Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 February 27

= February 27 =

Swastikas and the law in Europe
I understand that in certain circumstances displaying a swastika is a jailable offense in places like Germany or Austria. I've assumed up till now that certainly this didn't apply to a historical context. (Like a swastika on a model of the Bismarck) Anyone know if my assumption is correct? Anynobody 02:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * See Swastika. The German (and Austrian) postwar criminal code makes the public showing of the Hakenkreuz (the swastika) and other Nazi symbols illegal and punishable, except for scholarly reasons. It is even censored from the lithographs on boxes of model kits, and the decals that come in the box. It is also censored from the reprints of 1930s railway timetable published by Bundesbahn. The eagle remains, but appears to be holding a solid black circle between its talons. The swastikas on Hindu and Jain temples are exempt, as religious symbols cannot be banned in Germany. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I did check out the article first and noted the statement you've quoted but also observed it isn't sourced (and possibly wrong because a lot of model kits in the US didn't print swastikas for Nazi airplanes/ships either). The impression I got from reading the law itself, quoted on the page as well, is that painting a swastika on one's picture of a Fw-190 in an effort to accuratly reproduce the appearance of an actual WW II fighter for historical accuracy isn't the same as promoting Nazism. Anynobody 03:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The use of the swastika under penal code 86 and (86a) isn't always clear. If it is used in educational circumstances it isn't against the law.  Law Journal guidance notes.  I would presume that if something is done for historical accuracy and not for a purpose of promoting proscribed groups then it is wholly appropriate.  Bp E ps -  t @ lk 08:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Random guess, knowing little about German law. If you yourself are making a model for personal use and paint a Swastika on a fighter for historical accuracy then I doubt you'd be penalised. However if you start seling models or model kits, you may find you won't get such 'leniency'. If I'm not mistaken computer games get in trouble if they have swastikas. But I believe historical movies are fine. According to Video game controversy (which is mostly unsourced) computer games are not an 'art' but movies are. It something is an art, it is okay if it is in an accurate historical context. My guess is many models won't fit here. Pehaps if they are very detailed they may be okay, but if they are more 'toy' kind of model, probably not Nil Einne (talk) 11:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Displaying the swastika is punishable in the context of "Wiederbetätigung", a term referring to a revival (or attempted revival) of the ideology of the 3rd Reich. Similar legislation is applicable to other symbols of the Nazi era, eg. the Hitler salute, or specific phrases, such as "Sieg Heil".  The latter does not even have an entry in the de.Wikipedia.
 * In Austria this legislation has constitutional ranking and is punished quite severely with a minimum of 5 and a maximum of 10 years imprisonment.
 * To the best of my knowledge, this does not apply to the use of Nazi symbols in any true historical context. The Abzeichengesetz  from 1960 centers on the "public display" of insignia and does expressively exclude print media, pictorial representation, films and exhibitions,  These exclusions are valid, only if   the ideology of prohibited organisations is not supported.  However, if you were to open a shop selling nothing but Nazi paraphernalia - including models of planes, tanks and the like - the police / prosecution would argue that you are, indeed, glorifying the 3rd Reich and seek a conviction.
 * It should be added that the law is somewhat controversial. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

auguste comte
Hello, I am wondering what the first term Comte used to name the new social science he w ished to create before he changed it to sociology? 67.164.186.120 (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Em


 * He described his more-or-less personal philosophy as "positivism" (as in the Positivist Calendar (though this isn't the same thing as what came to be known as positivism in the 20th century). Other than that, don't know... AnonMoos (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Auguste Comte first coined the word 'sociology' in the fourth volume of The Course of Positive Philosophy, as a substitite for 'social physics', the expression he and others had used hitherto for this area of human studies. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Amy Van Horne
Is there any pictures of the actress Amy Van Horne on the internet and where can I get some basic info about her, like where and when was she born and that???

Thanks a lot for any response,cause I searched and searched,but it just seems that I cant find anything about her,except the list of the movies and TV series that she appears in

77.105.52.140 (talk) 04:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Various "on this day" sites (like this one) claim she is born on July 3, 1967. --71.146.162.148 (talk) 05:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah,thank you,I found out that on my own in the meantime,but thats about the ONLY information I can get about her...Do you know anything other or how could I learn more??

77.105.52.140 (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Going back in time?? u seem kinda streesed about this subject :P try Www.worldbook.com www.encarta.com try a search on google Amy van horne's Life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inutasha De Fallen (talk • contribs) 06:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This page has a photograph and some information. --Lambiam 08:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Man of the World
I have heard the term Man of the World used by many, what is a good definition for this phrase? What kind of qualities would this person have? Where did this originate from? 99.226.39.245 (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Based on the comments of David Lee Roth, a Man of the World would require more than beautiful girls. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know the origin of the phrase, but it generally means a sophisticated, experienced adult male who has done many things and gone many places. It's often used as a metaphor for "has had a wide variety of lovers" or "has travelled widely". A man whose learning comes only from books, university, or the Internet, who has had very little experience in love, or who has never worked for a living or had to make his way in the world would not be considered a man of the world. --NellieBly (talk) 05:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You're a man of the world; know what I mean? Nudge Nudge, say no more! AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Penguin Dict. Cliches suggests the phrase originally referred to a married man (because he was "of the world", rather than rejecting the world like a churchman), and that it took on the suggestion of experience and sophistication in the 19th C. Gwinva (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

So basically, a man of the world is someone with a woman? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziyi cai841117 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Er, no. This group includes gay men, but it's not just - or even - about having a partner.  Some men of the world are celibates.  A man of the world is sophisticated; he knows which wine to drink with which meat; he knows how to dress appropriate to the occasion; he has read and travelled fairly widely; he is realistic and not naive; he knows how to manage his financial affairs to the best advantage; he is familiar with current affairs and can discuss social and political issues intelligently; and so on.  He knows a lot but is never a know-all.  (Someone rather like myself, really.  :)  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Where does this definition come from? 99.226.39.245 (talk) 04:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Jack's explanation is good, but if you want a dictionary quote, then the OED definition reads: Originally: a secular or lay person, as opposed to an ecclesiastic or cleric (obs.). Later: a worldly or unspiritual person, a person who has a broad experience of society and a pragmatic understanding of its flaws and vices. -Gwinva (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it is forbidden to translate urban-deviations: I tried too translate an deviation from urban using my latin dictionary while my page didn't existed and was removed while I used correct translations too explain the word, so the word urban you will have too look up in an old latin dictionary. Sorry but in this time polititians rule over your knowledge and use urban-speeches all the time, too hide what they really want and they don't want you too know the truth, so if you wanna know, buy an old latin-English dictionary. Urbanistisch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:1812:2e05:8b00:ecb2:a40c:2305:c54 (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Love..
If two People are drasticly in love and they cant stand not being together, but when they cant even get close to eachother without getting in trouble what should they do? (none of this is anything of remo &juliet) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inutasha De Fallen (talk • contribs) 06:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This probably isn't the ideal place to solicit romantic advice, but star-crossed describes your situation. You might want to read up on some of the literary examples contained therein. Dforest (talk) 07:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

ok well i knew this but Everyone always off themselves or die before they get together.. Inutasha De Fallen (talk) 07:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Inutasha De Fallen


 * Well, you could try elopement. Dforest (talk) 08:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If Inutasha is referring to himself/herself, I wouldn't recommend it. 14 is way to young to be thinking of something like that. Indeed, perhaps it is part of the problem. If two people are really drasticly in love, then I see no reason why they can't wait until they are mature enough to make a decision about a real relationship Nil Einne (talk) 11:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, I meant "try" in the sense of "checking out the article". This is a reference desk, after all. Dforest (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Romeo and Juliet would have been fine if they hadn't let their passions get the best of them. Romeo lost control and killed Tybalt. He couldn't wait just a few more minutes to kill himself before Juliet woke up. I'd say if you feel like you are in this situation, Romeo and Juliet would teach you to control your passion and just let things work out on their own. Wrad (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Im not talking about myself, im just currious about a couple of my friends and i cant truely understand their situation... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.220.43 (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If they are also 14, they are not really in love, they are just horny. They'll get over it and years in the future they will look back with embarrassment at how idiotic they used to be. But naturally they will vehemently deny this right now. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yugoslav provinces & Serbia
Now that the saga of the Yugoslav breakup seem to have come to an end (I'm an optimist), I want to question the results. Specifically, the Republika Srpska, the overwhelmingly (90%) Serb-populated provinces of Kosovo (Leposavić, Zubin Potok, Zvečan), and some municipalities of Croatia like Borovo, Croatia. Why are these entities not part of Serbia? Wouldn't it have been incredibly useful to redraw the borders of these countries to avoid future conflict, rather than keep Yugoslav borders in place? This is in light of the recent sex is th best the Kosovo prime minister that he wouldn't "give up an inch" of his territory. User:Krator (t c) 08:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In theory, maybe. Unfortunately, since neither side was willing to give an inch, that was never going to happen. According to the North Kosovo article, some parties have suggested making the current division permanent, but it seems doubtful that will happen as long as either side hate each other so much they will prefer the status quo. You could say the same thing about a number of other such divisions, e.g. the Israeli & Palestinian one. Or PRC/ROC where both sides consider themselves the one true China Nil Einne (talk) 10:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The history of redrawing national boundaries to move provinces with some ethinicity to be merged with another country of that ethnicity is not encouraging, since the country gaining the area is then in a stronger strategic position to make greater territorial moves. See Sudetenland. The taking of German ethnic portions of Czechoslovakia into Germany in 1938 was followed shortly by the conquest of the rest of Czechoslovikia, thereby strengthening Germany and encouraging the invasion of Poland, which led directly to World War 2. In 1945  the Germans in those areas were expelled from the postwar Czechoslovakia. Such moves do not always result in reduced tensions or even in greater security for the unhappy ethnic inhabitants of the region in question. Maybe it worked out better elsewhere. Edison (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There's always Vojvodina. Are there any groups agitating for independence there?  Is Hungary making any statements about grabbing the ethnic Magyar regions?   Corvus cornix  talk  00:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not much. Only 5% of people in Vojvodina want independence. Vojvodina has more ethnic groups, the ethnic groups are more friendly toward each other, and there is not as much history of warfare as on Kosovo. &mdash; Shinhan  &lt;&thinsp; talk &thinsp;&gt; 13:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Cultural differences
Hi. I'm looking for a good literary reference to illustrate the cultural differences between German and English attitudes to life at the beginning of the twentieth century. Sorry, I know this may not sound very clear, but I'm finding it difficult to put my thoughts into words. What I mean is that the Germans were supposed to have made a fetish out of order, and I just want to show in what way, if any, they differed from the English in this regard. Anything from a novel or short story from the Edwardian period would be a great help. Thanks to all. Highland Chief (talk) 10:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Could look at Robert Graves' account of his childhood in "Good-bye to All That" for one personal view... AnonMoos (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Jerome K. Jerome's Three Men on the Bummel (U.S. title Three Men on a Bicycle) contains some interesting passages dealing with this subject. Deor (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you're interested in non-fiction, and perhaps the war years might be too late, but I couldn't help thinking of Allied POW accounts. The difference in culture and mentality between the British prisoners and the German guards was a central theme.  My WWII books are all in boxes and inaccessible at the moment so I can't find a specific ref, but I shall tell a story anyway, since it was typical of the experiences.  The German guards executed regular "surprise" searches of the British huts in one camp to check for escape evidence and other contraband.  But, having a "fetish for order" (as you describe it) they searched the huts in numerical order.  So the British just moved the contraband out the hut they knew would be searched next! (They occasionally left something small and insignificant to be "discovered" so the Germand would feel happy their system worked). Gwinva (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The book I'm currently reading If This Is A Man, by Primo Levi gives examples of german order in a concentration camp, but only (so far) briefly mentions english POWs. In truth german order may be a myth - I'm not sure they are any more ordered than british people. Perhaps even british obedience and unquestionning may be similar. What the germans may have been better at was education and non-academic training for the non-elite. 80.2.213.89 (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would wholeheartedly endorse Deor's recommendation of Three Men on the Bummel, Highland Chief. There is one passage in particular that I would refer you to, which illustrates, in a wonderfully comic fashion, just the kind of comparison you are looking for:


 * In German parks there are special seats labelled, 'Only for grown-ups' (Nür für Erwachsene), and the small German boy, anxious to sit down and reading that notice, passes by, and hunts for a seat on which children are permitted to rest; and there he seats himself, careful not to touch the woodwork with his muddy boats. Imagine a seat in Regent's or St. James's Park labelled 'Only for grown-ups'!  Every child for five miles around would be trying to get on that seat, and hauling off who were on.  As for any 'grown-up', he would never be able to get within half a mile of that seat for the crowd.


 * You will find this particular passage in Chapter nine, page 285, of the Penguin Classics' edition. There are other amusing examples in this little comic gem of the German passion for order.  Clio the Muse (talk) 00:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's it; that is EXACTLY what I am looking for!!! I can't thank you enough, Clio. You are brilliant. Highland Chief (talk) 10:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're going to make direct use of Clio's quotation, note that "In German parks" should be "In the German parks," "Nur für Erwachsene" should be enclosed in single quotes and should lack the umlaut in "Nur," "muddy boats" should be "muddy boots," "five miles around" should be "five miles round," and "hauling off who were on" should be "hauling other children off who were on." Deor (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's what happens when one holds a book open with one hand and types with the other! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I want to make it clear that I wasn't criticizing your quoting, or typing, skills, Clio. I just got the impression that the Chief might be intending to copy the quotation into a Ph.D. thesis or magazine article or whatever, and didn't want him to be criticized for misquoting. Deor (talk) 00:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, you were absolutely right, Deor, to point out my typing errors. And I trust the Chief has the good sense to check the source, the most fundamental principle of all!  Clio the Muse (talk) 00:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Square bullets
Is there any weapon besides the Puckle gun that was designed to fire square bullets? --12.169.167.154 (talk) 10:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't find anything from a quick Google search. Given that I'm doubtful of Puckle's theory that square bullets were more dangerous and his gun failed in any case, I'm not that surprised. A hollow point is much more effective and I would presume more aerodynamic, and more likely to penetrate in the first place Nil Einne (talk) 11:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Only thing I can think of to add is that rifling obviously won't be doable with square bullets. Friday (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there any sexual position that was first invented theoretically and only later actually performed?
Has there been any sexual position that was first only theorized but only later actually performed?

Perhaps something one must be very flexible or particularly strong in order to perform, or need some special device for? For example, perhaps the man hanging upside down by his feet, with the woman holding him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.35.65 (talk) 11:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Erm, sorry to bring practicality into this, but how would anyone know that they had invented a sexual position? Unless, of course, they were Adam or Eve, I suppose. --Dweller (talk) 11:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess most sex positions involving a zero g/microg environment would potentially be okay. The trouble is, no one really knows what sort of hanky panky Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin got up to so it's too late to invent stuff now. However if you can find any mention of a zero g/microg requiring sex position before the 1960s you can probably reliably say it was invented before it was performed, although you'll never know when it was first performed. If you're talking about a male-female sex position then look until the 80s (I guess Soyuz T-7 is the first possible candidate). Those anyone know the first time there were two females in space on the same craft or in a space station? P.S. It just occured to me you still have a hope. I don't think there has ever been more then say, 9 or 10 people in space in the same craft or space station. So if you can invent something needing more then that number of people and a zero g/micro-g environment you have a deal breaker! Or actually, if you get creative anything involving a woman giving birth in a zero g/micro g environment would work too... Or you could bring animals into the game. I think I'll stop now... Nil Einne (talk) 11:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you would say it's not practical, "double vaginal, double anal" is an example of a film (I might have the terms reversed)... What about real examples?


 * I'm confused. What makes you think someone in the 10000BC didn't practice "double vaginal, double anal"? Nil Einne (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * To be picky, I think most positions were imagined theoretically, at least by a split second, before they were performed. SaundersW (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, The Lithuanian Typewriter. --Wetman (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it be possible to do an zero g moves in free fall while skydiving, granting that the approaching ground might require some "interruptus." Ditto for the "vomit comet," which was used to shoot some zero g sequences for the film Apollo 13. Edison (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You can finish intercourse in 25 seconds? Jesus I do feel sorry for your lover/s. And unless I'm mistaken, free fall would have similar time issues, at least unless you take an oxygen tank which is likely to be a bit of a incumberence when it comes to performing the deed (not to mention probably qualifying you for the Darwins award when you forget to inflate your parachute in time) Nil Einne (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

79.122, are you familiar with the Kama Sutra? I am convinced that there are some sexual positions that have never got beyond the stage of theory! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Is that based on your own original research, Clio? :)  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * On a reading, Jack, combined with a concern for my physical well-being, and an understanding of the limits of the possible! It's a sex manuel for the Gods!  Clio the Muse (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know if this strictly counts as a 'position' - but I doubt that people thought of donkey punching each other for kicks until other people started making grotty jokes about donkey punching... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

time adjustment
what are the adjustments to be made when Singapore aligned its time with Malaysia in 1982? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invisiblebug590 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there anything that Singapore Standard Time doesn't answer? Nil Einne (talk) 11:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Foundations of the Nineteenth Century
How was the translation of Houston Stewart Chamberlain's seminal work received in the English speaking world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.5.204 (talk) 13:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * For those of us who've never heard of Houston Stewart Chamberlain, or his seminal work, try Houston Stewart Chamberlain. And please, no jokes about his "seminal" work. --Dweller (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And his book The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The 1911 translation, 81.156, received positive reviews in most of the English press. It was praised in The Spectator as " a monument of erudition"; the Birmingham Post said that it was "glowing with life, packed with fresh and vigorous thought"; the Glasgow Herald thought that it would be difficult to "over-estimate the stimulating qualities of the book." In the Times Literary Supplement it was declared to be "one of the books that really mattered". In the left-wing Fabian News no less a person than George Bernard Shaw called it a "historical masterpiece". Those who failed to read it, he continued, would be unable to talk intelligently about contemporary sociological and political problems. In the US Theodore Roosevelt, altogether more cautious, highlighted the extreme bias of the author, an accurate judgement that seems to have escaped everyone else, but praised his denunciation of social egalitarianism.

Anyone who has ever dipped into Chamberlain's tiresome and tendentious book will have to wonder just exactly where all of this enthusiasm came from. A reflection of the times, I suppose. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "He also "proves" that Jesus, though probably Jewish by religion, was not Jewish by blood and was probably Aryan, thus explaining his continuing influence on Europe and the Teutons." Wow. Just, wow. Thank you reference desk for continuing to bring astounding world views to my attention. Skittle (talk) 11:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've used Clio's contribution to enhance The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century. Thanks! Sandstein (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Quote attributed to Winston Churchill "Small men who covet power should never be allowed to touch it"
I would like to see/read the complete text surrounding this quote which I have been told is attributed to Winston Churchill.Poorjd (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I found this on the Internet, a quotation from Clarissa by Samuel Richardson which predates Winston: "Every one, more or less, loves Power, yet those who most wish for it are seldom the fittest to be trusted with it." I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that Churchill said something like it, but I've never seen it, it's not in my books, and I haven't been able to find it on the Internet. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Apparently Churchill was a great borrower – just ask George Orwell. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft fined - where does the money go?
Microsoft was recently fined a tidy sum of money. Where is this money spent and how do they ensure that there's no undue motivation to fine companies? --Seans Potato Business 17:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A good question, and one that I'd like to see a better answer to than mine. I imagine that the fine will go into the European Union's overall budget. What would stop the EU from levying an inappropriate fine on a US company would tend to be the possibility that the US would take a claim to the World Trade Organisation, or retaliate in some other fashion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that is the only thing. Ultimately the regulators have to follow the law of the EU. The law of the EU is made by the EU parliament and enforced by the regulators, probably with the potential of review by the European courts. If the people of the EU, don't agree with the law of the EU or the way it is enforced, they will elect people to change that. The regulators and MEPs are ultimately responsible for representing the welfare of their people. It's generally taken that this means a level playing field for all companies and the opinion of the regulators here is that Microsoft is abusing their position to prevent that. In theory, it's possible that the regulators could abuse their position, but there are many checks and balances to prevent that, including those which I have already mentioned and of course their responsibility under any international agreements they have signed (thinking the WTO here). Bear in mind of course that even if they do get into a dispute with the US, if they feel they are right, and their people agree, it's arguable if there is any reason why they shouldn't stand their ground. Nil Einne (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * One more thing to add, bear in mind Microsoft is not without recourse. I already mentioned judicial review (an appeal) which according to European Union v. Microsoft they took advantage of once and the other time they decided not to pursue. They are also of course entitled to simply not do business or to greatly curtail their business if they feel their business there is unreasonably encumbered (e.g. by unreasonable fines as mentioned). If other foreign companies see the Microsoft case, they too may decide not to do business there based on the risk they may likewise find themselves with an unreasonable fine. And European companies may decide to move away from the EU or some people may never start companies there or never expand them. If the EU are selective in punishing foreign companies then there is always the WTO as already mentioned and countries can of course with or without the WTO issue a variety of sanctions against the EU if they are being unfair to their (other countries) companies. Nil Einne (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Commissioner Neelie Kroes, in a press conference, addressed the first part of your question by saying of fines: "Ultimately, they go into a fund whereby taxpayers pay less to Europe". The transcript of the conference is at groklaw. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• It SHOULD go back into an EU fund to prevent the cause for the fine in the first place ( helping fairer trade/competition ) but theres alot of thigns that SHOULD happen but don't. Radiofred (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In much the same way as there is always a lot of ill informed comment from people who MIGHT research the subject before posting, but actually just fire from the hip. I spent a few hours yesterday reading through the competition commission website to find out what they do & how they do it ... in general I came away impressed that they have a cogent strategy, a sensible application of policy, and an ability to communicate their intentions clearly. Responding directly to Radiofred, the money does go back into the general EU budget; it isn't ring-fenced for additional anti-competitive action (which is probably reasonable, since that might well act as exactly the sort of driver that Seans Potato Business was concerned about in the first place). You do need to remember that it is always very much easier to carp about work such as the CC is involved in, than devise and enforce a regulatory framework which achieves its objectives. If Radiofred can point me to a better example of the art than is demonstrated by the EU, I should be as glad as I would be amazed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

German/Japanese direct military collaboration during World War 2
I normally see on books that the Germans and the Japanese, despite formally being allies, never launched a joint military operation, both fighting independently in their respective theatres. However, one can see in today's featured article that both the German and the Japanese navies attacked Australian ports. Did they actively collaborate there? --Taraborn (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There's mention of German U-Boot maintenance at the then-Japanese Batavia in that article. User:Krator (t c) 23:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There clearly was some collaboration, Taraborn, though it seems to have been largely un-coordinated and at a minimal level. What puzzles me about that article is the contention that Australia was 'remote from the main battlefronts', when there was some fairly serious action on New Guinea, in the Coral Sea and in and around the Solomon Islands, none of which are that far removed from the Land of Oz. It's all relative, I suppose. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There's some interesting details in 'Nemesis' by Max Hastings; Hitler had rather a poor opinion of the Japanese; he did eventually send a U-boat with technical drawings for various bits and pieces - German industrialists complained that this was a breach of their patent rights - and war materiel, but the submarine was sunk in transit. It was too little, too late.--Major Bonkers (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --Taraborn (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There must have been more than one shipment from Germany to Japan, then, because I read last year an account of German shipment to Japan of jet engine samples and plans which got there, and which the Japanese improved on. Edison (talk) 05:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Richard the Second his downfall
Need help with a history assignment. Here it is. "By any reasonable definition Richard II was a strong and powerful king. What then explains the completness of his downfall in 1399"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bun Dewar (talk • contribs) 20:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * First, can I remind you that the RD does not do your homework for you, and that we encourage you to do some reading yourself first. Assuming you are referring to the English king, I suggest you start with Richard II of England, and then look at Henry IV of England, who effectively deposed him.  These articles are well linked to other related personalities and issues that will help you build a better picture of the circumstances.  If you have specific questions that arise from this reading, then do ask us those and we'll see what we can do.  Gwinva (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The point about Richard is that he was an unusual kind of king for the day, who clearly would have been better placed in the time of Tudor absolutism, or even in the twentieth century, as a dictatorial monarch in the fashion of Alexander I of Yugoslavia or Carol II of Romania. You might get some idea of how Richard’s power and majesty was perceived at the time-how, indeed, he liked it to be perceived-if you look closely at The Wilton Diptych, where even the angels wear his personal White Hart badge. Does the arrogance of power come in any greater form? But, you see, Medieval monarchs were not meant to be dictators. They ruled by forms of consensus, not with the people at large, but with the senior nobility. For them the king, his majesty notwithstanding, occupied, in a sense, the same political position of the early Caesars, that of primus inter pares.

Richard’s problem was that alienated the one group of people on whom his power, his real power, ultimately depended. The state simply did not exist in the modern sense, and Richard had no standing army or dedicated service with which to enforce his will. Even the strongest of Medieval kings, and there were few stronger than Edward III, Richard's grandfather, were careful to ensure that aristocracy were kept loyal to the crown; by success in war, by grants of land, or by a combination of both. Richard was not successful in war. But far more seriously, he showed that, in the exercise of pure royal power, he was prepared to dispossess even the most powerful; and none were more powerful than Henry Bolingbroke.

Richard's decision to exile his cousin and then seize the Lancastrian estates on the death of John of Gaunt, Bolingbroke’s father, certainly ended the power of a potential rival to the crown. It was a bold move, but one that alarmed the other nobles, fearful that their own lands and inheritance could be taken in such an arbitrary and vindictive manner. When Bolingbroke returned to England, it was not, so he claimed, to take the crown, but to recover what was rightfully his, a cause that could easily command wide support among his fellow peers. Against this background Richard’s power simply crumbled. He lost power; he lost majesty; he lost credibility. He could no longer be king. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Article on speech/thought disorder

 * Moved to science desk here Julia Rossi (talk) 07:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Jews and the Black Death
I've read that during the Black Daeth Jewish commmunities were attacked in an outburst of spontaneous mob violence. How accurate is this? Also, the Jews were accused of causing the disease by poisioning wells. Were there any other ways in which they were alleged to have spread the contagion? ZZT9 (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Take a look at this and this Wrad (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You might care to look over Black Death and the Burning of Jews by S. K. Cohn in the recent issue of Past & Present (no. 196). On the basis of an analysis of contemporary chronicles, Cohn argues that attacks on Jewish communities were rarely the spontaneous work of faceless and impoverished mobs. Rather many of the assailants came from the higher ranks of Medieval society, even including the aristocracy. Indeed, some attacks, the author continues, were started by the nobility in accordance with the law. In one particularly chilling letter of the day it is noted that the Jews of Villeneuve "have been burnt by due process." Jacob von Köningshofen, a chronicler based in Strasbourg, explains how "the Bishop and lords of the Imperial cities agreed to do away with the Jews." The notion of the 'lower class' mob, Cohn argues, is a modern invention.

In response to your second question, ZZT9, Albert of Cologne, another chronicler, lays stress on the "horrible means by which the Jews wished to extinguish all Christendom, through their poisons of frogs and spiders, mixed into oil and cheese." Clio the Muse (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Landscape painter
I am trying to find a landscape painter who signes his name F Getnin i have a painting by this artist so has my father in law. They are scenes of pyramids in the dessert with a man guiding a camel and three men standing in front of a couple of pyramids.I believe my wifes grandfather purchased these paintings some60 years ago and they were second hand then which leads me to think they could be painted in the1800s ,the frames are black painted finish and shiney i can find no date or any other information ,can you help point me in the right direction or if you know of him any information would be appreciated. thanking you trevor owen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevor41john (talk • contribs) 21:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Benezit (not on line) lists no artist with this name. Are you sure that that is the correct spelling? It does seem very odd. Could it be Betini or Bettini?--Eriastrum (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like the name is an Armenian or Russian word. You can always ask Christie's or Sotheby's auction houses. One of them is defunct and I forget which, but people in fine art auction places are usually happy to help. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Both Sotheby's and Christie's  are still in business, as far as I can tell. They did have some legal troubles around 2000 or so, but are currently out there, selling up the proverbial storm. ៛ Bielle (talk) 04:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have checked ArtPrice for the name "Getnin" and had no luck. The closest name was "Gethin, Percy Francis", but I could find no reference to pyramids. ៛ Bielle (talk) 04:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Buying / redeeming pachinko balls
At a pachinko parlor, how do they determine the number of balls when you buy or redeem balls? Is there a machine that counts the balls individually, or is the number just estimated (by weight or volume)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.229.117 (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * They use a counting machine. See this YouTube clip:  Dforest (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is Gravel still running for president?
Even if he wins ever state from here on, he still can't win if I'm not mistaken. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless he has specifically announced his reasons for remaining in the race, it would be speculation for us to say why. According to our policies, speculation would be original research, and therefore inappropriate for Wikipedia. Dforest (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But not necessarily for the Reference Desk. Sen. Gravel never had a chance to win anyway, so his presence in the race has never been dependent on his actual prospects. My guess is that while he may have convinced himself he could win the nomination, his real goal in running was to get attention for his pet issues and points of view. Therefore, he'll stop running once he realizes that he's not getting enough media attention to merit the money he's spending to remain in the race. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, according to the reference desk rules, we're not supposed to start debates, and as we can't verifiably say why he is still running unless he said so himself, it is an inherently debatable issue. "Sen. Gravel never had a chance to win anyway" is, of course, an opinion.  Some people would disagree.  It is a fine issue for debate, but this is not the forum for it. Dforest (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have meta-discussions about the RD, take them to the talk page. It's incorrect to say that people never speculate or do OR on the RD, and it's also incorrect to say that any answer of such a sort is "starting a debate." You're polluting the responses with such unnecessary meta-discussion. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please be civil. See talk. Dforest (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As long as neither of the other candidate have won or quit, it is probably technically possible for him to win. As it stands, according to United States Democratic presidential candidates, 2008 there are 1,184, 1,031 and 26 estimated pledged delegates to other candidates. This gives a total of 2241 out of 4049. If he were to win every single delegate from now on, combined with convincing every single super delegate to change their support to him (as I believe they are fully entitled to do), this would give him a support of 1808 delegates versus 1184 for Obama the next highest candidate (assuming none of the current candidates drops out). Not enough to win outright, but probably enough for him to have a good claim to be the Democratic candidate. Indeed, technically unless someone has been selected the candidate, he could still win. For example, even if Obama or Hillary gains enough pledged delegates they still haven't actually won until they've be selected by the delegates. And if both Hillary and Obama drop out or are assasinated, he would be the only remaining candidate who's still running. While in reality, it's still unlikely he would be chosen, it's not impossible, perhaps they will both endorse him while dropping out or dying. As they like to say in the U.S. I believe, it ain't over until the fat lady sings. Of course, all of these possibilities are extremely remote, and they may not be why he is still running, but it is incorrect to say he has no possibility Nil Einne (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Technically possible only in the most literal sense; impossible by any practical sense. He's obviously not sticking around because he thinks he's going to win the nomination; even if all the other candidates were killed off I doubt they'd pick him just because he was sitting around—they'd probably sooner find a way to draft Al Gore than that! --98.217.18.109 (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My point was though that the basis of the question was incorrect 64 said that if he wins every state he can't win. But as I pointed out, if he wins 100% of delegates in every state + convinces all super delegates to support him (which if he were to suddenly win all deletages from every remaining state is definitely possible) he would in fact be in a very good position. As I acknowledged, the possibility of this is very remote but it doesn't change the fact the basis is incorrect. The better question is why he doesn't give in when his chances are very remote, which is quite diffferent from saying he can't possibly win Nil Einne (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * When I said, he wins every state from here on out, I mean he gets the higher %. If he wins by just 2%, it means he won the state. Winning 100% of the delegates is impossible. I'm talking in "realistic" terms, not mathematical terms, which aren't relevant. Not even FDR won 100% of the country when he ran against Herbert Hoover. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My guess is that he's not yet ready to throw his endorsement to either candidate, or is hoping that by maintaining some profile he'll get chosen as a VP. But who knows. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't believe I'm the first person to note this, but ...: The Gravel website never directly poses & answers the question of why Gravel is still running. But it does offer some strong clues.  For example, see the National Initiative.  Gravel is advocating constitutional change, which under the U.S. legal system requires an absolutely enormous amount of support to happen.  Other posts on the site -- including this unusual tactic of linking to a journalist suggesting that Gravel boosters are insane optimists without contradicting it -- suggest that Gravel believes that remaining formally in the race for President draws attention to his causes.  --M @ r ē ino 14:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)