Resistance Block". Didn't these two fight each other in the civil war?

Thank you!

Evilbu 23:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

First off, stop calling yourself a dummy! :-)

I take it that you're Belgian. Unlike my country's first past the post electoral system, yours seems to be one of proportional representation. What that means is that each party provides a list of their candidates. Say your parliament has 100 seats. Each party provides a list of its 100 candidates in order of priority. You then vote for your favourite party. if your party gets, say 20% of the vote, then the first 20 members on that party's list get seats in parliament.

It would seem that according to the Lebanese Constitution, Lebanon's Parliament consists of 128 seats. 64 are reserved for Christians and 64 for Muslims. So say there are 10 parties. 5 Muslim and 5 Christian. (Of course there could just as well be mixed parties, including both Christians and Muslims, but let's assume that party allegiance is based purely on religion).

So, in a sense, at election time, the Lebanese Parliament is divided in two. Of the Christian parties, the 64 seats are allocated according to proportional representation, based on the total number of votes cast for these Christian parties, and allocated proportionately. Same goes for the Muslim "half". I could be wrong, but that would seem to be the natural way the system would work. Loomis 23:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, yet I'm totally confused about everything now. I read your above explanation,and went to both articles.  None of it seems to mention the fact that the country is divided into parts, and for instance is my country it is impossible for all parliament members to live in the same city.

Evilbu 01:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For more info about the apportionment according to the Taif Agreement, see Parliament of Lebanon. --Lambiam Talk 02:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Elections in Lebanon has the information you need.Natgoo 18:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm really sorry for confusing you. At first I thought a simple explanation of the difference between proportional representation and the "first-past-the-post" electoral system, with a little twist in order to account for the Christian/Muslim allocation would do, but I realize now that it must be way more complicated than that. There are all kinds of hybrid systems involving some sort of combination of the two, added to that the fact that I don't know a great deal about how the Lebanese system works in particular. I'm definitely no expert in the various electoral systems that exist, and so, admittedly, the question is far further above my head than I had originally thought. My apologies for adding to your confusion. Loomis 11:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, the electoral system in Lebanon is quite complex and controversial (there have been caricatures about how noone understands the electoral law). I'll try to simplify for you. Seats are divided: 64 christians and 64 muslims. Plus they are further divided by confession (eg: 34 for maronite, 14 for orthodox, 27 Sunni, 27 Shia...) between the dozen of confessions. Furthermore, the electoral law divides the country into electoral districts. Each one is assigned a number of seats for each confession (eg: for Beirut First District 10 seats: 6 Sunni, 1 Maronite...). Therefore each political party or coalition must present a list in each electoral district which contains candidates for each "confessional" seat. So, parties must make coalitions to fill the list. An example in the last election: In the southern districts (mostly shi'a seats), The Hizbullah (shi'a party) had to ally with the Future Movement (Sunni) and the Syrian Socialist party (secular) to fill the seats. And in the mountains districts (mostlt christian seats), they had to ally with Hizbullah to fill the one shi'a seat.
 * I hope this clarifies this complex issue for you. If you need more clarifications just ask me.
 * As for the name of the Hezbollah deputy, I think you're talking about Hussein Hajj Hassan.
 * And I forgot your last question. Coalition in Lebanon changes for month to month (Politics is very complex). Therefore they were fighting during the war 20 years ago, now Amal and Hezbollah are from one soul (According to Hassan Nasrallah). Another example. Hezbollah and the Progressive Party were allies until the last year when they suddenly became fierce opposants. CG 20:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Now who's the dummy? (me!) :--) Loomis 21:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Lol! Despite always being in the front page, Lebanon is a not well understood country. I'd be happy to help if you want to know anything about it :-) CG 05:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Pre-Euro European Currency
I've visited Europe a couple of times back in the 90's, before the Euro was introduced. As a result I've got a bagfull of coins: Deutschemarks, Swiss, French and Belgian Francs, Dutch Guilder and Irish Pounds. (Also some British Pounds, but they're still good as the UK hasn't adopted the Euro).

The whole collection isn't really worth much, maybe $20 if I'm lucky. Are these currencies now completely worthless in Europe? I even remember being in pre-Euro France and they wouldn't even accept a legitimate French 10 Franc piece as it was apparently no longer in circulation! I know that in the US or Canada, they won't care how old your currency is, in fact if you try to use an old Canadian $1 bill (replaced in 1986 by a coin), they'd almost literally leap at the opportunity of getting their hands on a piece of memerobilia like that, not to mention that it's still considered "legal tender", no matter how old it is. Are all these coins actually worth anything as "legal tender" or do I just have a bagfull of European memerobilia? Loomis 23:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You can still exchange them at the relevant central bank. You might even be able to change them at relevant high st banks.  You can't, however, use them in common circulation, unless you happen upon a store which is making some political point about their opposition by still accepting non-legal currency.  --Mnemeson 23:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I just re-read that slightly more carefully, and want to give a more nuanced answer. You might still be able to use the Deutschmarks and the Swiss Francs - indeed, I would imagine you can certainly use the Swiss Franc, seeing as Switzerland isn't in the Eurozone.  A few years ago (before the introduction of the Euro) I was in the German part of Switzerland, and they took German Marks, so it's possible that in order to keep their economy as open as possible they and Luxembourg might still accept them.  The French, Belgian, Dutch, and Irish currency though, unless you change at a bank, shouldn't be able to be used.  --Mnemeson 15:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * To expand the previous answers. Swiss notes and coins are still legal currency, and there's no prospect of it ever not being. Belgian, and Luxembourg coins ceased to have any value at the end of 2004, although their banknotes can be exchanged at the Belgian and Luxembourg national bank indefinitely. Dutch coins cease to have any value on 1st January 2007, and Dutch banknotes on 1st January 2032. French coins ceased to have any value at the end of 2004 and French banknotes cease to have any value at the end of 2011. Irish Pound and Deutschemark notes and coins cannot be spent in shops but can be exchanged for an indefinite period at the Central Bank of Ireland and at the Bundesbank respectively. -- Arwel (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Old European currencies are no longer legal tender in their original issuing states. Some local regions do still accept them in payment in protest of the introduction of the Euro, however this is not strictly a bona fide means of settling up. As given above, the national banks of each member state will be happy to exchange bank notes issued within their own boundaries, but you must go in in person or post it to them at your own risk. Similarly, countries like the UK will exchange notes withdrawn from circulation indefinately. My advice would be: unless you have a serious hoard of foreign currency, hang on to it. It may not appreciate in value particularly but such coinage and notes are not issued any more, and are an important part of the history of a rapidly changing continent --russ 22:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)