Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 February 16

= February 16 =

Animal rights in Islam and other religions
I came across some Islamic scriptures that preach about being nice to cats and dogs. Could you point me to a resource (either a Wikipedia article or an external essay) that talks about the concept of animal rights from an Islamic perspective?

And a second question: Can you point me to some other scriptures from Abrahamic religions that encourage humans to treat animals with respect?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * For the first question, see Islam and animals.  Corvus cornix  talk  02:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that is just the type of thing I was looking for. I am also looking for material on the treatment of animals from various Judaic and Christian traditions (I am interested in what--if anything--very old texts have to say about the subject, not contemporary theologians).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Old Testament: Deuteronomy 25:4 "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when it treads out the grain" (referred to in the New Testament: 1 Timothy 5:18 and 1 Corinthians 9:9). In a rather loose contemporary application, we [Jews] teach our children to see to the wellbeing of (i.e.feed and water) the household pets before the rest of the family eats.  -- Deborahjay (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Also from the Old Testament, Proverbs 12:11 - "The just man takes care of his beast, but the heart of the wicked is merciless." Vultur (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Judaism is rather strict on animal welfare, rendering unfit for consumption animal flesh from an animal that suffered during slaughter, to the extent that even the tiniest nick in the slaughterer's knife invalidates the meat. Other examples include strict instruction to help even one's enemy if their beast of burden is struggling under its load, not yoking animals that do and don't chew the cud together (the one that doesn't thinks that the other is being fed more), sending away the mother bird before taking her eggs etc etc. Perhaps most notable of all, is in Judaism's view of the most essential commands of all, the seven Noahide laws that are incumbent on non-Jews, one of the seven refers to treatment of animals. --Dweller (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this neutral monism, panpsychism, or what?
I've heard of a theory, but I can't pin down its exact name. It asserts that:

1. Objects can exist independently from people's minds.

2. Objects aren't fundamentally physical (extended in space), but can appear that way to us.

3. Objects have the potential to become minds.

What's this theory called?

Thank you. Steohawk (talk) 05:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What you have presented is not exactly panpsychism, which holds that mind is ubiquitous: that there is a mental aspect to everything.
 * Nor is it exactly neutral monism, a theory due to Bertrand Russell according to which there is only one kind of stuff, and it is variously described in physical or in mental terms. It never got very far, and Russell's own relation to it was ambiguous and wavering. Recently David Chalmers has attempted to resurrect it in support of his rather idiosyncratic but heuristically useful brand of dualism.
 * Perhaps you should go and look at monads, which are Leibniz's theoretical innovation: at least they come close to meeting your second criterion especially well, since they are not extended in space but may "appear" that way. They are at the base of all created reality, and they all have perceptual properties and appetites. No one believes in them!
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 09:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought about monads, including your last statement about nobody believing in them. Monads go far beyond my theory and into a realm of wackiness. Basically, my first and third criteria are compatible with emergent materialism. The difference is my second criteria, which asserts that objects may appear physical, but are actually very different. A helpful metaphor would be to imagine a virtual world, where things appear physical, but are actually computer code.

If you're wondering, I have arguments which assert that the existence of the mind is absolutely incompatible with our conception of physical matter, whether identical to or separate from the brain. However, I also believe that there are problems with the belief that objects are mind-dependent. Steohawk (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What is labelled emergent materialism at that article looks like a sophomoric exercise, mustering some semblance of weight and respectability by conjoining two terms that are weighty in their own right. That's what I'd say, from a glance around that spurious little article, and elsewhere. My advice: think long and hard about what it is to be physical, in the first place. Many philosophers just assume that this is established, but that's a mistake. You can't simply take spatial or temporal properties as fundamental, and attempt to define the physical in terms of them. A question for you to ponder (though not here, perhaps): Shouldn't whatever is involved in cause and effect be allowed as physical?
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 00:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Crowley's Confessions
Where can I read some commentary on and interpretations of the following passage from the Confessions of Aleister Crowley?


 * Two main events were destined to put me on the road towards myself. The first took place in Stockholm about midnight of December 31st, 1896. I was awakened to the knowledge that I possessed a magical means of becoming conscious of and satisfying a part of my nature which had up to that moment concealed itself from me. It was an experience of horror and pain, combined with a certain ghostly terror, yet at the same time it was the key to the purest and holiest spiritual ecstasy that exists. At the time, I was not aware of the supreme importance of the matter. It seemed to me little more than a development of certain magical processes with which I was already familiar. It was an isolated experience, not repeated until exactly twelve months later, to the minute. But this second occasion quickened my spirit, always with the result of "loosening the girders of the soul", so that my animal nature stood rebuked and kept silence in the presence of the immanent divinity of the Holy Ghost; omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, yet blossoming in my soul as if the entire forces of the universe from all eternity were concentrated and made manifest in a single rose.

The article at Aleister Crowley says the event described above was a "homo-erotic experience (Crowley's first) that brought him what he considered 'an encounter with an immanent deity.'" But if this was indeed a sexual encounter, who was it with, what acts took place, and how did Crowley come to regard it as spiritual and link it to his "animal nature" and an "immanent divinity"? Neon Merlin  06:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Septuagint the first translation of a religious text?
Is the Septuagint the earliest translation of a people's sacred text (take that however you want) in to another language? Sjmcfarland (talk) 07:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably not. The Romans translated Etruscan texts, didn't they? Adam Bishop (talk) 08:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Almost certainly not. If we take the Epic of Gilgamesh as a religious text, it is reasonable to say that it was "translated" from Sumerian into Akkadian more than 1000 years before the Septuagint was produced. We should suspect that other texts were translated in Mesopotamia, too. A specialist will know.
 * I have changed the title of this section, because someone who knows the answer may easily miss the question otherwise. (You might catch a Mesopotamian scholar who knows nothing about the Septuagint.)
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 09:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not getting why the Epic of Gilgamesh should be considered a religious text. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 12:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to be post-creation but is still a (semi-human) hero's tale of tangling with the gods, so that probably makes it 'sacred'. Julia Rossi (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Religious text? The questioner proposed that we "take that however we want". It is not unreasonable at all to consider this work a religious text. It is full of stories of gods and heroes, the getting of wisdom, and deep primal myths like that of a universal flood. The very same sort of material turns up in Genesis (part of the Septuagint, eventually). The Wikipedia article is included in the category "Ancient Semitic religions", with good reason. A reference in that article is Jacobsen, Thorkild (1976) The Treasures of Darkness, A History of Mesopotamian Religion, New Haven: Yale University Press, ISBN 0-300-01844-4.
 * Angr, do you think that the Book of Exodus, if it were discovered in isolation and not canonised, would be readily classified as a sacred text, a religious text? How about the Song of Solomon?
 * What are the sacred texts of the Greeks? Do they include the Iliad and the Odyssey?
 * Hmmm.
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 12:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The Ten Commandments are introduced in Exodus. Does the Epic of Gilgamesh include instructions from Sumerian gods on how to live that the Sumerians incorporated into their religion? I wouldn't consider the Iliad and Odyssey religious texts. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 12:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it does not include such instructions. So is that essential to a text being religious, that there be commandments? I notice that you didn't answer my question about the Song of Songs. Is it a religious text? Would it be one, if it had not "accidentally" found its way into the Judaeo-Christian canon? You also did not answer concerning what the sacred texts of the Greeks were. Did they have any? The Homeric texts were esteemed as of great and exemplary moral significance, and dealt with the gods that were central to Greek religion. Why do they not count? I don't ask because I have ready answers, but because the questions are interesting and difficult, and need to be addressed if we are to answer the question posed in this section.
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 14:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think the Song of Songs would count as a religious text in isolation. Neither would the Book of Esther, which famously doesn't even mention God. I don't know whether including instructions incorporated into the religion is a necessary condition for being considered a religious text, but it's probably a sufficient condition. As for the Greeks, I don't know if any texts that have been preserved are religious texts. The Homeric Hymns maybe? —Angr If you've written a quality article... 14:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So we're still without a principled definition of religious text or sacred text, aren't we? That makes it hard to answer the original question. Procedurally, the way forward might be to propose candidate answers like Gilgamesh, and let the questioner choose which will meet the definition. Anyway, many seem to include Gilgamesh, and many exclude it, as a quick look around the web shows. I wonder if they are working with principled definitions, or with any definitions at all?
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 00:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answers. The Septuagint is a translation of texts that clearly form the core of Hebrew/Jewish religious practice. It doesn't seem that any of the other suggested answers, including the Epic of Gilgamesh, can be shown to have been as central to a group's religion. I asked the question in broader terms than that to see what would arise. Sjmcfarland (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The Library of Alexandria by royal order made copies of the books aboard all ships visiting the port, and also purchased books from countries all over the then-known world. In particular, they made translations of the religious and historical books from Babylon and Egypt. The Hebrew scriptures were by no means unique. Edison (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Gladstone liberals
Gladstone both shaped and almost destroyed the Liberal party. How true is this statement?86.148.39.223 (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Partially true...I guess you could look at William Gladstone, read the materials that you've doubtlessly been provided by your tutor/school (since this is phrased exactly like a homework question) and also try look around online for stuff on the Liberal Party (UK). This site (http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/) might be of use - particularly this section of the site (http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/person.php?person_id=261). Good luck - sounds like a more interesting assignment than my current one! ny156uk (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In fact I personally think the statement may be entirely true! Gladstone was both the best and the worst thing that could have happened to a party, evolving from the old-style Whigs into the new-style Liberals.  A man of great stature and considerable public appeal, he was nevertheless, within his own ranks, uncollegiate and unpopular, eccentric and overbearing.  In essence the problem can be traced back to the fall of Robert Peel, Gladstone's political mentor, an event which had a profound effect on the young politician.  It was to create in his mind a considerable distrust in party, and a belief that it was necessary to appeal to the people, to reach beyond the confines of Parliament.  But Gladstone used these 'appeals' as a weapon against his own colleagues, getting them to accept policies and initiatives with which they were not in agreement.  Whether it be Parliamentary reform, the Bulgarian massacres or Irish Home Rule, Gladstone was to claim that he was 'divinely inspired' in appealing to the people to force his party into line.  He certainly took the Liberals to new heights...and to new depths.  He exposed the party for what it was-a fragile coalition of interests that had never properly coalesced.  This was never more evident than after the last great Liberal electoral victory in 1906.  Gladstonian Liberalism had, in practice, grown and died with its own creator.  Clio the Muse (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Mayan math
Dear Sir/Madam

I am looking for any information on the signifcance of the numbers 20 and 13 in Mayan Calendar Math, where did these two numbers come from and what do they really represent? I believe 13 to be from the number of actual zodiacal constellations (including Ophiuchus), I welcome any rebuttals and/or new ideas to this. More difficult for me, is the history on the number 20 and the attached signifiances to it, any help from out there, would be great. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shwaboy44 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As you doubtless know, the Mayan number system was base-20. The explanation for this is probably as simple as the fact that a human generally has 20 total fingers and toes. 99.245.92.47 (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Drawn out nature of US presidentdial race
HAVE YOU YANKEES PICKED A FUCKING PRESIDENT YET? HURRY UP THIS IS TAKING FOREVER.. INTEREST IS WANING.77.86.8.83 (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * They aren't picking a president at the moment, they are picking presidential candidates as I understand it. If you don't enjoy the selection process/coverage the solution is remarkably simple - change tv channel when it comes on, don't read that section of the newspaper/news-sites. ny156uk (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If it bothers you so much, go into cryogenic suspended animation for a few months, jeez. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.117.125 (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Cartman tried that, with unexpected results. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 14:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * We're kind of on a fixed schedule. The same exact schedule we use every four years. It takes months, as it always has. I didn't know that was news to anyone. Once we're out of the primaries, it'll pick up a bit, but not much. Black Carrot (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The 2008 primaries are receiving more medial attention outside the United States than primaries in earlier years have, for various reasons. It's news to some people. I heard listeners complaining about BBC's "undue" extent of coverage. ---Sluzzelin talk  16:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually it's not the "same exact schedule" because they keep starting campaigning earlier and earlier and some of the primary dates have in fact been changed around this time. But the back-end of the schedule is fixed and it is roughly the same amount of time. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Questioner, Wikipedia does not speak for any one country, and should not appear to. It looks to me the question and the rather rude "hurry up" injunction might more appropriately have been directed at the White House.  But they'd ask you to mind your language, just as I'm doing.  Next time, something like "Have the Americans chosen a President yet?  It seems to be taking a long time" would attract lots of positive responses.  For the record, the president won't be chosen till 2008 Presidential election, which takes place on 4 November. --  JackofOz (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * See also United States presidential election, 2008 timeline. 15 December the United States Electoral College makes the official vote where Faithless electors can change the result from 4 November (strange system if you ask me). PrimeHunter (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would just like to say here that I join with Jack in deploring the wording and thrust of this question, which I consider little better than a form of rude and incoherent trolling. Those with even the most superficial acquaintance with the American electoral process know exactly how long these matters take.  My interest is certainly not waning.  Clio the Muse (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Many U.S. citizens dream of a Presidential campaign as limited in time and TV advertising as those in the UK are said to be. It turns into nonstop attack ads. Edison (talk) 03:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We in Britain don't have presidential campaigns of any duration, because we haven't got a president. Thank god. Malcolm Starkey (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hurrah for being very literal minded. Note that the comment did not say Britain has Presidential campaigns. Edison (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Many U.S. citizens dream of a Presidential campaign as limited in time and TV advertising as those in the UK are said to be." Malcolm Starkey (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Yankees don't have a President. They have an owner, George Steinbrenner, a Manager, Joe Girardi, and a General Manager, Brian Cashman.   Corvus cornix  talk  21:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've picked one: me. Can't speak for others.  —Tamfang (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Literary hoax author?
I vaguely recall reading a Wikipedia article a couple of years ago about a literary hoax perpetrated by a woman under the pen name of a young boy who had been molested, abused and in and out of foster care for years. This took place in the late 1980s and early-mid 1990s. In interviews the woman claimed to be the boy's mother, but eventually her claims were exposed as a fraud and she was revealed to be the author of said works. I believe the pseudonym's first name was Kevin or at least that there was a "K" somewhere in the name, but I could be wrong. (I'm basing this on my memory of synesthetic colour perception of the name.) Can anyone locate this for me? Thanks. 99.245.92.47 (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * JT LeRoy? --98.217.18.109 (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Or possibly Anthony Godby Johnson? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it was Anthony Godby Johnson. The name I remembered was Keith Olbermann, the journalist who exposed him. Cheers! 99.245.92.47 (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Newspaper Vending Machines
How are vending machines set up in large metropolitan areas? Does the city government license newspaper companies to place vending machines in certain locations? Does the city charge for this? Who owns the machines? --Jacobin1949 (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you need to be more specific about which city. 118.90.78.205 (talk) 10:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It differs not just from municipality to municipality but also from country to country. --NellieBly (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Unconditional Surrender
I havs some questions about the allied policy of unconditional surrender in WW2. Whose idea was it? How did it arise? What effect did it have on the enemy powers? Should it have been abandoned to lessen resistance? Iona Carr (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * To answer what I can: according to unconditional surrender, it was suggested by Roosevelt to the other allied leaders at the Casablanca Conference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Algebraist (talk • contribs) 18:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It was certainly Roosevelt's idea, Iona, which he announced to the world at the end of the Casablanca Conference, on an entirely unilateral basis. For the sake of Allied unity, it was immediately endorsed by Winston Churchill, though he later admitted to being dumfounded by the announcement, and worried by its likely effect on the future course of the war. Dwight D Eisenhower, also present at the conference, shared Churchill's misgivings, believing that such an uncompromising line would only serve to prolong the war, costing more Allied lives than was necessary. In fact, there would appear to have been few, if any, who welcomed Roosevelt's declaration of intent

It also dismayed people like Admiral Canaris and others in the German resistance, but-not surprisingly-delighted Josef Goebbels, who said "I should never have been able to think up so rousing a slogan. If our enemy tells us, we won't deal with you, our only aim is to destroy you, how can any German, whether he likes it or not, do anything but fight on with all his strength." It is surely no coincidence that the Propaganda Minister's infamous Total War Speech came a few weeks of the Casablanca edict-Now, people rise up and let the storm break loose.

Perhaps the absolutely worst thing about unconditional surrender is that it came just as the German army had suffered one of the worst defeats in its history, considerably weakening the prospects for the Reich, and making it more likely that the senior command would listen to the blandishments of Canaris and others. But now they had to fight on, Nazi and anti-Nazi alike.

In the summer of 1943, with Italy on the point of abandoning the Axis, Churchill and Eisenhower's attempts to negotiate a compromise peace with Pietro Badoglio were ruined after Roosevelt held fast to unconditional surrender. In the delays that followed the Germans were able to pour troops into Italy, ensuring that Allied progress up the peninsula would be slow and painful.

Similarly, as D Day approached in 1944, George Marshall and the US joint chiefs urged Roosevelt to moderate his policy, but met with outright refusal. Even after German resistance in Normandy proved far tougher than expected Roosevelt refused to budge, despite a further appeal from Eisenhower. He defended his policy on a visit to Hawaii-when he confirmed it also applied to Japan-, drawing an example from American history, insisting that this is how U. S. Grant had dealt Robert E Lee at Appomattox in April 1865. But, of course, it was not, as those of you familiar with the history of the American Civil War will be only too well aware. Grant offered Lee and the defeated southern army terms, and very generous terms at that.

In the end the policy, though not completely discarded, was moderated after Roosevelt's death. While the Japanese surrender was declared to be 'unconditional', they were permitted to keep their Emperor. If they had not, while one cannot be absolutely certain, it is possible that America's nuclear bluff would have been called, making an invasion of the Home Islands necessary. The cost in lives of such an endeavour can only be imagined. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Do I take it correctly that it was a "nuclear bluff" because as of August 1945 there were no more atom bombs available to be dropped? When would they have become available, and would the U.S have waited for them or gone ahead and lost hundreds of thousands of allied lives in an invasion? Edison (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is covered in Richard Rhodes's book The Making of the Atomic Bomb, but I can't find my copy. There was in fact one more bomb available, which could have been dropped about 10 days after the Nagasaki attack, but it was never assembled.  From memory, I think the most optimistic time estimate was on the order of 4-6 weeks to make enough plutonium for another bomb after that.  (U-235, for the Little Boy design, took longer to make.)  --Anonymous, edited 08:49 UTC, February 17, 2008.


 * Not in the immediate wake of the attack on Nagasaki. Another bomb was scheduled for completion towards the end of August, though delivery and operational planning would probably have delayed an attack until early September.  Three more were expected in September and the same number for October.  It should be stressed, though, that there were those in the War Department opposed to further what might be called 'penny packet' attacks.  Rather, the view was growing that the nuclear arsenal should be preserved for tactical use after the commencement of Operation Downfall, the projected invasion of Japan.  Downfall was a complex military plan, one that envisaged an invasion in two stages, which would have taken the war well into 1946.  Casualty predictions were extremely high.  For the Allied side the worst case scenario envisaged a figure in excess of a million men; yes, that's right, a million, which would have made the Battle for Japan the costliest of the whole Second World War.  You will find all of the relevant details, Edison, in R. B Frank's Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire.  Clio the Muse (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've heard it alleged that the real estimate for the cost of an invasion was an order of magnitude lower than the one later bandied about as retroactively justifying the bombings as "necessary". —Tamfang (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * To give you an idea of what the "real" casualty estimates were like, note that a fresh batch of Purple Heart medals were minted in preparation for Operation Olympic, the first half of Operation Downfall. The US military is still working its way through that supply today. --Carnildo (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It may be that Roosevelt didn't want a victory less complete than that of Woodrow Wilson, who told the Germans to surrender unconditionally and he'd make sure they weren't abused. —Tamfang (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The existance of the atomic weapons were a secret kept from the army, so Operation Downfall still needed to be planned for execution. When the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, it was not know that it would work as an U235 bomb had not been tested. When the atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, it was known that the U235 bomb worked operationally and that the Pu bomb worked in the Trinity test. If both bombs failed operationly because they either failed or the plane was shot down then Operation Downfall would need to be executed.


 * The Manhatten Project was successful, costing billions of dollars and after both bombs worked operationally, the atomic bombs failed to produce the desired effect that Japan should surrender unconditionally. The bombs failed politically on the Japanese but the atomic bombs worked on Truman. In effect, the political failure of the atomic bombs convinced Truman to allow Japan conditional surrender. Sleigh (talk) 07:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I read an account of Truman becoming President and never having heard of the atomic bomb- it was that secret. He called in General Groves and asked him how many more were in the U.S. arsenal. Wary of bugging, Truman said:"Don't say the number- just write it on this piece of paper." Groves drew a circle. Contra to that, Americans who lived through World War 2 have told me that there was a general belief that the government was developing a secret weapon that could win the war decisively. There were huge top-secret projects at Oak Ridge Tennessee and other locations, and the very hush-hush nature of the projects coupled with the huge work-force of civilian construction workers meant that some knowledge slipped out that a super-weapon was being built, even if not the details. The bombs avoided the necessity of a milion, or certainly hundreds of thousands of allied soldiers kiilled and more Japanese in house to house fighting throughout the home island. Instead, MacArthur flew in to a former kamikaze base with a handful of MPs and was driven peacefully to the hotel in town with the road lined with 30,000 armed Japanese infantry. Edison (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

al-Qaeda statements
This may be a strange question, or more easily findable on Wikipedia than I realize, and hopefully I will not henceforth be under some kind of surveillance for asking it - are there transcripts of al-Qaeda statements or videos anywhere. I am particularly interested in any statement where they refer to crusaders - I'm sure I remember this happening when Ethiopia invaded Somalia, and in a statement by Adam Gadahn. Preferably the text would be in both English and Arabic (assuming they are released in Arabic). Adam Bishop (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A widely available print source for some of this is The Al Qaeda Reader, edited by Raymond Ibrahim. I don't know much about it, but I believe Ibrahim argues that what al-Qaeda says for the consumption of Western media (where the emphasis is on Muslim victimization) is very different from what they say amongst themselves (which is far more militant). —Kevin Myers 20:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Drinking milk in a bowl
Hi. What is so unusual about drinking milk in a bowl? Some people (or maybe I'm being too local) seem to think that drinking milk in a bowl is for cats only. Well, there is a big difference. Cats usually crouch down to the ground and drink with its tounge. A human can drink milk from a bowl by taking the bowl and sipping, or by using a spoon. In fact, in some places drinking milk in a bowl (excluding milk already sold in drinkable containers) is more common than drinking it from a glass. I mean, people here often have cereal with milk in a bowl, correct? How about modifying it and having more milk than cereal? Only milk but dipping cookie into? Or only milk in the bowl? Besides, dipping a cookie into milk is much easier in a bowl than in a glass. What's the problem here? Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 17:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem here. You have my permission to drink milk from a bowl. Cheers, David Šenek 18:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is a problem here either, and I do suspect this is a rather local question. All over the world there are people who drink tea, water, and other beverages from bowls. Tea cups can be viewed as little bowls with a handle. One advantage of a cylindrical glass or mug as opposed to a bowl-shaped bowl is that they are easier to hold in one hand for the same volume of liquid. Another advantage is that stuff in bowls slops over more easily when moved up and down from the table to your lips. ---Sluzzelin talk  18:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Just for fun I'm going to be disagreeable and come up with a "good" reason for not doing it. Cold liquids should not be drunk from bowls because 1. the large surface area of the milk causes them to warm up faster and 2. this is contributed to by the fact that you have contact with the bowl with both hands at once. It's essentially the same reason that champagne is drunk from a thin flute while brandy from a snifter. So don't do it! I prohibit it! ;-) --98.217.18.109 (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The issue is one of tradition. Bowls are traditionally considered to be for cereal and soup, and if you're eating/drinking from a bowl, you should use a spoon. A cup is traditionally for runny liquids and is suitable for raising to the mouth. These traditions are specifically Western European in origin and date from approximately 1650-1700 (my estimate, no sources), when the 'proper' way to do just about everything was codified. Outside western Europe, lots of things are drunk out of bowls, and it's quite acceptable. You do have to be a little more careful. The wider lip means it's easier to spill the milk. If people are worried, just say you're being exotic. Steewi (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the Mongolian national dish is fermented mare's milk, drunk from a bowl. I can't remember what it's called, but I'd wager a dish of alcholic horse milk that we have an article about it. --Dweller (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Kumis --Dweller (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I see it's called "Airag" in Mongolia (I doubt they used a branding agency) and it's widely enjoyed in eastern europe/the Steppes. --Dweller (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And the larger circumference of the bowl make it difficult to drink from with out spilling. And spoons are rather inefficient compared to cups, because of all the work just for a little bit of drink. HS7 (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. When I ask people what's wrong with drinking milk from bowl, they giggle and tell me to find out what it "means". Apparently "drinking milk from a bowl" has some kind of vulgar meaning? They're asking, "where did you get it from"? Are they referring to breast? BTW milk is not always dranken [gram] cold. Oh and if you put a block of cheese in a bowl it would be easier to eat than in a glass though I don't recommend it. Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 00:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Rousseau's Paradox?
In the Count of Monte Cristo Dumas mentions Rousseau's Paradox. The meaning is not completely clear from the context in which it appears. Can someone define its meaning and trace the source for me? Thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbie Herbivore (talk • contribs) 21:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Without the context I can't be completely sure, but I think Dumas is referring to the famous quote "Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains" from The Social Contract, Or Principles of Political Right. David Šenek 22:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See The Count of Monte Cristo/Chapter 52 (search for Rousseau) for the context. Algebraist 22:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And here, below, is the context for those who do not wish the trouble of looking for themselves!


 * The bad side of human thought will always be defined by the paradox of Jean Jacques Rousseau,-you know,-the mandarin, who is killed at 500 leagues' distance by raising the tip of the finger. (p534, Oxford World's Classic edition).


 * The question-the paradox-is what would most people do if they were able to make themselves rich by killing a Mandarin in China by simply lifting their finger, and without fear of discovery? Although it appears in that particular form in Chateaubriand's Génie du christianisme, you will not find that form of words, Herbie, in any of Rousseau's writings.  It is most likely traceable to his contention that conscience is the greatest casuist of all.  The paradox appears in fiction in Balzac's novel, Le Père Goriot, where it might be said to determine the moral choice faced by Rastignac.  After this the expression 'to kill the mandarin' was applied to anyone who got rich quickly by dubious means.  Clio the Muse (talk) 00:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not Russell's Paradox? (Joke! Joke!!)  —Tamfang (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The Visitor
Hello. Having just finished 'The Bourne Identity,' I'm quite desperate to start a new book and the only one lying around the house is 'Running Blind' by Lee Child. Since this is the fourth Jack Reacher novel, I just want to know if I will be missing out on a lot of information by not reading the first three and if it would be best to wait and read them in sequence. Thanks. 92.1.74.82 (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Why don't you just go to Project Gutenberg | (click here) and download a full-book? Mr.K. (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What a stupid and unhelpful answer. Sorry I can't help you, 92.1.74.82. But I wish I could, and I certainly won't smarmily tell you to read something else "open source acceptable" instead! 99.245.92.47 (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There is an arc to Reacher's character, but it develops rather slowly. I don't think you would miss much by starting with Running Blind. When you're done, you'll probably be motivated to go back to the beginning of this entertaining, page-turning series. Enjoy! Catrionak (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

How is that an unhelpful answer? if I only had one book, and didn't want to read that, i would have found it useful to be refered to a place where I can find more books to read instead. HS7 (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

school colors
What are the school colors of Louisiana Technical College?72.229.136.18 (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a technical school, not a regular college, so they don't seem to have an athletic program, so "school colors" probably don't mean as much as they do to schools with athletic programs. The colors on their website are gold and a sort of brick red color.   Corvus cornix  talk  05:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)