Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 May 3

= May 3 =

Song about kisses
Move to Entertainment Desk

How to get displayed in an Art Gallery
So, I've got about a 50 photos on a wide range of subjects that I think are display-worthy, how should I go about getting myself into a gallery? What about publishing, etc.--Elatanatari (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's some ideas, worth exactly what you paid for them: start with smaller galleries that may be more willing to take a risk on an unknown artist. Ask to see the owner and show her what you've got. Or, how about starting with a trendy, artist-friendly restaurant and offer to split any sales receipt with the owner? DOR (HK) (talk) 03:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you haven't done so I would recommend joining a photographic club. They often have exhibitions of members works, and you can find out what other people think of your photos. You will also meet other photographers near you who have trodden the same path, and probably some who will be able to recommend suitable venues to you - and probably recommend you to them, if they like you. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

A friend of mine approached local cafes and asked if he could hang his stuff there.Most gave him some wall space provided he did all the work and he even sold some,..hotclaws 03:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Thanks!--Elatanatari (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Bank interest rate
Hello. You probably know that when the bank lends to you, the lower your credit score, the higher the interest rate. If you have a low credit score, that means you're risky, and may be less-likely to repay the loan. Why then do banks charge higher amounts for riskier investments? Doesn't that increase the risk? Don't they want a low risk person to loan to? Please explain. --Under22Entreprenuer (talk) 01:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The idea is that the higher risk person is at a higher risk regardless of the interest rate. In other words, if you loaned to them at even 0% interest they are almost as likely to default as if you loaned to them at 20% interest.  Thus, from the banks point of view, its far better to get the money from you up front in the form of higher interest rates, since statistically speaking, you probably aren't going to pay them back in full anyways.  If you are a good credit risk, then the banks want to compete with each other for your business, since they are going to get the full value of the loan back.  Thus, they will give you as low a rate as possible to get your business away from other banks.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  01:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that in theory the higher interrest rate is also intended to compensate for those who will default on their loans. The higher risk persons pay more to compensate for the other high risk person who for whatever reason is unable to pay (plus a sizable profit for the bank of course). Flamarande (talk) 02:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Try to think of it not at the individual level. Think of one group of low risk people. And of a different group, which is high-risk. If the bank is trying to get the same amount of money out of each group, they have to charge higher interests for high-risk people (because quite a few of them won't pay back in full; and besides, whenever someone doesn't pay back on time, it also costs salaries for the employees working to get at least some money back). For the low-risk group, where most people are expected to pay back in full, no such "make up interest rate" is necessary.


 * In addition, as Jayron32 pointed out, low-risk customers are a better deal, so banks try harder to attract them. I wouldn't say though that banks are trying to give "as low a rate as possible" because banks are trying to make profit. So it's more a mixture of "possible and necessary." You can easily see that if you look at the rates of smaller, local banks--they're often much better! Nonetheless, bigger banks aren't trying to rival them, but rather make more profit as long as their customers don't care to switch banks... --Thanks for answering (talk) 02:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

finding out the year of publication
I've just gotten an old copy of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, published by Donohue, Henneberry & Co (illustrations by Tenniel). I'd like to know how old the book is, but I can't find a year of publication. By the looks of the book, I'm speculating it could be beginning of the 20th century or possibly even earlier (though the hard cover still looks pretty decent, so maybe not). Any suggestions how to find out more? --Thanks for answering (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

PS: Okay, so this website says the publisher was in business from 1871 to 1903 and this website says from 1871 to 1899. Now, how can I find out when my copy was published? Thanks!!! --Thanks for answering (talk) 02:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea about this particular book, but in general, an image helps to identidy things, especially old things. That way an expert could identify it by visual  features. BrainyBabe (talk) 02:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * A poster on this site talks about owning a copy from 1899.--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Which Nowe Miasto?
A post-WWII archival photograph was taken in "Nowe Miasto" in Upper Silesia. As I've found no map or coordinates delineating the boundaries of that region, which of the several localities named Nowe Miasto would fall within its territory? --Deborahjay (talk) 07:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know, but here's some thoughts: Nowe Miasto (New Town/City; German: Neustadt) is a pretty common name, so I wouldn't be surprised if there's more than one unit of that name in Upper Silesia. Wodzisław Śląski is in Upper Silesia and has a district called Nowe Miasto. On the other hand, Upper Silesian Prudnik was called Neustadt in Oberschlesien (= New Town/City in Upper Silesia) in German [Wikipedia doesn't say if that name was ever translated into Polish], so that'd speak against too many other Upper Silesian places by the same name because shouldn't it then be named after something more local (a river, ford, hill, etc.) rather than "in Upper Silesia"...? - Good luck, Ibn Battuta (talk) 07:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know either, but: The German WP says that Neustadt O.S (= Upper Silesia) was the name of an administrative area between 1816 and 1945.  The admin. centre (Landratsamt) of this area was located in the town of Neustadt O.S., which is now called Prudnik.  Maybe Nowe Miasto was a temporary place-name which was abolished to avoid any confusion with identically named towns in other Voivodeships.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 08:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to your likely leads, iB & C.e.Z, I'm taking this query to the next power. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

What is a criminal?
I'm really confused. What is a criminal?

Is a criminal


 * 1) a human being who preforms an action which is an illegal action in the land?
 * 2) a human being found by a court of law to have commited a criminal action?

For example: Bill Clinton said he smoked weed. Since smoking weed is a criminal action, is Bill Clinton a criminal? Can I call him a criminal in his face on the ground that he did perform a criminal action even if no one has witnessed him doing so? 122.107.207.98 (talk) 07:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In UK media usage, criminals tend to be those who have been convicted. Those who break the law and have not been caught and convicted are "the public". --TammyMoet (talk) 08:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * See Presumption of innocence. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd express it this way. If you (1) commit a crime, then you are in fact a criminal.  But until you (2) have been convicted of a crime, it is not true that anyone is allowed to legally say that you are a criminal (or otherwise treat you like one, e.g. sending you to jail).  That's what "presumption of innocence" is about.  And if you ignore it and call someone a criminal when they haven't been convicted, you run the risk of penalties for libel or slander (or false imprisonment, etc.).


 * People involved with the law or with the news media or are well aware of this and will be careful how they use words like "criminal". They might say "He's not a criminal until he's convicted", but they're talking about what they're allowed to say and do, not about what the facts are.


 * So what if someone, like Clinton, says he committed a crime and got away with it; and then you say "he's a criminal, then"; and he sues you for slander? I don't know.  Truth is generally a defense against defamation, but the law may be different in different countries, and predicting what a court would decide is well beyond what anyone on the Reference Desk should be doing anyway.  --Anonymous, 19:00 UTC, May 3, 2009.


 * But at some level, if your standard is "has broken a law at least once in his life" then it is literally impossible to be a person in the modern world and not be a criminal. Every person who drives a car has let it creep over the speed limit, at least a little bit, even without intending to.  Doing so is against the law.  Many people have rolled through a Stop Sign without rolling to a full and complete stop.  Doing so is against the law.  Many Americans have had their first drink before the age of 21.  Doing so is against the law.

The supposition that "anyone who has commited an act which is proscribed by laws = a criminal" looks fine on paper, but to extend that to treating someone differently because of that action is rediculous because at that level, we are all criminals. So we have to start drawing distinctions. Is smoking a joint worse than rolling through a stop sign? Is speeding worse than taking a ream of paper home from the office? Who is qualified to make such distinctions to say "these are the really important crimes which we should treat people differently for, and these other things here aren't that big of a deal?" You know who is? Courts of law. So we are back to the standard of conviction. --Jayron32. talk . contribs 02:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You were doing fine until you brought "Courts of law" into it, especially in connection with traffic violations. Those sometimes lead to convictions no matter how minor they are (note that getting and paying a ticket means you are pleading guilty and accepting being convicted).  The distinctions you talk about are a real issue, but "the standard of conviction" does not help resolve them.  (Side comment: in Canada, traffic violations are not criminal offenses; they're quasi-criminal.)  --Anon, 06:24 UTC, May 4, 2009.
 * That's not true. Paying a traffic fine does not result in a conviction. Under a common law system you can only be convicted by a court of law. The police, being an administrative organ, has no competency in exercising judicial power according to the separation of powers. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That would not make sense: if there's no conviction there's no liability to pay the fine. As I said, if you pay the ticket without going to court, you are pleading guilty.  They just don't require you to attend court in person to do it.  --Anon, 14:11 UTC, May 4.
 * You don't have to pay the fine, you can choose to go to court instead and get sentenced the old fashioned way. There is still no criminal conviction involved, though, since such offences aren't criminal (in any jurisdiction I'm familiar with). --Tango (talk) 23:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not quite right - breaking the law is not necessary a criminal offence. It might just be a civil one. Breaching a contract, for example, would not generally make one a criminal. --Tango (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd be more cautious with that word 'literally'. —Tamfang (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Bottom line: if someone is said to have committed a crime, either the person is a criminal or the speaker is a liar. If someone admits to committing a crime, either the person is a criminal or the person is a liar. If someone is convicted of committing a crime, the person is a criminal. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The other point is that a certain act may be classed as a criminal act in one jurisdiction, but merely a misdemeanour in another, and not illegal at all in yet another. Being a criminal in one place does not necessarily make you a universal criminal.  --  JackofOz (talk) 05:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A misdemeanor is a type of criminal act, just a lesser one than a felony (equivalent terms in the UK, if anyone is interested, are "summary offence" and "offence triable on indictment" [there are actually 3 categories in the UK - some offences can be tried "either way"]). You were probably thinking of a civil offence. There are, indeed, some offences that are civil in one jurisdiction and criminal in other (libel, for example, can be a criminal offence in the UK, but is only ever a civil offence in the US). --Tango (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think "if someone is said to have committed a crime, either the person is a criminal or the speaker is a liar" is misleading. There are many cases when someone may genuinely believe the other person committed a crime but may be mistaken. Eyewitness identification is notoriously unreliable not primarily because people lie (which they do) but because most memories are far from perfect and people are prone to suggestion etc. To a lesser extent "If someone admits to committing a crime, either the person is a criminal or the person is a liar" it's possible if that the person may be insane, covering for someone else (which would likely make them a criminal but in a different way), the victim of blackmail, an attention seeker, desire a life in prison etc Nil Einne (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, "is a liar" should be replaced by "is a liar or is mistaken". --Tango (talk) 23:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Jayron's comment that "Everyone is a criminal" I would disagree with. The only law that I'm aware of breaking is copyright - and that was because I was too young to realise. If I'd happened to not do that, I'd be a legal angel. Vimescarrot (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You've never broken a speed limit in a car? Never trespassed? Never slandered anyone? Never blasphemed (that's still on the law books in many countries)? Never stolen your sibling's Easter eggs? I'm afraid I don't believe you... --Tango (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't own a car. I see no reason to have trespassed. Can minors be punished for slander or blasphemy? If not, I wouldn't consider a child doing either of those to be a criminal, would you? I've never stolen an Easter egg. This has sparked my curiosity - since it's getting off-topic, I'm going to create a new subheader for it. Vimescarrot (talk) 10:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

california trespassing
where online can i find the california penal code regarding trespassing. i think its section 201.2, any point me out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.67.171 (talk) 08:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/602.html --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Emperor of the Franks
Were any of the Frankish Holy Roman Emperors ever call Emperor of the Frank? I noticed it in the Louis the Pious article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk • contribs)


 * No, what it says was that he was "co-Emperor", and "King of the Franks". In this case, Emporer is meant to be the Roman Emperor, unqualified.  The sentance structure may make it appear to say he was "Emperor and King" of the Franks, but it really should be read as I have indicated above.  I reworded it to make it less confusing.  Until relatively modern times, the word Empire had one meaning: The Roman Empire.  If one was called "Emperor" it was always assumed that the title meant Roman Emperor.  Never mind that at this time there were two Empires, think of it more as competing claims for the title, or perhaps as both sides agreeing to be co-Emperors (i.e. the Holy Roman Emperor as the Emperor of the West and the Byzantine Emperor as the Emperor of the East).  The generalization of the term "empire" to mean an expansionist state which subsumes other states into its hegemony (that is, empire as a common noun) is a relatively recent idea.  For most of history, there was one Empire, and it was Rome.  Even when Napoleon crowned himself Emperor, it was that he was laying claim to the legacy of Rome as the unifying force of all Europe.  He specifically did not crown himself King of France, but as Emperor, of which there should be only one. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  17:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * They were certainly not co-emperors at this point. The Byzantine emperors never recognized the HRE's claims; there was some intermarriage between the two, but never a formal cooperation. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, certainly not any formal cooperation, but begrudging acceptance of reality is more like it. The ideal was still always "One Empire" but in practical purposes there were really two: The Western and Eastern.  But both thought of itself as the rightful successor to the "One True Universal Empire" of Rome.  Even later empires always maintained this idea that there was only One Empire.  The Russian "Tsar" (aka Caesar) was supposed to replace the Byzantine Emperor as the One Emperor, and remember that the German Empire of Kaiser (aka Caesar) Wilhelm I was declared only after the defeat of the French Second Empire under Napoleon III.  In general, a new Empire only was declared when a) The old Empire is defeated or b) The old Empire was declared invalid.  Of course, this system eventually broke down, and we end up with things like the Mexican Empire and Empire of Brazil which had no claim to, or made any pretext to, descent from Rome, but those were rather late comers to the game.  The ideal in Europe for a centuries was that there was only One Empire.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  19:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Empress Irene recognised Charlemagne's claim shortly after he began claiming the imperial title, if I remember right; but she wasn't seen as the steady sort of personage that should be on the throne, and she was overthrown a short while later. Nyttend (talk) 12:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

squeemish ancient history question
you can skip this if you're easily offended.

my question is: did the greeks have lube? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.148.139 (talk) 09:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand the issue is anal intercourse as the rectum isn't lined with mucous membranes to provide natural lubrication? Start with Anal intercourse. A pertinent question in the context of sodomy in pederastic relationships: in cases of unequal social status, if penetration was forced on a young partner unable (or unwilling due to unfavorable consequences) to decline the act. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That page also says that intercrural sex was more common. Of course, you can also use lube for plain old heterosexual sex...I don't know if they had, but I do remember reading about all sorts of ancient condoms, so it wouldn't be too surprising if they did. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * See also vaginal lubrication and personal lubricant -- the sources listed there may have more leads. Also educational is History of erotic depictions. Or, from the opposite end, read that very raunchy Roman poet (whose name escapes me -- anyone?) and track down scholars of his life and work. Coincidentally, just yesterday I picked up an old copy of a book entitled something like Sex and the Roman Empire. It was so old that what it meant by "sex" was the role that women played in that society. Sadlly, no odes to intercrural sex, which they no doubt had lots of lovely Latin names for. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ovid. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I bet the reason it was odd is because of "sex and the city". Thus "sex and the" anything will be odd.  before sex and the city it wouldn't have been odd. 94.27.226.57 (talk) 09:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * William A. Percy refers to Greek Erotica on Attic Red Figure Vases by Martin F. Kilmer (London, 1993)
 * "Concluding that olive oil was very likely used as a sexual lubricant in the Late Archaic period., Kilmer wonders aloud in his book whether this fact may explain the presence of containers of oil in a number of scenes of pederastic courtship." Pederasty and Pedagogy in Archaic Greece by William A. Percy, University of Illinois Press, 1998, p 120, ISBN 0252067401
 * The article on olive oil doesn't mention this. ---Sluzzelin talk  19:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mean Catullus? Ah, his lover's little sparrow... 80.41.127.59 (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So how did Popeye use Olive Oyl? Ack, ack ack! Edison (talk) 02:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well blow me down! I'm strong to the finitch cuz I eats me spinitch.  I'm Popeye the Sailor Man... (toot toot)... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  02:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Many people have independently discovered this use for olive oil, or any handy kitchen oil, without ever having read about it or being told about it. It would be absurd to think the Greeks and earlier civilizations didn't also cotton on to it.  --  JackofOz (talk) 05:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * many people have also independently discovered that Italy looks like a boot, but per my earlier question here at the reference desk, it seems this is a recent discovery and for example poor Pliny had to struggle with the description of the peninsula as an "elongated oak leaf, bending to the left at the top and ending in the shape of an amazon's shield."  He could have really used that Aha! moment of someone telling him to stop straining himself, it's a freakin boot.  For all we know the Greeks did not yet have the Aha! moment with olive oil... 94.27.226.57 (talk) 09:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure of the relevance; boots shaped like the Italian peninsula did not exist in the time of Pliny. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're dead right, of course, 94. It is possible that the first person who had the idea of using olive oil as a sexual lubricant lived long after the ancient Greeks.  Possible, but imo very unlikely.  We may one day find the earliest recorded reference to this use; but however old it is, I would never believe that it had not been used earlier than that, by someone who made no record of it.  It's a bit like masturbation; the earliest known reference to it is probably no more than a couple of thousand years ago, if that.  Does that mean that people never did it before then?  Of course not.  All it means is there no surviving record of them doing it (assuming they made records of their masturbatory activities, which they probably didn't, because hardly anybody does.  Ever.) --  JackofOz (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Way to go Sluzzelin for coming up with an academically impeccable quotation! And yes, it was Catullus I had in mind.  After posting my response, I was thinking about this question while walking around the park; the obviousness of olive oil jumped out, so I'm glad others have pre-empted me.  Oil is almost by definition one of the v  ery best lubricants-- that article refers to mechanical engineering, but the principle is the same with biological entertainment. The Greeks and Romans used olive oil extensively for massage, e.g. after sports and in the bath houses. It is an obvious extension from muscles to genitalia. We moderns avoid oil because it rots rubber, but of course the Classical World did not have access to latex (the sap of a tropical tree) -- nor polyurethane etc.!  Nor, as far as I know, any evidence of any sort of condom, even lamb's intestine.  BrainyBabe (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Another reference I found: "By 500 BCE an industry to manufacture dildos, made from wood and padded leather to be used with olive oil as a lubricant, arose in the region of Miletus" (Peter N. Stearns, Sexuality in World History, Taylor & Francis, 2009, p 31, ISBN 0415777763)
 * As a sidenote: Soranus of Ephesus and Aristotle described the use of olive oil as a contraceptive ("... anoint that part of the body on which the seed falls"), and so did Marie Stopes more than 2,000 years later. Autumn Stanley speculates about olive oil's popularity as a contraceptive among women of modern times "because women could tell their husbands it was a lubricant—and because they could buy and store it for another purpose—whereas with some other methods the purpose could not be concealed." (Autumn Stanley, Mothers and daughters of invention: notes for a revised history of technology, Rutgers University Press, 1995, p 252, ISBN 0813521971) ---Sluzzelin talk  11:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Best way to make money
I have 450,000 US dollars to invest. What is likely the best way to make the most money by the end of the year, without a high risk of losing a large amount of the investment in the long term? Obviously "high risk", "large amount" and "long term" are fairly subjective terms. Let's say I would like to recover at least 90% of the original investment in the next five years, and I will leave "high risk" to the reader's personal judgement. Any input welcomed. BellyButtonDesigner (talk) 11:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Roche if you think this flu thing is serious. F (talk) 12:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Talk to a professional financial planner. Looking for advice on investments from a group of strangers, with no accountability, on the Internet, with no reliable identifiability, is already a stratospheric risk. Paying attention to that advice gives "risk" a whole new meaning. (And, by the way, I can take your money and absolutely guarantee you will get back 90% of your invested capital in 5 years. I can just take $45,000 off the top for me, and put the remaining $405,000 under my bed in a fireproof box. I'll even throw in the box for free when I return the 90% ;-)) // BL \\ (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Amen. People around here are rightly afraid to give legal or medical advice, but ask a question on economics or finance and the amateur pontificators come out in droves. Get professional advice. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats because medical and legal advice have legal ramifications. Any idiot can give out economic advice and the investor who listened to them has no recourse if something goes wrong. But, the best solution is to listen to someone who knows what they are doing, and none of those people are here. Livewireo (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

All investments have some risk of loss, although investments guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government are considered to have the maximum degree of safety. Thus, there is no investment, or combination of investments, that gives you absolute assurance that you will recover at least 90% of your investment over a five-year period. However, if you invest at least 90% of your money in federally guaranteed investments, you do have a reasonably good assurance that that amount will still be around at the end of that period.

Since you appear not to be a sophisticated investor, and to be fairly risk-averse, you would be best-served by a conservative investment adviser. The trust department of your bank may offer the kind of advice you need, as do many investment managers. Make sure that whoever you choose is aligned with your investment goals; choosing someone who specializes in picking stocks, for example, is unlikely to be a good choice for a risk-averse investor. Also, find out how they are compensated. Some advisers get their compensation from the products they sell; you may be better-advised to choose a fee-only adviser, whom you pay directly. John M Baker (talk) 05:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To clarify: The maximum degree of safety for an investment denominated in US dollars is one guaranteed by the US government. If you want an investment denominated in some other currency, you need that currency's government bonds (assuming that government is from one of the major, stable economies - if not, there really aren't any particularly low risk investments). Investing in a currency other than the one you intend to eventually spend the money in opens you up to risks from changing exchange rates. If you invest in non-index linked government bonds, you are also open to risk from inflation. In an efficient market, your expected return is determined entirely by the risk you are willing to endure, the only way to get a better return is to take on more risk or to exploit inefficiencies in the market, which isn't something most people can do (it isn't something most professional investors can do, for that matter!). --Tango (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

What would happen if New York was attacked with a nuclear weapon?
What would happen if New York was attacked with a nuclear weapon large enough to kill a million people, but nobody could identify who was responsible? What would happen if, a couple of days later, San Francisco suffered the same fate? Crazy Wind (talk) 11:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See top of this page:
 * "The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead. "
 * Have you read the page on the Atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? In that case the responsible agent was known, but the consequences in the aftermath may be relevant for your consideration. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since atomic bombs were invented, the military and civilian leaders of nuclear (and non-nuclear) powers have pondered what to do if attacked. Herman Kahn was one such military strategist, and an inspiration for Dr. Strangelove. One option would be to use the bombing as an excuse to launch an attack they wanted to do anyway, like the Bush government invading Iraq as a response to the 9/11 attack (which was not done by Iraqis, nor was it planned or launched from Iraq). A country might respond by attacking a traditional enemy or a rival world power. There are probably war games and think-tank analyses of how best to respond to a nuclear detonation, but countries are likely to keep them secret. If the secret war plans of Russia called for responding to an anonymous nuclear detonation by launching a decapitating strike against China, say, then it would be in the interests of anti-Chinese government groups to set off such a device in Russia. A suitcase nuke could be strategically leveraged into a massive nuclear strike. As for setting off nukes anonymously, there would be claims of responsibility by numerous groups who wanted to bend the government to their will: give them a billion dollars, make them Dictator for Life, outlaw abortion, save the whales, prohibit alcohol consumption, abandon Israel, overthrow the Cuban government, stop illegal immigration, Tell the Truth about flying saucers or 9/11, etc. The actual group that had gone to the trouble and expense of acquiring the devices would be likely to make known that they were responsible by announcing perhaps the timing of the next detonation (but not the place). After a couple of demonstrations, few governments would still be willing to "Refuse to negotiate with terrorists." It might be possible for analysts to tell whose nuclear arsenal the fissionable material had come from, but that would not prove the source government was behind the attack. Nukes all too often get "lost." One likely response would be an intense intelligence effort to determine what group was responsible, followed by attacks against their bases, camps, offices, and leaders, including any country which afforded them a refuge, much like the invasion of Afghanistan to retaliate against Al Qaeda after 9/11. If there were an ongoing threat of more attacks, civil liberties in the attacked country would be curtailed, and electronic surveillance increased, much like happened in the Bush administration after 9/11. Edison (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think nukes are "lost" as often as you seem to imply they are. There are a finite number of lost nukes in the world, each of which have a pretty predictable isotopic content, so it would be pretty straightforward to figure out whether the blast could have been from a "lost" nuke or not. You can certainly identify the source of the uranium or plutonium, which could then lead to a more pronounced discussion with said country over when they may have "lost" any nukes and how high the yields of those were (which would narrow it down quite a bit). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You might be interested in Sum of All Fears which looks at this (though not with New York). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He means the book. The film was utter rubbish.  65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not at all confident that a failed world power with thousands of nukes would be able to resist the bribes offered by terrorists or rogue states. Would no general, colonel,or private be interested in a bribe of millions of dollars, or be malleable through blackmail or threats of violence against a kidnapped loved one? Or be amenable to appeals to their political or religious beliefs? Klaus Fuchs (German/British) scientist, supplied atomic bomb information to the Soviets in the 1940's for political reasons. Kim Philby (British) intelligence officer, likewise spied for the Soviets in the 1930's and 1940's. If they were in charge of bombs, is it not likely they would have turned them over as well? Do we know that all U.S, Russian, Indian, Pakistani, Chinese, British, French, and perhaps Israeli or North Korean functionaries guarding nukes are more trustworthy than CIA counter-intelligence officer Aldrich Ames, or FBI agent Robert Hanssen, convicted of spying for the Soviets and later for Russia, however much such spies may qualify their acts? Edison (talk) 03:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That is why you have many people responsible for keeping an eye on the nukes. That way, you have to bribe many people, and have a greater chance of failure.  65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Japan's religous demographic
I'm looking for the exact percentages of religions practiced by citizens of Japan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.80.59 (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Our article on Religion in Japan, surprisingly, does not quote the numbers you are looking for, but it is well referenced. If you follow some of the sources, such as this one from the CIA World Factbook:  you may find such data.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  19:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that religious affiliations are not always exclusive; traditionally, the majority of Japanese were both Shinto and Buddhist, while being influenced by Confucianist philosophy... AnonMoos (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

have any antisemites converted to judaism?
Have there been any cases of an antisemite converting to judaism on an "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" principle? Or even tried? I would think this would be especially tempting to those antisemites who think the Jews control [whatever] but thus far have not been able to locate any specific cases... 94.27.137.46 (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There are many cases of non-Jews converting to Judaism, but seriously, why would a true "antisemite" convert to Judaism? Such a speculation makes plainly no sense.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  19:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of antisemites whose main problem is that they think Jews control the world. So it would follow (if my premise is true) that at least a small percentage would decide it's easier to join 'em and defect to the people they think are controlling the world...  really I don't see how it doesn't follow (for at least a small percentage of these people in specific, not all antisemites)... 94.27.137.46 (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Julius Lester launched modern political Black antisemitism into public prominence in the U.S. by allowing a bigoted poem (referring to the Ocean Hill schoolboard dispute) to be read on his WBAI radio show. He later converted to Judaism himself... AnonMoos (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a guy from Utah who was active in antisemitic hate groups and wound up converting to Judaism. He now gives speeches about tolerance. Don't know his name, though. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 07:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who genuinely thought "Jews control the world" and converted to Judaism would, I fear, be sadly let down by the impotent reality he discovered. When Dorothy pulled back the curtain, she found the Wizard was a bit less omniscient than she thought previously. --Dweller (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Bootmakers to Kings
In The_Good_Shepherd_(film), Fredericks mentions "bootmakers to kings" before he is killed. What's he talking about? Black Carrot (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You may want to ask that at the entertainment reference desk instead of here.--Under22Entreprenuer (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I've moved it. Black Carrot (talk) 02:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)