Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 November 9

= November 9 =

Begrüßungsgeld
In 1988 West Germany, what can you buy with your 100 DM "welcome money"? F (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Taking the data from this source and this source and doing the math, I find that DM 100 in 1988 would be worth about €71 in 2008. There has been very little inflation since 2008, so that number is about right for today.  That would be enough money to stay in the cheapest accommodation, such as a youth hostel, for 2 nights and maybe to buy about 2 days worth of cheap food.  That might be enough to get by before one could expect to qualify for assistance from the West German state, although they may well have had facilities free of charge for refugees.  Alternatively, that amount could buy a train ticket (maybe not on an express train) to most parts of Germany.  When the Berlin wall was opened, I think that many of the East Berliners who flooded across used their welcome money to buy small luxuries or consumer goods that they couldn't get in the east.  Marco polo (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It would, for example, have bought you 20 pounds of coffee, 4-5 meals in non-fancy restaurants, one meal in a fancy restaurant, 100 l of milk or 10 kg of chocolate, 12 cinema tickets, or 15 paperback books. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

what is the relationship between truth and reality?
what is the relationship between truth and reality, if any. 92.230.65.3 (talk) 07:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * To quote Aristotle (from memory): "To say of that which is that it is not, or of that which is not that it is, is untrue, whereas to say of that which is that it is, or of that which is not that it is not, is true." Reality would be "that which is", and truth would be the property of being an accurate statement about reality. Aristotle is not being flip, rather he is drawing a picture of the blindingly obvious to draw our attention to the fact that it really is blindingly obvious. That is, he's trying to say that "truth" and "untruth" and their relationship to reality are irreducible and you can't really explain them to someone who does not understand, or pretends not to (Socratic irony has its limits). But that's just one view. If you don't like it, other philosophers have others.--Rallette (talk) 11:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * To most people, "truth" is an absolute. That is, "truth" = "reality".  There are a minority, however, that think of "truth" as relative, or, in other words, it's whatever you think it is, regardless of reality.  A prime example of that type of thinking is in the book Nineteen Eighty Four, where it is argued that if everyone thinks that 2+2=5, then it does. StuRat (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Truth is how reality is perceived. For example, think of the story of the blind men and the elephant. They were asked to describe the elephant based on what they perceived by touching it. Four of them said an elephant is like a tree trunk: one said it was like a snake: one said it was like a whip with hair at the end. Of course, it isn't like that - but that was their perception, and to them that was the truth. It's the basis behind qualitative analysis in social sciences: asking people how they perceive a service, rather than relying on quantitative analysis which only tells you numbers. For example, consider a charity which provides a service funded by an external agency such as the NHS. It can provide a really good service which meets all the targets regarding bums on seats/footfall, but if service users give negative feedback, then funders are likely to withdraw the funding. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Romantic friendship
Could I get some info that has to do with the same topic as romantic friendship, but heterosexual focused? Ks0stm (T•C•G) 07:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is Platonic love useful to you? --Tango (talk) 07:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Closer, but I guess I'm looking for more information on the modern definition stated in the first sentence as applied to heterosexual romantic friendships, and on the heterosexual romantic friendships themselves. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 08:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's discussed at length in Theodore Zeldin's An Intimate History of Humanity. Book has references you could look up, too. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, girls who aren't into you sexually are not going to cuddle with you, you might as well forget it. 92.230.65.3 (talk) 08:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not true. I had a friend who wasn't lesbian but she cuddled and even kissed me sometimes because she knew I liked her, but it was always clear that this was just for me and wasn't going to go any further  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.85 (talk) 12:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is one of the funnier, and somewhat insulting, responses I have ever seen at the reference desk. If you must know, I am doing research for AP Psychology. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 08:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you be a bit more specific please, what section of that article is closest to what you want? By the way many people fool themselves a friendship is just that but they turn into affairs. Dmcq (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's somewhat difficult to phrase...basically, like said above, "Platonic love, in its modern popular sense...non-sexual affectionate relationship" or "romantic friendship...very close but non-sexual relationship between friends". I can find a plethora of information on purely romantic relationships or non-romantic friendships, but I can never seem to find any information on what falls in between, which is what I am looking for. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 15:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Friends with benefits? Casual relationship? ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 16:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Those two are usually explicitly not romantic. They are just sexual. --Tango (talk) 19:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In my experience, they rarely last long without any romantic feelings whatsoever, and often something in between develops. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 20:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Am I perhaps looking for a relationship style that doesn't exsist (or at least hasn't been widely studied) when I think "A) Romantic feelings, B) No sexual desire, and C) very close friendship" all rolled into one? Ks0stm (T•C•G) 20:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, when you put it that way, that just sounds like marriage ten years in! ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 20:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * +1,000,000 Mike R (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

World War II British submarine sonar operators
I'm researching British WWII submarine sonar operators. I've found a lot of useful information on the web, but I've been unable to find answers to the following two questions:

What wages would a sonar operator have earned? Where would he fit into the command hierarchy?

Please could somebody point me in the right direction? Yes, I admit this is homework, but I've spend a lot of time looking for answers to these two questions, and have drawn a blank.

Thanks in advance.--168.168.43.250 (talk) 11:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The best links I can find are this from a British operator, and this from a US one. In both cases the operators are enlisted men, not officers, and seem to be only a couple of ranks up the ladder from the bottom. Knowing that should let you find out what the wages were - I doubt they were paid more than others of their rank. Even in WWII everyone on a ship had a specific job, usually a pretty technical one. It may help with your search to know that during WWII the British usually referred to Sonar as ASDIC.


 * Have a look at this ; the relevant RN rank (near the bottom of the page) might be Submarine Detector Instructor, Higher Submarine Detector and Submarine Detector. Then look here : (click bottom right of the image to enlarge). "Rate per diem"...

"Submarine Detector Instructor: 1s 9d

Higher Submarine Detector: 0s 9d or 1s 0d

Submarine Detector: 0s 6d

Anti-Submarine Officer's Writer (ie clerk): 0s 3d"

I'm fairly sure that this is in addition to their usual daily rates of pay, which you can find here - Ordinary Seaman, Leading Seaman etc etc. Hope this helps. Alansplodge (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It's me again - it looks from your question as though you mean an ASDIC operator in a submarine rather than on a surface warship. Therefore Page 33 (my second link above) says...

"Submarine pay: 0s 9d to 3s 9d

Rangefinding allowance 0s 2d

Hydrophone allowance 0s 3d"

I don't know if ASDIC would be "rangefinding" but I don't see what else you could use underwater. I don't think they would mention ASDIC by name because it was secret. A hydrophone is a listening device - does it need more skill than ASDIC? I'm raising more questions than I'm answering I'm afraid! Alansplodge (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "Rangefinding" may refer to the parallax rangefinder in the sub's periscope. Knowing the distance and speed of your target was essential for proper aiming of torpedoes. --Carnildo (talk) 01:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe, but in old films, it's always the Skipper that gets to look through the periscope. My grandfather was a submariner, but is no longer with us to ask. Alansplodge (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sstock markets
Differences and similarities between Primary markets and Secondary markets 12:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.201.34.165 (talk)


 * Apples and pears - participants, structure, pricing, settlement and regulation are all different. Only similarity is instruments - a security issued in the primary market may subsequently be traded in the secondary markets. See primary market and secondary market. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Humans arguing with God
The Old Testament contains occasional examples of human prophets arguing with or at least strongly debating with God (2 examples: Abraham lobbying for the saving of Sodom; Moses arguing with God not to destroy the Israelites after the Golden Calf episode). Are there similar examples in the New Testament and / or the Qur'an, other than, perhaps, repeats of the OT stories? --Dweller (talk) 13:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, all the time. By turning into a human, God was able to talk and directly interact with people on a daily basis MBelgrano (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * MBelgrano, I don't think that he meant to that (and is there any example when people argue against Jesus and then after he change his mind?). In Judaism there is a discipline that explain the meaning of these "debates" (which seen ,in a nutshell, as advocacy by Jewish scholars).--Gilisa (talk) 13:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's doen all the time, lots of prayers are like that. Dmcq (talk) 14:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I mean where the text makes it clear there's a dialogue, and man and God are arguing back and forth. Probably without the need for colon indents and wikimarkup. --Dweller (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There isn't anything like that in the NT. &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 14:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Dweller I know no such stories in the Qur'an and certainly not in the NT. One reason for that there are no such stories in the NT, is that according to the NT Jesus served as one person sacrifice to pardon all humanity so he ccouldn't go against his mission and debate with God about it. Also, NT concept of God is very different than this Judaism have (no trinity in Judaism). More, the attitude of NT about crime and punishment is pretty much different from this of the Hebrew Bible.--Gilisa (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Since I posted, I wondered if Jesus's words on the cross counted, but my hazy memory of the text is that there's no recorded reply from the Father. --Dweller (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In Islam there's the story of how Allah wanted everyone to pray to him 50 times a day, and Mohammed argued with him and bargained him down to "just" 5 times a day. StuRat (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That's exactly the kind of thing I'm after. Sounds like Allah is arguing back, too. Source please... online version would be great if possible. --Dweller (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's an online source: .  StuRat (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's from a work of fiction, not a holy book, but Fiddler on the Roof has some hilarious examples of Tevye bargaining with God, such as "I understand that we are the chosen people, but, just this once, couldn't you maybe choose somebody else ?" (spoken right before an impending pogrom). StuRat (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but God doesn't argue back. --Dweller (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * StuRat, I forgot this one. It somehow have resemblance to the course of the discussion Abraham had with God about the sentence of Sodom people. There, God asked somewhat relatively high number of righteous ones among Sodom people but Abraham pleading decrease it to Ten. There are other fundamental differences between what is written in the bible and the story in the Quran (e.g., in the Hebrew bible all "arguments" had the purpose to call off a disaster, but never a commandment), but it's too long for here.--Gilisa (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Jesus also talked with God, begging to be spared of the crucifixion. God doesn't seem to have answered directly though, and didn't change his mind at all (read Arrest of Jesus). Flamarande (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * He begged not to be crucified? Hmm..pretty much contrary to what I know: According to the NT, didn't he prayed to be able to stand it and was told by the devil that one man can't carry the burden of humanity sins (refering to Jesus intent to be crucified)?--Gilisa (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In the Garden of Gethsemane: ''Matthew 26, Verse 42: "He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done. ". 99.166.95.142 (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * How this say that he begged for the crucifiction to be cancelled?--Gilisa (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Gilisa, I'm aware that English is not your first language. Maybe you should look the verse up in your mother tongue? It's clearer in verse 39 "(...)My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will." It's not the most ferocious arguing, since he's saying "Please, if there's any way around this, don't make me do this. But I'll still do your will if you don't change your mind."


 * Edit to add: I realise I'm assuming familiarity with the context. You might be better off reading the whole chapter in your first language. 86.142.224.71 (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 86.142.224.71, give me a break. English is not my first language but I understand very well what is written in the NT. Thank you for the interpretation you gave, but it was realy unneeded. All he said is that if there is another way -then he would prefer it. But if not, then he's willing to take it. This is very different from the case of Sodom, where Abraham asked God to judge Sodom indulgently -as it may be that Sodom people are not all the same and he asked God to give more weight to the righteous ones and to spare the all city for them (he actually bargained), until he understand that Sodom is totaly corrupted and evil.--Gilisa (talk) 06:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * ? Certainly no offence was intended. You asked how this said he begged for the crucifixion to be cancelled, and you asked in a way that made it apparent that English was not your first language. Since this particular, very widely accepted, interpretation depends on you interpreting metaphor, it seemed helpful to suggest you read it in your own language rather than trying to translate it after it's been translated into English. Metaphor is tricky in a language that is not your native tongue, since you can't always tell what is idiom. Indeed, as I noted, it is not the most ferocious arguing, since he is ultimately submitting to God's will. But he is trying to change God's mind, if possible. 86.142.231.220 (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Given the indivisibility of the Trinity alluded to in a later section on this page, "not as I will but as you will" is fairly odd in this context. I guess God was in two minds about the whole business :) As for the original question, Jesus rarely argued purely and simply but many of his parables were in response to questions which could be considered debate arguments. A lot of this was in attempts to trick Jesus into contradicting scripture. Render unto Caesar details one well-known example. In John 12, Judas argues with Jesus about Mary's use of expensive anointing oils. Grutness...wha?  23:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And that's where you get into the whole humanity of Jesus thing, whereby a lot of mainstream branches of Christianity hold that he was both wholly man and wholly God. It would therefore be the wholly human Jesus who was doing all the doubting and worrying and suffering. I guess for the purposes of this question, that probably means we can't use examples with Jesus. 86.142.224.71 (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is much simpler if you see the term "son of God" as mutually exclusive with the term "God the son" (which never occurs in the original text). But there is too many centuries of theology mixed in for that to be accepted. &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 01:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The end of The Book of Job has similar features, but is more of a monologue style. Steewi (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The book of Job is part of the Hebrew bible and not of the NT. And anyway, Job is not arguing with God -as you wrote, it's much more a monologue.--Gilisa (talk) 06:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

State Visit
Do world leaders ever share a "brainstorming session" or do they always go into a meeting with a set position. Can you provide some examples where a world leader left a meeting with a different position after talking with another? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hopefully a little of both, but in truth there's probably a lot more of the former. I also bet that there's actually a lot of so-called brainstorming behind the scenes before the leaders actually meet; those meetings are usually more about getting a feel for a process.  As an example, though, take the relatively recent situation of and Afghani runoff election.  John Kerry traveled there and "unexpectedly" convinced Hamid Karzai to agree to a runoff. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 16:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The 2009 imprisonment of American journalists by North Korea is also potentially relevant. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 16:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not a world leader, but I would assume that it's 0% brainstorming, because these guys only get a couple of hours to meet and they probably have a large backlog of issues to negotiate. They have underlings that spend a lot of time brainstorming (hopefully in meetings with the other side as well).  Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The stereotypical situation, as beautifully exemplified in Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister, is that the officials write the final communiqué on the plane while going to the conference/summit, before it's even started. How far that differs from real life, I couldn't say, but hopefully quite a lot.  --  JackofOz (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that is about right - someone (perhaps the host) writes the communique based on behind-the-scenes discussions that preceded the meeting and then the meeting takes the form of negotiating over the final wording of that communique. That's for things like the G20 meetings - one-one-one meetings between world leaders are probably more variable depending on the relationship between the countries and leaders. --Tango (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You should not be overly cynical about such meetings. They are in fact occasions where important matters are discussed and decisions are taken. Communiqués are written by bureaucrats with limited decision-making powers. They are prepared and quibbled over in advance because they usually cover very different ground than the actual contents of the meeting. It is very rare for leaders to actually spend time in a summit arguing over the communiqué language, unless it is a legally-binding text.
 * Leaders will be thoroughly briefed and scripted by their officials before a summit meeting, but in the end they are the decision makers and can ignore the script. In fact, it happens quite often, and officials must scramble to pretend they know that these decisions were coming their way and are perfectly consistent with whatever spin they were giving before the meeting. An interesting case of a meeting that went off script is the 1986 Reykjavik Summit between Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan; it was supposed to be a fairly benign, "get to know each other and repeat well-known positions" type of meeting, but the two leaders got into serious discussions about significant reductions in nuclear arms. While no agreement resulted, the mutual confidence the meeting and the wide-ranging discussion helped build between the two superpowers served to increase mutual confidence and hasten the end of the Cold War. Of course, at the time, many observers were greatly surprised and thought the two leaders were bonkers. --Xuxl (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Evolution
It apparently violates the establishment clause to either ban the teaching of evolution or require the teaching of flaws in evolution. However, would it be legal for a state to, rather than specifically banning evolution, simply remove evolution from the required state curriculum and not include any questions about evolution on their standardized assessments? J4\/4 &lt;talk&gt; 18:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We´re not US lawyers, and therefore we're not qualified to answer this question. I humbly suggest you ask this question to a lawyer and to the Supreme Court of the United States as your question concerns the rights of the states (making this a constitutional matter). That court seems to be qualified enough to answer this particular question.Flamarande (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, to be fair, just because YOU are not a US lawyer, doesn't mean other participants on this reference desk are not. Also, being "qualified" to answer a question is not a prerequisite to answering questions here. My point is the question can be discussed and answered without being "official". Tan   &#124;   39  18:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that this would be held to be unconstitutional in the United States, under Edwards v. Aguillard. Your proposal lacks "a clear secular purpose", and I would argue it "undermines the provision of a comprehensive scientific education," which were fundamental requirements in the ruling for such an act to be nonviolative of the Establishment Clause.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Many of what creationists call "Flaws in evolution" are presented to students. They're just not presented in the distorted, blown out of proportion way that you'd get from a anti-evolution tract. They're presented, correctly, as minor details that are still being worked out, points still undergoing debate or research, or as questions that are yet to be answered. It's an important part of good science education to teach that the process is ongoing and that our knowledge is constantly being refined. APL (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * (Duplicate question is at Science ref desk). We had this same question not too long ago, I think. It would almost surely fail the Lemon test, as banning evolution would serve no secular purpose. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * They wouldn't be banning evolution, per se. Each state has the right to create its own standard curricula. If they can choose to omit other topics because they simply believe they aren't important enough to merit time, they should be allowed to do the same with evolution for the same reason. The "secular purpose" would be that the legislators creating the state standards don't feel that evolution is important enough to merit any class time. The Supreme Court has held that banning evolution is unconstitutional; this would merely make it so that evolution isn't required. Teachers would still be allowed to teach evolution, provided they covered everything in the state curriculum first. --75.40.206.243 (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Brilliant, 'evolution' which is largely considered to be a relevant issue of education of the modern world could be de facto banned through sneaky arguments, sneaky methods, and sneaky rules-lawyering. I'm truly glad that I'm not a lawyer. Flamarande (talk) 23:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It really wouldn't be banned, though. I think that in districts with large numbers of educated parents, parents would force the local board of education to mandate evolution in addition to the state standards.  The main effect of such a move would probably be to further disadvantage students who live in districts with lower levels of education, who would then have trouble gaining admission to good universities.  Such a move could well have this effect even on students from that state whose districts did teach evolution through guilt by association.  This would rouse the state's elite to demand reinstatement of evolution into the state curriculum.  As the case of Kansas demonstrates, attempts to discourage the teaching of evolution tend to lose out to educated parents' desire to safeguard their children's future.  Even where it is outnumbered, the economic (and educational) elite tends to win out in our system of pay-to-play, for better or worse. Marco polo (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Only if you agree with 75's argument, which I don't buy. The ostensible purpose he listed would be laughed out of court by any judge, IMO.  To some extent the OP is asking us to be a WP:CRYSTALBALL but I think it's reasonable to believe that the OP's strategy (and 75's) would fail when appealed to the federal court level.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What the questioner asks is exactly what the Kansas State Board of Education did when creationists got control over it in 1999. They de-emphasized evolution in the state science curriculum and removed it from standardized tests. The changes were reversed in 2001 after an election. See Creation and evolution in public education. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That change was never declared unconstitutional. It was merely reversed when the atheists took control of Kansas's educational system. --76.194.203.5 (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The "atheists took control of the Kansas's educational system"? How did they manage to do that? Flamarande (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems very unlikely. More likely it was taken over by Christians who aren't such fundamentalist extremists that they would be willing to sacrifice their children's education to make a political point. APL (talk) 04:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, last offer: no banning, no purging, no book burning. What about just "conveniently forgetting" the science-based answer to who we are, and why, and at the same time constantly chanting one randomly chosen religion-based answer? Would that work? DOR (HK) (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless it was the teachers doing that, it wouldn't make any difference at all, would it? Science teachers aren't likely to voluntary go against mainstream scientific opinion in large numbers. --Tango (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't give a religion-based answer. You can either give the science based answer, or, potentially no answer at all. (I buy Marco polo's argument, after thinking about it, that just leaving it off requirements would probably be able to squeak by). But the courts have made it pretty clear that a religious-based answer (whatever religion) is not going to fly. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Teaching a randomly-chosen, religion-based answer to the origin of life is clearly unconstitutional under Edwards v. Aguillard. Doing so has no clear secular purpose, so must be assumed to be religiously motivated, and is hence a forbidden violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.  Mr.98's suggestion above also would be forbidden under this precedent, as it cannot be demonstrated that omitting the discussion of evolution, the foundation of all modern biology, has a clear secular purpose; it must be religiously based, and therefore the omission is forbidden.  I think everyone interested in this topic should read the Edwards opinion itself; it's good reading.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

god
is god made of cells? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.161.249 (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ?DIVISION BY ZERO ERROR
 * READY. Tan   &#124;   39  18:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The trinity is indivisible. Or so it is asserted. Which implies to me that there aren't loads of separate cells. Or maybe the adhesion between the cells is very strong. How do you expect anyone to determine an answer? I only know you are composed of cells by assuming you are human and knowing all humans checked so far are composed of cells. Dmcq (talk) 20:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * For those who believe, God is not made of matter, but of ineffable spirit (not the stuff you drink). For those who don't believe, he doesn't exist at all.  --  JackofOz (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You erroneously assert that Gods existence depends upon Man's belief.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 04:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, ineffability. I'd been reading about inaccessible and ineffable cardinals but they seem distinctly non-religious :) (sorry an in-joke) Dmcq (talk)


 * The up-side of arguing he is made of cells is that he did, according to Genesis, make man in his image, so presumably there is some resemblance. But it does seem rather backwards to think of God having mitochondria, rather than being the maker of mitochondria. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but in his spiritual image. That's why it's often truly been said that we are not so much humans who sometimes have spiritual experiences, but spiritual beings who are currently having a human experience.  --  202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. God is most definitely made of cells.  "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us." (Of course, if you're not Mormon, results may vary.) --M @ r ē ino 01:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the first point of clarification should be, "Which god?" DOR (HK) (talk) 03:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As M wrote, you will have different answers from different religions. According to Judaism, and I guess that Islam accept it to at the least certain extent, God have no body image, it's not material and we can't imagine it. According to Christianity the answers are different, mostly.--Gilisa (talk) 07:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No, God is omnipresent, therefore He is one cell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.151.83 (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

DC Sniper's Execution
Minutes ago, the US Supreme Court denied request to stay his execution (tomorrow 9pm EST). He has no salvation right? --190.50.123.131 (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The governor can always pardon him or commute his death sentence to life imprisonment. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The article Salvation says under  " What must we do to be saved?": "Peter replied, 'Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'"[Acts 2:38] So salvation is still within his grasp. Edison (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * But since he is a Muslim he is probably more interested in what Allah has to say about it. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The original poster probably wasn't speaking about "salvation" from a spiritual perspective--just my reading, at least. --71.111.194.50 (talk) 02:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "Salvation lies within" - Inscribed by the warden on a Bible which contained the rock hammer used to escape, in The Shawshank Redemption. StuRat (talk) 04:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think this particular prisoner has had the time for that route. Googlemeister (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(He has now been executed, and Q's don't get more resolved than that.) StuRat (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

TICAD
Since TICAD is a forum like FOCAC the title is the 4th time when is the last TICAD? Did all the leaders go or most of them i didn't see Robert Mugabe and Paul Biya. how long was the program? I wonder if Yasuo Fukuda have meet with any African first ladies?--209.129.85.4 (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * (1) Our article Tokyo International Conference on African Development says the conference is held every five years, and also specifies that TICAD III was held in 2003.
 * (2) That article also links you to the article TICAD-IV_Delegations, which lists the 40 heads of state who attended. (There are 53 countries in Africa so that's 75% attendance for the heads of state.) Neither Cameroon nor Zimbabwe are listed as participants.
 * (3) The official program (PDF file) was for a three-day conference starting with a reception the evening before, followed by two full nine-hour days and one half day.
 * (4) I can't answer this. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

crackdown on fakes
I read in a fashion magazine about this campaign called Fakes Are Never In Fashion. It must've inspired federal officials in New York City to conduct raids. I hope similar things are conducted in the San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles County, Chicago, Miami, and many other big cities across the United States of America. What are officials all over the world doing about fakes?24.90.204.234 (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you say "must've?" Depending on how they make 'em, fake products (bags, usually) aren't necessarily illegal, but the way they are sold is.  There has actually been a fair amount of press about all the good fake purses do.  A $300-$800 bag is only available to a limited market, and thus fakes aren't necessarily taking away business from the big companies.  Fakes for 20 or 30 bucks a pop allow people to have the appearance of such a bag - think professionals or teenagers - without having to throw down all the cash.  Moreover, the fakes increase the visibility of the product, and are essentially free advertising. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 23:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Intellectual property in the People's Republic of China might be of some interest here. China is one of the biggest producers of pirate material, both electronic and material, and it is of import to international politics how the issue is dealt with, because of the influence industry has on the politics of the most developed nations. Steewi (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

edited to fix wikilink Steewi (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, fakes do take away some of the exclusivity of the brands they are copying, and the idea of having something that most people don't have is presumably at least a part of the motivation for spending (as it seems to me) ludicrous amounts of money on these items. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Officials in many countries have for years, periodically raided counterfeiters. Perhaps the Fakes Are Never In Fashion campaign has sorta inspired these people to do what they already do, or inspired their paymasters to publicise some raid or other. The campaign itself appears to be a creation of Harper's Bazaar, spearheaded by their senior vice president & publisher, Valerie Salembrier. Lord knows what the deeper politics of it all are. Harper's Bazaar is owned by Hearst Communications. Harpers and other of their titles, such as Cosmopolitan, receive huge amounts of advertising from vendors of luxury goods; so perhaps it's some form of enlightened self interest. Or perhaps she's just genuinely really concerned. As she says, "Counterfeit goods fund child labor, terrorism and drug cartels" ... much the same schtick as we've heard from the RIAA and MPAA. One would think that drugs fund drug cartels, but who am I to doubt these things? And presumably not-fake stuff never funds child labour, by some miracle of the market. And one can well picture Osama, down the King's Road, trying to flog fake Gucci sunglasses to fund his holy war. Whilst one can have some sympathy for the rights of intellectual property holders, the whole shebang is really much more about shoring up the profits of LVMH than it is any concern about the supposed down-sides. And this takes us back to the bands of public officials, paid for by your taxes, who police the market in the interests of the profit of multinationals. So, bottom line: it is not clear cut to me that it is such a great thing to encourage more use of public funds for this purpose, when civil routes to protection of IP are available. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

How about counterfeit pharmaceuticals? Do they qualify as fakes?24.90.204.234 (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * They do, if you like - Counterfeit medications. We also have counterfeit consumer goods, should you wish for any. Clearly some problems arising from some counterfeit drugs are of a different order than for a dodgy handbag. There's no limit to the ingenuity of fakers. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope the computer industry is helping out with the crackdown on counterfeit software and equipment.24.90.204.234 (talk) 04:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * While I can imagine what counterfeit computer equipment would look like, I'm having more trouble grasping the concept of counterfeit software... On the one hand, if it is a straight out copy, then it's not counterfeit but piracy, on the other hand, if you talk about software that looks very much like other software, there's always the copyright law notion of "ideas can not be copyrighted" - i.e. Microsoft cannot sue OpenOffice, for instance, since they use the same idea for word processors and such. TomorrowTime (talk) 11:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What's counterfeit is the packaging—the CDs are printed to look like official Microsoft CDs, there's a fake certificate of authenticity, etc. -- BenRG (talk) 12:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Never came across one of those. TomorrowTime (talk) 06:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The software people have organisations such as the Federation Against Software Theft, which do what they can. I tend to think they're in the pockets of the larger IT companies, and that they may act against other legitimate IP interests. Once more I do not share your evident enthusiasm for crackdowns. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Some people from Hong Kong will use their fake LV handbag on regular occasions, leaving their real LV for formal events.F (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)