Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 September 11

=September 11=

word
How does one go about submitting a new definition for an existing word in the dictionary? Or submitting a new word to include in the dictionary. Oxford English Dictionary to be exact.

Cheers


 * You don't. The OED is a historical dictionary, meaning it records the historical use of words. If a word is only used by you and some people you know it is unlikely to be of enough historical importance to be included. If you invent a word and it is used to a significant extent then they will notice it and possibly include it. For submitting words to dictionaries http://www.urbandictionary.com/ is probably the best you can get (which isn't saying much). MeltBanana  00:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well...conceivably you could become a recognized author or journalist, publish the word you hope to introduce to the lexicon through a reputable source, and write a letter to the OED folks ten or twenty years later if it catches on. They don't document ephemera. On the other hand, Shakespeare introduced a lot of words to the language - a few hundred of which caught on, but some of which didn't. Nobody really knows what he meant by a "quatch buttock." Durova 01:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd put it in Wiktionary first, and see if it stands. If not, you will likely find out why.  If it does stand, then perhaps the OED will take notice and add it to theirs. StuRat 02:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think the folks over at Wiktionary would approve of that suggestion. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

don't know about OED, but Merriam Webster's website gives you the option of submitting new words and they will watch them and if usage merits, add them.


 * You can certainly write to the OED via the address on their website. They appreciate reports from the public. I've written to them several times and they've always responded.--Shantavira 07:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Specifically, see OED appeals and submissions. --Lambiam Talk 07:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You could hire a bunch of kids to write the word all over town. Matt Deres 02:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Get a job working for the OED? --Dweller 11:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Naming of countries
I've noticed that people use the term Italy for the country in the Middle Ages, even though it wasn't a proper country then. What's the general rule for this? For example, do we use the term Switzerland for dates before 1291? It could be that the name of a country is used for the exact region that the country currently occupies, but applied to that region for all of history. If so, what of a country which changes its borders? For example, Germany was once far larger, so when we talk of German history, we can't simply be talking about the piece of land now called Germany. The Mad Echidna 23:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I do it this way:


 * "Istanbul, which was in the Ottoman Empire at the time, and now lies in Turkey, was ...". StuRat 00:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * (StuRat, normally I find it rude to change other people's writings, but I guess you can forgive me for that one :)?) But that is a very good question, it's one of the reasons why I like history more than in high school.  For instance when they talk about "Austro-Hungary" I think of Austria and Hungary, happily next to other, only when you have a map next to it, you realize it also had large parts of Romania.  That is why some time ago I asked for a decent (Wikipedia or not) source where one can get (global) maps of a certain century/decade.  (Someone then even proposed Wikipedia describing the political situation in a certain year/decade)Evilbu 01:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I even tested my link, but didn't notice a redirect had corrected my spelling error. StuRat 02:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Speaking of Turkey, I added to the Santa Claus article that the original Saint Nicholas was a Turk. Someone else changed that to say that he was from a region that lies in Turkey now. DirkvdM 07:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * He certainly lived long before the modern country of Turkey, true. He also lived before there were any Turkic people in the area.  The description under Saint Nicholas is "He lived in 4th century Myra in the Byzantine Empire's Lycia, the modern day Demre in Antalya province of Turkey." StuRat 10:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Another issue is China. That article is about the history of China because Taiwan clams to be the 'real China' or somthing like that. I'd say it would have to be either a disambiguation page or be about what people normally mean by 'China' (that is a Wikirule, after all). But I have no wish to get mixed up in that eternal discussion. DirkvdM 07:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. Things can get confusing very easily. --Proficient 06:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In response to the original question, Italy is a present-day nation-state, but it is also a coherent geographical and historical region. Historians use the term for the region going back to the time of the Roman Empire.  Even before the time of the Roman Empire, the term "Italy" can be used to refer at least to the peninsula, if not to the Po Basin (Cisalpine Gaul) or Venetia. I don't think that Switzerland was a coherent region before it was a (federal) state.  In using geographic terms in historical narrative, you just have to be aware whether the term applies to the period in question.  It varies from case to case. The term "Turkey" really doesn't apply before the founding of modern Turkey after World War !.  Before that, you would have to refer to "Asia Minor" or "Thrace," depending on the actual reference. On the other hand, "Egypt" can be used for more or less the region of the present-day nation-state for any period of the historic (or even prehistoric) past.  Marco polo 19:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this interesting and knowledgeable reply, Marco. NB I thought the Po basin was partially in the peninsula, so I'll have to check that one again sometime. Cheerio! The Mad Echidna 15:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

A related question has long bothered me: when there were five or more independent states south of the Pyrenees (Castile-Leon, Aragon, Navarre, Portugal and Granada), what did "Spain" mean? Did Ferdinand & Isabel call themselves "King & Queen of Spain", and if so, did the kings of Portugal and Navarre object? &mdash;Tamfang 05:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Elections...
I am a secretary on a board that has elections comingh up for 11 seats...but there are only 9 nominees. Do we automatically uphold the nominees as Board elect or do we call again for more nominees? Thank you for your reply Dl


 * Check your association bylaws. Durova 01:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If there's any flexibility I'd call for more nominees, in as public of a way as possible, to get the most new nominees, since giving the job to just anyone, unchallenged, no matter how unsuitable they are, violates the basic idea of democracy, by denying voters a choice. StuRat 01:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

accorcing to rules, you must still hold the elections and a candidate must get a majority of the vote to win- due to the lack of competition, each candidate must get 50% to win, every one has the option of not voting. For example, opening for president, one candidate and he or she only gets 30% of the vote, they still don't win because they don't get a majority.


 * The previous, unsigned statement is rubbish. Durova was correct - it depends upon your by-laws. With only one candidate, it may be possible that one vote is sufficient. StuRat's contention that it is "undemocratic" is wrong - we are assuming that members are not being prevented from running - after all, you can hardly force people to run, which would really be undemocratic. However, his notion that merely electing people by default is a poor way of going about things, is quite right. B00P 08:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no universally valid rule. It really depends on the bylaws, as noted by Durova above. --Lambiam Talk 07:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Normally those nine would be elected unopposed. It depends on the rules but you may also find you have to co-opt two other people from among your general membership to make up the numbers. Jameswilson 23:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * BOOP: StuRat never said it was "undemocratic", he said it violates the basic idea of democracy, because a democracy with more electorate positions than nominees does not allow a proper democratic process to exist. "Undemocratic" implies that there is some policy which directly challenges the democratic foundations of an organization, this situation simply isn't a proper voting procedure at all. freshofftheufo  ΓΛĿЌ  01:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Which Oceanic Country Is Best For Me?
I'd like to live in Oceania. On an Island. But there are just so many different Pacific islnd countries, and I'm having trouble choosing one. These are my conditions, tell me where would be best for me:


 * -Size: I'd like to live on a rather small island. The Solomon Islands, or New Caledonia are the largest my country should be. There is no minimum for size.
 * -Language: English must be an official language (Even better; the majority language)
 * -Good employability opportunities (NOT stuff like fishing, phosphate mining, and souvenir selling to tourists!!)
 * -Taxes should be low, such as low property tax.
 * -Majority of the population should be caucasin
 * -I'd like internet access in my house
 * -Nice environmentally
 * -Near or far Oceania; it doesn't matter.
 * -Climate: I'd like my winters to be between -20C and whatever. I'd like my summers to be between 20C and 35C. I do not like it too hot, which means that I also do not like too much humidity
 * -I won't get any tropical diseases
 * -Low to medium cost of living
 * -Little or no violence
 * -Good future economy
 * -Population: does not matter.

I think I'm looking at something like Fiji, or Hawaii...but I'd prefer something smaller...--Codell [ Talk ▪ Contrib. ] 02:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If the colour of people's skin matters to you, that rules out most of the islands you mention. You could try Norfolk Island; just don't annoy the locals... --Robert Merkel 03:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have lived on Guam for a total of... four or five years I guess. To hit all your points: Size is what you want; Language, everybody speaks English; Employability? I don't know; No sales tax, the rest are low; Everybody is Caucasin, or "Local" meaning a mix between Chamorro, and Filipino; Internet is great; Weather is some of the best in the world actually, perfect day EVERDAY, except for the ocassional typhoon; No diseases, don't worry; Good cost of living; Absolutely no violence, due to the laid-back culture; Don't know about the economy; Population is about 100,000. If you can live on the military base or get an ID you are doing great. Tell you more if you inquire. — [ Mac Davis ] (talk) ( Desk | Help me improve )
 * Don't forget Mac, that you lived on/near a base, so you would have probably been in the most highly-populated-by-caucasians area of Guam, or at least the area most fluent in English. This page ranks the total caucasian population at a rather low 10%. There is also a significant Chinese and Japanese population. freshofftheufo  ΓΛĿЌ  06:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, ok, I guess you're right, if you go off base pretty much everybody is "local." Sorry there. Then again all I said was that everybody was either white or local. — [ Mac Davis ] (talk) ( Desk | Help me improve )
 * I get most of your points, but why does the population have to be Caucasian? What is the advantage of that? (Unless youre a racist, of course). Have you looked at the Caucasus? :) DirkvdM 08:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In addition to the above mentioned Norfolk Island, you could also try Lord Howe Island, although you have trouble emigrating there.  Another possibility is somewhere in the Whitsunday Islands.  --Roisterer 10:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Tasmania might be worth consideration, it's a small island that's an Australian state. Then there's those cute Tasmanian Devils... StuRat 13:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

New Zealand? User:Zoe|(talk) 17:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Seriously, though. Why is it so important for the majority of the population to be white? (Or "Caucasin" as you put it...isn't a "caucasin" a native American shoe? Oh right, that's a moccasin !) Loomis 22:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe he just wants to fit in? Or he's only attracted to caucasian women? It's not necessarily a racist concern. freshofftheufo  ΓΛĿЌ  01:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Who cares if it's racist, even if it's probably not? He or she is just asking a question and needs help. --Proficient 06:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess they're all right when they call me a nutty left-wing liberal. :--) Loomis 09:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * How strange, Loomis. I've always seen you as a nutty right-wing reactionary.  :--)  JackofOz 12:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm, Jack! Well at least everyone agrees on one thing, that I'm nutty (and proud of it!). But seriously, I'd always thought that right-wingers were painted as insensitive to bigotry. Is this true? If so, why am I one of the only ones that's a bit bothered my the "Caucasin" [sic] thing? Can it be? Is it true? Is it actually possible that that mythological creature known as the compassionate conservative actually exists? If so, am I one of them? Wow! You must feel like you've just confirmed the existence of the Yeti, or the Loch Ness Monster! Consider yourself privileged! :--) Loomis 20:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This deserves an excellent riposte.  When I think of one, I'll be back, ok.  JackofOz
 * No problem. Though I must admit I respect your opinion and you've got me a bit worried here. :( Loomis 00:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. "There are more things 'twixt heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio" (Hamlet)'  If you want living proof of this, look no further than Loomis51.  JackofOz 02:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Good one, Jack! :--) Fair enough, I see your point. But please believe me when I swear that in real life I'm nowhere near as unidimensional as I appear here. I have quiet the variety of interests outside fighting bigotry. Would it surprise you to know that, among other things, I'm quite the green thumb? Please believe me that I don't have swastikas floating through my head when I'm tending my tomato plants or pruning my two prize McIntosh trees! :--) Loomis 17:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Nah, I'm not racist. I Just don't want people to think that I'm a tourist, but that perticular condition does't really matter too much to me. Thanks for all the suggestions! They're helpful. Anyways, I've got some more conditions: --Codell [ Talk ▪ Contrib. ] 21:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * -It should be easy to immigrate there (from Canada.)
 * -My house won't get tsunami'd away
 * -A house won't cost too much


 * Fair enough. Your explanation makes sense. I was just a bit caught of guard by the comment. Loomis 09:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, just forget that thing about only caucasin. Oceania is obviously a place with many cultures and tourists, and I don't want to limit myself to only a few countries with that condition.--Codell [ Talk ▪ Contrib. ] 23:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

meanings of lyrics
The Billy Joel song "we didn't start the fire" is mostly a series of political references. do you know of a good way to research the topics in the song besides looking each of them up individually?
 * Try our article: We didn't start the fire which at least has all the references linked. Rmhermen 03:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Wikipedia can be useful. :) --Proficient 06:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Bush's approval ratings following September 11
Why did George Bush's approval ratings skyrocket following 9/11? He didn't DO anything. On the contrary, he fucked up royal in letting the attacks occur in the first place.
 * your opinion :) --hello, i'm a member  |  talk to me!  05:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * He kind of... attacked Afghanistan, and then after he finished that he attacked Iraq. On the logic of his actions I won't comment, but you can hardly say he did nothing. freshofftheufo  ΓΛĿЌ  06:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind though - he never did finish what he started in Afghanistan ; )  Viva  La   V  i  e   Boheme! 


 * Coping with a crisis does wonders for the esteem in which politicians are held, provided they a) aren't obviously responsible, and b) don't obviously screw up. In the immediate aftermath, people were looking for a leader to say reassuring things, and do stuff.  Bush did both things - his speechwriters cooked up some half-decent speeches, and he invaded Afghanistan, which was providing sanctuary to the person responsible.  These were largely non-partisan issues - Gore would have probably done pretty much the same thing.


 * Political incumbents across the Western world benefitted politically from September 11 - a good example was John Howard. --Robert Merkel 08:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The deficiencies in the Bush admin which allowed the attacks to occur had not yet come out, and Bush promised to get the bastards, and the attack on Afghanistan seemed to be aimed at just that. Only later, when the faults were known and he was unable to get Bin Laden or even Mullah Omar, then attacked Iraq for no apparent reason, did it become obvious that his administration was totally incompetent. StuRat 09:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * All he had to do was 'promised to get the bastards.' For ANY leader, that is all you have to do, it all comes from the fear-leader system. — [ Mac Davis ] (talk) ( Desk | Help me improve )


 * Don't forget that the attacks occured less than nine months into his presidency, and after 8 years of Clinton doing squat after Bin Laden et. al attacked the WTC, (in '93 if I remember correctly,) two embassies in Africa, and basically ignored the fact that the Taliban was probably the most evil regime in existence during his administration. Bush isn't perfect, but give the guy a break, he inherited all this crap from a previous administration who let the terrorists plan away while hiding their heads in the sand, (or even worse...concentrating on getting a little intern "action"). The 9/11 attacks were so well orchestrated that they must have taken years to plan. You talk about Bush, why didn't Clinton in all his eight years as president not realize that all this shit was about to hit the fan? Was he just too preoccuppied with some other things to focus on the real issues? Loomis 17:17, 11


 * Clinton caught, prosecuted, and imprisoned the perpetrators of the 1993 WTC bombing. He authorized every CIA effort to eliminate BinLaden. He fired 100 cruise missiles at BinLaden's camp. This was while the radical republicans were trying to impeach him and remove him from office. And for all the publicity about his private life and Ms. Lewinski, only 29% of the people agreed Clinton should be impeached, while now 30% want Bush impeached? Why didn't Bush pay more attention to the secret report titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside America?" I will certainly give Bush credit for a first class public relations staff headed by Karl Rove. Edison 18:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

All very true. Yes Clinton did do all these things. Obviously though, they weren't nearly enough. Fire 100 cruise missiles and call it a day? Talk about a good PR move! ''Who cares that all our missiles apparently "missed" and that that Osama dude is still alive to plot far more devastating attacks ... the House just impeached me and the Senate is considering throwing me out of office, but I showed the public who's boss! And they love me for it! Look at the polls! Only 29% want me impeached! Time to move onto other things ... chasing Bin Laden around Afghanistan and keeping him on the run without actually catching him would just make me look like a failure, and even though it might make it a lot tougher for him to plot future attacks, my approval ratings could only be hurt by it ... best just leave the whole thing alone.''

"Why didn't Bush pay more attention to the secret report titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside America?"" Well doesn't seem like Clinton paid too much attention to it either. What security measures did Clinton introduce as a result of that report? Did he increase security at the borders? The airports? Anything? Nah ... wouldn't look good ... would only scare the public ... could only be bad for approval ratings.

Then Bush gets elected, sworn in, starts to form his cabinet, gets a mile-high stack of "Secret CIA Reports" on his desk to pore over word-for-word (after all, if they're "Secret CIA Reports" you don't get access to them until you make it into office). Barely has time to catch his breath, and before you know it, jetliners are flying into the World Trade Center. Oh well, "blame it on the new guy". You know what I'm talking about, classic "office politics". Strangely though, after all of Bush's "failures", every potential attack on the US since 9/11 has been foiled, all due to measures put into force by the Bush administration after the attacks. The "shoe bomber" never hit his target ... all those planes from London filled with terrorists never made it to America ... and those are only the plots we know of. Of course many of these measures are very unpopular. Definitely an incredibly bad idea to introduce them if you're about to be impeached and you're more concerned with your job and your reputation than America's safety. Leave it to the new guy! Loomis 22:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * While what Clinton did to try to get rid of bin Laden was clearly insufficient, Bush did absolutely nothing, until 9-11. That was why Richard A. Clarke used that provocative report title, in the hopes of getting any kind of response out of the Bush admin at all.  (Clinton couldn't have responded to this report, as it was dated August 6, 2001, long after he left office.)  And I don't buy the argument that 9 months is not enough time to do anything.  Banning knives on airlines could have been done in one day, for example, they just had to do it. StuRat 09:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Presidents' approval ratings almost always go up during foreign-policy crises. For example, Jimmy Carter's approval rating shot up after the Iran hostage crisis began. Take a look at this article from pollster Mark Mellman:


 * Crises involving foreigners raise approval ratings because they instantiate the “us” versus “them” dynamic that animates every social species. Whoever the “we” and “them” might be, whenever “we” feel threatened by “them,” “we” pull together to face the challenge from the outsider. That unity reflects itself in social solidarity and support for the leader. Such reactions are a fundamental tenet of group identity and behavior. —Mwalcoff 23:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, [ — [ [[User:Mac Davis|Mac Davis ]]] (talk) ( Desk | Help me improve )


 * What you're both saying would seem to apply equally to both presidents being discused. Remember Wag the Dog? Of course an equal and opposite reaction seems to take place when the "us vs. them" fever wears off. People start to get tired of it and tired of their leader for continuing on with the whole thing when it starts to become old news. I guess the best tactic do gain popularity would be to do something short and sweet against "them" and then move on. Kennedy clearly benefitted from this phenomenon (though admittedly in very tragic way). He basically set the stage for what would be the extremely unpopular, and extremely tragic Vietnam War. Yet he only lived long enough to reap the benefits of the whole "us vs. them" phenomenon. It was Johnson and Nixon that bore the brunt of the building public dissapproval of the war. Had JFK survived to complete his term and got reelected for a second, serving that one all the way into 1969, I'm sure he'd suffer the same fate. As the war would drag on and on, with bodybags coming home by the thousands, I doubt he'd have gone down in history in anywhere near as positive a light as he seems to have. Loomis 09:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Simple one-page calendar
Does anyone know where to find a simple one page annual calendar, like this but as a regular webpage rather than as a gif? Googling "2007 calendar" doesn't seem to offer much (the above url came via Google images), and neither does Wikipedia AFAIK.--Shantavira 12:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The closest to this request I could find is this. If you can want to set up your own page, you can use this as a starting point and edit away the bits you don't need. --Lambiam Talk 15:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That's rather too many pages. Can't believe there isn't one out there. Wikipedia ought to have these IMO. I shall request it.--Shantavira 17:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What about this one? Or this one? Maybe you're just looking under the wrong search terms. GOOGLE IS YOUR FRIEND. So is the Wikipedia Google Queen


 * Dang, I knew I'd seen one somewhere. Phases of the moon to boot. Thanks Your Majesty.--Shantavira 18:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * We are welcome. Anchoress 03:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "cal 2007" is a standard *nix command that does the job. &mdash;Tamfang 05:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Royal Building
http://img138.imageshack.us/my.php?image=26ui6.jpg

Can someone please tell me which Regal building this is?


 * The Kremlin ? StuRat 17:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope definetly not..


 * Royal Pavilion. MeltBanana  19:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Damn. Beat me by a minute. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting, I never knew that type of "onion dome" design was used outside of Russia. StuRat 04:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Amazing what you can learn on Wikipedia, isn't it. JackofOz 06:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Never seen the Taj Mahal? India is full of 'm. I wonder if they are related. If so, I suppose the Indian variety will have been here first. The Russian version is called onion dome. No info there it seems. Is there a name for the Indian variety? DirkvdM 07:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Not to mention most Slavic countries, Austria, Hungary, the Baltic states, even parts of Germany have them. JackofOz 08:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * What is it with this "Image Shack" site anyway? If only they'd put a little caption underneath explaining what the particular "image" is, it would save us all a lot of time. But maybe I'm missing something...is it the point of the site to have the viewers figure out on their own what they're looking at? Loomis 19:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's just a site where people can upload images. Hence, no captions.  It's fine for this type of query. --Richardrj talkemail 10:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyone thinking that Taj Mahal has an onion dome, is recommended to take a look at an average onion. And yes, Russian onion domes predate Persian-type domes in India. -- Ghirla -трёп-  10:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There's a church with an onion dome in Wiesbaden, Germany. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"Mr. Sandman" by the Chordettes
Can anyone find out when and where (what recording studio), the song "Mr. Sandman" by the Chordettes, was recorded. I'd like to know which recording studio was used and when it was recorded. I believe the record was released in October of 1954. Any help will be appreciated.

Rod Smear

Recorded by Cadence records, owned by Archie Bleyer who was a Sheboygan WI resident, per NY Times archives at http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE2DD113CF932A15750C0A96F948260 The Chordettes were from Sheboygan as well, but Cadence records were originally headquartered on 49th Street in Manhattan per http://www.bsnpubs.com/cadence/cadencestory.html No info whether that was a recording studio or just an office. So where did he record the Chordettes? Hard to say, because he recorded the Everly Brothers in Nashville (previous cite). A small studio might set up a recorder in a church or some such location, or might rent a studio. Edison 19:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is a default judgment not enter when defendant failed to plead or answer default notice?
In a civil suit, a defendant failed to answer timely to the complaint in the 20 days period. he did not request for an extention of time or responding to the notice of default. After filing the motions, the court clerk still did not enter a default against that defendant, anyone knows why or what to do? http://rcxloan.com/Civil_Action_Motion_7.htm
 * WHICH LEGAL SYSTEM ARE YOU ASKING ABOUT? If it's foreign (not England and Wales) then there's no point in my looking at your question, as I won't have a clue. ColinFine 23:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The link he gave has United States District Court District of Massachusetts in bold letters at the top. freshofftheufo  ΓΛĿЌ  01:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no idea of the specifics in your jurisdiction but surely 20 days would be way too short to take such a drastic step as a default judgment. It could end up hitting people who were just on holiday. Courts are supposed to hear both sides of the argument even if that takes months. Jameswilson 23:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

notice of hearing was not properly documentied, so judgement was not entered, that is my guess under the circumstances.

Dubai
What is going to happen to Dubai after the world switches over to a fuel other then oil? The reason i am asking is because i see all of these sckscrapers being built in Dubai so after their oil boom is over what will happen?


 * I'm no expert, but I've heard the reason Dubai are launching a lot of construction projects is in order to concentrate on tourism in the future, if/when oil reserves run out. Sum0 21:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not just Dubai, either, many Arab countries are almost totally dependent on oil. And, as for tourism, continued terrorism will likely put an end to that dream.  I would expect many governments, which are currently financed by oil, to collapse, including Saudi Arabia. Some small countries could potentially survive by turning their country into a US or NATO military base, which seems to be the current strategy of Quatar.  However, Saudi Arabia is too large to have it's economy solely based on that.  Most of the Arabian peninsula is desert, so agriculture isn't likely to be viable.  Industry could work, but they would need to have a well established industry before the oil wealth runs out, and those governments don't appear to plan for the future enough for that. StuRat 04:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The (demand for) oil will run out, but it will most probably outlive the terrorism fad. Btw, a tourist invasion would be a much stronger westernising force than any army ever could be. Why do you think Cuba only opened up to tourism after they had no other choices left? DirkvdM 07:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ironically, most governments don't plan that far into the future (but if they don't, then who will?). In keeping with the subject, global warming is hardly being counteracted. And democracy possibly even worsens that. A dictator might plan just for the duration of his life (if that), but a democratic government will only plan for the period it is elected for. DirkvdM 07:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course none of us can predict the future with any real accuracy, but I think that the supply of oil will run out before demand runs out. (See Hubbert peak theory.) In that case, there will most likely be a severe global energy shortage, and long-distance tourism will be a thing of the past. Dubai's skyscrapers would simply rust unused.  Perhaps the lower levels will be submerged by rising sea levels.  When the oil is gone, the surviving residents of Dubai will have to try to make a living from the deserts and the sea, as their ancestors did.  Marco polo 19:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I suspect that the population has increased to a level which is no longer sustainable by the local land and sea. I see a mass exodus resulting. StuRat 04:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Dubai isn't all that long distance from Europe. Boats (cruise ships) and road transportation will take over the niche left by disappearing ariplanes. People will take less frequent but longer lasting holidays. But I suppose long distance tourism will decrease. But some people travelling further east who previously flew over the middle east will then travel through there. Not sure if Dubai will be on their route, though. That would depend on the political situation (safety) there and in countries on alternative routes. DirkvdM 06:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hold on! We've been overlooking an essential issue here. If Dubai using up all its oil is an indication of all the oil in the world having been burned then the climate will go so berserk that stuff like declining tourism will be a sidenote. Discussions on climate change usually focus on global warming (and Dubai is hot enough already, I'd say), but much more important is that the climate will become less predictable the world over. Or rather, the weather will become less predictable, meaning there will be 'less climate'. And that is a farmer's worst nightmare. Baed weather is one thing, but if it isn't clear what the overall weather is going to be like farmers won't know what to plant and bad harvests will result. Not locally, as we have seen in the past (with locally devastating results), but worldwide. This will mean serious food shortages. Now Dubai probably isn't even self-sufficient food-wise right now. They probably import most of their food. But if there is famine the world over most countries will not want to sell their food at any price and if they do the price will be so high Dubai will soon be out of funds. Of course, if they invest their money in weapons soon enough they might be able to go and get the food at gunpoint. And of course this doesn't just go for Dubai. All hell will break loose all over the world. DirkvdM 11:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well you have the worldwide devestation right, but if the Peak Oil people are right I suppose one thing we don't have to worry about is the climate, the oil will run out way before it gets much worse than it already is. Nowimnthing 20:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't forget there's a time lag. If we completely stopped burning oil now, the effects would still continue to worsen for some time. So it already is pretty bad. And oil people claim we can continue for another few decades. Considering we're burning oil much much faster now than we ever have before, it's a reasonable estimate that we're only halfway with the oil. So Add those two things up, and it's obvious things will get a whole lot worse. DirkvdM 08:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And note that running out of oil doesn't mean running out of fossil fuels. There is much more coal left now, than oil.  And burning wood causes just as much greenhouse gas emission as either oil or coal. StuRat 09:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we agree that the long-term prognosis is not good for Dubai or for many other parts of the planet. Marco polo 14:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Not as bad as for Bangladesh, however. Much of the country is already regularly flooded, and it will only get worse.  They also lack the money to do much of anything to help themselves. StuRat 08:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The wood burning doesn't add to the greenhouse gasses because the trees took those out of the atmosphere first. DirkvdM 07:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * But, if all the carbon currently sequestered in trees is released into the air over a short time period, we would not only be left with barren plains where forest and jungles used to be, but also a much higher level of CO2 in the air. StuRat 08:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Has anyone seen the programs on the Science Channel about the coming Ice Age? It's supposed to go something like this... Global Warming is creating more rain, which means the rivers pump more freshwater into the oceans. For some wierd reason I can't correctly remember (it had something to do with salt), the ocean currents will slow down and eventually stop (it can supposedly happen as early as 20 years from now), which means the world will not be warmed by water anymore. It has been proven that in previous ice ages the global currents stopped, and it has been proven that they are slowing down. In effect, the planet has a foolproof self-support system that can save it (and us), from global warming. However, this means that severe winters will be more common, especially in Britan and North America. | AndonicO 12:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I saw a program like the one you describe. However, I don't think you got it quite right.  While the Gulf Stream would be disrupted, cooling Europe, this will not cause an ice age.  The lack of a Gulf Stream would also mean that the equatorial heat which is currently distributed to Europe via the Gulf Stream will just build up until it forms severe hurricanes, which will likely cause problems in the Caribbean, Central America, Mexico, and southeastern US.  So, global warming will mean the world will have more severe climate extremes (colder in Europe, warmer in Africa, more violent in the Americas, etc.). StuRat 17:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking for the film "Flame of Persia"
Hello, I am looking for the documentry "Flame of Persia" (1971) which was the 2500 year anniversary of fthe Persian Empire. Does anyone know where I can get it? For more info on the film :

Thanks --( Aytakin ) | Talk 20:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Odeon opening song
Is the song that palys at the beginning of films in UK Odeon cinemas ssang by Robin Williams? It sounds awfully like him. I mean the one where there are sparks flying about on screen etc.

Yours, Christopher


 * Typing odeon music into google will get you an answer much quicker http://www.plasticbag.org/archives/2004/02/the_music_from_the_odeon_trailer_ident/ MeltBanana  13:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

simple subject vs. complete subject

 * ''Moved to Language'.'

Does Steve Irwin's Dad talk like Steve?
Have anyone met Steve Irwin's dad? Does he talk like his son? 202.168.50.40 23:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think so, I saw him on the show one time. — [ Mac Davis ] (talk) ( Desk | Help me improve )
 * I saw him on TV the other night, talking about his relationship with his son. Seems like a normal down to earth Aussie guy.  He was nowhere near as super enthusiastic as Steve was about most everything.  (He never once said "crikey".)  But he was obviously subdued given the circumstances, so maybe he's different normally.  JackofOz 10:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused about the question. Are we talking about Irwin's Australian accent, or about the fact that he's always sounded as though he drank seventeen double-espressos before each scene was shot? Loomis 19:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm refering to Steve Irwin's own words sounds like he is on permanent high on drugs or something. Maybe he drank 6 cans of red bull before each scene.

To build a piano
If I ended up in an alternate universe, and wanted to build a piano from scratch, in and place alike the "Wild West" era of the United States, how would I go about proceeding? — [ <em style="font-family:Times; color:#006600; cursor:crosshair;">Mac Davis ] (talk) ( Desk | Help me improve )
 * I think it would be easier to build the railroad tracks and haul in the piano from an East Coast factory. Durova 00:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but I don't think the East Coast factory exists in this particular alternate Wild West universe. freshofftheufo  ΓΛĿЌ  01:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, you'd need mostly wood and wire. Find a forest, chop down some old growth trees, put them through the lumber yard.  Dig holes in the ground until you strike ore.  Curse when it turns out to be iron instead of silver.  Take ore to the blacksmith to make into wire.  Head to the saloon for a shot of whiskey.  Drop back by the lumber yard.  Buy a load of tools and nails at the general store.  Head to your sod house and whittle away at the wood until dusk.  Visit your buddies at the saloon again and play a few hands of poker.  Next morning pick up the wire.  Dadgummit, you can't string a piano with barbed wire!  Dig more iron out of your hole in the ground.  Whittle at your piano case some more.  Feeling hung over the next morning you visit the blacksmith again and discover your latest lump of ore got turned into horseshoes.  This won't work at all.  But wait!  The solution to your problems was under your nose all the while...amble back to the saloon and buy their piano.  Problem solved. Durova 02:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Reminds me of what Carl Sagan said about making an apple pie from first principles: "First, create the universe". JackofOz 02:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I forgot to say there is no knowledge of the concept of a piano. So, it isn't really possible? You expect to make piano wires out of iron? Is that what they're made of? The blacksmith couldn't make wire could he? I guess he could because they made barbed wire back then. — [ <em style="font-family:Times; color:#006600; cursor:crosshair;">Mac Davis ] (talk) ( Desk | Help me improve )


 * If you want an exact copy of modern day pianos, the strings aren't the biggest problem. The hammer mechanism is quite complex and if you don't have schematics for it you'll have to come up with the principle, and that won't be easy. The strings can be improvised with other types of string (cat gut?), but that may seriously change the sound. And then you'd have to figure out how to combine two or three strings for one key, and I'm not sure how that works. I don't have an acoustic piano handy. Which harmonics are they tuned in? Piano string doesn't give the answer (although it give the useful suggestion of using tlegraph wire - surely your wild west has that?). And Piano acoustics oddly doesn't give the answer either. DirkvdM 08:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

They have guitars don't they? Harps? Banjos? (or at least little dulcimers or mandolins?) If they have plectra and the strings therefore, and the concept of different lengths and tensions to make notes in a scale, then build a solid wooden table/sounding board, have the guitar maker build a set of tuned strings, add keys attached by simple levers to pluckers (crow quills), and you have yourself a fine harpsichord. I have known many people who have built their own harpsichords, and none who have built their own piano. Per http://www.hpschd.nu/index.html?nav/nav-4.html&t/welcome.html&http://www.hpschd.nu/tech/str/break.html the strings can be steel, soft iron or brass. It's hard to imagine the Wild West without metals: A technology which can make shootin' irons, badges for the marshall, iron rims for stagecoach wheels, telegraph wires, spurs, branding irons, skillets and jail bars can make all the harpsichord wire you want. Wire drawing is a skill practiced very early in any primitive society which is able to produce metal at all, even if they use the wire to make decorative items. Honky tonk saloon harpsichord playing is quite imaginable: the honkytonk piano sound is sometimes achieved by putting thumbtacks in the felt hammers of a piano (don't try this at home) to simulate the sound of hammers with the felt worn off. You might start with a virginal which was a small harpsichord (no jokes please.) It would be a bit implausible for someone who was not familiar with the construction and intimate details of a piano to build one before the technology of the harpsichord existed, like inventing TV and cell phones before telegraphs, or atom bombs before cannons.Edison 16:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The tin was invented before the tin opener. And the metal wasn't the flimsy stuff that we're used to either. Opening tins in the mid 19th century was a dangerous job that ruined your cutlery.
 * Back to the subject. Wouldn't guitar string be too short? And there proabably wouldn't be enough variation in thickness to make enough notes. DirkvdM 06:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That would come with time. The piano didn't come out of the horses arse fully grown. Start with a single guitar string and keep on improving it for a few hundred years until you get a piano. freshofftheufo  ΓΛĿЌ  06:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)