Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 July 8

Mayor
Was there any female mayor who posed naked for the picture because I heard that some female mayor was posing naked for her picture?


 * Huh? Where?--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would be amazed to hear that no female mayor anywhere ever posed naked for a picture. Perhaps you could be a little more specific? What picture would this be? For an art class? For a nude painting? For some kind of an official portrait to be sent out with press releases? What?
 * No, never mind, I got it. Just typing "nude mayor" into Google reveals, with the very first hit (honestly, not that we mind helping, but you could at least pretend that you're making an effort here...), that Canadian Sharon Smith, mayor of Houston, British Columbia was photographed nude by her husband, and apparently some jerk copied the pictures from her computer and put them on the internet. Big whoop. I suppose this is what passes for an exciting -- not to mention terribly sinful and titillating -- event for some people. A NUDE MAYOR! OH, CANADIANS, WHAT WON'T YOU DO? -- Captain Disdain 03:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Nicely put Cap'n. (I wonder what pretext he used. My partner would throw a fit if I even hinted at photographing her nude.)--Shantavira 08:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I do remember hearing about that. I don't think it was too recent, but I do remember. Unfotuneately, all I can do is confirm that it happened, for I don't remember any details. Political Mind 02:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Post-Industrial revolution religions
Have any [notable] religions been formed after the industrial revolution? It seems like many of the world's religions were founded in agrarian and nomadic societies. The recent ones that I know of, like neopagan religions, essentially keep the same basis of earlier pre-industrial religions. I'm wondering if there is a religion that preaches a lifestyle for people in a industrial or post-industrial society.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was formed in 1830. The Salvation Army was founded in 1865. The Bahá'í Faith was formed in 1866. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Scientology, Raelianism, Westboro Baptist Church.... - Nunh-huh 02:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Some of those (not many) are developments of existing churches. There were many, many sects that developed in response to the industrial revolution (or arguably in response), including the various "primitive" stripes of protestantism.  The determining factor for many of these is mass communications, as rapid communication and news and such allowed them to react against Higher Criticism and such and to insist on a purely "what's in the Bible is all we'll have" lifestyle.  Others, like the Shakers, the Oneida, etc. are probably reacting to production schemes and the dehumanization of factory work.  By resorting to closed communities and common ownership, they were very much reacting against capitalist-owned means of production and remote production plants.  One of the most jarring things about the IR was that you didn't work at home or live at work anymore, that you would go to a special place to "work" and then go away from that place and "not work."  That was somewhat alien to most segments of the economy, and the herding together and leaving behind caused a lot of disquiet.  Geogre 02:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I was looking for was a religion whose stories, parables, and lessons centered around an industrialized world. Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad were essentially nomads, and the metaphors they used all had to do with a primitive societies whose problems remained essentially the same for common people for thousands of years, both before and after these prophets. They related to them on a level of what they lived at.....a simple, essentially technology-less lives.


 * That isn't really the case anymore. Our lives don't depend on self-sufficiency, and the world is extremely connected, and science has expanded rapidly. I thought there might be a religion structured like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam&mdash;giving adherants an ethical and moral system to use, but for within a post-industrial world. It seems like a lot of the recent religions everyone here as listed encourage people to reject modern, mainstream lifestyles, for someting exceedingly weird, and/or nostalgic....well, I was just curious to know. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's interesting. I can't think of any such religion off the top of my head. Even Scientology situates its central mythos in the distant past. Falun Gong is a recent creation, but it claims a Buddhist heritage, so it isn't exactly rooted in the post-Industrial period. Actually, I think Communism, in particular the dogmatic Maoist-Leninist varieties, might be examples of true IR religions. Communism came about as a direct result of the IR and the attendant social upheaval. Its ideology (or belief system, if you will) was rooted in contemporary socioeconomic issues, not in a distant past of miracles and revelations. If Communism had continued for a few centuries, the Industrial Revolution would have become its "Bible Days". But that's just speculation. Perhaps the Unification Church is a post-IR-based religion? It is fairly "contemporary", in that its central figures were all born during the 20th Century. Also, Cao Dai may fit the bill. Bhumiya (said/done) 03:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "If Communism had continued for a few centuries..." If you mean pure communism, where has it started? If you mean state socialism, give it some more time. There seems to be this notion that it has ended, but that was just the USSR and eastern Europe. DirkvdM 08:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I meant the kind of dogmatic Marxism-Leninism espoused by the USSR, PRC, etc, which (as far as I can tell) has been declining for many years. I certainly didn't mean "pure communism", which could mean just about anything. I don't want to speculate on the future of state socialism, which could always experience a resurgence. To answer the original question, I should say that Marxism-Leninism is the closest thing we have to a religion rooted in the Industrial Revolution, even though it doesn't have all the characteristics we look for in a "religion". Bhumiya (said/done) 09:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I never looked at it that way. That's interesting, because a lot of Marx's theory does call for a certain lifesyle.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 13:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You could even say that the communist ideal (that which socialist states strive for) is a form of heaven and that the notion that this could ever be achieved is a belief. It's just very Earth-bound, which sets it apart from 'other' religions. But then you could regard just about any ideology as a religion and that would be a bit silly. For a religion you also need some claims about life after death and creation (that these are overseen by some super-being is not necessarily part of a religion I'd say). DirkvdM 07:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think your definition of religion is a bit narrow, and seems specially tailored for the Abrahamic religions. Communism does have a deeper philosophical basis, namely dialectical materialism. Furthermore, there are many religions with no specific position on life after death. Many forms of Buddhism reject the idea outright, regarding it as a frivolous distraction from reality. Germanic paganism had no concept of continuity after death, hence the focus on glory in this life and the respect afforded to skalds. No, Marxism-Leninism most definitely can be a religion, depending on the level of commitment of the adherent. I think the truth of the matter is that few Communists were willing to commit to it on that level, but that doesn't mean there weren't people for whom Communism was a complete and life-affirming religion, even if they didn't use that term to describe it. If the Communists had evangelized as aggressively as the early Christians or Muslims, we would certainly have come to regard Communism as a religion. Bhumiya (said/done) 14:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Rejecting something is having a position on it. Just like atheism is really a religion because it makes a claim about the existence of a god. But a claim about life after death is indeed not an essential part of religion. A claim about the origin of life (and the universe and everything if you wish :) ) is however an essential part of religion, I'd say.
 * Atheism is not a religion. It's simply the absence of belief in a deity. There may be religions that incorporate atheism, but atheism itself is simply the rejection of a concept. An atheist doesn't have to make any positive assertions. Now, to be a strong atheist, one must begin making extra assertions, but weak atheism doesn't require anything at all except a lack of belief. Religious people often make the mistake of thinking that atheism is a big ideology, but really it's just a concept and the (widely divergent) implications that people ascribe to that concept. Bhumiya (said/done) 02:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe the early comunists were indeed quite zealous about spreading the word. Which was part of their succes around 1900 and during and after WWII, most notably the communist resistance, which was a force to be dealt with because, more than anyone else, they were fighting the 'devil' himself (while we're on the subject :) ). DirkvdM 19:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Kilmainham Jail (Goal)
I am researching Prisoner holding areas prior to being sent to Long Kesh Prison in Ireland. The period of time is 1970 to 1976. I am understanding that although Kilmainham Jail (Goal) in Dublin was no longer in use that prisoners were held at the Kilmainham Court House next to the goal until transfer. My problem is that I have not been able to verify this and everything I have read only states that court is held there, but not that prisoners were detained there. Could you please help me out with this, possibly citing a web site that can give me more information? Thank you

--70.20.65.229 03:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Are the USA and Canada nation-states?
I was reading our article on nation-states and found no mention of "new" states like the USA, Canada, Australia, Brazil, Mexico, etc. These are countries that have come about fairly recently, often as an offshoot of an older nation-state's colonial empire. Are they considered nation-states in their own right?

A related question is whether citizens of the USA/Canada/Australia can be said to have an ethnicity. I started thinking about this after reading an argument on the Scottish people talk page. Some editors, particularly those living in Scotland, consider it incorrect to treat American/Canadian/Australian citizens of Scottish descent as "Scottish people" like themselves. One editor satirized the idea as "magic Scottish blood". I am somewhat inclined to agree with this position. However, this leads to a situation where some people (i.e. those living in undisputed old-world nation-states) have distinct ethnic identities, whereas other people (i.e. those living in former colonies like the USA, Canada, and Australia) cannot be reliably placed into any ethnic group. Ignoring for a moment the fact that this is a frivolous matter, it seems to me that one should either divide Americans/Canadians/Australians according to familial origin (e.g. Scottish-American, Irish-Canadian, Italian-Australian...), or one should say that "American", "Canadian", and "Australian", among others, are ethnicities in their own right. Likewise, "Mexican people" and "Argentine people" ought to have the same status as "German people" and "Portuguese people". Yet this is never the case. No one ever speaks of "U.S. Americans" as an ethnic group like "Germans". Does anyone know why? Is it merely because the latter group is older? Bhumiya (said/done) 05:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

By the definition in the article nation-state, Canada is not a nation-state (for the same reason Switzerland and Belgium aren't). It's arguable whether the USA is or is not a nation-state under that definition. As for ethnicity, you would not say that there is one "Canadian" ethnicity or "American/USA" ethnicity, at least not yet, because those countries have received such a large amount of immigration from different parts of the world over the last two or three centuries. Granted the term ethnic group does not always have a firm precise meaning, and can have different meanings depending on the context, but in a global context you would not refer to "Canadians" as an ethnic group. --Mathew5000 07:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Who says American isn't an ethnicity? See here:  --Nelson Ricardo 09:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a good point, but in that case, I don't think "American" is an internationally-accepted ethnic group, but an informal census designation selected by people who aren't otherwise aware of their ancestry. Consider that the great majority of Americans are not "American" according to the census. I believe most respondents who self-identify as "American" are known to be of distant English or Scotch-Irish ancestry. It isn't a widely accepted ethnic category like "Russians" or "Germans". I imagine there are some people in Australia or Canada or New Zealand who similarly describe their ancestry as "Australian", "Canadian", or "New Zealander", but most citizens of these countries feel the need to be more specific, tracing their families back to established old-world countries. Bhumiya (said/done) 11:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * To tackle the subject line of this, I'd suggest that the U.S. is a nation-state, while Canada is a state but not a nation. Per the OED definition we cite, are the citizens or subjects...united also by factors which define a nation? In the U.S., yes: the American creed, the flag (literally and figuratively), constitutionalism, Christianity (particularly Protestantism), individualism, capitalism, the English language etc. What's missing is ethnicity, which is obviously a widely cited "factor which define(s) a nation", but the other "glue" is strong and obvious enough. And as is frequently pointed out, the lack of an ethnic base has the positive of allowing non-whites to assimilate to the creed and reinforce the sense of nationhood. Some have argued that present Hispanic immigration may weaken these factors to the point of a bifurcated state that won't be definable as a single nation. Perhaps alarmist, perhaps not.


 * Canadians, however, are not "united also by factors which define a nation". Most obviously, the state has within it a de facto ethnic nation (Quebec) that defines itself contra the rest of the country. There is no linguistic unity, no religious unity (insofar as Canada is Christian, it's waning), and Canadians do not unite around the jingoism and symbolism (for better, many will tell you) that you see to varying degrees in the rest of the Anglosphere. Finally, there's no unity of self-definition. An urban Canadian may suggest the country is defined by immigration and multiculturalism (search multiculturalism in Google and the first hit is a Can gov website)—but really that's a definition of Toronto. Drive an hour north of the city and multiculturalism is distrusted. Canada is one of the world's best ideas, but in the long view it may in fact be doomed as a state because there is no nation at it's heart.


 * Now someone can come along and tell me I'm a terrible patriot... Marskell 11:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe I don't understand Canada, but the country seems fairly "normal" to me. With the obvious exception of Quebec, it seems about as culturally cohesive as the U.S. Admittedly, they interpret immigration and diversity differently, but I don't think there's any practical difference in the way people relate to one another. But I agree that Canada seems less like a nation. Even if you removed Quebec from the equation, it would seem more like a "giant hotel room" (damn it, I wish I could locate that quote). Perhaps it has something to do with its system of government. Incidentally (and this came as a surprise to me), Canada's nonreligion rate is only a percentage point higher than that of the U.S. Both countries are between 14% and 16%. Bhumiya (said/done) 00:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have seen the term "settler state" used to refer to states in the Americas and Oceania set up and dominated by the descendants of post-1500 settlers, but the term has a strongly leftist tinge to it, and it may be a while (if ever) before it becomes a neutral term for this kind of state.--Cam 17:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "Settler state" is actually exactly how Huntington (linked above) defines the U.S. He makes a pretty decent argument in Who are we? that "immigrant nation" is a misnomer and that instead America must be understood as an Anglo-Protestant settler nation. This is decidely "rightest" in his hands--not "settler state" as a smear to show that the nation has oppressed others, but as an admittance of what actually constitutes the national identity. Marskell 22:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's interesting. I've never heard that term before. Of course, it would be a stretch to call the modern U.S. an "Anglo-Protestant" nation, although some commentators (I'm looking at you, Pat Buchanan) insist upon it. Catholicism is now the largest single religion in the country. The proportion of "Anglos" is continually dropping. Every census, the proportion of non-Christian religions (and non-religion) grows by multiple percentage points. Perhaps it would be accurate to say that the U.S. retains the self-image of an Anglo-Protestant nation, while it is actually rapidly losing this identity. Bhumiya (said/done) 00:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The counter-argument would be that "Anglo-Protestant" is a settler effect that is not bound to a given demographic group. The initial foundation (which was driven by, literally, English Protestants) created a ripple that has increased in strength and accomodates those who are not necessarily English or Protestant. Thus Irish, Germans, and Italians "became" Anglo-Protestant and so even did (some) Jews and African-Americans. Condi Rice, for instance, is eminently Anglo-Protestant. The question then is to what extent this will be repeated with Hispanics. Marskell 07:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I've heard the US refered to as a "state-nation," that is, a country where the nation is based on the state rather than the other way around. While Japan is the state of the Japanese, Americans are people who live in the USA. -- Mwalcoff 01:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, Japan is a particularly strong example of a nation-state. In a way, a country like Scotland falls somewhere in between, in that people regularly immigrate to Scotland and become Scottish, regardless of their place of origin. You can be born in Nigeria and theoretically become as Scottish as Rabbie Burns. It would be controversial to say "black people can't become Scottish". You couldn't make that statement and not sound like a racist. This is even truer for large, immigration-heavy places like Canada, the UK, and the USA. No one (well, almost no one) would say "You must be white to be Canadian". But this level of naturalization rarely happens in Japan, except for rare cases like Arudou Debito and Marutei Tsurunen. These guys must constantly assert their Japaneseness (Japanicity?}, not only to other Japanese, but to non-Japanese and non-Asians as well. Even Koreans and Chinese have a tough time becoming Japanese. It is not particularly controversial for us to say "That white guy can't become Japanese". Indeed, it seems almost like common sense. It's very peculiar. I still think it has something to do with the age of the country. Bhumiya (said/done) 06:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You didn't notice Alex playing for the Japanese national team in the World Cup, then? -- Arwel (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Pantheism
Pantheists believe that everything, especially nature, is god.But I don't understand.What is it about nature that pantheists believe actually makes it god?I've read the article on it, but it doesn't give me a satifying answer.
 * That's about as easy to explain as why Christians believe in Holy Trinity. The key word is believe, and I'm not sure anyone could give a explanation you find satisfactory, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong. - Mgm|(talk) 12:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * They believe that there is a God, but this God is made up by everything. In other words, they have faith that there is a god, but then they conclude logically that this god is either within all things or made up of all things -- either that this god's spirit is inside all things or that all things together share a single essence of godhead.  Geogre 13:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * read the answers to this question and its variants that you have now posted - at an approximate count - between eight and a dozen times on this and the other reference desks. If you still don't understand after all that, I'm afraid that trying to answer again will be of little use. Grutness...wha?  01:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Panentheism
How is panentheism different from Abrahamic theism?Do panentheists believe that God created the Universe, or that God and the Universe came into existence at the same time?
 * As far as I can tell, panentheism is simply the belief that the universe is a part of a deity&mdash;that there exists a deity containing and transcending the observable universe. Abrahamic theism is panentheistic, in that its conception of God is all-encompassing. However, not all panentheists are Abrahamic theists. Think of Abrahamic theism as one species of panentheism. Anyone care to correct me? Bhumiya (said/done) 09:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A relatively minor religion Ayyavazhi is pantheistic, AFIK. -- Sundar 12:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But take care not to confuse pantheism with panentheism. Bhumiya (said/done) 00:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand.I thought panentheism was different from theism, excluding deism and pantheism.So are you saying that the three main types of theism in the world are deism,pantheism, and panentheism?
 * That's what I'd say. I don't see how panentheism could exist outside of theism. It requires theism&mdash;a special type of theism. Pantheism is more ambiguous, and some forms of pantheism aren't theism at all. However, most are. Deism is simply a type of theism based on personal reason. There is such a thing as panendeism, which is simply a form of panentheism based on personal reasoning and logic. It goes sort of like this:


 * Theism
 * Pantheism
 * Panentheism
 * Deism
 * Pandeism
 * Panendeism


 * That's how I see it. Bhumiya (said/done) 06:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson
8 July 2006

Wikipedia

Aloha from the desert of North Sin City, NV 

As has been the case with far too many of my contemporaries we seemed to adhere to what we thought was a reliable source for information. Namely that which is contained in a reference book(s) called an Encyclopedia. Over the last 6 Decades I have viewed the Britannica as that reference book that was the one to own. It all started with the way their books were both represented and above all their presentation. Top shelf bindings with "gold" trim and of course of excellant workmanship.

Since over these many years on my journey's I have sought the facts on a first hand basis if at all possible, and more often reading what that individual or individuals may have said or done. Since I have been most fortunate over the last 25 years to have had the pleasure of actually hearing that which is attributed to the speaker on a first hand basis. Since I often have taken the dictionary that has sat by my side over the years and occassionally actually looked up words as they were spoken, a word that I was not really familar with since it is not in my personal use. There have been far too many times when what I have heard as they say "from the horses mouth" have been interpreted for the public a few days later. My late mother who ewas born in Eastern Europe and imigrated to the then United States of America after the revolution learned the English language in addition to speaking three other languages. What we call and accept in the now States of America "spin" she would interpret quite simply as "lying" only with a capital "L"

I heard about Wilkipedia from some source which includes both sides of the aisle. I was trying to look up some speach or letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote regarding his viewpoint of a Democracy. The Encyclopedia Britannica that I have loaded on my work station provided a plethora of reference work regarding Jefferson but did not come close to what I was able to obtain from this visit to "Wikipedia" Unfortunately I have not at the moment been able to track down that which Jefferson has left to History. Unfortunately part of the existing difficulties which are created by Man and we now face are already recorded as historical facts, which represent the real story, at times referred to as the "truth". A country divided has historically been more easily controlled and subsequently conquered. Any individual that can commit to any ideology on a daily basis whereby adverse facts are illuminated and constitute no change in their support could indicate a number of things. I consider only three at this point of time, one is that an individual arrives at a conclusion after due dilligence and is open to change. Another is so involved or respectful of some individual that actually makes him believe that the other side of the aisle is from Mars. And that third story exists universally they are simply followers that do not ewant to disturb the water. In other countries its the fact that a small minority are well armed and blood thirsty.

I would greatly appreciate any help anyone in your world that could guide me to where I might find Jeffersons commentory on Democracy. I believe what he expressed might be of a great surprise. This Country has a motto that is on most of our coinage with the exception of the nickle that some enterprising member of Congress had removed in the 80s. E' Pluribus Unum we certainly have maintained the "Pluribus" but sadly we have lost the "Unum" which has joined our United at this time being AWOL. The "truth" however has moved up to be "MIA" "United we stand divided we fall" One can come to any conclusion they want but no one can change the "FACTS" Red, White and Blue is both the United States of America's colors and the colors of those that care more about all American's.

As I have mentioned before new and creative words have been uttered over the public media. Some of these words do not exactly meet with their definiktions. "Rendition" and "Extreme Rendition" the terminology used by our Secretary of State has caused me to seek another definitive work on definitions of English words other than my old trusted Websters. As she uses the terms to explain the treatment of those that be "terrorists" I for dsome reason cannot find any definition of either of these words associated with the word "terror" or any other word that uses it as its root? Since I am a RWB American I only make observations and ask for other opinions based on the facts contained in my observation. I leave you with this last observation as I feel I may have over stayed my visit.

On 7 January 2006 a Friday at approximately 1300 hrs. the Pentagon released a report that was headlined. 80% of all Marines KIA could have been avoided had they had the proper equipment. On 10 Dembember 2003 General Carlos Sanchez made an urgent request for more Armor, Flak Vests, Ceramic Inserts and ammunition. His reward was to be promoted into obscurity!

Semper Fi

F. Ross Spivack--172.190.168.115 11:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC) lost again in a desert but this one has safer fireworks.

"The impossble is most often the untried" FRS

"Some men see things as they are and ask not Why? I dream things as they could be and ask Why NOT?"


 * Searching for a question in the verbal haystack, I gather our ever faithful correspondent is looking for "what Jefferson wrote about democracy". Unfortunately Jefferson wrote a lot, including a lot about democracy, some of it hypocritical cant, and some of it highly susceptible to demagogic misuse. Do you have some specific quote or theme in mind? alteripse 11:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's further complicated by the fact that Jefferson the revolutionary and Jefferson the president and Jefferson the embittered former president don't all agree with each other. Therefore, cherry picking quotes from Jefferson has become a political parlor game, as you can find him saying that you're right, no matter what you believe, if you look carefully.  Geogre 13:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You should definitely look at the Thomas Jefferson page on Wikiquote, a sister project to Wikipedia. There are tons of quotations by Jefferson. I've linked to it here. --Bmk 16:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * More useful perhaps might be S:Author:Thomas Jefferson, the wikisource page. We've got a wide range of Jefferson's letters there. AllanHainey 12:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

double nuclear blast survivor : an urban legend?
Belgian magazine Humo once published an interview with a Japanese man who was sent off to Hiroshima for business, and suffered minor injuries because of the blast. However, he quickly returned home to go on working...in Nagasaki. The second time he did get seriously wounded and he claimed he doesn't remember much of the next fourteen days.

Does anyone know more? I have been looking quite hard but I can't find a name? Is it a hoax?


 * I've never heard this before... it sounds a little too clever to be true, IMO, but I don't have any other reason to dismiss it off hand. --Fastfission 15:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Our article on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings mentioned several such double casualties at one point, but that info appears to have been removed. If you think about it, the Hiroshima victims would have been evacuated to other cities, so it's not all that surprising a few would have been sent to Nagasaki. StuRat 22:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Humo is generally a reliable magazine. While suspicious sounding, I think this could easily be true. Did you check if Snopes listed any urban legends on this? - Mgm|(talk) 22:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I read it too, on a WWII encyclopedia I have no longer.--Panairjdde 11:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There's a documentary film called niju-hibaku (二重被爆, lit: doubly explosion-affected), about poeple who ware exposed to both nuclear blasts. Here is a link to the official site (in Japanese) and an article about the film: Film depicts 8 people exposed to both A-bomb blasts. --Kusunose 13:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

While gross, it could be relevant : he claimed that when he got a bit fixed up again, he was informed that in the days after the second blast, chickens picked the maggots of his flesh, thus explaining his undying gratitude and his refusal to eat anymore chicken. Evilbu 13:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Maggots can be helpful, though, by removing the dead tissue before it breeds infection which spreads to live tissue. StuRat 15:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I've heard of this story before, but it was an American POW who survived twice (after being transferred), not a Jap. Battle Ape 05:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The Next Video Medium
I've been thinking about transferring my scores of VHS tapes to DVD, but then I thought: How soon will DVD become obsolete? Should I wait for the successor to DVD? And what is that new medium? Will it happen within 5 years? Can you direct me to some articles? 66.213.33.2 15:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The two major competing replacements for DVD are Blu-ray Disc and HD DVD. They are higher quality than DVD though you are unlikely to see much of a difference unless you have a large screen high def TV. In my opinion, neither format is likely to last very long as the move to broadband internet access will allow more purchase through downloads. It is likely in 15-20 years that most media will be downloaded to a hard drive or streamed rather than exist on a piece of plastic cluttering up your house. Nowimnthing 15:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As to tranfering your VHS I suppose you need to weigh the pros and cons. The jump from VHS to DVD is a quality improvement (a larger one than the jump from DVD to Hi Def DVD.) DVDs are likely to be around for quite a while (they have a large market saturation and all present plans for Hi Def players are to be backwards compatible with DVDs.) DVDs sometimes offer extra content like directors commentary and outtakes. DVDs are more durable over the long run than tape (provided you handle them correctly.) DVDs are digital and as such could possibly be transfered to a hard drive (pending legal copyright issues.) On the other hand the transfer of a large collection can be very expensive. Nowimnthing 15:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "The jump from VHS to DVD is a quality improvement" Not quite. You can't magically improve the quality of VHS by transferring it to a DVD. The information the VHS didn't record would still be missing. - Mgm|(talk) 22:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * DVD has been successful enough that backward compatibility will stick around for a long time, especially as it uses, essentially CD drives in computers. I.e. it won't be physically demanding to make a player work with it and another format, so long as motors, speeds, and sizes are about the same.  They probably will be.  However, one thing to remember is that you won't see any improvement over the original because the data limiter is the most lossy storage format.  I.e. the imagery is on VHS, and it won't gain any new pixels in the conversion process than the VHS tape head communicates.  The best solution, and the one that I've done in a professional capacity, is simply to convert to a good digital format and store the movies on a server.  Then, whatever the physical player specifications, you can re-encode to it later.  I.e. store the films on hard disks in an avi or other format.  Geogre 18:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The above is good advice, so this is just adding to it.


 * Video takes a HUGE amount of data space. So when it's stored on any digital medium (hard drive, DVD, Blu-ray etc) it is usually compressed. The degree of compression is a balance between how much space you want to reduce it to, and what quality you'll get. So we need to discuss size and compression.


 * Compression is usually quite good, so much so that you can often find movies compressed to 300-400 MBytes per hour of movie (0.3 - 0.4 GB/hour), and they're still very watchable. A "reasonable" degree of compression would see your average film being compressed to 1 - 1.5 GB, or about 0.5 - 0.7 GB/hr). A typical DVD is 4.3 Gbytes, and a typical hard drive can be 200 - 500 GB these days. Although usually you don't lose much detail with compression, if you try to compress too much, you do start losing some detail, so it's a bit of a trade-off.


 * To compress a movie you need one of three things: either (1) a video encoder card that has compression built in (either in hardware or as a driver), or (2) some other means to transfer the video onto your hard drive, then you'd use a suitable program to compress it yourself, or (3) A standalone DVD recorder that can record off your VHS. Any of those three will work well.


 * Digitizing your movies is actually pretty simple, and can be explained easily. The main thing though is, to choose a way of doing it thats best for you. The issues that will help give you good pointers on advice are these:
 * The balance between quality and file size that you want. How many hours of movie are we talking about? How fussy/quality conscious are you about the finished digital results?
 * The saved quality needed. What will you be watching it on in future? Will you be expecting "the latest and best" or is "good enough to enjoy" fine?
 * The frequency of access and usage. Do you expect to be watching them constantly, or will most of them sit in storage and you pick one a day or one now and then to watch?
 * The technology level you're using. How high-tech is your home? Up to date gadgetry, networking and stuff, or pretty simple and not all newest and latest? What kind of computer (processor, memory, hard disk space)?
 * Current capabilities. Do you have any means to get VHS saved on your computer in any form, or do you need a card to allow you to do that? If so, do you want one that can record off TV too?
 * Computer or stand-alone. Do you want to do this on computer, or would you prefer a stand alone player (like a video player) instead?
 * Cost. How does cost fit into it? There's 2 possible elements -- a card for your computer (if needed) and hard drive or other media.


 * Try answering those, which will help to advise you on issues such as "most suitable medium", "best kind of compression", and "cost" etc... and I'll come back to you when you do. FT2 (Talk 21:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ahh... I just assumed the question was about a movie collection rather than personal videos. If personal videos, then yes the above advice is great. You need to look into the process and expense of the transfer process see afterdawn. But since the original recording limits the quality, you lose very little and gain quite a bit by converting to DVD or storing on a hard drive. You may be able to fit a somewhat less compressed home video on hi-def DVD but that won't matter nearly as much as the quality of the original VHS. Nowimnthing 21:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

House Selling under Scottish (Scots) Law
Could someone please advise whether, under Scots Law, a houseowner intent on selling the house, is legally obliged to advise potential buyers of any ongoing or previous neighbour-related tensions, disputes, or other such hostilities, whether or not the potential buyer asks that specific question?

And is the seller's agent/solicitor also legally obliged to answer such a buyer's question if such disputes are known to him/her even if any such problems have not been disclosed by the seller, but have been made known by other means?

What would be the buyer's redress(es) if such problems did exist but were not disclosed to him before the sale was concluded?

Many thanks in anticipation for any useful responses.


 * This has now also been asked at the Miscellaneous desk. I suggest that any answers are placed there to maintain a single discussion. Road Wizard 23:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Road. Sometimes it is difficult to know which is the best reference site from which to attract the best and quickest answer. But thanks for your intervention anyway.

ronald "winky" wright
Does anyone know if Junior Middleweight Champion and Middleweight contender Winky Wright is Multiracial or Biracial(i.e., mixed race)? This site lists him as American (corect to a degree) but I'd like to know about where his ancestors come from. Thanks in advance!

Luis Peña

Platinum Weird
I heard that the song "Will you be around" made in 1974 is really a fake and some guy admitted that it was not real. What't the real story on this??? Please email me back at (email address redacted to prevent spam) Thanks Ryan
 * Fake in what sense? If it was made in 1974, it exists. How can a song not be real? - Mgm|(talk) 21:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)