Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 March 30

= March 30 =

Proper Way to Observe a Baptism
Hello. One of my immediate family members is getting baptized after service finishes. In order to attend the baptism, should I attend the service? (I have not attended service for a while. At this time, I do not know whether I am a follower of the religion.) I would like your honest opinion. Thanks very much in advance. --76.64.12.49 (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Details will depend on the church and its denomination, but often the baptism will be considered as part of the service (albeit happening at the end) and general members of the congregation will remain, to celebrate the event and welcome the new member formally to the church. As such, it may be uncommon for people to arrive just for the baptism (and difficult to time right); some celebrants and congregations might consider doing so disrespectful. Whether to sit through the whole service is a matter for your own conscience: you wouldn't be the first quasi-believer to thole a service for the sake of a loved one's feelings. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 00:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You might be interested in the book How to be a Perfect Stranger (conveniently readable on Google Books, at least in part), which is a guide to attending other people's religious observances. It's almost universally considered appropriate to attend other people's religious ceremonies, regardless of your own beliefs.  (Different denominations and churches have different rules about who may take communion, though.  It's always acceptable to abstain if unsure.)  Paul (Stansifer) 03:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Non-believers are usually strongly welcomed in protestant traditions, especially at baptismal services. If you're familiar to a lot of people in the church, you'll likely have some questions about whether you'll be coming the next week, etc. You don't have to agree to do so. You can politely decline. Turning up to just the baptismal section might be considered a statement of unbelief. Care should be taken if you choose that to be subtle about it.
 * In a lot of adult baptism services (and many infant baptism services), the congregation is invited to promise to support the baptisee in their spiritual development. It's not impolite to remain silent if you don't agree (in fact, it may be rude to do so if you do not agree). It's polite to decline a communion/eucharist if you're not a believer. In some churches you can ask a priest for a blessing instead. If in doubt, ask someone. Christians are usually encouraged to welcome visitors and answer questions. Steewi (talk) 04:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be rude to shout "Blasphemy!" during the service. Remaining silent would be quite appropriate and supportive. Edison (talk) 05:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be rude to shout "Blasphemy!" during the service. Remaining silent would be quite appropriate and supportive. Edison (talk) 05:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Paul's link to How to be a Perfect Stranger looked interesting, but I got a "No preview available". Temporary or regional problems, or an incorrect link?  Astronaut (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Must be one of those regional things; it came up for me in the U.S. Deor (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that Google Books may restrict access based on location sometimes (I'm not sure). I was able to see it from two different locations in the US.  I bet it's available at libraries.  Paul (Stansifer) 18:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Chinese male face with political tentacles
does any one know what the chinese male face with eight tenticles and political saying written in them means...its a picture with references to the 1800"s... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.200.200.120 (talk) 08:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A nonce image needs a visual reference if it's to be explained. Any on-line source?--Wetman (talk) 12:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No idea what you are referring to, but based on the description (tentacles, 1800s) I'd venture it was similar to this one? ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 15:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not political, it's erotic. (Unless one considers erotica to be political.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Everyone make a note of this: Bugs finds this drawing erotic.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really. But a woman might. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And it would be good if someone could take a shot at translating the writing. It could be something like, "Slowly, Squidward peeled off her kimono, exposing her lovely..." or it could just be a set of recipes for squid sushi. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have read that a lot of pornographic work in the 18th-19th centuries was political satire. I'm not looking for the source for this, because I'm at work. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a famous woodcut known as The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife. It was made around 1820 by the Japanese artist Hokusai; we even have an article on the genre it apparently started, tentacle erotica. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I wonder if the kind of picture being discussed is probably the classic "octopus taking over the world" type of political portrait. E.g.  , content6.clipmarks.com/image_cache/ammcc/512/8A7EA55B-AF28-4EA9-A58B-1371B5A0083B.gif, content7.clipmarks.com/image_cache/ammcc/512/41675F32-FFB5-4A81-88DD-DBAB347C3688.jpg (last two cannot be linked because of irritating spam filter). In all cases these usually are just meant to expanding influence/power of the feared people/country/group. Its a pretty generic form of propaganda—put anything you want as the octopus (the US, the USSR, the Chinese, the Jews, the Nazis, the Communists, Microsoft). --Mr.98 (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

FAA Violations
Has there ever been a case of a civilian getting arrested after dropping something out of a plane? I'm positive this would be against regulations but I imagine this must happened at some point. Like has a crazy person ever thrown heavy objects and been charged with a felony? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 13:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "...dropping something..." Like what?  A conscripted airman dropping bombs on the enemy during wartime, or these guys parachuting with their car?  Astronaut (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That's why I specified civilian. Specifically something dangerous like tennis balls over a neighborhood. TheFutureAwaits (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In the US the relevant law would be 14 CFR 91.15, entitled Dropping Objects, which reads:
 * "No pilot in command of a civil aircraft may allow any object to be dropped from that aircraft in flight that creates a hazard to persons or property. However, this section does not prohibit the dropping of any object if reasonable precautions are taken to avoid injury or damage to persons or property. "
 * anonymous6494 14:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Right, so has anyone ever been prosecuted for violating this law? 199.172.169.33 (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, tennis balls probably wouldn't be very dangerous. They are quite low density, which means their terminal velocity would be fairly low. If my calculation is correct, it would be roughly 26 m/s. A professional tennis serve is more like 55 m/s and they don't cause too much damage if you get hit by one (it hurts, though!). --Tango (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I once was hit by a (non-professionally served) tennis ball squarely on the right ear. I can attest to the pain, and it also causes quite bad dizziness for a minute or so. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha okay bowling balls then. Has any civilian ever been prosecuted for dropping heavy objects? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Presumably a small private plane flying at low altitude that could be opened without sucking everyone out, and then presumably something could be drop. That wouldn't happen with a commercial airliner, or if it did, the one who did it would be in a lot bigger trouble than just for dropping something from the plane. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes exactly I'm thinking it would have been out of a small craft like a Cesna. Perhaps a pilot just making a dumb decision? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This looks like a job for Google. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Or a Stuff Jump gone wrong. --Tango (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * While I don't know the answer to this question, I can testify that it's easy to open small airplanes without problems. The majority of the pictures in Commons:Category:Aerial pictures by User:Nyttend were taken through partially-open windows of a Diamond Eclipse or a Diamond Star.  Nyttend (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Erm, just a point here: Aircraft cabins are airtight, are they not?-- Editor510  drop us a line, mate  13:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Never drop a turkey from an aircraft. Woogee (talk) 02:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Or a Coke bottle. —Kevin Myers 06:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Angel(?) Danyal
Hello together, does anyone know anything about the (fallen?) angel(?) Danyal, maybe mentioned in the Book of Enoch? An casual online acquaintaince of mine asked who he is, I didn't know; today I've been to the library of the local university, but I coulnd't find anything specific. Maybe it has also to do with islamic mystics/angelology. Could you please help me? Thanks in advance! --137.250.100.49 (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Restored question deleted without explanation by another person. Astronaut (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has a small article about Daniel (angel) and a much bigger one about the Book of Enoch. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is it, thanks. --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC) (IP)

Unknown Asimov book?
When I was a boy, I read a book that I believe was written by Isaac Asimov, but I'm not entirely sure. All I can remember was the ending: because humans lived either (1) on other planets, or (2) in spaceships, and because all energy used by humans was generated by tons of satellites ringing the sun, Earth was uninhabited and seen as an obstacle to progress; consequently, the leaders of the humans were sending in spaceships to blow up Earth to get it out of the way. Any idea what the name of this book might be? Nyttend (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesn't sound like Asimov. The concept of artificial satellites completely surrounding the sun is called a Dyson sphere and I don't think of it as an Asimov theme.  Check Dyson spheres in fiction and see if anything looks promising. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 04:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it sounds more like a Dyson Ring than a Dyson Sphere. --Tango (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have read a lot of Asimov's work and that plot doesn't sound familiar. Was it a full book or a short story? (Asimov wrote a lot of short stories.) --Tango (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't remember for sure, but now that you ask, a short story does seem rather possible; I vaguely remember reading several Asimov stories around the same time, but only checking out one or two books from the library. The only other work that I read at that time about which I remember anything was something about life on other planets; he proposed that Jupiter was habitable (I guess maybe he didn't know how much pressure there was on the surface?) and thought that Pluto was as large as Earth.  Nyttend (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The IP suggests that I look at Dyson spheres in popular culture; while it mentions one Asimov work, "The Last Question", it's plainly not that. It was definitely some sort of Dyson sphere, although I can't remember whether or not a ring, sphere, shell, etc. was the proper description.  Nyttend (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I recall that ST:TNG episode about the Dyson sphere, and here's what I didn't get and still don't. It was depicted as being a solid shell. Forgetting the practical question of how you would assemble it and what the environmental impact would be, where would the raw materials come from? You're talking about something that's way much larger than the sun, and no matter how thin you make it, it's still going to require melting down a a lot of planets to build it from. Anyone know the (theoretical) answer? I didn't see anything about it in the article, but maybe I missed it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Replicators. Duh! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I see. I don't buy it, but I see. It sounds like the equivalent of the old theory of skimming hundredths of cents of interest on bank accounts and turning yourself into a millionaire. Never mind that the bank would have to have about 100 million accounts in order to achieve that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand the principles of Star Trek physics. A replicator is an example of Plot-Based Technology (tm). It can produce everything needed by the plot, and nothing that would destroy the plot. It can, for example, make "tea, Earl Grey, hot", whenever Picard wants it, but no drinking water when the plot is to obtain water. So if the plot calls for a Dyson sphere, it can make a Dyson sphere, but it will be hard-pressed to make the penicillin that would safe the last of the Dyson Sphere Engineer from the Klingon influenza. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean salami slicing? Googlemeister (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is explained very well in the first Ringworld book. In fact, the "ringworld" in that book was built precisely because a true Dyson sphere would require far too many raw materials to be practical. Even building a ringworld would require an entire solar system worth of materials. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm confused — are you suggesting that I'm remembering a Star Trek book? I've never read anything of Star Trek, so it can't be that.  Nyttend (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Answer: Fiction. It's always a plot hole.  The article itself points out that there probably isn't enough mass in the solar system to make a shell. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 14:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Marrow features something much larger than a Dyson sphere. It was built by nanomachines completely disassembling a gas giant. Staecker (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Our article talks about a ship the size of a gas giant - that is much, much smaller than a Dyson sphere. --Tango (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Our Dyson sphere section has a paragraph about where to get the building material. Dyson originally wrote there was probably enough material in our solar system to make a 1 AU Dyson shell that was 3 meters thick; but this incorporated hydrogen and helium, which are "not much use as building material", as our article primly puts it; so you'd use nuclear fusion to convert lots of hydrogen and helium into stuff like iron that's more useful.  A later estimate by some other guy, excluding the hydrogen and helium, thought you could make a Dyson shell 8 to 20 centimeters thick, based on the already-usable material in our solar system.  Most of this is the metallic cores of Jupiter and Saturn.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a suspicion such a project would prove to be about as useful as the Great Wall of China, only at much greater expense. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Having though long and hard about this I wonder if Larry Niven is your author? He wrote about Ringworld which is a possible Dyson Sphere compromise and the Pierson's Puppeteers blew up their sun and moved out the planets in a Trajan rosette....hotclaws 19:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's by Niven. The plot sounds sort of familiar to me too.  I'm imagining a more jocular writer like R. A. Lafferty.  And everyone knows that Dyson rings/spheres/shells are made of scrith. ;) 66.127.52.47 (talk) 09:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Moral terpitude
What is this?--79.76.190.44 (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Gross moral turpitude is "raping large numbers of nuns", according to Howard Kirk. However you probably want this article to tell you the normally understood meaning. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)