Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 October 13

flute music term?
What is the musical term to describe when an instrument like a flute flickers alternating between two notes very fast as a musical effect?--Sonjaaa 03:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * A trill. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * On many instrument a trill can be achieved by movement of valves or keys, or simply by movement of the lips and variation of the air pressure (lip trill).Edison 04:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget, there are a few random alternations that no-one really uses these days - like mondents. The general name for things like this are ornaments. Normally they write tr with a big wavy line.--martianlostinspace 13:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget, there are a few random alternations that no-one really uses these days - like mondents. The general name for things like this are ornaments. Normally they write tr with a big wavy line.--martianlostinspace 13:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

mordent, not 'mondent' - and that's something different. - coolsnak3

What is Marriage?
I have a question. What is Marriage?

According to the article on Marriage, it says that


 * A marriage is a relationship between or among individuals, usually recognized by civil authority and/or bound by the religious beliefs of the participants.

But it is ridiculus because it means that I'm married to own my sister! I have a relationship with my sister (the relationship is that she is my sister). My relationship with my sister is recognised by the civil authority (The authority recognised her as my sister).

So I must be married to my sister! What about my boss? I must be married to my boss too! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.168.50.40 (talk • contribs).


 * That first sentence isn't meant to be a definition, just a true statement that characterizes marriage. Read a little further and you'll see there's a whole section on "Definitions". —Keenan Pepper 05:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The article says marriage is a relationship, not any relationship. -- Mwalcoff 05:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

If the first sentense is not meant to be a definition then it should clearly state:


 * In a marriage, there exists a relationship between or among individuals, usually recognized by civil authority and/or bound by the religious beliefs of the participants.


 * In the 'cat' article, the first sentence doesn't have to be a water-tight definition of cats, just a description that tells you roughly what they are. If I say 'A cat is a land mammal with 4 legs' that doesn't mean a dog is a cat. Skittle 13:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * We are dealing with the art of understatements and must not. It should be clearly said something discriminating in an encyclopedia (if a child asks, where is the true answer ?), things like :
 * Marriage is ... to help and love one another and to bear and raise children together if they are desired.
 * A cat is ... furry and kept in houses to avoid mice or for company. -- DLL .. T 19:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh the romantics. Marriage is a legal deal and little else. Marriage is mainly a legal contract. Both interrested sides of the deal (the spouse and the wife) proclaim (and/or sign a proper document) their agreement (aka Marriage vows) to enter a life-long relationship (you can justly compare to a fusion of two firms). This is witnessed by the guests (in particular the bestman and the best ...) and properly registered by an official of the goverment (and/or religious representative). The financial questions are settled. If later the parties decide to split up (divorce - which is a recission of contract), the jointly gained assets (the kids and/or the properties) are sometimes subject to fierce legal battles (compare it to legal battles between two firms). Divorces are an ugly affair with one side blaming the other (naturallly, as it was a breach of contract). Flamarande 21:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Any study on early marriage will reveal that marriage has existed long before such legal ramifications; originally, marriage was a social thing, not a legal one. The Jade Knight 05:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but those social constructs usually had similar roles in those societies to the social construct we call "law" does today. --Robert Merkel 00:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

For a fairly exhaustive list of definitions type "define:marriage" at the Google web prompt. 71.100.6.152 12:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This question reminds me of a great Simpsons joke: "What is a wedding? Well, Websters defines a wedding as 'the process of removing weeds from ones garden'." La  ï  ka  14:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I've Seen Art History, But Where's Fashion History (Or Maybe Costume History?) And Literature History?
Danke.100110100 07:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * We seem to be missing coverage of non-Western fashion history, but we do have History of Western fashion and History of literature. --Allen 12:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but, what I meant is that there's Art History, but not Fashion History or Literature History. There is Art History in university, but not Fashion History or Literature History; in other words, you can take Art History, but not Fashion History or Literature History.  For example, I'm taking Art History 101 and Art History 102 concurrently, but I haven't found any junior Fashion History or Literature History courses, or (in other words) 100level Fashion History or LIterature History courses.100110100 00:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You aren't looking very hard if you can't find any Literature History courses; for instance, looking at this random course list, we see ENGL 112 - English Literature in Historical Perspective, ENGL 320 - Old English Language and Literature, ENGL 340 - Early Modern Literature and Culture: 17th Century Texts, and so on. The vast majority of the courses offered by an English department are describable as "history of literature", whether considering a certain historic period, a certain type of literature, a certain element or style, or a certain region. Often, history of literature courses are also offered as advanced options in foreign language programs, such as FRANC 326 - Littérature française du XVIIIe siècle (French literature of the 18th century). As far as fashion history goes, this may be covered a little bit in the art department, or the drama department (for costuming purposes), but it's mostly centred at institutions that specialize in the practical designing arts, such as Parsons The New School for Design, which has a department dedicated to the History of Decorative Arts. --ByeByeBaby 03:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Another thought: Hitorical costumers do tend to try to make costumes accurate. I'm pretty sure that most schools with fashion or costuming courses would offer something on the subject. Also, Humanities courses tend to cover History/Events, Philosophy, Architecture, Arts, and Literature. Each subject is shown in relation to the other subjects. A Humanities course usually gives not a definite literature history, but it does discuss some development of the art. Russia Moore 04:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Minimum wage
Isn't it pretty evident that when congress increases its own salary but refuses to increase the minimum wage if only to increase it to cover inflation that the congress is dominated by republicans? 71.100.6.152 07:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Which country are you talking about? 09:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It sounds like the USA to me. 20:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Republicans claim that the richest people in America are all Democrats. Yet even though Republicans lobbied to establish that corporations be regarded as individuals they do not include corporations in this list. If they did Republican owner(stock holder)/management dominated corporations would far exceed in wealth, either in terms of income or in terms of assets, what Democrats represent. 71.100.6.152 09:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Reunification
If Korea were to opt for reunification instead of war how would the differences in their economic, social, political and legal systems be resolved? 71.100.6.152 07:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Which, of course, is not to say those are the only two options. Just in case someone wondered. :) DirkvdM 09:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no single answer to this. It would depend entirely on the circumstances under which unification took place and would probably involve some negotiation.  If the North Korean government just collapsed, South Korea would develop policies for extending its existing systems into North Korea.  If there were a military coup in North Korea, and the new military government wanted unification, the terms would be negotiated.  There is, of course, a precedent for this in German reunification.   Marco polo 16:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Since it does not appear that the former Soviet Union sucked North Korea dry as it did East Germany do you think reunification would not have as great an economic impact on South Korea (and consequuently the US) as it did (and still does) on West Germany? 71.100.6.152 18:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It wasn't the Soviet Union that destroyed the prosperity of East Germany, it was communism, which has had the same effect on North Korea. It's economy is 1/24th the size of South Korea and would be a severe economic drain. StuRat 20:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Why don't communists wake up and realize that they can have even more advantages with free enterprize and taxes? 71.100.6.152 23:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Most of them have (in Russia and China, for example). NK remains one of the few places with rigid communism and almost no free market activity. StuRat 05:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Because free enterprise would involve a degree of freedom (of movement, ownership, etc.) that the control freaks in North Korea find frightening and threatening. Also, North Korea's elites are comfortable with things as they are.  Why take a risky step?  Marco polo 00:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be a bazillion times worse. At least East Germany could feed itself. And West Germany could afford the costs of reunification better than South Korea. Clarityfiend 01:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So then peaceful reunification is out of the question? 71.100.6.152 07:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Much would depend upon how threatened China would feel by such a step. Without Beijing's support, North Korea would collapse. It should also be realised that the costs of reunification would be significantly defrayed by the reduction in military expenses that the two Koreas have in facing each other. B00P 09:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Then can anyone list the differences in common ground which prevent peaceful reunification? 71.100.6.152 11:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * South Korean gov cares about it's people, whereas NK doesn't care if they all starve, as long as it stays in power. StuRat 18:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If the NK gov cares only about staying in power and not about people is there any way to use staying in power as leverage by the rest of the world to obtain disarmament and peaceful reunification or will such effort only result in escalation of arms to prevent peaceful reunification or at least reunification of a form that is acceptable by the World? 71.100.6.152 12:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see how they stay in power after reunification. They seem to be paranoid about a US attack.  While a US attack is possible, it would be in response to what they are doing.  If they hadn't built nukes, the US would have continued to completely ignore them, much as was the case in Cuba, after they gave up their Soviet-provided nukes.  A peace treaty bringing the Korean War to a formal end and having everyone promise not to attack NK might help, but I'm not sure that would be enough to convince NK to give up it's nukes. StuRat 18:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have thought of a possible deal among the various parties that would defuse the Korean crisis. As usual, the stumbling block would be the U.S., or at least its current leadership.  My assumption is that China backs North Korea mainly because it is a pawn in a power conflict with the U.S. and because it serves as a buffer between Chinese and U.S. forces.  What if the U.S. and China agreed to withdraw from the Korean peninsula simultaneously while South Korea committed itself to neutrality and to non-nuclear status?  China would agree to shift its support for the North Korean regime to support for the reintegration of the Koreas.  China would also agree to provide North Korea's top leadership with a comfortable retirement in China to get them to go along.  In return, South Korea would commit to neutrality, to managing reunification in a way (also agreed upon with China) that would create livelihoods for North Koreans in North Korea and minimize the refugee flow. This would have to include an amnesty and income support for North Korean officials not offered a golden Chinese exile.  South Korea would agree to take possession of and eliminate North Korea's nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons infrastructure.   The United States would agree to withdraw its troops from the Korean peninsula and to end military ties with reunited Korea.  Everybody would gain:  China and the U.S. would both gain from defusing a dangerous crisis and from ending a nonproductive waste of resources on needlessly supporting their pawns.  The U.S. would gain by being able to redeploy military resources where they are needed to defend more urgent U.S. interests.  China would gain from the removal of the U.S. threat close by and from the economic expansion of a near neighbor.  South Korea would gain tremendously, both politically and in the opening up of ground for an investment boom and the harnessing of cheap labor that would vastly increase Korean economic competitiveness.  North Korea's leadership would gain a peaceful and secure retirement.  While they would lose power, China would make it clear that they had no choice about that.  North Korea's people would gain rising living standards.  Even Japan would gain from the removal of a dangerous threat on its doorstep.  What stands in the way, in my view, is that the current leadership in the U.S. are committed to a mission of world domination and are violently opposed to what they would see as a loss of "imperial territory." They would never voluntarily agree to a withdrawal from South Korea. But a change of leadership in the U.S. might make such a deal possible.  Marco polo 00:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Your wrong there, the US would very much like to pull it's troops out of SK, especially as they are needed elsewhere. They only remain because the US (and South Korea, when they are thinking soundly) believes that those troops are the only thing preventing North Korea from invading.  Not because the US troops there could themselves repel an invasion, but because such an attack on US troops would force the US to go to war.  As for your solution, China would likely lose by having to absorb millions of NK refugees, who would like to escape now, but are prevented from doing so by the NK regime.  Same for SK and Japan.  The NK leaders would not accept the offer unless they were given a similar sized population that they could terrorize and control, this power is their main goal.  The US would definitely win in your plan, however, by removing a grave threat, allowing US troops to be redeployed, and opening up a new market in NK. StuRat 13:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * StuRat, I don't think that I am demonstrably wrong. I think that we disagree.  I don't think that the Bush administration wants to pull its troops out of anywhere or do anything that would entail a rollback of the American empire.  As for the refugee problem, it could be prevented by a careful transition plan.  I wasn't suggesting that the top NK leadership would voluntarily agree to a golden exile, though probably some of the leadership could be bought off, by both China and South Korea, enough to make the position of recalcitrants tenuous.  I was saying that China could make it clear to the recalcitrants, as their options diminished, that the alternative to a golden exile would be worse.  But the US is not yet ready to get out of the way.  By the way, I live in the US and have been watching its operations from the inside for many years.  Marco polo 22:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you are saying. If US troops aren't in SK solely to prevent a NK invasion, why exactly do you think they are there ?  SK isn't a puppet state of the US, after all.  They have free elections and many of the elected politicians are actually quite hostile to the US.  So, if it's your contention that the US troops are somehow there to control the SK population, then they are a miserable failure, aren't they ? StuRat 03:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

And going by the continuing influence of Rev. Moon in American and Washington DC politics it looks like American troops are the puppets of SK rather than the other way around. Perhaps the real barrier to reunification is the issue of freedom of religion more so than anything else. 71.100.6.152 16:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

monuments
what are the ways to protect the famous monuments?
 * Of which country? Each has their own laws and procedures.  Dismas|(talk) 11:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like India. Skittle 13:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Containing the Taliban might help protect monuments in Afghanistan, if there are any left. --Allen 12:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The laws that exist in each country are tools. You might check with a local lawyer.  If the laws are not sufficient, then it is a political matter.  If you can organize enough citizens, preferably influential ones, in support of preservation, then the government will tend to do what is necessary.  Marco polo 16:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Protect them from what ? Terrorists ? Tourists ? Acid rain ? Flooding ? StuRat 19:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

And what kinds of monuments? Statues, buildings, nature reserves? In general, wealth means you can sustain something that is not potentially economically useful (anymore). DirkvdM 08:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Some cities and towns (such as St Andrews, Scotland) have organizations run either privately or by the government dedicated to preservation: http://www.standrewspreservationtrust.co.uk/ Russia Moore 04:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Brazil
What is the percent of money that Brazil vests in the economies of foreign countries? I need to know the specific countries and how much is invested in each country's economy. Also, what parts of Brazil's economy is vested abroad? Why are these parts vested abroad? What is the impact of Brazil's domestic and foreign policies on her economy?


 * Brazillians are important in the swimsuit industry.Edison 13:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If you can read Portuguese, you will find lots of relevant statistics at these two sites:    Marco polo 17:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Never Knows Best
Within the anime OVA FLCL, what is the meaning/significance (if any) of the phrase "Never Knows Best"? --Ppk01 14:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It sounds like the reverse of someone who "always knows best" (always makes the correct decisions). So, it would be a person who is always wrong. StuRat 19:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

indian American woman
indian American woman are all hot. Do most of them like to have sex. is ther any indian American woman age 18- 28 who would want to have sex with, a recent law graduate who is 25 and white?
 * No. At least, not with ones who ask dumb questions like this. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems like a troll, anyway, I think racial factors wouldn't be the niggest problems in this case... 惑乱 分からん 18:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Freudian Slip if I ever saw one! Philc  TECI 19:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Whooops, sorry... Seems I was typing too fast... @_@ 惑乱 分からん 00:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

U r a sex addict. Crazy I have to say dude!!


 * What happened to your Jo Swinson crush? is it over? --Lambiam Talk  01:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Which "Indians" are you refering to? Biker babes, American Indians or India Indians? Indian (India) general practioners can prescribe a definite medical cure. 71.100.6.152 11:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A cure for what? @_@ (Horniness in combination with ignorance?) 惑乱 分からん 12:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * A cure for any such feeling toward them. 71.100.6.152 14:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess it would be easiest if he just learned when to shut up... 惑乱 分からん 17:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do some people sneeze when they look at the Sun?
I know quite a few people who sneeze whenever they look at the Sun, or come out into a really sunny environment. Why does this happen? Thanks, --86.142.195.245 15:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * See Photic sneeze reflex. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a faq. DirkvdM 08:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Jewish mob
Meyer Lansky. In the 1940's 50's and 60's what if any criminal organization was meyer Lanksy head of?


 * Pick the link to see for yourself. StuRat 18:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * He was head of the Meyer Lansky criminal organization. Loomis 07:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

jewish mob2
Is their still a Jewish mob?


 * 
 * If personal attacks were allowed here, that would have certainly received one. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that at least on several occasions I found myself gathered together with many other Jews, thus forming a "Jewish mob". I don't know of any substantial number of Jews gathered together at the present time, so I'd say that at present, there are no Jewish mobs. However, Jewish mobs may return, for example, if there is some sort of Jewish festival that gathers together enough Jews together to form a "mob". Loomis 08:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

We've have the Israeli Mafia here in Johannesburg. They were allegedly implicated in a number of hits a couple of years back. --Jcw69 11:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Tell me more about this "Israeli Mafia". I'm curious. Loomis 05:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not much is known about the Israeli Mafia. If I knew more about it I’d properly be dead now. I first got to hear about them when I went on a photographic shoot with two Jewish photographers in a street in Parktown, Johannesburg. While on the shoot a Mercedes drove up with an Israeli in his late 50s. After he demanded to know what we were doing and left, the one photographer warned to the other that the driver was part of the Israeli Mafia. Here is two news links from Nov 2003 Israeli crime bodies in SA Police confirms presence of Israeli mafia --Jcw69 16:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

US Presidents who have been killed
Can anybody tell me which four United States presidents have been killed and under what circumstances. If possible, could someone also tell me what provoked the killing, i.e. dislike of foreign policy. Thanks 15:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC) Lincoln killed immediatly after civil war by John Wilks Booth a confederate sympathizer as part of a conspiracy to bring downn the Government.

Garfield, Killed by Charles Julius Guiteau, a deranged polital activist who was upset becuase his requests for a diplomatic post were ignored.

McKinley killed by anarchist Leon Czolgosz in order to full fill a dream where he killed a prominent figure in order to promote anarchism.

Kennedy, killed by Lee Harvey Oswald a ex Marine who claimed to be a Marxist. Why he killed Kennedy is debated. Many believe he was a lone wolf who killed Kennedy for attention. Others believe he was acting as part of conspiracy. People who believe Oswald was acting under orders greatly disgree on who he was working for. Some believe he was working for the mafia. Others believe him to have been a secret agent serving rightist forces ie the CIA anti Castro dissidents. Still other believe he was a Soviet agent.
 * See President of the United States for answers to your questions. Dismas|(talk) 15:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Then there was Warren G. Harding, who died after being fed some questionable oysters during a trip to Alaska, developed food poisoning, then supposedly had a heart attack. The Teapot Dome and other scandals of corrupt people in his administration were just unfolding when he passed away. There was speculation he had been poisoned. No autopsy was done.Edison 15:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Icons in Russia
what does it mean to be russian? what would russian people say is characteristic of their country and its people? what are some icons, symbols, buildings, paintings or images (etc.) that capture this "russianess"?


 * Are you asking about the Culture of Russia? --Kainaw (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

not so much the russian culure, but more of what do russian people identify with as part of their russian lives/identity? or what icons and symbols (etc.) do russians believe to be important to society? essentially, what does it mean to be a russian? i hope that makes sense!


 * What does it mean to be any nation or part of a nation? The Russians are no different in this regard from all other such communities on the earth.  The essential elements are, of course, a common language, culture, history and religion.  Even those who no longer believe in Orthodox Christianity would, I imagine, accept the vital contribution it made through history to the formation of the Russian national character.  White Guard 00:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Onion domes, St. Petersberg, the Kremlin, Matryoshka dolls, Eastern Orthodox Church, Faberge eggs, Tchaikovsky, Boris Pasternak, etc. StuRat 05:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Fyodor Dostoyevsky, caviar, Marc Chagall, Sputnik, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Anchoress 03:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The concept of pravda, benevolent and personal autocracy, the concept of mir, Moscow as the Third Rome, and the duality of being both of the West and of the East have historically been ideas central to Russian self-identity. Is that more of what you are looking for? -Fsotrain09 03:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * St Petersburg is an interesting case. It's not even a Russian name, but an anglicised German name.  The Russians call it "Sankt Peterburg", which is pure German.  (Btw, the ending is -burg, meaning 'city', not -berg, meaning 'mountain'.)  The name was Russianised into Petrograd, and then became Leningrad.  When the USSR collapsed and Leningrad was no longer appropriate, it seemed an extremely odd choice to revert to a German name, particularly considering the events of WWI and WW2.  I can understand why Petrograd, with its Bolshevik associations, was unacceptable, but I would have thought that a German name, any German name, would have been just as unacceptable, and surely they could have found a good Russian name for this quintessentially Russian city.  But 54% is a majority, so that's democracy for you.  JackofOz 02:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW Burg normally means castle or fortress, and not city at all. Stadt means city. Curiously a citizen is a Bürger. German is a difficult language. Flamarande 17:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Part of the reason is that the name restores the city to a time when it was beautiful European gem, not the gritty industrial city it became under the Soviet Union. StuRat 12:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Merely giving it its old name could never have achieved that. It was actually more Dutch than German, my bad - but it was changed to Petrograd during WW1 because it sounded too German, at a time when Russia was at war with Germany.  Given that extreme sensitivity, I can't believe that in 1991 they had already forgotten about the Siege of Leningrad, in which around 650,000 Russians died at the hands of the Germans.  JackofOz 13:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * They haven't forgotten the siege or any of the many Warcrimes commited by German troops during WWII. They have simply (largely) forgiven them, and aren't blaming modern Germany for it. As for your assumption what is unacceptable in Russia or not, I guess the Russians are simply more pragmatic than you are. Live the present, forgive for the sake of the future, but always rememeber and honour the past. In Israel the music of Wagner is largely unaccetable and whose loss is it? The Germans? or the Israelis? Flamarande 17:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Point Spread Format
I'm not sure about this, so I want to ask. The following is a current point spread on USA Today: Kansas City 37.5o-110 Pittsburg   -7 105 As I understand it, this means that if you bet the total of both scores is over 37.5, you get $110 for every $100 you bet. If you bet on Kansas City, you win $105 per $100 if their score +7 is higher than the Pittsburg score. If you bet on Pittsburg, you with $105 per $100 if their score -7 is higher than the Kansas City score. Is that correct? Basically, it doesn't indicate which team the "-7" refers to. --Kainaw (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Kainaw, you got that backwards: the book's juice is usually 10%, so you bet $110 to win $100. Kainaw, you got that backwards: the book's juice is usually 10%, so you bet $110 to win $100. The team with the minus is the favorite. &mdash;Wayward Talk 23:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Would you be my bookie? I could bet the same amount on Pittsburg and on KC and collect unless Pittsburg won by exactly 7, in which case I'd just get my money back! Clarityfiend 02:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So, what about the question: Who does the "-7" refer to? Is it the team on top or on bottom? --Kainaw (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Right to life founders
who were the founders of right to life? Probably President Nixon he was the first president to run on a right to life platform.


 * What makes you think Nixon ran on a "right to life" platform? The strongest statement he ever made about it seems to have been, "I do not support unrestricted abortion policies" -- followed immediately by "I have a basic faith that the American people themselves will make sound judgments regarding family size and frequency of births, judgments that are conducive both to the public interest and to personal family goals--and I believe in the right of married couples to make these judgments for themselves." --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Founders? The anti-abortion position is at least as old as medical science developed the means to induce an abortion...decades, if not centuries before Nixon. Loomis 07:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Organised opposition to abortion seems to have started in response to legal liberalisation, though - Right to Life Australia was formed after the 1969 decision in R v Davidson, and the National Right to Life Committee was formed after Roe v Wade in 1973. History of abortion is an interesting read. If the OP is asking about the founders of the National Right to Life Committee, try emailing them and asking. Natgoo 08:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Help!
Why hasn't the Beatles movie Help! ever been released on DVD in the U.S.? Is there some legal problem? I've been looking for it on Ebay, but the copies for sale appear to be just that - copies from VHS or TV. Thanks66.213.33.2 21:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The phrasing of the question makes it sound like it has been released on DVD in UK or somewhere else(?). In that case, you could just import a copy? Btw, I wouldn't mind watching the movie as a copy from VHS, it's not like the movie has any stunning cinematic qualities that would get lost with lower quality... =S 惑乱 分からん 00:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * According to some of the listings of the available DVD on Amazon.com, it was released on DVD in the US, but is now out of print. I wonder why it's so expensive? Anchoress 04:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

LAPD
What is the mandatory retirement age for members of the LAPD?


 * Why don't you contact the public affairs office of the LAPD and ask? They probably have a department set up to answer this type of question from fiction writers...--Robert Merkel 00:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

fire marshal in NY
Are NyC fire marshals current members of the fire department?


 * Yes. --Aaron 22:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Computer addiction
What would be reccommendable for people suffering from computer addiction as a means of helping them to cut down on their addiction?-- Rouge Rosado  Oui?  21:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Throwing their computer out a window? Wooty 00:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Remove half the keys from the keyboard, flip the mouse buttons in the OS, and switch them to an old, crappy, ball mouse. Toss in a benchmarking program running constantly in the background to eat up CPU time. That should drive anyone away from the box. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Ask for help from somebody else in the house. Schedule a specific time when you can use the comp, and have that other person take possession of the computer, or some critical component like the keyboard, the rest of the time. StuRat 04:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Separate the things the computer does from the things your head can do then only sit in front of the computer when its time to do something your head can’t do. 71.100.6.152 11:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Restrict them to a Teletype terminal with a 300 baud acoustic modem. Edison 15:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * .- -. -.. / .-. . ... - .-. .. -.-. - / - .... . .. .-. / -.-. --- -- -- ..- -. .. -.-. .- - .. --- -. / - --- / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . ..--.. 71.100.6.152 17:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * File an RFAr against them. By the time Arbcom gets through with them, they'll never want to go anywhere near a computer ever again. --Aaron 22:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)