Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 September 4

= September 4 =

there was a battle of world war 2 the was balanced??
It would help us if you stated your question a little more clearly. JackofOz 02:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

For example if a take the battle fo ww2, and look at the numbers of soldiers that were there, types of tanks, ships, and planes, what weapons the soldiers where using..... What batlle you should call that was balanced, (counting this and others aspects of the battle).


 * Nope. I still cant get it! 8-(--Light current 03:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think he wants to know 'Which individual battle in WW2 was the most evenly balanced, with each side posessing the same level of firepower and manpower?'. That said, I haven't a clue of the answer.  --Mnem e son 03:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, is this that I was talking about.

Battle of the bulge ?--Light current 03:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The question is actually a lot tougher than it seems. There's much more involved than simple troop numbers, artillery power, etc. Often these factors take a back seat to far more important factors like training, strategy, technological superiority, troop morale, positioning, weather, the differing level of losses tolerable by either side, the differing willingness of each side to violate the "rules of war" etc. These factors play an enormous part in who wins and who loses. For example, one side could have a 10 million troops with a million pieces of artillery, each with a range of 5km. The other side can have only 100,000 troops, and only 10,000 pieces of artillery, each one with a range of 10km. In this situation, though one army may be outmanned and outgunned 100 to 1, they may still have a better chance of winning. All they'd have to do is stay put, out of range of the enemy. But this may be a bit of an oversimplification.


 * Perhaps a better example is the German/Soviet battle for the eastern front. Certain elements were clearly in favour of the Germans, and certain others in favour of the Soviets. The Soviets ultimately won for a variety of reasons, most having little to do with the raw "power" of each respective army. Perhaps the Germans may have had superiour firepower, better troop morale, better training, better troop discipline, better strategy, the element of surprise, etc. Yet the Soviets had a higher tolerance for casualties, and were far better acquainted with the field of battle. Apparently, the Germans had neglected to take into account such factors as the extreme cold, as well as the geographical fact that Russia was so massive that the maintenance of a link for resupply of essentials was far more difficult than they had originally calculated. These are examples of the main factors that determine who wins and who loses, far more important than raw troop numbers etc. As such it would be impossible to determine which battle was the most balanced. The number of variables is far too numerous. Loomis 01:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You said: "determine which battle was the most balanced. The number of variables is far too numerous." I dont want the most balanced just one or more balanced battles of ww2, donest need to be the most balanced one.


 * In that case any battle that lasted more than a few days would qualify as balanced. That would be pretty much all of them. Perhaps a better question would be: "please name some of the very few completely one-sided battles fought in WWII". All that comes to mind (and depending if you would even call these "battles" in any sense of the word because in some cases they were so one sided that the other side didn't even put up a fight) would be Hitler's early "conquests" in the Rheinland, Austria, the Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium and his rather quick victory over France. Most of the rest of the battles, (in Europe,) the ones that lasted weeks or even months would seem to be rather "balanced". Loomis 21:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Midway. B00P 00:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Number of Humans Since the Beginning
I am looking for an approximate figure of the number of human beings who have lived since the beginning of time. Thank you. ƒˆ®´∫ˆ®∂†∑ø


 * This question has been asked here before. It was either 10 billion people have ever lived, or 10 billion people have died. I think that 10 billion is the total of everyone who has ever lived, including the 6 billion alive today.  Viva  La   V  i  e   Boheme! 


 * It depends on how you define "human being", but it's definitely larger than 10 billion, probably about 100 billion. See and . —Keenan Pepper 06:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "36 billion" is in my head from somewhere, possibly Cecil Adams. &mdash;Tamfang 06:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't find the previous discussion on this, but one big question was what you consider to be 'living'. Very few fertilised eggs make it to birth. So if you exclude abortions and stillbirths that would make a huge difference. Also, the number of babies that didn't make it to their third year is probably greater than the number that did. This has been largely solved in most parts of the world (except much of Africa), resulting in the overpopulation we have now. DirkvdM 08:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You are asking the wrong question. A much better question to ask is the reverse question of how many human have been born from today going back to point X in the past. This question does not require the definition of what is a human. As you strext point X further and further into the past, you would probably find a large but fixed number. Ohanian 22:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be easy to look at the world population today and overestimate the total number who have ever lived. See.Integrate under a theoretical growth curve (exponential? geometric?) to find the area. Here are the data which came with it: year      world population (millions) -10000  4 -8000    5 -7000    5 -6000    5 -5000    5 -4000    7 -3000   14 -2000   27 -1000   50 -750    60 -500   100 -400    160 -200    150 0       170 200     190 400     190 500     190 600     200 700     210 800     220 900     226 1000    310 1100    301 1200    360 1250    400 1300    360 1340    443 1400    350 1500    425 1600    545 1650    470 1700    600 1750    790 1800    980 1850    1260 1900    1650 1910    1750 1920    1860 1930    2070 1940    2300 1950    2400 1960    3020 1970    3700 1974    4000 1980    4430 1987    5000 1990    5260 2000    6070 Analyses of genetic variabliity hint at a very small population of modern humans tens of thousands of years ago. What I like to see is a clear exposition of the assumptions and the error limits on the estimate. Edison 19:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Paul Davies in About Time page 260 says "about 10% of people who have ever lived are living now" This would mean about 60 billion, but I haven't checked the references cited above by Keenan Pepper, so that looks like a good place to check. Just thought I'd pop this in as an extra curiosity. The Mad Echidna 21:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Like I meant to point out before, that's the population at a given moment, which excludes those who would have lived at that moment if they would not have died as a child. Until about 150 years ago that was a considerable amount (though I don't know how many precisely). Also, say the population was on average 150 million between 1000 and 2000. With an average lifespan of 50 years that would mean 3 billion people (counting in the childbirths would more than double that). Suppose this is exponential with an exponent of 2 (I hope I'm saying this right :) ), then there would be that number for every doubling, so that would then be 30 billion for the last 1024 times 1000 years. That's just one million years. The human article speaks of 6.5 million years of evolution (separate from chimps). So that would bring the total number close to 100 billion. This is assuming the average human life span has always been 50 years. DirkvdM 07:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my answer above was incorrect. Integrating the population curve would only give "people years" and an answer for the people who lived would require factoring in the lifespan of stone age hunter gatherers, then the lifespan of early farmers, then the lifespan during the great early empires etc, etc, with the industrial revolution and modern medicine producing longer lifespan in the developed countries. In the 20th century the world population increased because people kept having about as many children as they did when infant mortality was extreme. But in developed countries, the birth rate drops to actually achieve negative population growth. Edison 14:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Regions of the United States
Which 2 states make up the Pacific Northwest?

Which state has the largest population in the Pacific Region?


 * The Pacific Northwest is generally considered to be Oregon and Washington. I would imagine that California has the highest in the entire Pacific region. If you meant just the Pacific Northwest, I would have to say Washington, since it has Seattle, Spokane and Olympia. Though Oregon has Portland and Salem, that is probably not enough to out do Washington. A good idea, though would be to look at the articles of Oregon and Washington (state). Glad to be able to do you homework for you.  Viva  La   V  i  e   Boheme! 


 * What? do these kids sleep thro the lessons or what?--Light current 04:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If you're not paying for them you do. — [ Mac Davis ] (talk) ( Desk | Help me improve )


 * See Pacific Northwest. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

BIRTHDAYS
Hi, can u recommend any sites where u can find birthdays of celebs or famous people! THANKS JON
 * How about here on Wikipedia? Just type in their name (with capitalization) and hit 'Go'. If we know their birthday, it's usually in the first line of the article. - Mgm|(talk) 08:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If you're interested in who was born on a particular day, September 4th say, you just type 'September 4' in the search box and hit 'Go'. Then scroll down to Births to see who was born on that day. ---Sluzzelin 10:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * http://www.famousbirthdays.com/ --Proficient 03:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Mesopotamian "kids these days" tablet
In the past few years I remember seeing various mentions (e-mails, internet forum posts, and just random statements from people) of a supposed ancient clay tablet from some early Mesopotamian civilization (I think it's most often "Sumerian," but lots of people get those details confuse) that supposedly is a rant equivalent to the modern day "kids are worthless layabouts" speech. Reportedly it complains about how children didn't respect their parents and were all criminals and so on and so forth. Try as I might, however, I can't find any legitimate source. Does anyone know if this is real, or if it is one of the many wild internet stories that regularly circulate? Eteq 08:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It sounds like it's made up, to me. Writing was difficult enough back then, using clay tablets, that you wouldn't do it unless you had something more important to say. StuRat 09:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no difficulty believing this. The realization that civilization is going to go down the drains due to the undisciplined character of youths is a message of the utmost concern and importance, and no efforts must be spared to get it out. --Lambiam Talk 09:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I wonder if it's related to something that went around in emails about 15 years ago. It was a polemic about worthless teenagers, with the punchline 'Who do you think wrote it? Not Nancy Reagan, not Jerry Falwell, but...' either Socrates or Aristotle, can't remember which. It was very funny, I wonder if it was apocryphal? Might have been Plato. Anchoress 10:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There are numerous apocryphal quotes of this kind floating around online. Some are attributed to Sumerian clay tablets, some to ancient Egyptian priests. Similarly, I found one pessimistic quote regarding youth on four different websites with four different alleged authors (Socrates(?), Plato, Aristotle, Hesiod). I'm sure there have always been people complaining about youth. But enlightened and educated people usually have more to say than just some unspecific rant. What about the famous quote "Youth is (truly?) wasted on the young"? Usually it's attributed to GBS, but I've seen Oscar Wilde given as its author too.---Sluzzelin 10:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Extended to 'Life is wasted on the living...' by a Ghost in The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, also something like 'The denunciation of the morals of the young is a necessary part of the hygeine of the old' by Tacitus I think. Rentwa 11:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I like to have quotations ready for every occasion. —They give one's ideas so pat, and save one the trouble of finding expression adequate to one's feelings.
 * — Robert Burns, letter to Agnes McLehose, 14th January 1788 MeltBanana  15:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * A Roman author expressed similar sentiments - it may have been Cicero.

I remember hearing this being quoted back in the 50's. The punchline was - ha, ha - it was written by some ancient Greek.

Of course, the guy never said that it was the end of the world or that humanity was on the brink of destruction, just that civilization was collapsing. And he was right. Ancient Greek civilization did collapse shortly thereafter.

Sure, somebody will come along to run things, it just won't be the ones who have been doing it. From the time of Phillip of Macedon, Greece wasn't independent again for over two thousand years. B00P 01:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Stupid Roman Roads
Why on earth are there Roman Roads in Scotland??? (there are according to this webpage (which is a link from the wikipedia page on 'roman roads in scotland'): http://www.romans-in-britain.org.uk/map_romans_roads_in_britain.htm) Well i thought that the Romand never went into Scotland because of those nasty, un-civillized Scots, or Picks or whatever so why are their roads up there? I dont suppose there there because of trade as they wernt the freindliest people to eachover and if the scots just coppied the idea and building tekniques (oh no i cant remember how to spell!) then they wont be roman roads. Also the Roads are concentrated in the boarders and the glasgow, edingburgh area but theres a stretch near perth ( so obviously they havent just got a bit lost! ) And also again the map says something about the roman towns (or roman activitie in them) and there are lots in scotland.

thankyou...--84.69.73.1 10:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's strange. I know the Romans build Hadrian's wall to keep those Scots out. This is a map:  It's definitely more southern than cities like Glasgow.... Maybe they built those roads, but it the end they realized that they couldn't handle those tribes and gave up some of their ground?  Evilbu 13:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Basically, yes.


 * "Although the Romans had failed to conquer Caledonia they attempted to maintain control through military outposts and built a few roads. They were eventually forced to withdraw, admitting that Rome was too distant to maintain any presence in such a strong nation."
 * History_of_Scotland


 * TheMadBaron 13:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The Romans certainly pushed much further into Scotland than Hadrian's wall, there is the Antonine Wall which encompasses most of the other roads. Also historians don't usually think of Hadrian's wall as a barrier to stop anyone, more of a way to control trade. MeltBanana  14:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * See also Roman Britain. --Shantavira 14:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Communism/Nazism
On an Internet forum, I saw someone using a signature picture titled "Communist Prinny", and sporting a penguin with a Nazi armband saying "Nein, dood!". Now AFAIK communism and nazism are different things. Not only is communism a left-wing and nazism a right-wing ideology, but weren't they also direct enemies at some point? This makes me think that whoever drew the picture only knows that both of them are "those evil thingies in Europe" and got them mixed up. J I P | Talk 11:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The signature picture is borrowed from the video game Disgaea: Hour of Darkness. I agree that equaling communists to Nazis is careless. But you'd have to ask the creator Takehito Harada. ---Sluzzelin 12:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it was photoshopped in by another person, which means asking the original creator of the work is fairly useless. (However, if he knew about the association and didn't like it, he could probably sue that person to the ground.)  ColourBurst 04:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well it is often said that they are two extremes actually touching each other (both representing totalitarianism and repression). (German Nazis and Soviet communists did fight bloody battles in the Second World War, but amazingly they had a non-agression pact before that)....Or maybe the creator was indeed ignorant....Evilbu 12:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It does show you how seriously people take communism nowadays though. freshofftheufo  ΓΛĿЌ  14:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a good point. Yes, Hitler did actually have communists exterminated in concentration camps. However, for some reason, people always associate the two. Most people get dictatorship and communism confused and incorrectly use it interchangeably. You are, indeed, right. Nazis were direct enemies with communists, and Nazis are not communists.  Viva  La   V  i  e   Boheme! 


 * Remember that Nazis were "National Socialists". Lots of people equate Socialism with Communism.  User:Zoe|(talk) 23:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's true, communism and Nazism were at odds with each other and it would be a mistake to confuse the two. However, I can't agree with the comment that "most people get dictatorship and communism confused and incorrectly use it interchangeably". While confusing communism with Nazism is an obvious mistake, I wouldn't say the same about confusing communism with dictatorship, as every communist regime that has ever existed has been a dictatorship as well. True, the two words have distinct meanings, but to assume that a communist state is a dictatorship wouldn't be all that innacurate at all. Loomis 00:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Aren't you feeding a troll here? (Unbeknownst to him, so I don't know if this counts.) No-one in their right mind would mix up Nazism and Communism. Then again, he also mixed up German ('nein') and Dutch ('dood'), so maybe he is indeed a bit simple. DirkvdM 06:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That thought occurred to me too, but I think dood is "dude", as opposed to the Dutch for "dead". --   the     GREAT     Gavini   15:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Green Knight
In English literature, we can find the story of king Arthur and the Green Knight. The Green Knight was called such because he was all green. Can anyone tell me if it's true that his eyes were red? Therefore, he wasn'tentirely green. Thank you in advance for your answer.


 * There is no mention of red eyes in the poem.--Shantavira 18:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you sure this isn't a homework question. Ah well if it is I would urge you to read the poem, even in translation, there are some top quality naughty bits later in the work.
 * 304 and runischly his rede yȝen he reled aboute
 * It also mentions gold spurs and thread so no he wasn't all green. MeltBanana  22:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Many times it is used kind of a like an expression. "He was all green" may refer to the fact that he was almost entirely green. --Proficient 03:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The poem doesn't mention his eyes specifically. Gawain's horse is tricked out in red. B00P 01:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Democracy in America, by Alexis De Tocqueville
What is the signifance and relavancy of this writing?
 * To show you how to do your own homework. J I P  | Talk 16:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Must...refrain...from repeating my previous reply to a homework question which connected Fort Boyard, the Monty Python Killer Rabbit, Stonehenge, the Great Fire of the London and the disappearance of the great supercontinent. Evilbu 21:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * But that answer kicked @$$! It totally put mine to shame ;-)  --Mnem e son 21:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you perhaps the nameless user who replied then?Evilbu 22:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If you mean the IP address one, then no, I log in and sign all of my contributions. --Mnem e son 23:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

poetic meter
I am wondering how to determine the meter of a poem which contains lines with 1/2 of a foot. Does one call it the shorter meter (trimeter) which counts only the full feet or is it called the longer meter (tetrameter) which counts the partial foot? 207.155.33.174 17:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Jo Anne Bennett, [e-mail removed]


 * Can you give an example? In normal tetrameter, each line has four metrical feet. Are you saying most lines have 4 feet but some only 0.5 foot? Or 3½? In hexameter the feet have different syllabic lengths (dactyls and spondees), but they all count equally. --Lambiam Talk 22:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you mean something like 'Tyger, tyger burning bright'? I would call this a trochaic tetrameter catalectic. Maid Marion 15:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

World War ll Symbols
my daughter and I are having a hard time finding any site about the symbols of world war two. She needs alot for a project. What are all the most important symbols ? Is there a place online to find them? Thanks a lot!Khen95 17:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you mean symbols as in graphics, logos etc. or do you mean metaphorical symbols? --Kiltman67 18:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

We need symbols as in graphics, logos etc. Thanks


 * Well the obvious things are things like the Swastika. Another good one would be things like propaganda posters. --Kiltman67 18:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's Wikimedia's poster collection from World War II. ---Sluzzelin 19:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The Nazi's made the people they persecuted wear special symbols. For example, Jews had to wear a yellow star of David, homosexual men had an inverted pink triangle, and homosexual women had an inverted black triangle. Do we have the full list in Wikipedia ? StuRat 02:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Nazi concentration camp badges ---Sluzzelin 08:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The Iron Cross springs to mind as well as the Flag of Japan. Let's not forget that there was a large portion of the war fought on the Pacific side of the planet as well.    Dismas|(talk) 13:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * the double lightning bolts 'SS' of the Schutzstaffel. Philc  TECI 13:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Speaking of the Pacific battle, the raising the Flag on Iwo Jima is definitely up there. (but before you send your daughter to that article, I'm hoping that someone will please clean up the obvious vandalism...I'll try but I'm not sure I know how). Christ! This is an Encyclopedia, dammit! Loomis 21:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Are there any specifics that you are looking for, or are you in need of general WWII symbols? Because otherwise, the above suggestions should be fit. --Proficient 03:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Cross of Lorraine=symbol of French resistance,British Bull dog,Churchill's v-for-victory sign,RAF red ,white and blue roundels on aircraft wings,Dig for Victory posters-any help?hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 20:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

The building of Taj Mahal
The Taj Mahal was built in honor of the king's wife, but was the architect who built it "rewarded" by having his eyes pulled out and possibly his hands crushed, or was this a different building?
 * I don't know about the eyes and it all seems to be more legend than documented history. Having said that, check out Taj_mahal. ---Sluzzelin 20:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, apart from the hands, that sounds a lot like Saint Basil's Cathedral in Moscow. The tsar, Ivan the Terrible, didn't want him to design a more beautiful building.Evilbu 21:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It says that he was blinded. --Proficient 03:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Would that this happened to many architects from the 60's BEFORE they built the evil concrete slabs that disgrace our cities-hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 20:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

Persistent USA president refuses to give up and keeps trying to make Congress approve his Bill
Hello,

this could be a dumb question, but as far as I understand the USA system, the president has to propose a bill, then the House and then the Senate have to approve it, before he can sign it. But what stops the president from simply...proposing his bill over and over again? I mean : does a majority of NAY's in the Senate or the House also imply that the same bill cannot be proposed again for a certain number of months? Thanks!Evilbu 23:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the president of the United States cannot propose a law - only a member of congress can do that. The president can certainly urge, bully, or persuade, (and can veto a bill that has been passed) but s/he cannot directly propose a bill. Z iggurat 23:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Your presumptions are wrong! Bills are introduced by Congressmen or Senators. The president can't introduce a bill. Even if he prevails upon a compliant senator to keep reintroducing the bill, there's no guarantee it will ever get out of committee; if it's just a repeat it's pretty much guaranteed not to, unless the political realities have changed dramatically in the meantime. Hundreds of bills are introduced each year and die at the end of the session as they've never been voted out of committee. So reintroduction wouldn't automatically mean reconsideration. - Nunh-huh 23:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What is this committee you mention? And what about the resolution to go to war in Iraq in 2003? (or should I not compare acts with bills and resolutions,...) Thanks!Evilbu 23:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Whichever committee the proposed bill got sent to. The Iraq resolution, for example, was sponsored by Dennis Hastert (and dozens of others); the House International Relations Committee was the relevant one in this case. Acts, bills, resolutions, all the same sort of thing. The President certainly can and does ask for bills, and they'll generally get introduced if he (or someday, she) wants them, but the President has no official role in regard to legislative actions until the bills are approved by both houses. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I should learn more about those committees then, they are quite powerful as they are the first people able to block such a proposal. So if the president finds no senator or representative his proposal will never be executed?  But in a sense, replacing the president with that member of congress, it is possible for him to keep proposing the same?.... And does this have anything to do with how Ralph Regula's persistent behaviour keeps blocking any move to rename Mount McKinley?Evilbu 23:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A member of Congress introduces his proposed legislation as a bill
 * other members of congress can add their names as cosponsors
 * the bill is given a number when it is introduced (for the House, it starts H.R.; for the Senate, it starts S.)
 * The bill is then referred to a committee with jurisdiction over the primary issue of the legislation. Sometimes it is referred to a subcommittee, or to multiple committees.
 * The chairman of the committee decides if there will be a hearing (with the possibility of amendments). Usually a subcommittee holds the hearing, and the full committee decides whether to vote the bill out of committee for floor debate, and issues a committee report with the text of the bill as amended and a recommendation.
 * Once the bill is voted out of committee, it will be debated and brought to a vote if and only if the Speaker of the House (or the Majority Leader of the Senate) decides to do so.
 * If it passes this vote, the bill is referred to the other chamber, where it repeats the above process. The other chamber may approve the bill as received, reject it, ignore it, or amend it before passing it.
 * If only minor changes have taken place before passage by the second chamber, the legislation is once again voted on (a concurring vote) by the first chamber. If major changes have occurred, a conference committee is assigned the task of reconciling the two versions into a single bill. If the conference committee can't do so, the legislation dies. The conference committee's report must be voted on again by both House and Senate; if either rejects the report, the bill dies; if both approve, the final bill is referred to the President for action (signature or veto).
 * If he signs it, it become law; if he vetoes it, it doesn't unless Congress votes by a 2/3 majority to override it.
 * That's the way it's supposed to work. In practice, if the House leadership is behind a bill, they can bring it to the floor as soon as it gets off the printing press. To get back to the original question, my guess is that something in the rules of the two chambers prevents a member from reintroducing legislation in the same two-year session of Congress. However, nothing stops members from reintroducing a failed bill after the next election. Some bills are proposed several times before becoming law. -- Mwalcoff 00:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * So lots of people can block a bill, starting at the committee level, and proceding up the chain to the Speaker or Majority Leader. That's why committee positions and the offices mentioned are powerful. I don't know about Regula; he keeps introducing a bill about the mountain, but the fact that it has to be reintroduced is evidence that it doesn't get very far. Clearly his proposed law doesn't actually block anything yet, since it's only proposed.  - Nunh-huh 00:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, here's the deal with the mountain. The president can't make statutes. However, his administration can make regulations and do other things Congress allows it to do. Congress long ago granted the administration (specifically, the US Board on Geographic Names, which is under the Interior Department and, ultimately, the president) the authority to name landmarks. However, Congress can revoke or restrict that authority. In this case, Regula, who represents William McKinley's hometown of Canton, Ohio, wants to prohibit the administration from renaming the mountain. If Regula's bill was to pass, the Board on Geographic Names would be unable to rename the mountain until Congress repealed the law. -- Mwalcoff 01:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Irish monks
Hi, Wikipedia. I read somewhere that Irish monks, using lightweight boats, made contact with North America before the Vikings did. Is this true? Partisan 5 23:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Opinions differ; it seems unlikely and without much evidential support. See St. Brendan. - Nunh-huh 23:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You mean coracles?--Light current 02:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * More likely currach--Downunda 06:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I know someone repeated the St.Brendan voyage successfully-hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 20:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

His name is Tim Severin. See his book, The Brendan Voyage. B00P 01:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)