Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 August 29

Himalayan whistle kid
In a Halloween episode of the TV show "Will & Grace," Harlan (a client of Will's) mentions adopting "Himalayan whistle kids."

What is a Himalayan whistle kid?


 * A kid from south-central Asia that enjoys whistling? Russian F 02:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * See Surreal humour. --  the     GREAT     Gavini   11:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Jack also mentions such an adoption in the "New Will City" episode. As show creator Max Mutchnick explains in the book "Will & Grace: Fabulously Uncensored" by Jim Colucci, the references to "Himalayan whistle kids" originate from a joke nickname he and his brother gave to a pair of step-siblings with whom they'd speak by phone but apparently could never understand, saying it was because the step-siblings spoke in hoots and clicks like kids across the Himalayan valleys.    -- Lewist2ca 08:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Weather in California
Does it snow in California during the winter season?


 * The last time it snowed in San Francisco was in February, 1887, when 10 cm of snow fell on downtown San Francisco. So, very occasionally, yes. As you go more south, you expect less and less snow, but even as far south as Los Angeles there was a trace of snow on January 22, 1962. --Lambiam Talk 01:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but California also goes quite a bit north from San Francisco, right to the border with Oregon, and contains mountains, as well. So, it certainly snows in some parts of California, but not in all. StuRat 02:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And also like here. --Lambiam Talk 08:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind that California geography is varied and localized. Most of southern California's precipitation happens during winter months, so it isn't unusual to see snow covered peaks from downtown Los Angeles in January or February along the San Gabriel Mountains, which has four ski resorts. There are more ski resorts farther east at the San Bernardino Mountains, particularly near Big Bear Lake and Lake Arrowhead, California. Along the San Gorgonio Mountain crest patches of snow remain on the northern face as late as May (it even has glacial troughs from the last ice age). Central California's snow falls mainly in the Sierra Nevada (US) mountain range. Rainfall generally increases as one heads northward along the United States pacific coast, so the snows get deeper (and the ski runs get longer) as one travels northward. I'm not sure whether low elevations in northern California see regular snowfall: the climate is moderate anywhere near the coast. Durova 14:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It has snowed in small doses in various parts of the state. I have experienced snow in both Berkeley and Torrance. It tends not to stick, but it's definitely white, flaky and cold. :) User:Zoe|(talk) 15:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I used to live in beautiful South Lake Tahoe, California, where there is often a meter of snow on the ground for half the year. During the winter, i even occasionally see it on weather maps as the coldest place in the contiguous USA. Foobaz&middot;o&lt; 22:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's typically either International Falls, Minnesota or Caribou, Maine that gets the honor of coldest place in the contiguous USA. StuRat 03:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I saw a couple of (what looked like) snowflakes in San Francisco circa 1991; and last winter the peaks around Lick Observatory were snowy for a few days (sadly Lick's webcam wasn't working). &mdash;Tamfang 07:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Open-ended philosophical question
How do I know I'm not dreaming right now? How do you know you're not dreaming right now? I just want a few opinions. Russian F 02:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The old adage is to pinch yourself and see if it hurts. I prefer to pinch a woman.  That way, if she doesn't slug me, I know that I'm dreaming. :-) StuRat 02:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This world is not a dream. Edward Bond‘s Lear:  The world is the place “we prove real by dying in it.”--Patchouli 05:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Aye, but "What dreams may come, when we have shuffled off this mortal coil?" DirkvdM 08:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * See also Solipsism and Matrix. --Lambiam Talk 05:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Not to mention Buddhism. As Lewis Carroll said, "Life. What is it but a dream?" But my rule of thumb is that if I think I might be dreaming, then I am (but drugs or injury might render this invalid). There are some things I find impossible in dreams, such as reading, so that is also a useful check.--Shantavira 07:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I also find it impossible to read in my dreams, but very rarely I'll have a dream in which I can read something very clearly, so it is not a watertight test. Also, I've woken up from dreams, to later really (?) wake up, so I only dreamt the first waking up. --Lambiam Talk 08:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Reading is an airtight test for me. What happens when I pick up a "book" in a dream is that it might read coherently for a sentence or two, but at my normal reading speed it soon degenerates into nonsense strings. Durova 13:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, but what about that second time then? How do you know you really woke up then? Several films have been based on this idea, although it is usually not about real dreams but a computer modelled reality or dreams conjured up during stasis. DirkvdM 08:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I once had a dream three layers deep. &mdash;Tamfang 20:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Who cares what life is, were here, make the most of it. Philc TECI 12:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thus shall ye think of all this fleeting world:
 * A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream;
 * A flash of lightning in a summer cloud,
 * A flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream.

(final verse of the Diamond Sutra) Rentwa 13:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * see Methodological skepticism Nowimnthing 14:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have heard that apparently 90% of people dream in black and white. I certainly do unless a specific colour is picked out.  Bearing in mind that colour is subjective I would have thought you are living life to the full unless you can show that u actually did fall on me last night and my cat is a vampire  --russ 22:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I see in color in dreams, I hear things, and I can read quite well. But I never quite FEEL things. I will feel something specific, such as a snake bite in a nightmare, but not the general things that most take for granted, like a light breeze, the temperature of the air around them, or in some cases the seat one sits upon. I once went under surgery, and in two hours dreamed up a whole three months or so, which was a tad disorienting upon waking. But I didn't KNOW the three months were imagined, so I didn't really mind. To me, I was living, so why worry about it? -Russia Moore 02:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Josip Tito
i want to know the significance of this person in view of the cold war?


 * After World War II, former anti-Axis allies the USA and the USSR turned on eachother, and, while not actually waging war, sponsored wars in other countries, and worked hard to get other countries on "their" sides. Although Tito lead Yugoslavia into Communism, he did not actually align himself with the Soviet Union; instead, he balanced himself between that country and the United States.  Although Yugoslavia's leanings certainly were a factor in the history of the Cold War, the country was neither Pro-Soviet, nor Pro-American, so Tito didn't actually have any role in the balance of power. I am, however, not an expert; I'd recommend reading Josip_Broz_Tito. Hope that helps. Picaroon9288|ta co 04:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * However, in a broader sense, Yugoslavia was a communist state, and not a Western democracy. So, that puts him on the same side with the Soviet Union and later China. StuRat 05:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yugoslavia was an important member of the Non-Aligned Movement. The ideologists of the two blocks aligned with the superpowers popularized the conflict in ideological terms (as opposed to economic, geopolitical, and real-political): capitalist democracy versus communist tyranny, or socialist justice versus capitalist oppression, and both sides had a tendency of classifying everyone who was not with them as being in the enemy camp. As you can read in the article, the Movement had little cohesion and struggled with internal contradictions. That may have been the main reason why its influence was not more than it was. But it may have had a role in preventing each of the two superpowers from obtaining more geopolitical power than it already had. --Lambiam Talk 05:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As a cohesive movement, it didn't work, but the general tactic of playing with alignments worked out pretty well, and was used by China, both Koreas, East Germany, India, and many others I'm no doubt leaving out, to great effect throughout the Cold War. Even states that could not claim to go to the other side — i.e. North Korea, which could never plausibly claim to join forces with the USA, or South Korea, which could not plausibly claim to change sides to the Communists — could threaten their own imminent collapse. --Fastfission 15:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, StuRat, you're right. I was making the point that althought Tito was a Communist, his policy was neutralist, (possible neologism alert) and he isn't as significant in the Cold War as he would be if he had come down on either side of the Iron Curtain.  But he is significant for being the first world leader (followed by Mao and Hoxha) to show that Communist and Pro-Soviet are not synonyms. Picaroon9288|ta co 06:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Tito is usually credited for being the first concrete example that 1. you could be Communist but not necessarily do everything that the Soviets wanted you to if you had some degree of political and military independence, and 2. minor powers could play both sides in the Cold War—just because one was a superpower did not guarantee that you would get your way. For much of the Cold War the minor and medium powers (i.e. France and China) were the tails that wagged the (superpower) dogs. --Fastfission 15:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This is quite offtopic, but when mentioning Hoxha...., weren't those bunkers that litter Albania mostly built out of fear of invasion by Yugoslavia?Evilbu 00:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Would Yugoslavia really want more Albanians?? Picaroon9288•talk 02:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Poem from Groundhog Day
Hi, I know that the poem that Rita quotes to Phil is The Lay of the Last Minstrel by Sir Walter Scott, but I don't know about the French poem that Phil quotes to Rita, about half-way into the movie. What is it, and who wrote it? Is it available online?

Much thanks in advance. :) --Kjoonlee 05:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you quote a bit of it? Have you Googled a quote from it?--Shantavira 07:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I tried, but I couldn't catch enough words correctly. --Kjoonlee 09:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * According to th Trivia page of the imdb entry: " The French poem Phil recites in the German restaurant was written by Danny Rubin, based on the lyrics of Jacques Brel's "Batchelor's Dance". Translated into English the poem reads: The girl I will love / is like a fine wine / that gets a little better / every morning." --Lambiam Talk 08:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. ^_^ Heh. Actually, it seems to be the same as the actual words by Jacques Brel. I added the following to the article. --Kjoonlee 09:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The French poem Phil quotes to Rita is La bourrée du célibataire by Jacques Brel.

What is Sunan Abu Dawud?
Narrated Thauban: "The Prophet peace be upon him said:  'The nations shall gather and team up against you (i.e., Muslims) as the predators gather and team up against their preys.  A questioner asked: 'Is it because of us being low in numbers at that day?'  The Prophet replied: 'No, you that day shall be in great numbers, but you will be as powerless as the foam of the water on the surface of the river, and Allah shall remove any fear from your enemies toward you, and He shall put in your hearts a corruption.'  A questioner asked: 'O Apostle of Allah, what is the corruption?'  The Prophet replied: 'The love of life's amusements and the fear of death.'  (Translation of Sunan Abu Dawud, The Book of Fierce Battles - The Gathering of all Nations against Islam, Book 37, Number 4297)"

My question is, what is Sunan Abu Dawud and is it authentic? Ohanian 07:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * See Sunan Abu Dawud. I must say, it sounds made up, just like the pseudo Nostradamus prophecies of the fall of the Two Towers. I never heard of such a strange name for his hadith collection. --Lambiam Talk 08:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this a known card game?
Back in my country of origin, Lebanon, there is a very popular card game which they call "400" or "four hundred" (Arba' miyeh). I want to know if it's known by another name in the world, or it'l limited to Lebanon and maybe the Arab countries. For the description of the game: It's a 4-players Trick-taking game game. At the beginning of the round each player receives 13 cards (The deck is dealt to exhaustion). In addition, on a sheet of paper, each player announces how many rounds (or triks) he will take: 2, 3, 4... with the condition that the total must not be under 11. As for the rules: It's a Trick-taking game. The rank-order is (from high to low) ace, king, queen, jack, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 with the Heart as the trump suit (it's above all other cards). In the beginning of each round the first player who drops a card decides of the suit that must be played in the current round. If another player doesn't have any card of this suit, he must drop any other card from another suit (but it won't have any value), unless he drops a heart card (the trump). The player who wins the round is the one who dropped the highest card from the "decided" suit, or if a heart card is played, the highest heart card. When all cards are played, each player sees if he won as many rounds as he announced. If this is the case he adds as many points as he announced in the beginning of the game (eg. +4), and if he doesn't he is deduced as many points as he announced (eg. -2). The game finishes when a player reaches 41. I hope this clarifies for you. Thank you. CG 07:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In Australia, and most other places I think, it is called 500. It is quite popular. BenC7 10:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the "500" plays with 45 cards and a joker whereas the "400" plays with a full deck and no jokers. CG 11:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * While not identical, the core of the game is that of Spades in the US. Substitute Spades for Hearts as the trump suit (no gameplay change), remove the 11-trick minimum bid (not much gameplay change), and you've got basic Spades, all ready for the addition of house rules (which are many and varied).  &mdash; Lomn | Talk 15:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are pretty similar. After a quick check on the rules, I played online spades for the first time and won :-) CG 07:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have played both games...there are differences. Enough to warrant an artice, which I created (400 (card game)) --69.199.125.213 21:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Debenture over Ltd Co UK
Any help or clarification please. Generally, given that a bank holds a debenture over a company, can one still offer ones shares in the company as security for a loan elswhere other than from the bank holding the debenture? Also, who is the chargor? Is this the Ltd Co? Who is the Chargee, are they the bank with the debenture? Thanks in anticipation,

[email address removed]

Alexander Westphal - birth and death dates
Can anyone supply birth and death dates for an Alexander Westphal who was alive in the 1890s? He was a German neurologist. One of his pupils was Otto Lowenstein. See. Hopefully Westphal will be in some paper biographical book somewhere. Carcharoth 11:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Found it. I wasn't searching online properly. See . Karl Friedrich Otto Westphal (1800-1879) was the father. Alexander Karl Otto Westphal (1863-1941) was the son. Carcharoth 11:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Correction (nearly a year later). I didn't look at the above link closely enough. The link is now dead, but this wayback link shows that the content is the same as at whonamedit.com. I quoted the grandfather's dates, not the father's. Grandfather and father had the same name. Alexander Karl Otto Westphal (1863-1941), Karl Friedrich Otto Westphal (1833-1890, the father) and Karl Friedrich Otto Westphal (1800-1879, the grandfather). Sorry for the inaccuracy first time round. Carcharoth 14:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Historical Figure
http://img174.imageshack.us/my.php?image=17qj2.jpg

Since you guys seem to know everything please tell me who this man is.Cheers.


 * Leon Trotsky; the pic is in the article too.--Shandon 15:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks wish the quizmaster would stop takin pics from here. I feel dumb.

Longevity
How is it calculated? Are decreasing infant deaths responsible for the increase in longevity or do the survivors of infancy actually live longer? The reason I ask is that a lot of famous people in the 1800's and before lived well into their eighties. Peter
 * Famous people were better off than the general populace, so they could afford better medical care, food, heat in winter. etc. --Nelson Ricardo 18:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Lifespans of the rich haven't changed significantly for 100s of years - Shakespeare talks about 3 score years and 10. Sewers and the mass production of soap are credited with increasing lifespans for the masses during the industrial revolution. This is quite interesting. Rentwa 20:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

As long as you had a way to avoid the major problems, life expectancy has remained fairly constant - there are medieval records from before the English Dissolution of the Monasteries that show Nuns - who by definition avoided childbirth, one of the greatest dangers for women in their times - living well into their 70s, 80s and even 90s. --Mnem e son 22:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * While maximum lifespan has never changed (up to 130-140 years for some people with perfect genes), the percentage of this maximum lifespan which has been realized by the average person has steadily increased. We are now a bit over 50% of that maximum. StuRat 23:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Where did you get that 130-140 figure from, Stu? Who says this is the maximum lifespan?  JackofOz 04:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Because that's the maximum observed lifespan, throughout history. StuRat 04:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Our article Maximum life span suggests that maximum life span for humans has remained at 115-120 throughout history, with the oldest ever person dying at 122. It seems reasonable to suppose that at some point Jeanne Calment's record will be broken, although if we all start taking rejuvenation drugs at some point in the not too distant future then you could argue that she had the longest ever natural lifespan.-gadfium 04:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, she holds the record. I'm quite prepared to believe that people have actually had longer lives than her, but there's no evidence that would satisfy the record-keepers.  JackofOz 04:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Calment was not only the oldest (well documented) living person ever, but she was "with it" right up to the end of her life (certainly up to her 122nd birthday). Some of the other people who were/are supercentenarians are described as "unable to communicate". If I'm ever in that state, and certain not to recover, please disconnect my life-support unit. If I'm still making semi-coherent edits to Wikipedia, then don't disconnect it, even if you disagree with my edits.-gadfium 05:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, but what if I disagree with ou here and now already? :) DirkvdM 08:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A physical limit is set to age by the loss of a bit of the end of the DNA with every copy made when a cell duplicates. I forgot the details of this and I can't find anything on it. Anyone else? DirkvdM 08:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You are talking about telomeres, and the enzyme which rebuilds them, telomerase. Unfortunately, telomeres are one of the limiting factors for cancer, so excess telomerase is not a good idea in general. What I'd like to see is a time-limited telomerase which rebuilds the telomeres in each cell, then turns off after a short time. I'm sure lots of people are working on this.-gadfium 09:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Corporations & Nonprofits in fundraising
Hi again, I am back with a few questions and I was wondering if any1 could spare the time to help. My question is this; do corporations actually earn money by working with non profits in their fund raising efforts, ie. having local restaurants donate a percentage of their receipts for a certain night to a school activity, or do these corporations just write it off as a tax deduction. Also, is fundraising replacing taxes for schools and other organizations where fund raisning used to be just for the "extras". Furthermore I do have 1 more question and that is what is pervasive fundraising and what are normal responses to it. I would be very happy if this was respnded to quickly as it is time sensitive.

thank you very much for your time and effort! 24.60.194.249 21:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)eryinyes1996


 * Well, my experience has been that companies will gladly sponser or otherwise help out non-profits for a variety of reasons. First off, there is the deduction, so they won't LOSE money off the venture. Secondly, they get their name out. Ever seen someone wearing a t-shirt from a walk to raise funds? The back is often covered in sponser logos. That's advertising. Plus, it looks great for them. "See, we care about finding a cure! We are a good company with morals!" And in some cases, companies will sell products or services at a non-profit's event, either keeping the funds themselves and working as a "lure" to get people to come (for instance, a resteraunt selling food at an event may convince people to come out for the good food and feeling that they are doing a good deed), or giving a portion to the non-profit. -Russia Moore 03:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank u very very much russia, that was incredibly helpful and I was desprate 4 that info!

Stamp collecting
Hey guys, I received a stockbook with about 200 stamps from the Soviet Union 1930-1991. Can you tell me any information about how to find the value of this book, or any other helpful information? Thank you very much! — [ Mac Davis ] (talk) ( Desk | Help me improve )


 * Well there is an online catalogue here http://www.allworldstamps.com/ but it is difficult to use as there are no pictures. You could go to a library which will probably have a catalogues with pictures or you could look on ebay. But for the USSR in this era the chances are you'll only get a couple of cents/pennies or so a stamp. MeltBanana  19:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Try Stanley Gibbons the top stamp dealer.Or have a look and see if there are any stamp shops/stamp clubs in your area.Most members will happily have a look through and see if they're worth anything. I found boxes of stamps in my cellar and some have turned out to be worth quite a bit(well,10-15 pounds for a stamp...not a bad day's work) Lemon martini 20:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Pennies!? What if I save them for 20 or 40 years? — [ Mac Davis ] (talk) ( Desk | Help me improve )


 * Sorry to disillusion you, it is just a likely guess based on what is probable, but then again there might be something valuable in there. Communist states often produced huge numbers of issues well beyond what was needed. Also if they appear Cancelled-to-order, with a post mark and glue still on the back, then they are prepared specially for collectors and are of even less value. MeltBanana  00:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Brehan Law?
My Irish mother (RIP) always mentioned the the use of Brehan(sp)law in ancient Ireland, which, according to her, greatly influenced the laws/customs we have today in the west. She said the name came from a Irish King, who was able to set up these laws for his subjects as a way of dealing with everyday conflicts.

Was their such a King? Was their such a system of laws that have been in one way or another handed down to us through the ages?

Thanks.


 * See Brehon Laws. The article also explains the derivation of the name.  User:Zoe|(talk) 20:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Shakespeare
Why is Shakespeare regarded as one of the greatest writers in history. The plays that I have studied, King Leer, Romeo and Juliet and the merchant of Venice are in my opinion of no literary value. The scorelines are unrealistic, while at the same time meant to be set in a realistic world. In the 3 plays I've mentioned there is not one character who is believable. The themes running through the plays are repetitive and boring, there is nothing revolutionary about them, they were written about before Shakespeare, Its not like he was the first to write about these themes. I see no reason why Shakespeare is considered great, in fact in my opinion his plays are among the worst I've ever seen (in my opinion of course). 194.125.179.235 19:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * See William Shakespeare. It explains why he is respected in history.  As for your opinion, hopefully you will eventually mature to realize that most of the world will always disagree with you - always. --Kainaw (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with all your criticisms, but I don't like Shakespeare very much. I think he's highly regarded because he makes profound observations about the human codition (the quality of mercy...to suffer the slings and arrows etc), but I still find him pretty turgid to read or watch.


 * I think saying Shakespeare is one of the greatest writers ever is a bit totemic, and most people are afraid to disagree for fear of being thought ignorant.


 * I also think the British tend to cling to Shakespeare/literary heritage because they don't have the musical heritage of the German/Austrians (Mozart, Bach, Beethoven), or the painting heritage of the French/Italian/Spanish. Rentwa 20:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You consider Shakespear turgid = boring? I hate to tell you this, but way too many ppl share the same opinion about classical music and old paintings. Fact is that all the "old artists" are clung on by the respective nation. Flamarande 21:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It think the language issue (understanding Early Modern English) does make it a bit hard to follow, and thus boring, to those new to his writings. StuRat 21:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you find it turgid, then it is (to you). I dont like it either-- having been forced to study some of it in school. Basically its too old fashoined for todays world. Similarly with some classical music and paintings. Maybe thats why some would call me a Philistine (but they had a bad press!). Quality in arts is always in the ear, eye, brain of the audience/viewer/reader.--Light current 22:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * See, if its rewritten like West Side Story, with a bit of music, everyone can uderstand it. Yes? Im looking forward to Hamlet-- the musical 9-)--Light current 22:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You mean The Lion King (musical)? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 18:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm always in two minds to some level about Shakespeare - and I think a lot of it comes from enforced class reading, where people with no interest, or voice acting ability were given a part and droned through the putting out of Lear's eyes as if it were nothing. You mentioned studying the plays - have you watched them be performed, or merely read them in class? If the latter, I thoroughly recommend you watch performances. Whilst my entire English lit class found Othello's willingness to believe his wife betrayed them ridiculous, considering that a handkerchief was the strength of Iago's evidence, it is still an interesting characterisation. Unrealistic? Fact is far stranger than fiction, and there are many people much weirder living in this world with us today. If you find nothing else in it, look at his vocabulary - he added reams of words to the English language, without which we would have a far poorer literary heritage. Gender characterisations are huge - in the time of Elizabeth I, the very rare sight of an English queen reigning in her own right, he had Queen Margaret order "Off with the crown, and with the crown, his head. And while we breathe - take time, to do him dead", he had Lady MacBeth after a murder note "A little water cleans us of this deed". There is much of interest in Shakespeare, even if you feel it is not of note. --Mnem e son 22:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes I watched a film of some Shakespeare play whilst I was at college. It was so interesting I cant even remember the title!--Light current 03:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Shakespeare is important partly because of his historical context - he was the most prominent writer of the period when the English nation state was rising to world prominence, the Protestant reformation was getting bedded in, and the modern English language was being established. Shakespeare and the King James Bible are, effectively, the founding works of modern English literature. He was also a brilliant writer, but you can't please everybody. I can't read Jane Austen, but a lot of people think very highly of her. --Nicknack009 23:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

King Leer sounds like a very interesting new version.... :) Lemon martini 13:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Having said what I said above, I suppose Twelfth night could be quite amusing if updated int a modern farce!--Light current 18:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Really. Let me think - what if the leading lady was Amanda Bynes.  As a guy, she can secretly fall in love with Channing Tatum.  Then, have Disney produce it to give it a full media backing.  What on earth would it be called?  Something like She's the Man?  I guess not - dumb idea. --Kainaw (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes thanks for that. I already found it out. But there arent any more are there. I mean its a good story line.--Light current 00:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wel,I think he's great-hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 21:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

Evil
What is the real meaning of the word 'evil'. Without going into religous mumbo jumbo can anyone say if evil is subjective or objective?--Light current 20:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Slightly related - 'evil' is only 1 letter away from 'devil' and 'good' only 1 away from 'God'. Rentwa 16:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Subjective most likely. Criminals may not see what they do as "wrong" or "evil" but the victims may. Evil is any action or quality that goes against your personal beliefs --The Dark Side 20:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Subjective without any restriction or qualification. --Lambiam Talk 20:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

So Ghengis Khan or Ivan the terrible wasnt all bad then?--Light current 20:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Certainly not (Ghengis is still considered a national hero by the mongols, and Ivan unified Russia). They were responsable for many cruel deeds but that doesn't turn into bad ppl, it rather turns them into ruthless rulers, and that might be a good caracteristic for a ruler. During the middle ages it was preferable to hav a strong and ruthless king who could keep his nobles in line, rather than a weak ruler who was incapable of hurting a fly (and therefore of mantaining law and order amongst his nobles). Flamarande 20:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Even if they were "all bad", the judgement that they were all bad is inherently subjective. --Lambiam Talk 20:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Good and Evil" aka "Bad and Good" are simply human concepts who are completly subjective. Our own judgement depends completly upon the circunstances and our own human morality (wich simply changes with the passing of time). In nature there is simply no good or evil (or even morality). Flamarande 21:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I could replace your word 'bad' by my word 'evil'! OK then now the biggie! Hitler!?--Light current 21:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, the terrible argument. Let's not avoid it. Let's suppose Hitler had won the war, and all of us had been indoctrionated by Nazi ideals. We would consider the final solution as a good deed and praise Hitler for saving Europe from the "Mongolic Bolshevist Communist hordes". We would consider him a good person. Does anyone disagree? Flamarande 21:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC) There is even a cynical joke about it: "What was the problem of Hitler?" Answer: "He lost the war."

I tend to agree! And of course the vitors in any battle tend to assume moral superiority-- is that your view?--Light current 21:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It isn't necessarily my POV. I rather think that Hitler should burn in Hell until his victims forgive him (assuming there is a hell and a afterlive). The victors always tend to consider their cause as just, rightous and chosen by providence (Gods, God, whatever) and try to write history along these lines. Notice that many times the losers of a battle/war turned themselves into the innocent victims. But I believe that Moral superiority is much overvalued, but then I consider that PC is way too strong these days. I try to be a realist and therefore also a bit of a cinic. Flamarande 21:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Evil is anything one does that does anything or anyone bad for a fact. its kinda like the act of doing something NO ONE agrees on.Jk31213 21:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine, now show me something everyone agrees upon. Flamarande 21:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Everone agrees on the fact that there will never be total agreement. 8-)--Light current 22:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to disagree with everyone here and say there is true evil, which I will define as wanting to maximize pain and suffering in others. Serial killers frequently fall into this category.  There are many more who also seem to be willing to inflict pain and suffering on others to achieve some goal (like world domination).  I wouldn't so much call this evil as, perhaps, amorality.  Then there is the case where inflicting pain and suffering on one group can prevent another group from be so inflicted.  This falls into the "end justifies the means" argument.  The atomic bombs dropped on Japan, which prevented much greater pain, suffering, and death from a prolonged war, would be an example of that.  Then there is not wanting to personally cause pain and suffering, but also being unwilling to take any effort to prevent others from so suffering. StuRat 21:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Stu, you might want to rephrase that statement into as wanting to maximize pain and suffering needlessly. The Romans (and much later the Mongol hordes under Genghis) would give every city a fair chance to surrender. The first city that didn't surrender would be razed to the ground. What normally happened was the following cities surrendered quickly. Was the first a "bad" action ? Ruthless perhaps, but evil? Real live isn't as easy as that.
 * I also know of a person who by torturing another is considered to have participated a really good act. If the suffering to achieve world domination were acceptable many of us would praise such an act. World goverment = no more war between nations. If we agree that our thought process (and our actions are merely results of our thoughts) are chemical reactions inside of our brain then amoral persons are the result of bad chemical reactions. But that is a truly slippery slope we are walking. Flamarande 21:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with that and add that sadistic behavior (in real life, not bedroom games) also comes with an element of schadenfreude. The really evil person is neither confused nor psychologically unfit, but gets genuine amusement from the suffering of others. Durova 22:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It isn't simply as simple as that :) the Romans had Gladiator fights and liked to watch ppl being torn apart by wild animals, or burned alive, and we don't consider the Romans as "evil". Morality simply changes with the passing of time. If you can justify the cruelty with your moralty then it stops being evil, at least in your eyes. You can justify it with many things like justice, tradition, sports, religion, etc. Flamarande 22:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll have to respectfully disagree, and perhaps it's a bit of objectivist in me: social constructions of morality certainly change over time, yet that does not mean that morality in itself alters - it just means that evil people sometimes gain enough power to impose their disturbing world view on a society, and that they appropriate and distort any ideals or prejudices that can excuse their personal goal of creating human suffering for their own amusement. An eighteenth century Virginian (I forget exactly who) described raping his slaves as "A pleasant and inexpensive way of making new slaves."  I wouldn't call the average Roman particularly monstrous, but I'd have a different view of the first one to say, "Hey, let's put these slaves in a ring with some swords and make them kill each other.  That'd be great to watch!" Durova 13:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you are wrong, morality surely changes. Most societies don't do bad actions because they somehow fell it pleasurable. They simply believe in its rightousness = it is the proper thing to do. Let's use a simple example. During the middle ages killing a "heathen" or a "pagan" was a good and worthy act. The morality of the society at that time defined that as good and Christian act. No evil rulers somehow manipulated Christianity into attacking Muslims. A knight who really liked (took pleasure) to kill Muslims and raping Muslim women (they even washed and used perfume!) was a bloody and manly hero, and accepted as such by every Christian. As the values and morals of the WEST (Christianity) began to change so did our judgement of our past. Today he will be considered an evil person, but on those days? Flamarande 22:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You're mixing different sorts of examples. Note the narrowness of my definition: to increase human suffering for one's own personal amusement is objectively evil.  That doesn't apply to a Medieval crusader who seriously believed in heaven and hell, and who believed that all Muslims were headed for the latter place, and who felt a moral duty to convert them if possible and rescue the holy lands from their control.  If he killed some on the battlefield, then according to his world view perhaps fewer souls would be corrupted by error and more people would ultimately go to heaven.  I'll accept a claim saying views of that man's actions have changed.  Yet you stir those elements in with a fellow who thinks it's roaring good fun to disembowel guys and rape women: that second type of man is evil, and as I've stated before, that sort of person will exploit and distort any system of morals in the pursuit of schadenfreude. Durova 13:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The Romans fall into that second category, by being willing to inflict pain and suffering on others, if it achieved a political goal (the surrender of a village, for example). To me, that doesn't fall into the same category of evil as a serial killer, for whom pain and suffering in others is it's own reward. StuRat 23:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What if the serial killer has some sort of mental disorder? Does that make him evil even though he can't really control his actions? --The Dark Side 23:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Then they are still evil, but at least now we know why. StuRat 03:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No. He has committed what the Wiki community percieve as evil acts, but they may not perceive him as evil in himself (although some may do). Since both evil and good seem to be subjective concepts, no one can be considered intrinsically evil--Light current 23:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Atheists believe that evil is subjective, whereas the faithful of the three main monotheistic religions — Judaism, Christianity and Islam — believe in an objective evil defined by God and described: in the Old Testament for Judaism (which they call Tanakh); the Old Testament and New Testament for Christianity; and in the Old and New Testaments as well as in the Qur'an for Islam. Grumpy Troll (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC).
 * You're mistaken about the atheists part, at least for some atheists. Check out Immanuel Kant and the categorical imperative.  It's an objective system of ethics that doesn't depend on the supernatural (faithful people believe it also as a rational explanation of their beliefs). Durova 14:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You are correct of course. BTW how did you ever get away with that username? 8-)--Light current 00:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you live backwards are you evil? Evil is objective: if you do something evil people object. Why should good vs evil == good vs bad? Isn't there a difference between something bad and something evil? Why is good an antonym for both? Am I asking rhetorical questions? MeltBanana  00:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes!--Light current 02:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

'Causing suffering to other beings' would be my definition of evil (and pretty objective). Rentwa 10:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

By that defn, hunting animals are evil (esp cats)--Light current 11:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well thanks all for the replies. It has helped to make up my mind.--Light current 11:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What do you mean? Have you made your mind up to be evil? :) Rentwa 16:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well no not really. Its just that when people call me an evil b***** in the future, I can say: THats only your POV!--Light current 17:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't forget that "only their POV" is in many cases shared by the rest of society and as such quite powerful (most of the time). Flamarande 19:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes of course. Hence definition of evil maybe 'that which most peole agree is evil'--Light current 19:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The original question really has no answer but depends on one's position regarding the age-old philosophical debate contrasting moral relativism with moral absolutism. I tend to lean heavily, though not entirely, toward the latter. I suppose it's up to you. I still suggest those two articles as good reads, as at least they provide a good conceptual framework for the question. Loomis 19:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily true: there are philosophical systems that construct a definition of "good" and of "good actions" independent of religion. See categorical imperative. Durova 13:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I would if we had a page on it.--Light current 00:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Try it now that I've fixed the spelling. JackofOz 06:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Business Partnership
Im in a business partnership with one other person. Hes thinking of retiring and selling his half. Can he sell his bit to anyone he likes without consulting me or getting my agreement? If so I would be forced to work with a new partner. Can that be right?--Light current 20:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What is the legal form and basis of the partnership? Is there any written agreement? --Lambiam Talk 20:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes we have a written agreemnet that states that no other partners may be brought into the business unless bothe of us agree. Illness and death of one of us is mentioned as is leaving with notice, but I think this particular case isnt mentioned. I wonder if the Partnership act covers this?--Light current 20:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, then, obviously, he cannot sell his bit to another person, and thereby bring an other partner into the business, without consulting you and getting your agreement. --Lambiam Talk 21:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure the courts would interpret it the same way. First, can you offer to buy his half ?  If not, perhaps he is willing to let you check out the potential new partner, have you asked him ?  Also, the potential new partner, unlesss he's an idiot, would also want to check you out and only buy in if he thought you two would make a good team. Another option, if your original partner is willing, is that he could become a silent partner, letting you do all the work while he still gets paid a percentage (you might want to reduce his percentage a bit since he will no longer be working).  In short, I strongly suggest you talk this all over with your partner before bringing lawyers in and creating unnecessary expenses and nastiness.  BTW, you should list your location so we know what country/state laws apply. StuRat 21:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Good advice Stu, Im in the UK.--Light current 21:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

But with respect, he would not actually be bringing someone else in, but just selling his interest in the business. Can you see the distinction?--Light current 21:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I can't, obviously. There may be several ways of bringing in someone else, but selling your interest as a partner to someone else, meaning the other person is supposed to thereby become a partner, qualifies in my eyes as "bringing in an other partner". --Lambiam Talk 03:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

OK thanks for that! 8-)--Light current 03:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Some kind of logo? Source, please!
When browsing a forum, I noticed one user with an avatar which looked like a blue circular smiley face wearing a baseball cap with writing surrounding it. I've seen this logo several times before (although I think the seemingly satirical text in this version has been added by said user), and I've always wondered were it came from and what it means. The image can be found here. Thank you in advance for your help! Ppk01 21:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * http://tenser.typepad.com/tenser_said_the_tensor/2005/01/technorati_laug.html WASTE MeltBanana  00:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Which is to say, Laughing Man (Ghost in the Shell). EdC 05:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

richest person
I know that Rockfeller was the richest person ever, having some $912 million ($189 billion today) at his peak but who was the second? Bill Gates might not fill this space.Jk31213 21:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's hard to tell with all those kings/princesses/royalty and such. --Proficient 18:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well,I think they are just nasty;if I had that much money,I'd spread it around-hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 21:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC))


 * One cannot benefit from it without spreading it. &mdash;Tamfang 03:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Islamist/Muslim Distinction
Is there a distinction between one who is refered to as a Muslim and one who is an Islamist? Are all Islamists Muslims. Are all Muslims Islamists?

Can one be an Islamist and not be a Muslim? And can one be a Muslim and not be a Islamist?

How do people in the Middle East label themselves?

Donald Grant


 * I've heard "Islamists" used to refer to fundamentalist Muslims, such as the Salafi. StuRat 23:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * According to the article on Islamism, the term refers to a political philosophy that advocates the spread of Islam and Islamic law. A Muslim who does not advocate those things, or who does not believe in using government or other forms of coercion to do so, would not be an Islamist. I suppose it is theoretically possible for one to be an Islamist without being a Muslim. George Galloway is, as far as I know, not a Muslim himself but seems to support radical-Muslim causes. -- Mwalcoff 23:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You mean the Palestinian cause? There are also Christian and even Jewish Palestinians; it is not per se a Muslim cause. --Lambiam Talk 09:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I was referring to his defence of radical-Muslim organizations and causes, such as Hezbollah. Regarding the Palestinian issue, it's true that it can be interpreted in a non-religious sense, but certainly much of the anti-Israeli feeling out there has to do with returning Palestine to the Muslim ummah. Therefore, opposition to Israel can be described as an Islamist attitude. -- Mwalcoff 11:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the old PLO was a secular terrorist organization, while Hezbollah is a Shiite fundamentalist terrorist organization, and Hamas is a Sunni fundamentalist terrorist organization. Apparently all the Palestinians have in common with each other is their willingness to randomly kill civilians in a pointless attempt to get Israel to vacate the Middle East.  Have any of them even heard of Ghandi ? StuRat 11:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hezbollah is not a Palestinian organization. --Lambiam Talk 07:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds to me like this might be a recent distinction used in practise by the media, sort of like 'fundamentalist' being used only for Muslims. Just a hunch. And what would 'islamic' then refer to? Or indeed 'Islam'. DirkvdM 08:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Islamic" is the adjective that means "related to Islam", whereas "Islamist" means: "related to Islamism". The specific meaning of "a movement for reinstating the caliphate" is indeed relatively new, the older meaning referring more to culture and religion. It's catching on; now "Christianist" is also used with a political sense. --Lambiam Talk 09:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

To answer the original questions plainly, "Islamist" and "Muslim" are not synonyms. An "Islamist" is a person with a political philosophy of Islamic supremacy based on a very conservative interpretation of Islam. A "Muslim" is any adherent of the religion of Islam. Most Muslims are not Islamists, but some fraction of Muslims are Islamists. It is hard to imagine a sane non-Muslim being a true Islamist.

People in the Middle East label themselves in all kinds of ways. Identity is very complex there, as elsewhere. People may label themselves in terms of religion, nationality, ethnicity, or even tribe. In terms of religion, people may label themselves as Muslims, Christians, Jews, or one of the smalller religious groups (e.g. Druze). Or they may label themselves as members of a particular sect of Islam (Shi'a or Sunni) or some other religion.

However, if they label themselves "Islamists", they are definining themselves in political, not religious, terms. Islamism is a political philosophy rather than a religion. Marco polo 17:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * An Islamist thinks that the 1400 years of aggressive attempts to conquer neighbors, political oppression, and forced conversions have been worth it and simply need to be continued. alteripse 02:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've heard the same point many, many times, and perhaps it's true. "Most Muslims are not Islamists, but some fraction of Muslims are Islamists". Fair enough. Who, then, are the voices of this vast majority of peaceful, non-Islamist Muslims? Where are these "moderate" Imams and Mullahs, who it would seem, should be speaking for this "vast majority" of peaceful Muslims, who, as true Muslims, follow the path of peace and kindness? Where are they? Can someone please name me one Muslim religious leader who outspokenly preaches to his flock of "millions" that Islamism is wrong, that terrorism is wrong, that the Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban, Al-Qaeda etc. are all wrong in pursuing an evil path of violence? Can someone please name me just ONE? Loomis 01:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Carla Bruni
Does anybody know where I could find the English translations to the songs on Carla Bruni's CD, Quelqu'un m'a dit, or at least just the title track of the same name?

Try this I will not vouch for the accuracy of the tranlation however. Consider using Google in these cases. Flamarande 22:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I googled for an hour and found nothing, you are obviously a far superior googler than I will ever be. =)


 * Not really I just wrote" Quelqu'un m'a dit english translation ", and picked the most likely link, in this case number 3. Flamarande 22:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that the translation is quite good, and not because "Someone really said it to me". -- DLL .. T 18:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)