Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 February 29

= February 29 =

Mestizos
Which Latin American nations have the current population of Mestizos? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 00:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Our article Mestizo has everything we know about this subject. -SandyJax (talk) 01:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Mulatto
Which Latin American nation has the current population of Mulatto? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 00:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Our article Mulatto has everything we know about this subject. -SandyJax (talk) 01:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Song called "Stickball"
I saw mentioned in a newspaper column a song titled "Stickball", which was described as having sexually themed lyrics and having been recorded in 1973. The article identified the artist as Rod McKuen (although not necessarily the Rod McKuen -- the reference is unclear). A question and answer on Rod McKuen's web site says, "Over the years I've had several songs and even albums banned from radio play and for one reason or another there have been numerous limited editions of my works; but unless I slept more soundly through the seventies than I supposed I don't remember anything having to do with 'stickball.'" Does anyone know who was the writer/performer of the sexually themed song "Stickball" that the column and the question on McKuen's site were referring to? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

enforcement of rules
We learn many rules at early ages. For instance, our first stand in line experience may be in Kindergarten where we are introduced to the "first come, first served" rule. From the moment we are introduced to almost our last breath we rely on this rule to make decisions as to how long we must wait in line, with allowances for exceptions. One exception, however, that we can not tolerate is the failure to enforce the rule such that using line length or line speed as the basis of a decision would become completely unreliable. Where can I find a study on the topic of the consequences of failing to enforce such public rules in terms of the detriment it poses for an orderly society? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.9.109 (talk) 08:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You might look into the literature (on or off the web) on sociological norms, which are largely what you are describing as "rules". --98.217.18.109 (talk) 03:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Also you may want to look into cross cultural studies. The frequency that ques are observed, on how common it is for people to cut in front of ques (and whether that is tolerated or not) etc varies from country to country and from situation to situation Nil Einne (talk) 05:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My question is related to cross cultural studies. Before the 60's civil rights era in America water fountains and sometimes complete bathrooms remained segregated. We were lead to believe this was because of racial prejudice. We find now this may not be the case. The true reason for separation may be that Blacks still do not uphold social norms and continue to spit in water fountains if not on the floor or sidewalk and pee in the bathroom sink or on the floor.


 * We have observed Blacks intentionally pushing shopping carts through department store isles, sideswiping Whites on their way as if to provoke a response. We have observed Blacks entering fast food restaurants and being served out of turn by Blacks behind the counter, ahead of Whites already in line. We doubt these behaviors result from ignorance of social norms. We believe they are intentional. Whether the work of Mocking Birds or not such aggression and behaviors make the case for separation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.9.109 (talk) 10:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Applied on a larger scale this is tied to the concepts of rule of law and Rechtsstaat, a state governed by the rule of law. Already Plato and Aristotle philosophized about the rule of law and its relevance for society. If there are good and just laws, but they are not enforced, a state of lawlessness results, governed by the "law of the jungle". What I remember reading about the consequences of that, as set forth in a (German?) theoretical political work whose title and author I've forgotten (although the name of Karl Kautsky comes to mind), is that in the absence of a Rechtsstaat, when citizens are subject to the whims of the powers that be and cannot reliably enforce contracts and in general predict the consequences of their actions, this paralyzes economic development, channelling all profits to a powerful few and killing the incentives for economic activity. I don't know if this is in any way relevant to what you are looking for, but perhaps it gives you an entrance for further research. --Lambiam 08:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky's Politics
I noticed a question above about Chomsky as a junk scientist. Could it not also be said that he is a junk political theorist? Jeff Mutt (talk) 11:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Only in the same way as we could say yours was a junk question. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "Junk science" implies that it is not really science at all, as defined by a relatively constrained methodology. I'm not sure what "junk political theory" would imply, as political theory is not nearly as constrained in methodology as science. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 15:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you consider moral relativism true (the paradox!), normative political theory as a whole is 'junk'. User:Krator (t c) 16:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the Politics of Noam Chomsky, Jeff? I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'junk politics', other than that his standing in the wider academic world has given him an authority here which he does not really deserve.

I find it difficult to answer your question without being polemical, but I will say that, insofar as Chomsky can be identified with anarchism, he shares the same intellectual confusion of others who fall into this category; people like Emma Goldman, who was seemingly unable to distinguish between democracy and fascism. According to the view Chomsky puts forward in American Power and the New Mandarins the United States, his own homeland, is a state not that far removed from fascism, one in need of 'denazification.' Is that junk? Well, I leave you to judge for yourself. It might help you if I give a small example of this kind of confusion shown by others on the left. In 1930 when Heinrich Bruning was appointed to head a minority administration in Germany, supported by the emergency powers of President Hindenburg, Die Rote Fahne, the newspaper of the KPD, declared in banner headlines that 'Fascism is now here!'. Three years later they were to discover just how wrong they had been.

In denouncing one form of 'Fascism' he saw no contradiction in supporting another; or at least no contradiction in signing a petition on behalf of Robert Faurisson, the French Holocaust denier, on the grounds that he was defending the right to free speech. But it was so much more than that: the petition was a document that gave credence to Faurisson, a 'respected professor', 'who has been conducting extensive research into the "Holocaust" question'. There were those on the French left who could not quite believe that Chomsky had put his name to this, assuming that it must be some mistake, or that he had not read what he had signed. When told that the 'respected professor’, was a notorious anti-Semite, who believed, amongst other things, that it was the Jews who had declared war on Hitler, Chomsky insisted that, so far as he could determine, Faurisson was merely an 'apolitical liberal.' In defending himself Chomsky then proceeded into the deepest forms of sophistry, saying that Holocaust denial was not in itself proof of anti-Semitism because "if a person ignorant of modern history were told of the Holocaust and refused to believe that humans are capable of such monstrous acts, we would not conclude that he is an anti-Semite.  That suffices to establish the point at issue." What, one has to ask, about those like Faurisson who have studied modern history and still deny the Holocaust?

There are other areas where Chomsky's peculiar blindness, his obsession with American 'corporate Fascism', took him from one true extreme to another. Did you know, for instance, when the New York Review of Books praised François Ponchaud's Cambodia: Year Zero, Chomsky accused it of being guilty of "extreme anti-Khmer Rouge distortions." If there were atrocities in Cambodia, Chomsky continued, they were the result of the American bombing campaign.

This should really come as no surprise, as Chomsky's Manichean politics have continued to place all the good on one side and all the bad on the other; so the good naturally included people like Slobodan Milosevic, as well as Pol Pot. You see, when it comes to any form of action in the world, there is nothing, simply nothing, that the west can do right in the Chomsky scheme of things. I really do not know if this is 'junk' or not; but it is the politics of black and white. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Clio offers the usual right-wing distortions of Chomsky's comments on Cambodia. Fortunately they have been refuted in detail long ago, for example by Christopher Hitchens in his article The Chorus and Cassandra (which also discusses the Faurisson affair with more accuracy). What happened, in short, is that the New York Review of Books published a review by Jean Lacouture of Ponchaud's Cambodia: Year Zero in which the reviewer wrote that the Khmer Rouge had boasted of killing two million people. Chomsky pointed out that the reviewed book didn't say that at all; and that, according to Ponchaud, the US bombings had killed 800,000 people and 1.2 million were killed in the atrocities that followed. Lacouture published a correction. To conclude on the basis of this that for Chomsky "the good naturally included people like (...) Pol Pot" is really very silly. David Šenek (talk) 10:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's most definitely not a distortion that Chomsky called Faurisson "some kind of apolitical liberal", and never offered any meaningful apology or retraction whatsoever for that particular remark (so that those who took objection to the remark can only conclude that Chomsky still stands fully behind it to the current day...). AnonMoos (talk) 12:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is what he wrote:
 * ... it has been a truism for years, indeed centuries, that it is precisely in the case of horrendous ideas that the right of free expression must be most vigorously defended; it is easy enough to defend free expression for those who require no such defense. Putting this central issue aside, is it true that Faurisson is an anti-Semite or a neo-Nazi? As noted earlier, I do not know his work very well. But from what I have read -- largely as a result of the nature of the attacks on him -- I find no evidence to support either conclusion. Nor do I find credible evidence in the material that I have read concerning him, either in the public record or in private correspondence. As far as I can determine, he is a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort. In support of the charge of anti-Semitism, I have been informed that Faurisson is remembered by some schoolmates as having expressed anti-Semitic sentiments in the 1940s, and as having written a letter that some interpret as having anti-Semitic implications at the time of the Algerian war. I am a little surprised that serious people should put such charges forth -- even in private -- as a sufficient basis for castigating someone as a long-time and well-known anti-Semitic.
 * Is that really something he needs to apologize for? And to whom? David Šenek (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Chomsky could start by apologizing to all those who were offended by the fact that Chomsky described someone whose life seems to be consumed by an obsessive dedication to Holocaust denial activities (and who later prominently attended Mahmoud Ahmadinajad's infamous 2006 "Hitler Didn't Do Anything, But We Sure Do Want To Wipe Israel Off The Map Now" conference in Tehran) as an "apolitical liberal"[sic]. Part of the problem with the way Chomsky does things is that he never seems to offer the slightest meaningful apology or retraction for any past remark -- no matter how problematic other people may find it. Instead, sometimes he merely loftily ignores all objections, while in other cases he indulges himself in a casuistic microparsing of each separate clause and phrase, producing a lengthy justification and commentary with the apparent goal of proving that at no time has Chomsky ever made a mistake. This particular way of doing things ensures that his critics are not appeased, and that past problematic issues are never really resolved, but instead just keep piling up in an ever-growing heap. AnonMoos (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right that Chomsky doesn't seem to enjoy admitting mistakes. But I doubt that that's the reason this old stuff keeps coming up. It's his politics. The Cambodia thing is the most obvious example, there is absolutely nothing there, and yet it's dug up on every occasion to discredit him as a Pol Pot apologist. David Šenek (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, guys, I'm in a really good mood tonight: I think I might just offer you all two 'right-wing distortions' for the price of one! No, I simply hate upsetting people; really, I do. So, back I go to the piece dear old Chomsky and Edward Herman, his sidekick, wrote criticising the reports coming out of Cambodia, just to make sure I read it correctly. I seem to remember words of praise for two authors who swam against the 'imperialist' tide, publishing propaganda broadcasts from 'Radio Pol Pot'. Perhaps I was wrong? Perhaps Chomsky is indeed always to be found in the ranks of the just causes, like that of Faurisson.

Oh, I almost forgot; there is one other 'just cause' he aligned himself with, the Serbian crusade during the Bosnian Civil War. For just as he defended Faurisson so, too, did he defend Diana Johnstone, whose book, Fools' Crusade, showed how the deception of the wicked western media only served to provide justification for the wars against Milosevic, wars that were, of course, intended to reinforce the 'hegemony' of the United States. Were the dead of the so-called Srebrenica massacre really dead? No, of course not! How could they be when Chomsky and others described Johnstone's book as 'an outstanding work'? I also seem to remember something about him providing some indirect support for those who maintained that the photographs coming from the Serb concentration camps were forgeries? Or maybe that's me being silly again!

Oh, and finally, as a correction to my perceived right-wing bias, I suppose I should mention the response of Pierre Vidal-Naquet, a prominent radical French historian, to Chomsky's 'defence' of Faurisson;

''The simple truth, Noam Chomsky, is that you were unable to abide by the ethical maxim you had imposed. You had the right to say: my worst enemy has the right to be free, on condition that he not ask for the death or that of my brothers. You did not have the right to say: my worst enemy is a comrade, or a 'relatively apolitical sort of liberal'. You did not have the right to take a falsifier of history and recast him in the colours of truth.''

But it would seem for Chomsky that the truth, whether in Poland, in Cambodia or in Bosnia is a highly flexible concept. And there I rest! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile, the facts remain quite simple. Chomsky has never denied the Holocaust, Pol Pot's atrocities or the Srebrenica massacre (Johnstone too, by the way, says she never denied it, as anyone familiar with this affair would know). Both in the case of Faurisson and in the case of Johnstone, he defended their freedom of speech, not the content of their works. So the assertions that for Chomsky "the good naturally included people like Slobodan Milosevic, as well as Pol Pot" and that for him "the truth, whether in Poland, in Cambodia or in Bosnia is a highly flexible concept" are still based on nothing. David Šenek (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * However, Vidal-Naquet has a valid point -- adopting a Voltairean position of defending the right to speak of people whose positions you disagree with does NOT actually require getting all buddy-buddy and chummy-chummy with those who have expressed morally-repugnant views (the way Chomsky sometimes seems to do). AnonMoos (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Mikoyan Purge
I read in the article on Anastas Mikoyan that Stalin was considering him and others for a new purge before he died. I would like to know more about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.104.203 (talk) 14:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am certain you will receive a more detailed and authorative reply, if you're patient. Meanwhile, this is from the Time Magazine 's article given as reference in Wikipedia's article on Mikoyan:
 * "Yet the day came when Trader Mikoyan's supreme assurance broke down. In the last months of Stalin's life, Mikoyan's name was mentioned in connection with the mysterious "doctors' plot"; in his famed secret speech to the 20th Party Congress, Khrushchev said that Stalin then scathingly "characterized Molotov and Mikoyan" and "evidently had plans to finish them off." (Time Incorporated. 'Russia's Mikoyan: The Survivor. Time Magazine. September 16, 1957. Retrieved on February 29, 2008)
 * ---Sluzzelin talk  15:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There are indications, 217.42, that Stalin was turning against Mikoyan in the period just prior to the Nineteenth Party Congress in October 1952, as well as Vyacheslav Molotov, the other old Politburo stalwart. There was always an element of mistrust and superstition in Stalin's personality, but it became particularly acute towards the end of his life. Mikoyan had been foolhardy enough to show himself less than enthusiastic over the new political line laid out by the leader in his Economic Problems of the USSR. After the Congress, at the Plenum to elect the Presidium and Secretariat, Stalin made sure than both Mikoyan and Molotov were deliberately excluded from the inner Bureau, saying that they were 'scared' of American power. Most ominous of all, he accused them of being 'rightists', linking them with Alexei Rykov, who had been shot in 1938 during the Great Purge. It seems likely that they were only saved by Stalin's death in March 1953. Mikoyan was later to write "It was becoming clear...Stalin wanted to finish with us and that meant not only political, but physical destruction." Clio the Muse (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Into the wild
Why in the film Into the wild the river in Alaska isn't frozen? It has hot water? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.21.234.134 (talk) 14:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've never seen the film, but it really depends what time of year it was and what river it was. Wrad (talk) 16:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Why do you think Alaska is constantly frozen? It isn't Antarctica, you know. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 20:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah. If it's summer, in Fairbanks it could be anywhere from 70 - 90 degrees farenheit on a typical day... Wrad (talk) 20:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Christopher McCandless went there on April (temperature between 20-40 F) and died in the summer. Mr.K. (talk) 21:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like it wasn't cold enough to freeze a river, then, to me. Wrad (talk) 21:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Post Cold War
What is a nice long article about post Cold War europe, especially the countries part of the Warsaw Pact. If there isn't one article maybe a category containing post cold war articles. The Cold War category isn't what I'm looking for. I'm really only interested in events after Glasnost and Perestroika in former Yugoslavia and other former communist countries. Thanks, schyler (talk) 15:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would suggest, schyler, that your best strategy would be to look at the articles on the modern history of the individual nations involved in the Warsaw Pact, as well as the pages on Mikhail Gorbachev, the Berlin Wall, the Revolutions of 1989, the Velvet Revolution, the Romanian Revolution of 1989 and the Breakup of Yugoslavia. I suppose I should also mention Eastern Europe, though, to be frank, it is too skeletal to be of much worth.  Clio the Muse (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

most popular vacation times in USA?
Does anyone know where I could find a graph or table of the most popular days or weeks for Americans to take vacations, especially in the summer? Thanks! --Allen (talk) 16:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * By "vacation" would you include someone taking a day off of work to extend the weekend? Or do you mean going to the extent of traveling somewhere specifically for a vacation?  Dismas |(talk) 01:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ideally, the latter... people leaving both work and home overnight or longer. But I'll take whatever you've got.  --Allen (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

First morning cigarette
Why is it that first cigarette in the morning always feels the best?? 77.105.28.221 (talk) 18:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Having gone all night without a nicotine hit (this being, for most of us the longest smoke-free period of our "day") the body responds immediately to the nicotine rush. I am sure there is a clearer explanation out there, though. I suspect you would get better answers on the Ref Desk: Science, than here.៛ Bielle (talk) 18:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That experience may differ from person to person. Many smokers find that none are better than the first one after a meal. Of course, if you don't have your first one for the day until after breakfast, that may amount to the same thing; but it doesn't explain why the first smoke after lunch or after dinner feels better than the others.    --  JackofOz (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Mind you, what this has to do with Humanities escapes me. The guys over at the Science Ref Desk are probably far better equipped to give you a good answer.  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

prose edda, aesir, troy etc
In Snorri Sturluson's Prose Edda the gods (aesir) are said to have come from troy (asgard).

a. Are there any other sources that make this connection.

b. Is there any other evidence for this connection (archeological etc), can anyone provide a discussion of this connection eg essay/book etc.87.102.38.45 (talk) 18:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That was common in the ancient world, for gods and humans. The Romans believed they were descended from Trojan refugees (see the Aeneid). Nennius linked the first Britons with Troy as well (see Trojan genealogy of Nennius). I think Saxo Grammaticus linked the Norse gods that way too but I'm not 100% sure of that. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the question can be phrased thus: is there any evidence that the Norse mythology of Asgard goes back on the reality of Troy, and that the æsir populating Asgard evolved from stories about the nobility of Troy, told and re-told until the notion that these were mortal actual and historical figures had vanished from consciousness? I don't know the answer – in general it is difficult to state that something that potentially might exist somewhere, does in fact not exist anywhere – but I can say confidently that I doubt there is any substantially stronger evidence than the tenuous evidence put forth in the Prose Edda. Generalized to the form that some myths go back on historical figures, the thesis is plausible enough; for the specific connection Asgard – Troy (Asia), it is less so (at least in my opinion). --Lambiam 08:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You (the original poster, that is) may find some relevant information in the article Euhemerus. Note the section "Snorri Sturluson's 'euhemerism.'" Deor (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * yes, but it's the attempts to 'legitimise the current rulers' that cause me to doubt that the association contains any truth. I see that makes my viewpoint cynical. Geoffrey of Monmouth did a similar thing, though the situation is quite different. Perhaps the colonisation of north western europe really did come about from some cataclysmic event in Troy, that is remembered only as echos in folk tales. Or is it just appropiation, and collation of myths?
 * Again any more info would be appreciated..87.102.83.246 (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking for a demon named Diophosys
In Timmy 2000, "Timmy & The Lords of the Underworld" contains a lyric "Diophosys will rise again" referring to some kind of demon (the song also mentions Beelzebub). I've checked google and several variations of the name and nothing relative shows up. Is it a real demon or was it something South Park made up? --Ouzo (talk) 21:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That word doesn't really mean anything in Greek, as far as I can tell, though it appears to be an attempt to combine the roots of the Greek words for "Zeus" and "light"... AnonMoos (talk) 21:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * According to this website, the lyrics are actually, "The auspices will rise again." ◄   Zahakiel   ►  22:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * At a Public-Domain-Content website Under -Religion -Grimoires -The Book of Ceremonial Magic, by Arthur Edward Waite. Chapter IV there are a list of Demons.   I didn't see your guy Dio.  This may or may not be connected, but there's a heavy metal band named 'Dio' that is basically latin for God.  but if you take the Album title upside down, it spells 'Devil.'  So this could be a play on just words and points of view.  Plus AnonMoos mentions Zeus and Light, Lucifer means Light Giver.  Light Given from Zeus is one take.  Etcetra Etcetra. My personal opinion on Marvel Comics is that they are just updated versions of A.E.Waite, which his original versions being the Greeks, and before that even the witches of yore.  Side note, Beelze I guess is the #2 guy, so maybe this Diophosys is the Devil himself.  Or herself.  Depends on what side of the bed he/she wakes up on that day.  --i am the kwisatz haderach (talk) 22:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The name of the heavy metal band Dio comes from its founder and vocalist Ronnie James Dio, who named himself after the mafioso Johnny Dio, whose birth name was Giovanni Ignazio Dioguardi. While Dio in Italian means God, I see no clear indication that that played a role in the adoption of that name. As to the DIO logo upside down reading DEVIL, that requires too much imagination to my taste. According to Ronnie James Dio himself, "that just happens to be some incredible coincidence". --Lambiam 08:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It look likes Diophosys is a relative of that other demon, Gladly, aka the Cross-eyed Bear. --Lambiam 09:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Or maybe it's a misspelled diaphysis, because it chills us to the marrow. drrrr tching whack! ---Sluzzelin talk  11:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

As a previous user mentioned the actual lyrics go: "The auspices will rise again.", one may notice that the involved phonemes (how it is spoken) are identical to "Diophosys". This is most likely a case of a misheard lyric. 82.74.31.215 (talk) 23:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The Bodhisattva and Buddhahood
Hi all I have read the articles on the Bodhisattva and Buddhahood but I still have a few things I am unsure about. Any help with the following questions would be much appreiciated. First of all, is a Bodhisattva (according to the Mahayana schools) an enlightened being? The article on the Bodhisattva says a bodhisattva 'already has a considerable degree of enlightenment'. I have read elsewhere that when a person takes the bodhisattva vow they are unenlightened; but I am unsure as to what is correct. My second question is about buddhahood. I realise that Buddhahood is the ultimate goal of a mahayanist and this can be achieved by following the 6 paramitas (perfections) which in turn lead to progession along the ten bhumis (stages) the eleventh of which is buddhahood. My question is this: How is a Buddha different to a Bodhisattva? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.200.141.231 (talk) 21:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that a Buddha is a wholly englightened being, while a Bodhisattva is one that is on the path to enlightenment, but has not achieved it yet, or has chosen to delay enlightenment in order to help others. However, there are complications. In Buddhist mythology, Guanyin or Avalokiteśvara has already achieved Buddhahood, but "returns" as a Bodhisattva to guide others. Dizang or Ksitigarbha delayed his buddhahood unitl all hell is emptied and the beings of the hells are delivered. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

how many generations of grammar-based language users have there been?
Unless I'm wrong humans are the only animals who use grammar-based language, and unless I'm misfiguring, I am a direct descendent of a grammar-based language user whose parents failed to fit that description. So approximately how many generations are tehre between me and those parents, ie for approximately how many generations have there been grammar-based language users on Earth?

You can move this to the science desk if it more appropriate there...


 * It might actually be more appropriate to the language reference desk. If we take a rough stab at a guesstimate and say that fully modern human language may have originated roughly 40,000-60,000 years ago, and say that the average number of generations per century is 3.5 to 4, then we might get crude estimations of 1400 to 2400 generations.  Different assumptions will yield different results... AnonMoos (talk) 22:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * How many generations of chickens have there been? A chicken today is a direct descendent of a chicken whose parents were not chickens. Except that chickenhood, in particular moved back in time like that, is a fluid concept. Along the path of evolution leading to today's Gallus gallus domesticus the ancestors acquired more and-more chickenlike characteristics, but there is no specific generation you can point at and say: here the junglefowl turned into the chicken. It is likewise at least plausible that the grammatical competence of modern humans did not arise wholesale at once in its present form, but was also acquired piecemeal. For example, a Subject+Predicate grammatical structure may have preceded relative clauses or verbs with aspects and tenses by tens of thousands of years. The fact of the matter is that we know preciously little about the origin of language, although there is no lack of academic speculation. Most researchers appear to agree that humans had an advanced language facility sometime between 100,000 years and 50,000 years ago, but the evidence is essentially completely indirect: the (not very well attested) emergence of forms of human culture that are conjectured to be impossible without relatively advanced language. --Lambiam 09:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't grammar simply the mechanics of speech? In that case, all are grammar based, even if primitive. AllenHansen (talk) 11:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Grammar in this sense is how relationships between individual elements of meaning are made clear. Without grammar, there's no way to arrange the words "John", "Mary", and "kissed" to make it unambiguously clear that either John kissed Mary or Mary kissed John.  Some form of differentiation of sentence roles and basic recursion are indispensably necessary for a language to serve the functions that modern languages serve in modern human societies. It's conceivable that earlier hominins could have had moderately complex communication systems, but without any real grammar in the sense of modern languages... AnonMoos (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

75 Year Public Domain, Copyright Law Questiones? Re: FILM
I just watched a Georg Wilhelm Pabst film with Louise Brooks called Pandora's Box (film). I also watched The Threepenny Opera. Watching these Criterion Collection films made me think of the Wiki-copyright-laws in regards to wikisource and the 100 year law of published artists. I would hope that we continue in this same style of Open Source. How would I go about seeing this as a reality? Should I contact the law firm that processed the 100 year book law? I'm thinking 75 years is a good time limit on films, get the entire silent film database and soundies and first in film out there for the peoples. Let me know where to go first, advice on what I should study? Thanks. I'm at gmail as specialagent777 Subject WIKIPEDIA. Cheers! --i am the kwisatz haderach (talk) 22:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not entirely sure what you're referring to. Works published before 1923 in the U.S. are generally out of copyright in the U.S., and some works published between 1923 and 1978 in the U.S. can also be out of copyright in the U.S. in certain specific circumstances.  If you live in the U.S., look at what films are available on $1 DVDs in your local discount emporium...  Works published outside the U.S. are subject to international treaties governing copyrights.  None of this has anything to do with open source.  AnonMoos (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. Elephant's Dream is an actual open-source movie... AnonMoos (talk) 12:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Movies are complicated in terms of copyright laws. I'm not sure at what point it became standard but at some point actors in the US gained copyright control over their performances. Adds an entire huge horrible wrinkle to things. They are, if I understand correct, considered to be works with many, many authors. That makes copyright determination tougher, assuming they don't fall under the simple (pre-1923 in US, pre-1909 out of US) designations. (A good resource on when things fall into the public domain in the US is ).
 * If you don't know the ins-and-outs of copyright laws in regards to movies you probably shouldn't start down this path as an amateur. It's not as straightforward as things that have single authors.
 * That being said, the Prelinger Archive has a lot of out-of-copyright movies in it and dedicates themselves to putting such things online. So it's not unheard of. Personally, I'd leave it to them and their lawyers. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)