Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 November 7

= November 7 =

BOMB!
Where does the stereotypical image of a bomb come from? I'm referring to the black sphere with the fuse coming out the top with the word "BOMB" written on the side. Is this just a U.S. custom or is it prevalent across the pond as well? Did bombs used to be made from hollow cannon balls or something of that nature? Dismas|(talk) 01:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * See the history of Hand grenades. Rmhermen 01:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That particular image, typically accompanied by a man in a black overcoat with a black hat, throwing the bomb, is the "mad bomber" stereotype, which was applied to the Anarchist Movement, in the decades around 1900. Bombs of that time period did indeed look just like that. Anarchists wanted to destroy all the current governments of the world, by assassinating their leaders, in the hopes that whatever new institutions formed would be a vast improvement. They were somewhat successful on the assassination front, killing a US President, for example (William McKinley). Eventually, after WW1, the anarchists were drawn into other movements or killed by them (communism, Zionism, fascism), but the image remains with us. StuRat 02:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a feeling that the image of the 'mad bomber' is eastern European, specifically Russian in origin. Years before the death of President McKinley Narodnaya Volya was enthusiastically bombing and assassinating.  Their chief victim was Tsar Alexander II.  Clio the Muse 09:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I suspect that Clio is right. Might Michael Bakunin be one prototype? Cheers, Sam Clark 09:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * See Propaganda of the deed. Lupo 09:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In the 1950's street repair crews in the U.S. sometimes used smudgepots image of smudgepotas warning devices, where today flashing yellow lights in barricades are used. I remember as a kid seeing newspaper cartoons of anarchists with little black spherical bombs with a burning fuse on the top, anarchist bomb cartoons then seeing men digging up the street with similar looking devices around the excavation, and wondering if they were anarchists, and why no one seemed concerned about it. Edison 16:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The oldest book that is still being updated
What is the oldest book that continues to have new editions printed. I'm thinking about one where the newest edition is less than ten years old. I am assuming it would be a encyclopedia or dictionary of some kind. Ed Dehm 05:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The Bible is constantly being translated, does that count? --Cody.Pope 06:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I would say the Bible too 8-(--Light current 07:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It would have to be the Bible, or some related sacred text. Dictionaries and encyclopedias only date from the eighteenth century.  Clio the Muse 09:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But Bibles and sacred texts are never "updated". I'd go for a dictionary or encyclopedia.--Shantavira 09:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Shantavira. What you say has merit, though 'updating' may simply mean better and more precise translations of the original text.  However, the question actually relates to new editions of older texts. Clio the Muse 09:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Apparantly Penguin classics released a new edition of the Epic of Gilgamesh in 2003. I'd say that one takes the prize. GeeJo  (t)⁄(c) &bull; 09:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No Shantavira. Bibles are updated by virtue of the new translations. King James version, RSV, New English Bible, The Living Bible etc etc. The newer versions use more modern language and can therfore be said to be updataed. 8-)

--Light current 09:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really. 'Updated' implies that the previous version is rendered redundant by the new edition, which is certainly not the case with new translations of sacred texts.  Same goes for Gilgamesh.  The question is obviously poorly worded ('updated' being different from 'new editions'), but I agree with Shantavira that it would be a dictionary or encyclopedia.  My first thought was some kind of legal compendium that sets out the laws of the land.  --Richardrj talkemail 13:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I would definitely go with the Epic of Gilgamesh. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But Bibles and sacred texts are never "updated". Shantavira, was your comment meant as sarcasm? Clio, you too! The Bible hasn't merely been "translated and retranslated" but much more importantly, aside from the linguistic aspect, the actual content of the Christian Bible, was only settled upon, for the most part, for Roman Catholics and most Protestant denominations, around the 16th century. And even so, it differs among these denominations. I would only imagine that certain denominations have surprisingly recently undergone or are even currently undergoing their own process of "biblical canonization", that being, amongst other things, the choice of which texts to be included in "their" Bible and regarded as canon, which are to be included despite being regarded as biblical apocrypha and therefore non-canonical, and which of these apocryphal texts are to be excluded entirely and designated as heresy, With regards to the Old Testament, (which, it should be understood, should not be regarded as synonymous with the Hebrew Bible,) biblical canonization includes the choice between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagent as to which is to be regarded as authoritative. "Bible updating" goes far beyond mere matters of translation. Check out the article on biblical canon and you may be in for a very interesting surprise! Loomis 14:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You will note, Loomis, that I did not myself say that sacred texts were never updated. And I am never knowingly sarcastic, a very low form of wit indeed.  Besides, what is 'translation' (which takes more forms than the most obvious one) but a mode of intellectual refinement and adaptation: 'updating', if you prefer?  But your own point really confirms a contention already made: even if the Christian Bible only took its final form in the sixteenth century this would still make it one of the oldest books in continuous use, exceeding 'dictionaries and encyclopedias'.  However, I was thinking of the Bible in the widest possible sense, taking in to account older textsClio the Muse 00:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My apologies, Clio, if I put words in your mouth. Loomis 13:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that new translations of the Bible significantly change the meaning, whether intentionally or not. For example, "Thou shalt not kill" does not mean the same thing as "Thou shalt not commit murder". Leaving aside that "Thou shalt not kill", taken literally, applies to plants, animals, and even bacteria, it also doesn't give any exceptions for when we're allowed to kill people. "Thou shalt not commit murder", on the other hand, implies that it's OK to kill people so long as that killing isn't defined as murder. This would exclude executions, war, etc. StuRat 16:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And then there's the Sinner's Bible which radically changes the Ten Commandments! I especially like the commandment, "Thou shall commit adultery." --Kainaw (talk) 16:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Many cults or sects which are offshoots of Christianity have their own prophets who are adding prophecies, so they add their new info to the Bible, thereby updating it, or God tells their leaders to remove things from the canonical Bible, or to change the name of God to their own version, so they can read to their flock from the Bible rather than saying "Today we will have an Old Testament lesson, then a Psalm, then an Epistle, then some Heresy written down by our pastor, founder, and prophet". I will not name any names here, because I am sure they all think they are true Christians. Edison 16:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah like the Catholic Church, Anglican Church and well all forms of Christianity... Nil Einne runs 16:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * While StuRat's point about the absolutism of "Thou shalt not kill" is cogent, two things ought be mentioned. (1) While splitting hairs on the exact meaning of a word is more than acceptable, it should be remembered that "kill" is merely a translation of the word in question. (2) Subsequent to the Ten Commandments, there are a large number of others, some of which do, in fact, help clarify that it is Premeditated Murder that is meant. Other forms of Homicide are apportioned out as felonies, torts, or justifiable. I am not disagreeing with StuRat, just posting some caveats. B00P 17:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What about periodicals? Isn't there some science journal that has been going since the 1800s or earlier? I wouldn't count The Bible because each new edition doesn't have concurrent version numbers. They have been "updating" it since roman times but the newest version doesn't say "The Bible: version 4.45.2".Ed Dehm 22:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want to get into that, the U.S. Constitution is still being rewritten and it predates the periodicals. --Kainaw (talk) 23:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Taking the question in the spirit that I think was intended, the Encylopaedia Britannica dates to 1768. Complete new editions have not been all that frequent and the most recent one is about 20 years old. I think they publish some sort of separate update volumes between editions. But I think it still counts. Now the question is whether there is something older. --Anonymous, 00:56 UTC, November 8.


 * Discounting translations, the oldest book that is still being updated could quite possibly be the Halakha. First written in 200CE, it beats Britannica by a long shot. See this for a recent update. Of course, if you want to quibble about the meaning of question given the OPs use of the term printed, (the Mishnah being handwritten, not printed with movable type) then the most likely answer is the forty-two line bible. There are recently-produced facsimiles which use one particular copy as the example and will differ from some of the remaining original copies in typographical detail. Lowerarchy 03:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

US Mid-term elections in Redmond
Does anybody know how close the US elections that involve Redmond are likely to be? I'm wondering whether the lack of votes from the 2000 or so (at least that's what I've heard) programmers etc who are likely to be either too busy programming etcing Vista to meet the November 8th deadline or completely dead after probably 4 hours of sleep over the past week when they've finally released Vista would affect the results* Nil Einne 10:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually 2000 may be a little low. I believe this is the number of programmers but presumeably there are other staff doing stuff who are in the same boat. I don't know but potentially the people who do the compiles and tests and stuff may not be counted in the 2000 Nil Einne 10:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If they're that zonked, I'm not sure that I'd want their votes. (Or their software, either.) B00P 17:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I would certainly hope that Vista has been finished by now. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Opinions about how close any election is likely to be are just that, opinions. No-one can know before the event. Witness Truman's surprise victory in 1948, and numerous other cases. JackofOz 07:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

about history
hi,i had listened a lot about ur site and today after surfing your site i am extrremly happy,u have information upto infinity,i am having two questions, 1)is it true that Adolf eikaman(a associate of hitler)had killed more then 500000 jews people and then was hanged by just 5 jewish 2)from where do u get all this information?i hope it is not a trade secret.......... Praduman jani....Ahemdabad....India


 * Do you perhaps mean Adolf Eichmann? Sam Clark 11:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In answer to the second question, all the articles on Wikipedia are created and edited by volunteers from all over the world. See About. --Richardrj talkemail 13:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's best not to overestimate Eichmann. He was never an 'associate' of Hitler, but merely the worst kind of literal-minded bureaucrat in the Nazi machine.  He was responsible for sending thousands of people to their deaths; but, as far as I am aware, was not himself involved in killing.  As a human being he was almost completely devoid of both empathy and imagination.  Might I suggest that you look over Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem?.  It has some interpretive value still, the criticism notwithstanding.  Clio the Muse 00:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not to remotely condone anything he did, to his credit he did ultimately say something to the effect that 1,000 years would not be sufficient to remove the stain of Germany's wickedness. JackofOz 07:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Eichmann had not the imagination for that: he was a strictly 'I was only obeying orders' type. The remarks in question were made by Hans Frank.  Clio the Muse 08:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been misinformed. Thanks, Clio.  JackofOz 00:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

She's A Runaway - Song
What is this song that goes along the lines of "she's a runawaaaayyyy, she's a runawwaaayyy" and somewhere in there is say "she's made up her mind, she's not coming back" or something to that effect. Google and Google Desktop and WMP search are lying to me. --Username132 (talk) 11:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, "they're lying to you"? You don't mean "She's a runaway", by America (1983, from the album "Your Move")? Lupo 12:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I mean that I have the song on my computer and they deny it (like being told there's no CD in the drive when there freakin' well is) and Google wasn't finding it with the lyrics I entered. Anyway, yeah, it's the one by America. Thank you both --Username132 (talk) 12:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Or do you mean "She's a little runaway" (Bon Jovi)? Or one of these other "runaway" songs? Lupo 12:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Dealing With Human Resources
When I'm asked in an interview regarding whether I've applied elsewhere, what are they hoping to hear? What would their ideal candidate being saying? Do applications elsewhere mean I'm trying to make up for my lack of chance in getting a specific job or do a lack of applications elsewhere show that I'm not proactive enough? What do they want? --Username132 (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have always been 100% honest in all interviews. I figure it is stupid to lie to get a job and then you have to be the lie until you lose the job.  For example, in my last interview I was asked if I work well with others.  I said no.  I work well with animals, but not people.  That is why I'm a computer programmer.  There are very few people involved.  Apparently, they liked the answer because I was hired later that day. --Kainaw (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL, they apparently wanted somebody who would stay in his cubicle and not waste time talking to people. StuRat 15:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Possibly. Or maybe they didn't care about the answer per se since the job didn't require working with people so it didn't matter but they were using the question to get an idea of the character and honest of the person. As said below, don't assume the interviewer won't know when your lying. Even if your demenour doesn't give it away, if they check your references they might find you don't work particularly well with people. I've you've said you do, even though it's not a required skill do you think they're going to hire you? Probably not... Even if you're not lying, if you don't appreciate your limitations it's unlikely to be a good sign. Potentially too, if you say you are good with working people, they will go further and ask various examples. Other then helping them ascertain whether you appreciate your limitations, this may also help them ascertain your general character. Point being don't assume the question was necessarily asked because the specific answer mattered. It may have very well been how you answered that mattered. That's why IMHO it's a good idea to be honest. Now obviously if the position clearly says you need to work well with people then it's not much point applying. But even if you do apply, it's still pointless lying. At the very least, you should say something like I do have problems but I'm working on them or something. Pretending that everything is fine and dandy when it's not is just a recipe for disaster IMHO. Even if you do get hired, what then? Nil Einne 16:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Despite never having taken part in a job interview I would agree it's best to be honest. It's pointless trying to second guess the interviewer, they might detect your lying and what happens if you get a job elsewhere (if you are looking and say you're not)? IMHO, there are probably some instances of both. In some cases, they might need to fill the position urgently and want to ensure they don't lose the person in a few months so they might not want a person who has applied elsewhere. On the other hand, if you haven't applied elsewhere, they might think you're not that concerned about finding a job or you're too self-confident or whatever. Nil Einne 16:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I tried being honest. I told them my interest area in science when asked (which I'd already included in my cover letter) and then the interviewer foccused on it and decided not to hire me, quoting a lack of experience and that he didn't see how the job fitted with my future career aspirations. Since I spent 125 pounds on the plane ticket to get there, and it took an entire day, I feel that was a big investment in being honest, and it didn't pay off. My mum and best friend suggested making out that the particular job area for which I'm applying, is something I'm interested in in the long term even if it's not (I only want this job until my course starts next year). I've got another interview next week which will cost 100 plane ticket and this is a large quantity of money when you're going to be penalised for having applied elsewhere or not being so good with people. If I say I'm not good people I can forget it. No doubt I need to work as part of a team and be a team player and blah de freakin' blah. The way I'm beginning to see it is the interviewer stands between me and my job and I need to do what I need to do to get around that (getting a job in science will help me to get on the biomolecular science course I'm interested in and currently all I do is serve drinks (and hate it)). Username132 (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In interviews (I've succesfully gone through a good 10) you should try to be honest if you can (not if your honesty directly jeopardizes any chance of a job) but the most important is presenting the honest information in the right way. i.e. "I like working in a team but I also value individual initiative". or even more honest but also more devious: "Although I value team work I have sometimes found it difficult to work with certain characters. This is why I have divised effective strategies to avoid confrontationnal interactions in teamwork." etc... One interview I went to (and failed) I had decided to be completely honnest, finishing the interview saying what I REALLY wanted was to be left alone in a shack by a lake and never work for them. that didn't go down too well although they were very polite about it. Maybe investing in a book (like "The best answers to a 100 typical interview questions") might be worth it especially as they have answers to the dreaded: "What would you say is your worst failing?" Keria 18:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

In an interview as a computer programmer, when asked about if I preferred to work alone or in a team, I gave a rather thorough answer:


 * If possible, any project should be done by a single person, as that avoids the inefficiency of meetings and communication between the team members to decide on the method to be used and division of labor.


 * However, if the project requires more resources than a single person can supply, then a team is necessary. If so, responsibilities should be divided up as much as possible, avoiding any gaps or overlaps, to allow each individual to work relatively independently.

So, I basically told them I prefer to work alone without giving them the impression I'm a hermit who lives in the woods alone and sends letter bombs as a hobby. StuRat 18:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the others. Only give complete honesty to the police; interviewers get "edited" complete honesty. Since interviews make most people nervous, and making things up on the spot is not easy in those situations without giving yourself away, I suggest you have a rough plan prepared. By the way Stu, what do you mean you're not a hermit who lives in the woods alone and sends letter bombs as a hobby. :-) | A ndonic O   Talk  15:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't say I'm not, just that I don't want to give that impression in a job interview. :-) StuRat 03:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * So you are one! Whoever hired you must be mad! :-) | A ndonic O   Talk  12:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Decleration of the Rights of Man-1789
Article 12 says:

The security of the rights of man and of the citizen requires public military forces. These forces are, therefore, established for the good of all and not for the personal advantage of those whom they shall be intrusted.

My question is, what do they mean by military forces? Do they mean a weapon or an actual person? I would assume weapon because it would make the most sense. Then again, I'm not sure if I even understand what this article is saying. Help me please. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hollywood49 (talk • contribs).


 * Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen? I have no knowledge, but it sounds like the military itself is not there for personal gain of whoever controls the military, but for the benefit of the citizen, and the law also says the military is necessary. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Military forces=army and/or police. seems that article is part of transfering the monopoly of violence from the individual to the state hence the "not for the personal advantage ...". Keria 18:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What you have to remember is that the Declaration of the Rights of Man was, amongst other things, translating the 'private' into the 'public'. Under the Ancien Regime the army was essentially the servant of the king, and often made up of foreign mercenaries.  The new 'citizen' armies were intended for the service of the national community as a whole.  Military force here refers not to weapons, but to those who carry weapons.  Clio the Muse 00:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the founding fathers of USA went the other way, thinking it'd be safest if every citizen got the rights to bear arms, himself... 惑乱 分からん 07:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The original poster says article 12 refers to "public military forces", but of course this is a translation. At Wikisource there is evidently a different translation, as this has the words as  "a public force" followed immediately by an explanatory note "[i.e., a police force]". In the original French -- hmm, how do I make a link to French Wikisource? I'll just use a URL. -- in the original French text the words are "une force publique", which literally means "a public force". My French isn't good enough to be sure as to whether this usage would include both military and police, but the term is in the singular.

In any case, whichever it is, it clearly means the body of men and not their weaponry.

--Anonymous, 01:09 UTC, November 8.

wiki

What are the main differences between a cat and a dog?
Aside from the obvious fact that cats and dogs tend to hate each other. Chris 17:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just so you know, not all cats and dogs hate each other, from experience with my cat and my dog. --Hollywood49 17:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * They split at the family, Felidae and Canidae, for one. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The main division among Carnivora is between Feliformia (or cat-like carnivores) and Caniformia (or dog-like carnivores). According to this source the distinguishing feature between the two groups is whether the bony structure enclosing the middle ear is made up of a single chamber (Caniformia) or a double chamber (Feliformia).  A more mundane observation is that domestic dogs are pack animals, whereas domestic cats are not.  Marco polo 17:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But lions are pack animals, and other cats seem to have the ability to get along in social settings. Many cats can live together, for example, without killing each other. StuRat 18:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The main differences? Dogs need to be walked, cats don't. Dogs obey their owners, cats don't. B00P 18:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * From the owner's perspective, BOOP is right that those are probably most important.  Meanwhile I thought of another physical difference (again between domestic cats and dogs, as I don't know whether this is generally true for all feliforms and caniforms):  Cats have retractable claws; dogs don't.  Marco polo 18:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Cats wash themselves and cover their poo. The are usually fairly quiet.--Shantavira 19:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And male cats have a retractable penis. (I wonder why, they don't even have to deal with zippers.) :-) StuRat 19:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You mean female cats dont have retractable ones? 8-)--Light current 23:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Correct, they don't have retractable penises. :-) StuRat 23:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it's because of the barb on the penis which "stimulates" the female to ovulate. The females don't appear to appreciate this, however. StuRat 19:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not all cats have retractable claws. Some large ones don't. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * People own dogs. Cats own people.--Light current 23:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In general, cats are much less smelly than dogs, unless they have fish breath. Cats are smarter than dogs but pretend like they're not.  Cats have a secret name that only they know.  There are more "cat ladies" than "dog ladies".  T. S. Eliot wrote many poems about cats (Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats), but not dogs. More people seem to dislike cats than dogs. -THB 02:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * POV! Of course there is no way to prove cats are smarter than dogs, but, if there were, it would prove the opposite. ;-) | A ndonic O   Talk  15:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 'Cats wash themselves'...Shantavira. Er, Dogs wash themselves too, obviously. Theres no evidence anywhere to suggest cats are more intelligent than dogs either, -THB. Stop fooling around! :) --Amists 13:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Being a bird lover, I'm not a great fan of cats. I do find it slightly amusing when the local feral cats try to attack the local great black-backed gulls when they're nesting. I guess the young ones have never seen an angry mother gull standing her ground with her heckles raised - or seen how far she will go to protect her chicks. GBB gulls are actually bigger than most cats and will even take on humans with little fear, so the results are predictable. It always makes me snigger to see the cat go from sleek, confident predator to terrified, running-like-hell streak of panic as it realizes the grave error of judgement it has just made. That's without any of the neighbouring birds joining in too... ;) I suppose it could be considered karma for all those dead songbirds. Usually, it's just a bit of a scuffle and wounded pride but occasionally it gets very bloody. Gulls aim for the eyes. --Kurt Shaped Box 03:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone here recently suggested that cats are the opposite of dogs. If that's not enough of a difference, what is? :-) JackofOz 07:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you turn a dog into a cat, or vice versa?
Discuss? Chris 22:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

or....


 * Why bother?--Light current 23:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * See alchemy. -THB 02:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL Chris

Could you turn a lion into a house cat? Or a wolf into a dog? Which would be easier?

 * If you started with young cubs separated from their mothers, it might be possible in both cases.--Light current 23:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, people have certainly done that in the past. I'm not sure how you'd go about training a big cat - but for a wolf it would be a case of proving that you're the biggest, baddest beast in the jungle to it from an early age, never showing fear and never giving it an inch. --Kurt Shaped Box


 * Housecats are just miniature lions anyway. -THB 02:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 100% correct! You a winnah HAHAHA Chris


 * Conversely, dogs are orc-wolves; poor little puppies that have been humilated to the point that they'll go along with nearly anything. Huskies, though, are noble; they don't get locked inside so much as their bretheren. Chris


 * Isn't that pretty much what 'taming' involves with most species, when it comes down to it? You basically give the beastie Stockholm syndrome. --Kurt Shaped Box 13:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There's a study looking at Arctic(?) foxes - it took 20 generations(?) of selecting the most docile animals to produce dog-like animals that incidentally were floppy-eared and had variegated coats. No reference, don't remember where I read about it.  Guettarda 13:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's right, it's a really bad idea to keep a wild "pet" large enough to hurt you. While lions are related to house cats, and wolves are even the same species as dogs, the problem is that they have a wild temperament, so should not be kept as pets.  Of course, some dogs weren't bred to be docile pets, but rather to be vicious, like pit bulls, and they shouldn't be kept as pets, either.  StuRat 16:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There are actually numerous reports about how cheetahs are actually quite easy to domesticate, but other big cats are quite iffy - just ask Siegfried & Roy. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What about altering them genetically, perhaps to make them smaller, or more docile? Or, making them smaller to domesticate them, and enlarging them a few generations down the road, when they're "pets". | A ndonic O   Talk  15:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's basically what "domestication" is all about - selection on certain traits over a number of generations. While, obviously, big cats are difficult to keep, there's nothing to say that you couldn't, by selecting for docility, alter that over a few dozen generations.  Guettarda 18:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's insane to keep an animal that can kill you. As cat owners know, even the best behaved cat will occasionally scratch or bite their owner.  It's no big deal with a house cat, you just put a band-aide on it ("plaster" for you Brits), and scold the cat.  But, if it happens to be a pet lion or tiger, your next of kin gets to scold the pet, instead. StuRat 05:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Easyjet Booking Reference
Why does the Easyjet website say that I need my booking reference and my passport to fly, when they never actually ask for my booking reference? Is there any point in writing it down? --Username132 (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, in case their computers are down or it's needed for some other reason. StuRat 19:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Foucault
Is human identity a product of what Foucault would call 'technologies of power'?


 * Homework? You could try looking at Michel Foucault, Power (sociology) and Self (philosophy), although the last one is sadly not very good. Cheers, Sam Clark 20:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And Biopower and Personal identity. A possibly relevant distinction is that between "technologies of power" and "technologies of the self". --Lambiam Talk  21:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * According to Foucault, every dang thing is about power. :) --BluePlatypus 21:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I thing opinion tends to swing both ways! 8-)--Light current 23:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

generation
Dear referance people: How long(in years) is a human generation? Looking forward to the answer. Thank you.


 * It depends on when people tend to have children. I don't think there's a universally agreed number, but a quick google search and glances at Generation and Demographics suggest anything from 20 to 50 years, depending on context. A study quoted in Generation used 22 years as a standard generation. Cheers, Sam Clark 22:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Standard figure I thought was 30 yrs.--Light current 23:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It has varied a lot historically. Thirty years sounds about right for the developed world today, but the duration was probably closer to 22 years on average over the whole of human existence.  Marco polo 23:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 29.85 years. Edison 00:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In academia it is almost always 20 years for humans. In animals, it is the amount of time between being born and producing your first offspring. --Cody.Pope 02:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I always thought it was twenty/a score. -THB 02:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not too far from an average of a human producing its first offspring btw (ranging from 14-15 to 30-something in general, I'd think... In urban areas I think the average is often in the upper 30's...) 惑乱 分からん 07:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I saw a program on tv about Confucius; his ~89th generation relative was there. | A ndonic O   Talk  15:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Call of Duty
How come citizens of Germany and Austria cant get the video game Call of Duty and others ot that ilk (World War 2)? I mean the obvious answer is that they (the countries) have attempted to distance themselves from that war as much as possible. But banning a video game almost seems like a step in the wrong direction as well as juvenille. Wasnt one of their (many) mistakes in the first place banning stuff? I feel bad, cause its a tight game.
 * They may distance themselves from it, but they certainly don't want to embrace it. Besides, those games portray German soldiers as more stereotypical (heartless and barbarian) enemies than they really were.  Яussiaп F  22:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A bit out of left field, but the answer that jumps to mind, at least for Germany, would be the Swastika laws - it's just not a permitted symbol outside of academia, so no German kid could ever have an accurate model of a German WW2 plane for example, because that would require it. Since it tends to be fairly common in graphics for games like that, that might be the reason --Mnem e son 22:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that is a probable reason. Common Nazi symbolism are illegal for entertainment usage in Germany. 惑乱 分からん 23:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Isn't there a law in germany banning games/activities for children that glorify war? Seems fair enough to me, as there are pressure groups in other countries to do similar thinfgs, since people are always blaming computer games for things. Philc  TECI 22:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not that I'm much of a gamer myself, but I couldn't agree more with the questioner. "Wasnt [sic] one of their (many) mistakes in the first place banning stuff?" Absolutely. I'm against the so-called "Swastika Laws" for a good number of reasons. Most importantly, it sanitizes Germany's history to the detriment of Germans themselves, not to mention the rest of the world. How can one really appreciate the absolute ugliness of it all, as well as the inconceivable REALITY of it all, through textbooks alone? In my view, a neo-Nazi gathering here and there, fit with swastika armbands and flags, together with the sickening cries of "Sieg Heil!" and "Heil Hitler!" would do wonders to better educate the younger generation, and, indeed, to SHOCK them into truly undertstanding the reality of it all, than any picture in any textbook could possibly do. Without these few "living reminders", a textbook on Germany's Nazi history will seem no more real to German children than a textbook on paleontology, with really cool pictures of "all those giant monsters that the teachers tell us once roamed the Earth...but who really knows..." Loomis 00:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Dont worry, there is no shortage of german neo nazis, these laws are just to give the german police and excuse to brutalise them. The germans are under no illusions to what happened in WW2, but I for one think its better for children to grow up seeing neo nazis carted away in tha backs of vans, for the sicks things that they are doing, than defended for expressing their freedom of speech.  Philc  TECI 00:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's true Phil, it's a tough call. But aren't you worried that kids, being the rebels they are, will side for the "brutalized" underdog and against the police? What's that saying about forbidden fruit? And besides, I'm actually of the opinion that the so-called "Swastika Laws" are actually meant more to serve the interests of the German government of today, to "sanitize" the state as I mentioned earlier, than to actually prevent a resurgence of Nazism. It must be recalled, of course, that Adolph Hitler wrote Mein Kamph while serving time in a German prison for his outlandish activities. The world loves an underdog. I'm still against giving these monsters the benefit of being "underdogs". I say let them expose themselves, unharrassed by the authorities, for the monsters they are. But as I said Phil, it's a tough call, and I appreciate your perspective as having all the right intentions in mind. Loomis 13:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeh, it is a tough situation. But there would still be clashes there are many rival factions notourious for clashes with the nazi groups (poor example, but its the only one I know by name the FC St. Pauli fan base is known for occasionally clashing with neo-nazis, fascists, rascists and sexists). The country does use it to distance themselves from what happened in the past, but why shouldnt they, all they share with the nazis is german culture and terriory. They will always have underdog position as german people will still feel very passionately, and if the police failed to do anything, the people might. Even so, these people are fairly exposed anyway, no-ones hiding them, its just illeagel, people still know when it happens, and people know what monsters they are. Germany is the only country that I know of which teaches its children the brutal history that its country has (Nanjing is still denied by japanese, and I cant remember the US one... but theres always the burning of dresden) and for that I respect it, teaching its children to learn from the mistakes of the past, instead of making them again. Well I dont really know though. Thanks for being so nice. Philc  TECI 18:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The US had the Trail of Tears, and Europe the dreaded Inquisition (which by the way, wasn't taught in my Catholic textbooks in school). Back to the question though, I doubt children in Germany are going to turn back to Nazism. How would they benefit? There's always that posibility of the minority rebelling, as you say Loomis, but I think it's very doubtful. | A ndonic O   Talk  15:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Newspapers on Campus for Free
I'm a student senator at a small community college. At a recent senate meeting, it was brought to our attention that a representative from a major national commercial newspaper would like to come to the college to talk to us. He would like to offer the school copies of his paper, which (from what we have been told) would be available for students for free. How true that is, I'm not sure. I've done some research about this online and have read that some schools pay thousands of dollars (which becomes a small fee added to each student's tuition.)

Is anyone familiar with programs like this one? What could they get out of a deal like this? Should we be concerned? I am afraid that by having these papers available on campus, students will be unknowingly absorbing corporate values. Or are they trying to increase circulation--to increase advertisers? Are we being commoditized? I mean, why are they offering this to us? It seems suspisious. I've been looking all over the Web today for criticisms of programs that offer free newspapers to students, but haven't found anything substancial. Any insight would be appreciated.

Thanks! 198.38.6.253 21:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've always thought it was because people pick up their brand-loyalty to a paper at about that age, and acquire the habit of reading a paper at all. So if you can get them used to it, they're more likely to buy it for the rest of their lives. Skittle 23:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you're being paranoid. They are offering free newspapers in the hope that students will become "addicted" and then pay for that newspaper for the rest of their life after they leave college. Of all the forms of addiction, reading a newspaper each day is a pretty good one. Save your outrage for when they provide free cigs and alcohol to the students. StuRat 23:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A lot of newspapers do this. Not only does it help stem the diminishing percentages of newspaper readers in each successive generation, it increases their circulation and perhaps what they can charge for ads (if those fees aren't based solely on paid circulation).
 * Some newspapers, such as The New York Times, ask people to donate their copies when they go on vacation rather than suspending delivery service. That way the newspaper gets credit for the paper as paid and they get the entire subscription fee that would have been lost while the subscriber is on vacation. -THB 02:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not just about making money in the short term. Newspapers nationwide are trying to get young people used to reading newspapers -- any newspapers -- since newspaper readership has dropped so much in recent years. -- Mwalcoff 03:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is normal. When I was at uni in Australia The Australian newspaper was available on campus for 25% of the usual price. As Skittle and StuRat say, it's to engender loyalty to a particular paper (and while the alcohol on campus wasn't free, it was heavily subsidised and very, very cheap). Natgoo 10:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with what others have said. The only thing I could suggest checking is whether it's okay for you to keep circulating your student newspaper, if you have one. That way students will still have access to views which aren't those of the mainstream media, if this is what you're concerned about. --Grace 23:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

just wondering...
I've just been looking at Blasphemy law in the United Kingdom. I have always been annoyed that although many four letter words arn't allowed before watershed, and words like bloody and crap are even sometimes bleeped; people can use the Lord's name in vain at what ever time of the day; Is this against the blasphemy law? I have phoned the BBC to complain a few times, but have never noticed any difference; are the broadcasters at fault in showing people saying things like 'for God's sake', 'oh, God' et cetera? MHDIV Englishnerd 22:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well you may not be aware that:
 * Bloody is a contraction of 'By Our Lady'. So this is 'an oath'
 * Crap comes from Thomas Crapper inventor of the WC. So its slang for you know what. So what?

--Light current 23:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm aware, both of these etymologies are fake folk etymologies, bloody is likely the same word as the common adjective, akin to "blutig" used similarly in some German varieties... 惑乱 分からん 23:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I doubt it: in the first place, blasphemy is 'defamation of the name of God' (according to Blasphemy), and I don't think saying 'for God's sake' counts as defamation. And in the second place, the UK blasphemy law seems to be pretty much a dead letter. An attempt to bring a prosecution under it would be unlikely to succeed - indeed, would be more likely to reignite demands for its repeal. Cheers, Sam Clark 22:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The "crap" - "Crapper" etymology is certainly false, since the word "crap" was around (and commonly used) for at least 400 years before Thomas Crapper was flushed with pride. The OED finds the first written use in 1440. -- Charlene 23:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What did it mean then?--Light current 02:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I also heard that the term "crap" for excrement is only coincidentally related with Thomas Crapper. Well, perhaps I should say semi-coincindentally, as I'm sure the term, which could have originally been extremely obscure, could only have become far more popular once the "Crapper" came into popular use. Loomis 23:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Taking the Lord's name in vain has never commanded a particularly high priority where blasphemy laws have been invoked. Indeed, there is considerably less imagination now in this regard than there was in the past.  Try reading through Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, to take but one example.  It contains wonderful and original oaths, like 'By God's Teeth!', 'God's Bones!' and many others of the same kind.  Even the most august-and religious-people were not exempt from this.  My personal favourite is the appeal Oliver Cromwell made to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1650-'I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you might be mistaken!' Clio the Muse 23:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And let's not forget "Gadzooks", or "God's hooks", the nails that fixed Christ to the cross. Shakespeare could write "the bawdy hand of the dial is upon the prick of noon" and get it past the censors, but not "gadzooks". Also "odds' bodkins" or "God's little bones" and "slids" or "God's eyelids" (no kidding). Charlene  23:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The best one is 'snails from god's nails (also no kidding). Cursing god and gastropods at the same time, surely the perfect oath. MeltBanana  01:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "before watershed"? JackofOz 00:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The term comes from the code of practice used by British TV channels. Adult content-and this includes the earthier forms of language-are not supposed to be broadcast before the 9.00pm 'watershed', on the assumption that the little ones are all safely tucked up in bed by this time. Clio the Muse 01:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks indeed. I note the watershed article talks about the arrangements in place in Australia, but I have never heard this term used here in this context.  Cheers.  JackofOz 01:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agreee that any reference to God should be banned. It's like with terrorism - if everyone would stop talking about it, it would simply go away. Well, maybe not in the case of religion, but it's worth a try. DirkvdM 04:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Dirk; it's very sound advice. By the way, are the little ones usually tucked up in bed by watershed? | A ndonic O   Talk  15:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)