Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 November 2

= November 2 =

How much did Thomas Peterffy pay for his seat on the AMEX in the 70s?
How much did Thomas Peterffy pay in "70's" dollars at the time for a seat on the AMEX? Was this something only already extremely wealthy people could do, roughly speaking? According to his article, he got to the US in 1965, so had only been there 15 years by the end of the 70s, and his jobs there were first draftsman for highway projects, and then computer programmer at the same engineering firm. 67.163.109.173 (talk) 00:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't answer your question but this was the sort of thing that got printed in the Guinness Book of World Records. I seem to remember it was in the mid-six figures, with the NYSE more expensive than the AMEX.  I suppose not necessarily extremely wealthy, possibly you could swing a loan, but you'd have to be successful.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you do not need to be extremely wealthy to buy a seat on the Amex. You just have to pay the asking price. μηδείς (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Which was in the ballpark of _____ in the 70s (just suppose 1975 if that's too wide an interval)? 20.137.2.50 (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This said that a seat sold in December 1974 for $72,000. this (scroll to bottom, not a free article, I'm afraid) says that one sold for $60,000 on January 29, 1975 and one for $50,000 on February 13, 1975.     this (also) says that a seat sold for $44,500 on August 7, 1975 and another for $52,000 on September 8.  This said one sold for $35,000 on March 24, 1975.   This (same comment)] says on March 2, 1976 a seat sold for $64,000 and one had sold for $63,000 on March 1. That should give you enough to get going.  Buyers and sellers are not identified in the sources.  All of these except one are NY Times articles which has a pay archive, so you most likely would have to pay for full text.  Other articles show the market peaked early in 1970 at $185,000 which was not approached again until late 1980.  I would guess that the instability in prices was caused by the recession which was then going, and which hit New York City particularly hard, that was how Ford to City: Drop Dead got into the lexicon.  But I suspect that 1975 was the bottom of the market.  If he bought then, he showed his potential.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Punjabi Sindhi Pashto Baloch Universities in Pakistan
Which universities of Pakistan offer lectures or courses in Punjabi only?; Which universities of Pakistan offer lectures or courses in Sindhi only?; Which universities of Pakistan offer lectures or courses in Pashto only?; Which universities of Pakistan offer lectures or courses in Baloch only? --Donmust90 (talk) 01:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * HA, you ask too much of Pakistanis. Yes a very obnoxious answer I know but Pakistanis respect the crown too much and are too impressed by it despite being enslaved by it. The English left but left English behind. So since its independence English (both in Pakistan and India) has always been considered the language of the elite. You are only taken seriously, you are only considered educated, and worthy of respect if you speak English (yes, I am exaggerating but very little). People are impressed very quickly even if you throw random English phrases here and there in a conversation without any hint of their true meaning. Hence, if an institution of any kind (especially educational or a business) wants to be taken seriously, it has to work in English. It may not be 100% English (English medium) but English must be there. The irony is that there are school in which you are actually punished for NOT speaking English. Even if someone heard you having a conversation in Urdu with your friend in the library, you get in trouble. If there was a university which taught only in Punjabi/Sindhi/Balochi/Pashto in Pakistan, people will laugh at it and no one would enroll in it. You are asking Pakistanis to love their culture and embrace their roots too much. But I will check just to make sure.70.58.0.141 (talk) 07:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

bengali punjabi gujarati Marathi Assamese Telugu Tamil Kannada Malayalam Oriya India Universities
Which universities of India offer lectures or courses in Bengali only? Which universities of India offer lectures or courses in Assamese only? Which universities of India offer lectures or courses in Oriya only? Which universities of India offer lectures or courses in Gujarati only? Which universities of India offer lectures or courses in Marathi only? Which universities of India offer lectures or courses in Punjabi only? Which universities of India offer lectures or courses in Telugu only? Which universities of India offer lectures or courses in Kannada only? Which universities of India offer lectures or courses in Tamil only? Which universities of India offer lectures or courses in Malayalam only? --Donmust90 (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I would be extremely surprised to find a university in India that does not use English together with the local language(s) in its area. Roger (talk) 07:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Are each of these your sole language? μηδείς (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

FEMA centralized displacement city
Why hasn't the govt ever developed a centralized ghost city to be used for disasters where all people can go until their hometowns are restored or at least safe to inhabit again?. It seems like the real issues with natural disasters is the weeks to months after with no food energy shelter in that location. In other words simple logistics. Other places have ample and even excess of those necessities but it is getting the two (people and necessities) together that is the real problem. Instead of trying to force the necessities into the ravaged locations why not evac the people to the necessities in essence waiting for them? 68.83.98.40 (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Have you considered how much such facilities would cost vs. how seldom they would be used? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The initial cost would be great but it could be "turned on/ off" when not in use. It could also use all the new tech with green energy and buildings. Prisoners could maintain it when not in use. Old cargo containers stacked. Seldom? It seems like once a year these days! Just another ounce of prevention vs pound of cure argument if you ask me. I think the cost of how it's currently done Is greater.68.83.98.40 (talk) 02:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Where would you build it? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, without actually researching ....in general some place in the middle of us like Missouri Iowa Illinois ?68.83.98.40 (talk) 02:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * How much population capacity would it need? And how would you transport the people there? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

More unresearched off the cuff answers but....1...million sounds like a good # to start or start with 1/4 of mil to start then add more throughout the years to better fit w budget. Plane, train automobile limo taxi helicopter.68.83.98.40 (talk) 02:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What if it's something midwestern that needs escape from? Such as a massive tornado outbreak? Would you build the homes tornado-proof? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Im sure i would. It would only be logical.68.83.98.40 (talk) 02:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Or do some research and find the least prone location to natural disasters, boom.68.83.98.40 (talk) 02:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC) Here is a map. I would say Wyoming Nebraska area. This map says PAC NW. But I'd rather stay a little farther away from the mt St. Helens super caldron.GeeBIGS (talk) 03:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Mt St Helens is a mere pimple compared to the mega-volcano that underlies Yellowstone. Of course, if that blows up, we're all dead anyway. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Portable shelter and facilities (clinics, water purification, electricity generators, etc), are much more cost effective. Roger (talk) 07:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Unihabited buildings very quickly become decrepit. Also the town would have no fresh food, no supermarket, not gaz station etc. as no one would want to keep running these services in a ghost town with no customers. --Lgriot (talk) 12:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow. Such narrow-minded knit-picking negativity.  So pick a better location(s)!Stacked Cargo ships dont get decrepit that quickly if properly sealed.  Yeah, Roger, lets keep doing it like we are: bottlenecking rescue efforts and supply shipments into dangerous areas where people are disgruntled hungry tired and cold.  Did you notice the lines for gaz?  generators only work with gas in them!  Hmm? Where should we put the mobile clinic?  right between the downed power line and the leaky gas main.165.212.189.187 (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's pretty foolish to criticise realistic objections as 'nit-picking negativity'. Simply being phrased negatively doesn't make a thing bad - that's a clear fallacy. The simple truth is that moving people is more costly than moving other things, because people need a range of life-support while on the move. This is precisely because of the point you make about the durability of preserved food. So deporting up to a million people some 2-3 days journey across country would be much less efficient than moving them a minimum safe distance from the disaster area, and then bringing resources to them. And the point that Lgriot makes about how rapidly buildings decay is of crucial importance here: the towns of Pripyat, Varosha, Tomioka and Centralia show what becomes of cities that are not maintained. And the main way cities are maintained is by people living in them. Otherwise, wild animals find a way in sooner or later, the weather takes its toll, and a city becomes a ruin. In a country where many thousands are homeless day by day, and there is no effective federal assistance for them, why would the federal government blow billions of dollars on building an empty city that will begin rotting the day it is finished? AlexTiefling (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure about the others, but Centralia didn't decay by natural causes. The buildings have been very eagerly demolished, in part because there's a large company with mineral rights to whatever coal is left under the town, which can be accessed economically by strip mining if no residents remain. Wnt (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, when you put it that way it sound exactly like something the govt would do!165.212.189.187 (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, it is not realistic. And second, if the government were to build such a city, how could it justify it remaining empty while people are homeless? (also how you empty it after something like Katrina in prep for the next one)--Wehwalt (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Only an idiot would build a town like that, but idiots seem to have all the money nowadays. Of course, the unwashed refugees from some disaster would not be welcome. Wnt (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That proposed fake city at least had some specific purpose in mind. I've been trying to hint to the OP that such a concept would be prohibitively expensive. It makes sense to keep the shelters as local as possible, to keep various costs minimal. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Th main problem seems to be the inefficiency of the authorities who's job it is to help during disasters. I'm thinking of FEMA being "unable" to get water to people after Katrina when private individuals got the job done at their own expense.If those in charge did a better job no such cloud cuckoo idea would even be thought of. Hotclaws (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hotclaws, I've moved your comment: it didn't need to go in front of all previous comments, and the lack of a ':' or blank line resulted in its forming a single paragraph with the OP. Maybe there's an even better place for it, I don't know. —Tamfang (talk) 02:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Weapons of Mass Destruction
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/11/01/letter-continuation-national-emergency-respect-weapons-mass-destruction

How many national emergencies are we in right now? Hcobb (talk) 02:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Voting in hurricane ravaged areas
Why haven't we heard more about postponing the election? The arguments that I've heard say its not fair to one party or another, but what about it not being fair to those that can't vote, regardless of who they would vote for. I think it would add extreme insult to injury not to postpone the election. I mean gov christie was able to reschedule Halloween so that all the kids got their candy but te US can't reschedule election so that all citizens can exercise their right as an American? A travesty if you ask me.GeeBIGS (talk) 03:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no real provision for moving election day. Congress would have to pass a new law and force it on the states and much lawsuit-ing would ensue. Rmhermen (talk) 03:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It would actually require a Constitutional amendment. Also, because of the Electoral College system where the votes are tallied separately in each state, if some states postpone their vote unilaterally, the election might well be decided without them. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 05:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're mistaken. When this was discussed a few days ago, none of the source suggest a constitutional amendment was likely to be needed. Nor does the source in what you're replying to. The constitution gives Congress the ability to set the date which they have done, in law, so they will need to pass a law to change the dates but a constitutional amendment would not be necessary. In fact even the date of electors meeting is only fixed in United States Code. However the date the president is to take office is fixed in the constitution so everything including the meeting of electors would need to be completed before then. You're right it's likely to be controversial given the problems and issues that would result and could lead to lawsuits if any of the dates are changed even if technically it could be done without a constitutional amendment. (Definitely the date for the electors to meet should be changed before the elections.) In any case, as all the sources suggest, the chance this is going to happen is close to zero so it's a moot point. (And the close it gets without something happening the less likely it is to happen.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

NJ and ny probably will postpone their presidential elections. GeeBIGS (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for that? Given the answers to this question, and to an earlier one on a similar theme, it seems highly unlikely. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * According to this source, a postponement in any state is highly unlikely. Probably, the worst case is that the polling place for battered waterfront precincts is moved to less damaged places nearby and, in places without electricity, paper ballots are substituted for electronic ballots.  Counting ballots might take longer in seriously affected places, but the places where the storm had its greatest impact are in securely Democratic states and thus unlikely to affect the electoral vote anyway.  Marco polo (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * NJ will be using military trucks at regular polling places in order to provide power at locations that do not have it back on election day. The regular polling places will be used. μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

St. Patrick's Church, County Down
Where is the St. Patrick's Church, County Down exactly? Does it still exist? Is the Norwegian King Magnus Barefoot still buried there?


 * It seems to be the one in Downpatrick. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Although St Patricks Church, Downpatrick was built in 1868, replacing an earlier church of the same name built in 1787. It is the main Roman Catholic church of the city. Down Cathedral (Church of Ireland) is dedicated to the Holy Trinity and is on an ancient religious site reputed to be the burial place of St Patrick, so probably this is the church referred to. However, the Cathedral's website history page doesn't mention Magnus Barefoot. One of the other proposed burial sites of King Magnus is reputed to be under a mound outside the city; a memorial stone was unveiled there in 2003.
 * This scholarly article; MEETING IN NORWAY: NORSE-GAELIC RELATIONS IN THE KINGDOM OF MAN AND THE ISLES, 1090-1270 by ROSEMARY POWER (p.18) says; "Magnusís name survived, among the Ulaid who buried him at the ancient monastic site of Downpatrick according to the Chronicle, and also in two Gaelic ballads (Christiansen 1931, 131-71, 401-06). The place where he died is described in Morkinskinna, Fagrskinna and more fully by Snorri, indicating a landscape of dykes and ditches, of scrubby copses on low hills, of freshwater and saltwater wetlands. It seems likely that this was not the landscape of Magnusís own day, but that developed later through land reclamation by the monks of the Cistercian abbey of Inch founded on the banks of the River Quoile in the 1180s, and described to the Norse writers by contemporaries who had seen it (Power 1994, 219-21)." Alansplodge (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Liechtenstein
How many legitimate male-line descendants of Gundakar, Prince of Liechtenstein are there?--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 05:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the English Wikipedia article, he had two male sons that themselves were married. However, the German Wikipedia article only lists one son.  So, I don't even know which is correct, but you have those two as leads.  -- Jayron  32  13:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Gundakar's article leads to and, apparently the work of an amateur genealogist but highly detailed; if this can be trusted, I count 318 in all, 121 living, 66 male. —Tamfang (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The German Wikipedia lists Gundakar's issue . Say 100+220=320 (-1?) on the Czech genealogy site and say 76+216+23=315 (-2?) in the German WP (without guarantee). --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I meant alive today. --The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Non-denominational Christians and Bible Studies/Prayer Meetings
Here in the Philippines, we have several so-called "Born Again" churches (Non-denominational Christian churches), which frequently advertise a Bible study or a Prayer meeting. While Catholicism also has Bible studies and Prayer meetings, they aren't as common as they used to, and they aren't mandatory (although Bible studies at least are encouraged). I'm not saying that non-denominational churches give emphasis to such programs (being a Catholic, I'm not sure if members of such churches are required to attend such meetings), but it makes me wonder: why do non-Catholic churches seem to give a lot of importance to such meetings? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Because historically, protestantism was a reaction against the centralised, hierarchical, ceremony-driven approach of the Catholic church, and instead emphasised direct Bible study (see sola scriptura) and personal salvation (see five solae). And, from a memetic point of view, regular meetings are good for forming a sense of community and spreading the meme. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The pattern holds true in the U.S. as well. In fact, "High Church" Protestants are seem likely to have such than Evangelical and Pentacostal churches. Rmhermen (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Axis natural resources
During World War 2, what resources did Japan have that Germany didn't? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 05:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Rubber for one. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Silk; Germany's advanced chemical industry made parachutes from rayon and an early form of nylon because they couldn't get silk from Asia, although Italy had a modest silk industry. Alansplodge (talk) 18:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * And, if you don't mean to limit "resources" to natural resources, they also had a more substantial surface fleet, at least at the start. On the human resources front, they had a lot more people willing to die for the cause.  StuRat (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks everyone, I was asking specifically about raw materials. I'm researching for a World War 2 historical/military thriller, and I'm trying to come up with some ideas for raw materials that could be used for a chemical weapon, for a secret "conventional" superweapon and/or for the German nuclear program, but would have to be imported from Japan (that's how the good guys will find out what exactly the Germans are making at their secret underground factory in the Hurtgen Forest -- they will have known that a U-boat has docked in St. Nazaire, and after having ambushed an eastbound train from that base, they will discover crates marked in Japanese and filled with the material). 24.23.196.85 (talk) 01:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The Japanese experimented extensively with biological weapons (mainly on Chinese civilians), so your plot could be them having weaponized a superbug, and shipped it to Germany, where it's to be put on board V-2 rockets and launched against England. The Japanese characters could spell out "Unit 731". StuRat (talk) 06:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * | Intelligence early on in the war suggested the Nazis already had a large stockpile of chemical and biological weapons by 1941, which was later evidenced by the Holocaust. The Germans would not have been able to put chemical or biological material on a V-2, for a number of reasons: 1) They were extremely unreliable, and most of them fell in the sea, missing the country entirely; 2) The launch mechanisms were unstable, and very often they exploded whilst still on the ground (often destroying the launch area and killing the scientists and personnel watching it; 3) An explosion from a V-2 would probably destroy its payload of biochem weapons (citation needed, of course). The only semi-reliable delivery would have been by plane, and after the Battle of Britain, this became less and less feasible as the war went on.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  19:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't believe the Nazi's used biological weapons on a major scale. As for the rest of the details, this is fiction we're talking about here, so we can imagine that the V-2 had been perfected to solve all those problems. StuRat (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I suppose 6 million jews and millions of other 'untermensch' being gassed or experimented on medically is not a major issue in your book, then, Stu. Even Saddam Hussein didn't kill that many with his WMD. In fact nobody has, before or since. My point is, the Germans would not need to get any of these weapons from Japan, as they already had them, in large quantities. Your first point about extra manpower and the possibility of tying up a UK ally (the US) in the West was the only major reason Germany allied itself with Japan, besides the fact that Japan was attacking UK interests in the Far East, and this was causing problems for us, is the only thing I can think of that Japan had, so I agree with you on that point.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  23:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think you're distinguishing between chemical weapons, which only kill those they contact, and biological weapons, such as bacteria and viruses, which have the ability to spread. This makes biological weapons potentially far more dangerous, to both sides. StuRat (talk) 06:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * So you don't know about Erich Traub and Riems. Erich Traub was a specialist researcher in biowarfare, and Riems Island on the Baltic Sea was the location of the research facility where he worked. The bioweapons which were developed were not used against enemy troops, but certainly they were used on prisoners, to test their capabilities.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  10:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I said they didn't use bioweapons on a major scale, then you replied with 6 million Jews being killed, as if they were all killed with bioweapons. Many were killed with chemical weapons, and in particular Zyklon B, but few were killed with bioweapons. StuRat (talk) 03:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, everyone! With regards to comments by KageTora and StuRat: Yes, I could put in an improved version of the V-2 rocket, which would fit very well with my plans.  (In fact, Germany did have at least two improved V-2 designs -- the V-9, which was essentially a V-2 with wings that could glide to the target, and the V-10, which was a two-stage version of the V-9, designed to hit the eastern USA; both of them had much longer range than the basic V-2, but I don't know whether or not they were also more reliable.)  And in fact, Germany also had a large stockpile of nerve gas, but did not use it against the Allies for fear of retaliation.  What I'm looking for, though, is some kind of chemical weapon precursor or chemical catalyst (or some kind of special metal that could be used for a secret "conventional" superweapon) that was abundant in Japan, but scarce or unavailable in Germany. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Effective use of chemical weapons requires delivering large quantities of the chemical directly on target. German missiles, on the other hand, could only deliver small warheads, inaccurately.  With biological weapons, though, accuracy and quantity is less important, as even a few infected people can then spread the disease widely. StuRat (talk) 07:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The V-2 had a 1-ton payload -- and a ton of nerve gas would ruin your whole day. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 02:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Only if it managed to hit the target. A ton of nerve gas in the woods would only kill a few animals.  And, to increase the range, you'd need to reduce the payload.  StuRat (talk) 03:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey wait a minute, I have an idea. Did Germany have a large supply of the following raw materials: phosphorus, pine alcohol, organic fluorides, arsenic, or selenium?  And if these materials were unavailable, scarce, or even overly expensive in Germany, could they be obtained more cheaply or in larger amounts from Japan? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 01:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, and while we're at it, what about their supply of copper, silver and lead? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that Japan and Germany were virtually cut off from each other during WW2. They could conceivably manage to get a sub through enemy waters, but large-scale shipping of war materiel between them was out of the question. StuRat (talk) 07:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's what I have in mind -- have them bring in the material on a U-boat. Obviously it would have to be a material that they need in small-to-medium quantities.  BTW, I looked up some statistics on the above-mentioned resources: phosphates and fluorspar (the raw materials for phosphorus and fluorides) were plentiful in Germany, but arsenic and selenium were more scarce there (but abundant in Japan).  I think I'll go with selenium, to be used as a catalyst for nerve gas production (of course, it was never actually used for such a thing, but it's an exotic enough material that the readers might actually find this plausible :-P ) 24.23.196.85 (talk) 02:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's more "minuscule to tiny" quantities. StuRat (talk) 03:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That's why I want to use it as a catalyst and not as a raw material. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 04:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Traffic went the other way: U-234 tried to deliver uranium oxide, while U-864 carried mercury. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Language attitudes in Islam
I know clearly that there is a consensus in mainstream Islam about non-Arabic languages. Simply speaking it is forbidden to pray aloud in non-Arabic and any translations of Quran are treated as corrupted interpretations.

But what are attitudes to non-Arabic prayer, Quran translations and to the religious use of of non-Arabic languages generally in Reform/Liberal and Quranic Islam?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 06:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * First let me just explain a few things. Prayers (if you want them to count I mean) must be said in Arabic yes but use of non-Arabic languages is not as strict as it may seem. Most Muslims don't have Arabic as their first language. But of course if you want to read the Quran, you need to know how to read Arabic so non-Arabic speakers learn arabic. That does something interesting. People learn how to "read" and pronounce arabic but they don't know what it means. So they can "read" the Quran but they have no idea what they are reading. So Qurans do include translations in whatever the native language may be. The point is to read the Quran and understand it but learning another language is hard but then you have to "read" it in Arabic for it to count. So people read it in Arabic, don't understand it, and then read the translation right underneath it.


 * The same thing happens for sermons (khutba) for the Friday prayers. The sermon is supposed to be in Arabic too. But chances are that the attendees don't know Arabic. So the speaker gives first a longer sermon in the native language, then quickly say it in Arabic at the end. In addition, if the congregation is mixed then just use whatever language is most common. So in the USA for example, the sermon is always in English followed by quick one in Arabic at the end right before the prayer begins.


 * The translations are considered corrupt only in the sense that a translation should not be regarded as the Quran itself. And this was done to prevent what had happened to other books where translations were presented as genuine word of God. And religious authorities just kept changing it to suit their needs and presenting it to others. I mean just try to count the different version of the Bible out there today accepted as the GENUINE word of God and not just a translation or a variation. In Islam it is perfectly okay to read a translation of the Quran and believe it. But then that also depends on the authority of the translator. The more well-known & educated he is, the more people believe his translation to be accurate. Nowadays, there are dedicated governing bodies (some are gigantic, even across international borders) who standardize the translation (and publish copies with their seals). So if you are a Sunni Muslim regardless of where you live on the planet, just walk into your local Saudi embassy and pick up a copy of the Quran (with Arabic and whatever language you can read). If you are Shia then you might have a problem with that translation so you would go elsewhere.


 * And now to actually answer your question, I haven't heard anything like what you are asking about. So I don't think that this is on the reform/liberal agenda. As far as I know, they all do the same and pray/read Quran in Arabic. I guess they think they have more important issues and then this kind of (minutae?) stuff can be taken care of IF anyone has a problem with it.70.58.0.141 (talk) 07:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The exact same question was asked on the Language desk, please respond to that thread instead of starting a seperate discussion here - Lindert (talk) 08:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * These two desks have slightly different subjects and are followed by different people. So I do not see any problems here in two parallel themes.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 10:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Many questions to the reference desk are applicable to multiple RD sections but questioners still properly follow the no-double-posting rule. You and your question are not entitled to special privileges to break that rule.A8875 (talk) 11:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, 70.58.0.141, I have already known about these theological issues. But you still cannot loudly pray in your native language (let's say it's English). You cannot loudly pronounce all the time (not only at the begining of your conversion) an English translation of al-Fatiha while doing the salah. If you do you will be blamed as a heretic if not sent to prison (an example).

I do not consider the Quran being God's words, sorry. This is one of the greatest books, but it was not send from heaven, it was written down by people like all other books. I do not consider its outer Arabic form and the Arabic language itself as the "holly cow". Its translations are equal to the original in the sense of its meaning (like an English translation of "Iliad" are equal to the Ancient Greek original). And the Bible is not direct words of God, it is was only inspired by God, this is why it can be scientifically and theologically criticized without being persecuted by any law (like Shariah) or simply public opinion.

I only want to know who from modern liberal Islamic scholars or what Islamic movements think the same.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 11:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no respect for either the Quran or the Bible, but very few people would consider English translations of the Iliad to be equivalent to the original. In particular, the Iliad is written in dactylic hexameter, and it's very difficult to write even one line of English poetry in that complex of a meter.  It's also very difficult to translate Homer's meaning without losing the beauty of his poetry, changing the tone, or being incredibly hard to understand.  I've yet to see a translation that reasonably balances all of these criteria.  --140.180.252.244 (talk) 13:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It was just a rough example which came first to my mind, you can substitute it for any other. Do Christians (except for obscurant medieval ones, maybe) think that singing in the church the Lord's prayer or Psalms in English, French etc. rather than in Hebrew, Greek or Latin is blasphemous? I believe they do not. I do not defend Christianity, I just want to know what Islamic movements do like Christianity in this aspect. --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In general the Western and Catholic position is that there is a sense behind the words which is what is their essence, separate from the form of the words, which is an accident. That is, the message outweighs the language in which it is conveyed.  Understanding that requires you study Aristotle or Aristotelian philosophy, also known as scholasticism. μηδείς (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that modern Islam lacks such philosophy and is bound to outer formalism?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 09:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am no expert, but since the Koran is considered the literal word of God uncorrupted, it does seem most Muslims don't separate the two. I know there was quite a bit of theological controversy historically over the use of matres lectionis in Arabic and Hebrew, although our article doesn't seem to address that. μηδείς (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Penal Servitude in the UK
I'm puzzled by the concept of penal servitude as it existed in England and Wales (and probably other parts of the UK before 1948). It was clearly somewhat similar to imprisonment with hard labour, but the two penalties were clearly not the same; for instance in the Criminal Justice Act 1948 section 1 (1) abolished penal servitude and section 1 (2) abolished imprisonment with had labour. Moreover in various Acts of Parliament the two punishments had been shown as alternatives. For instance the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 specified the penalty for Bigamy as "to be kept in Penal Servitude for any Term not exceeding Seven Years and not less than Three Years,&mdash;or to be imprisoned for any Term not exceeding Two Years, with or without Hard Labour." So could anyone please explain the differnece betweemn penal servitude and imprisonment with hard labour, as online sources (including our own articles) seem to imply that they were one and the same. rossb (talk) 09:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Penal servitute is penal transportation to penal colonies for penal labour. Sleigh (talk) 11:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's correct - see Penal_servitude, which says "The Penal Servitude Act 1853 ... substituted penal servitude for transportation". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * [ec] 'Hard labour' involved hard physical work; penal servitude did not necessarily (non-authoritative source: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/DERBYSGEN/2010-05/1275317467 ). Also penal servitude did not require imprisonment as such; those performing penal servitude after transportation were as I recall often not imprisoned (having nowhere to run). HenryFlower 13:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * From the article, it looks like penal servitude was an umbrella term encompassing both hard labour and Non-punitive prison labour. Rojomoke (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

A few quotations
I saw these "inspirational" quotes in a trending post on Google Plus, and some of them sound anachronistic or stylistically wrong to me. Does anyone know if they are accurate or are misattributed or have been paraphrased? If they are accurate, what are the respective sources?--

PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Shakespeare: "Never play with the feelings of others because you may win the game but the risk is that you will surely lose the person for a life time."
 * 2) Napoleon: "The world suffers a lot./ Not because of the violence of bad people./ But because of the silence of good people."
 * 3) Einstein: "I am thankful to all those who said NO to me / It's because of them I did it myself."
 * 4) Abraham Lincoln: "If friendship is your weakest point then you are the strongest person in the world."


 * Number 2 is a bit like the famous saying 'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing', dubiously attributed to Edmund Burke. There's also 'Not only will we have to repent for the sins of bad people; but we also will have to repent for the appalling silence of good people', attributed to Martin Luther King. I've taken the liberty of moving your signature to the end of the list of quotations. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Andrew, that's interesting. Both of these seem to be likely sources of inspiration for #2. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that all of these quotes are recent - probably less than five years old - and that none of them can be reliably attributed to anyone famous. All Google searches for them seem to turn up nothing but copies of this same email. I'm wondering who would be foolish enough to believe these attributions. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Many people on Google+ at least, it seems. Pretty sad?
 * The other two quotes in the same post were from Mahatma Gandhi and A. P. J. Abdul Kalam whom, I admit, I had never heard of until I searched for him just now. So I'm guessing that this particular compilation at least originated in India. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As Einstein once said: "be a skeptic, do no believe anything you read on the internet." OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Everything on quotes is legit" -Henry XII.203.112.82.2 (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Einstein? Wasn't it Confucius who said that?  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  19:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You are confuciued. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I'm just a visitor from the Forth Dementian. :)  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  21:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * One of the purposes of a good liberal education is to teach why and how those supposed quotes are ridiculously bad English and obvious recent illiterate forgeries. μηδείς (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Verily. One does not need to believe that "Shakespeare" was Shakespeare to know that quote #1 was not from either of their pens.  It may perhaps be a modern day paraphrase of something one of them wrote, but then, it's no longer Shakespeare.  Or even "Shakespeare". --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  22:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The one allegedly from Napoleon is about as likely as this one:
 * Violence is justified in the service of mankind. -- Attila the Hun
 * ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Or "I am totally committed to peace, and I'll kill anyone who stands in my way of achieving it". --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  22:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously they're quotes from Fred Shakespeare, Alphonse Napoleon, "Jersey Joe" Einstein (the "physicist of fisticuffs" and "professor of pugilism") and Abraham Lincoln Continental. What, no bluelinks? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It's easy to dismiss them as made up, but I was hoping for anyone who has any thoughts on whether these might have been paraphrased or synthesised from real quotes - even better if by those people, along the lines of AndrewWTaylor posted above. (Though I doubt Napoleon would ever express a sentiment like that.) But - any thoughts? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Those "quotes" are so badly written they'd make perfect fodder for two day's worth of instruction in a high school English class. μηδείς (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Reporter: What do you think of British culture, Mr. Gandhi?"
 * "Yes, that would be a great idea."

KägeTorä - (影虎) ( TALK )  00:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Shortest branch line
Today I had the pleasure of riding what is widely claimed to be the shortest branch line in Europe at 0.8 miles (1.3km). This raises the question of what is the shortest branch line in the world? All my Googling just comes back home to Stourbridge. I'm talking main line scheduled services only.--Shantavira|feed me 17:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * There's the 42nd Street Shuttle in Manhattan, which is the same length. It is one of the least pleasant train rides available.  Much, much nicer is the Dinky, but it's a bit longer. μηδείς (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a subway line, which doesn't meet Shantavira's criterion of a "main line" service. I suspected Japan might be able to rival the Stourbridge line, but the shortest branch line I could find was the Miyazaki Kūkō Line, which is marginally longer. Marco polo (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you explain the difference? The princeton Junction line is a train but it requires one transfer from one train to the other at the station.  That seems no different from a subway. μηδείς (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The concept is really British, so I'm not 100% sure I get it. Maybe Shantavira can chime in.  However, I think the main difference is that a main line branch needs to be physically connected to a national passenger rail system so that rolling stock can move from the branch line to the actual main line.  That is the case for the Princeton Branch, which is connected by a switch to the main Northeast Corridor branch, even if passengers have to change trains at Princeton Junction.  I don't think that the New York City subway system is integrated in the same way with the national rail system.  Marco polo (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe that's the case for the Princeton Junction connection, but it abuts a concrete platform at the actual station, with no physical track connection there. Maybe there is a track connection elsewhere, but I don't know, having only ridden that side line once, and transferred by foot. μηδείς (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In the UK, "main line" means "normal trains", as opposed to a light rail or metro-style railway like the London Underground. Basically, anything other than what Wikipedia calls rapid transit railways. The difference is purposive rather than necessarily physical, since in some countries main ine and urban rapid transit trains can and often do share tracks and even stations. The 42nd Street Shuttle would definitely not be "main line" in the UK sense. Does the "Dinky" run subway-style trains or Amtrak-style trains? That may be a good indicator. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It has been so long I am not sure. The line it connects to is an Amtrak line (North East Corridor Line) but I suspect the Dinky is slightly smaller.  I rode it once maybe 15 years ago. μηδείς (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Where is the free will?
Pick two imaginary women, who are identical and give birth at the same time. The first, motivated by oxytocin and other hormones, get attached to her baby and develops maternal instincts, the second, also motivated by hormones drops the baby in a the first garbage can. Should be punish the second and praise the first? What they are doing is just part of a kind of "biological program." How do modern day philosophers deal with this? Even just 100 years ago, philosophers were not aware of the existence of hormones and similar stuff, so I suppose the concept of "free will" didn't take enough bashing as it should. But nowadays, isn't it a discredited concept among educated researchers? Philoknow (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Free will is a huge topic. I even have my own goofy ideas I've advanced at a previous discussion, but of course there's a wide range of viewpoints.  Wnt (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I don't expect to get an answer about what it free will and what it is not, but what about how academic philosophers integrated the discovery of hormones and neurotransmitters into their philosophy. It looks like more and more things are being explained in plain mechanical terms. How does philosophy deal with that? Philoknow (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't know (or really care) how philosophers deal with your example... but I know how the police would deal with it. In most countries the woman who tossed her baby in the garbage would be arrested for child endangerment. Blueboar (talk) 19:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That's true, but it says nothing about moral, just about how the law codified the norms. Philoknow (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as free will. Our bodies just do things according to their nature, and we punish others' bodies when they do bad things.  Lucky for us we are not the same thing as our bodies, so we can give our minds credit for things the body hasn't done, and when our bodies are punished it doesn't affect our minds at all. μηδείς (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course there is. You chose to write the above statement, just as I am choosing to write this one. No one is compelling us to do so. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Is that just your private opinion? Where should this tag start? I wanted to know specifically how academic philosophy deal with this discovery of the physical mechanism of decisions. Philoknow (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know how philosophers would deal with it, but scientists would say that there isn't any reliable means of mind control. A person hyped up on methamphetamine or PCP or Hunter Thompson's legendary adrenochrome doesn't have to commit any crime (apart from drug law technicalities...).  The most that a hormone or genetic factor can do is impart a predisposition - and usually, a very small one. Wnt (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * There isn't a reliable means of mind control right now, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. Ophiocordyceps unilateralis, a fungus, can mind control ants and make them climb up a plant before they die. You'll have a hard time convincing many scientists that there's a fundamental difference between the brain of humans and our animal relatives that makes the latter mind-controllable, but not the former. --140.180.252.244 (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there's a difference between simple behavior and moral choices. You can douse someone in sneezing powder and make them sneeze or itching powder and make them scratch, but is that the same as denying them free will? Wnt (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * @ Philoknow. Basically, you are your body, and your body is able to act in complex ways that aren't strictly determined in a yes or no fashion by the immediate inputs of the environment in the way that plants and bacteria are.  People who claim that they don't have free will because their bodies have forced them to do things are claiming that they are ghosts imprisoned in a body, which is a rather silly, if common delusion.  See the links Wnt gave in the second post above, which give my arguments at some length and links to previous discussions.  (Basically my point is, yes, you have free will and responsibility for your own actions, but most people define free will in a rather ridiculous fashion.) μηδείς (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering any possible mechanism allowing free will has never been discovered, it makes little sense to dismiss the idea there is no free will. Also to claim that certain organisms' actions are determined by their environment yet humans are not makes little sense without going into religious beliefs like souls or other ideas that somehow separate humans from other organisms.
 * That said, to answer the OP, see Hard determinism. There are some philosophers, who, like you, question whether one should be held responsible for their actions in a world without free will. In a determined world without free will a person is born with as much choice for their future actions as they do for their skin colour, none. The real world consequences are complicated, but I guess we would/should continue to punish immoral behaviour (even if any punishment is immoral) just to lower the total number of immoral actions - punishment deters immoral behaviour.50.101.137.171 (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You'll have to define wht you mean by free will before you can complain there's no mechanism for it. We do know people make choices and can act independent of outside inputs.  Nothing makes you get out of the bed in the morning other than you. μηδείς (talk) 04:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The question is not really about free will, it is about the morality of punishment. They are often taken to be the same thing, but that is a conclusion that needs to be demonstrated, not just taken as obvious. Looie496 (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No, the question is about free will. That's why it's "where is the free will?" Where is the fair punishment is just a logical secondary question to the first one. Philoknow (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In your example, the first woman chose to be a loving mother and the second one chose not to be. It ain't rocket science. As to why they chose to do things, there's a lot more to it than hormones. There's also upbringing and consequence development of a good conscience. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Here are the results of plugging the search string +"free will" +hormones into google scholar - this should give you some idea of how current philosophy approaches the problem. Taknaran (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Neuroscience of free will refers to a few contemporary philosophers dealing with some of the questions of compatibility too. ---Sluzzelin talk  00:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Free will occurred for the first ten minutes following the big bang, but you are still experiencing it. Paum89 (talk) 07:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The real mistake here is treating the hormones as something separate from the mother. The mother is the hormones and everything else that makes her up physically as well as the causal history that got her that way, which includes her own past choices. μηδείς (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Modern quantum physics, specifically the uncertainty principle, proves that noone can determine the future based on past events. God does indeed play dice with the universe. The Newtonian mechanics everyone interprets their everyday world through predicts a deterministic world, but newtonian mechanics are wrong. For more details see this 2 minute video by Michio Kaku.--46.7.146.24 (talk) 00:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That must account for the apple I saw fall upward and re-attach itself to the tree. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Free will just floats nearby the brain. (Dilbert ;-) ) 20.137.2.50 (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I should thank Sluzzelin for posting Neuroscience of free will - the funny part is, I don't feel like many of the experiments cited there are relevant. What I feel like is that it is possible to think without knowing what you're thinking - for example, if you're trying to remember something, you only know what you've remembered after you've remembered it, at which point the presumably difficult task of picking out that particular memory from all the others has already been completed.  My impression is that a person "unknowingly" thinks of what must be millions of things all at once, usually slowly though the rate can be increased by attention to a particular area.  I think of creative ideas as developing out of the soils of the mind like fetuses in a womb, and becoming known only after their birth, or to use another analogy, that they are assembled like televisions in a factory, and awareness of their contents is like the cardboard wrapping material they are shipped in.  It seemed to me that marijuana was capable of moving up the delivery date, but that ideas released in this fashion were underdeveloped and readily forgotten; I didn't approve of this, and was convinced that the creativity it seemed to evince was false, only a haphazard release of what was already present.  So when a person is asked to decide which way to move or look, for example, then of course the seeds for this decision are already present within him; it could be no other way.  That does not mean that the process is not free.  I see that the article cites  as the expression of what looks like a similar objection... though so far I'm not really seeing it. Wnt (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Are there any European Far-Right Parties that support Iran?
Are there any European Far-Right Political Parties that support Iran? --Gary123 (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, the Austrian Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ) and the German NPD. Both are also against Islam in Europe, but recognize Iran as a force against Israel and America. Philoknow (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * References that support those claims would be helpful (and funny). μηδείς (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * For a link in German: [].Philoknow (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As it concerns the FPÖ this is definitely wrong. To the disgust of many of its voters, the party's current Middle East policy is actually pro-Israeli. --Michael Fleischhacker (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, nothing is wrong. FPÖ is able to unity contradictory opinions. In 2000, Israel declared Austrian politician Jörg Haider persona non grata following the Austrian legislative election of 1999, due to his anti- antisemitic speeches, but they are also able to praise the perceived fight of Islam against foreign interference. Philoknow (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm missing something. Why would Israel want to keep him out for anti-antisemitic speeches? --Trovatore (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've already corrected it. Philoknow (talk) 23:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The National Front had a stint in the 1980s went it began to praise Gaddafi and Khomenei, as part of its turn away from classical fascism to Third Position. They are all history now, however. --Soman (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Animism
Why is it that, other than Japan, every society with an animist religion has failed to advance as much as other areas? (Sub-Saharan Africa, Native Americans, etc.) --168.7.234.172 (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Define "advance." There is a case to be made that what you imply is advancement could be seen as regression: Neither of the cultures who you mention ever came to the verge of engaging in nuclear holocaust, and those cultures who remain animist often see the rest of the world just that way. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Then we'll never know if they would have done better or worse in the circumstances. It's the same technology which will spread the seed of the organism we call Earth throughout the cosmos, until the species is quite literally as numerous as the stars of the sky. Until recently humans have been living unquestioning in the garden of eden. It is us who must eat of the tree of knowledge.--46.7.146.24 (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Native Americans had pretty "advanced" societies by 15th century standards. They didn't advance beyond that because they got wiped out by germs and conquest, but their religions didn't have much to do with that. Some animist societies, such as the Mongols, managed to put under the yoke plenty of non-animist societies, as well. Certain religions strains historically have seemed to confer advantages to their societies (I am not positing anything divine in this — they just result in different sorts of mass behavior), but I'm not sure that one can so easily conclude that it is a question of monotheism vs. polytheism vs. animism in a strict way. Historically the monotheistic religions have been the ones that have urged their followers to convert or murder others, which drove several centuries of world history and development (for better or ill). --Mr.98 (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Pretty advanced societies by 15th century standards"? What are you talking about?  They didn't have sailing ships, metallurgy to speak of, writing, mathematics.  As far as I can see they can't compete with Europe, North Africa, China, or Japan, during the same time period. --Trovatore (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Some did have writing, but I agree that technologically they were quite behind a number of Old World civilizations. - Lindert (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Some people think that "native american" is equal to US native American, but it actually refers to all indigenous peoples of the Americas, South and North, and some indeed were civilized. Philoknow (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Some of the civilizations in modern Mexico and points south had a little more technology than their northern counterparts, but they still didn't have seafaring, metallurgy beyond primarily decorative uses, firearms, or mathematics beyond simple arithmetic. --Trovatore (talk) 00:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You are right that technologically they were less developed, however, since they were aborted by an external force, we cannot conclude that there were something internal, like their animist religion, limiting their development. We don't know what would have happen. Philoknow (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't claiming it had anything at all to do with their religion. I just don't agree with Mr.98 that they had "advanced societies by 15th century standards".  --Trovatore (talk) 02:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You have to define "advanced". It's been noted that Roanoke had a problem with settlers "going native", and Benjamin Franklin himself wrote: "no European who has tasted Savage Life can afterwards bear to live in our societies". So yes, the monotheistic societies had a clear advantage in technology, but many who encountered these "primitive" societies concluded they had a superior way of life. So perhaps they were more advanced in the individual-happiness department. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * More at home than in a terribly led, brand new and tiny colony probably. More at home than where they were born, I doubt it.--46.7.146.24 (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

168.7.234.172 -- "Animism" is a vague catch-all term (maybe a little old-fashioned by now) basically referring to religions of mostly non-literate peoples without any recognizable affiliation with a "major" or "world" religion. So the religion of a civilization or empire with major world influence would pretty much by definition be unlikely to be called "animist"... AnonMoos (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Like AnonMoos pointed out, a flaw in your question is the presumption that "animism" is limited to the unsophisticated religions of illiterate peoples. Not really. Animism are religions which attribute spirits/souls to the natural world, including forces of nature, abstract concepts, animals, geographic features, or plants. i.e. If someone thinks that this rock, or that tree, or the sky, or that dog, or this emotion has a soul, then they are animistic.

Most polytheistic religions are animistic or had roots in animism. Indeed polytheistic (and even monotheistic) deities are oftentimes merely the highest "ranks" of the nature spirits in their pantheons. i.e. the lesser spirits became less and less important until only certain spirits of the most important natural concepts were retained and elevated to gods. Compare for example, Zeus (originally a sky god) with the dryads and other nymphs and satyrs. And yes, Ancient Greece was animistic, having certain spirits guarding specific groves, streams, rivers, etc. The Middle East before the rise of Islam was animistic, and still retains remnants of those older beliefs like the djinns. Pagan Europe (including Norse and Celtic paganism, see Vættir) was animistic. Pre-dynastic Ancient Egypt was animistic. Modern Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism arose from animism and in some areas still practice animism. All of which resulted in pretty impressive civilizations.

They did not "fail to advance", they merely morphed into something else through convenience, politics, or simply the eventual solidification (e.g. the establishment of tenets or rigidly selected clergy) of the vaguer religious concepts of animism. The question better asked perhaps is why religions tend to become more and more anthropocentric with fewer and fewer deities, and more and more homogeneous in terms of practices, the older they become. I think it has something to do with sociological control. You can control a civilization who worships one god easier than you can control civilizations which worships thousands of sometimes opposing spirits with different motivations.

Akhenaten attempted to forced Aten, the sun disk, as the only god among ancient Egyptians. Aurelian also attempted to impose Sol Invictus over the Romans. The Ilkhanate Mongols converted to Islam to better control the Muslim majority of their conquered lands. Constantine I and Constantius II imposed Christianity over the Roman Empire to enforce religious unity. Shia and Sunni Islam have a historical conflict originating from the Battle of Karbala spanning centuries. The Roman Catholic Church reacted with massacres to the splintering off of protestants, etc. etc.

The decline of animism is the result of the invention of heresy.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  03:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Ancestry of Robert Browning
I am looking for the ancestry of poet Robert Browning, especially in his Browning line, but can't find anything beyond his father (also Robert) and some mention of his grandparents. Is there any compiled genealogy going back many generations? Edison (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Have a look at this, or this, or this. Apparently Frederick James Furnivall (a friend of Browning) published a biographical essay in The Academy for 12 Apr 1902, but I haven't found an on-line edition yet.  Zoonoses (talk) 05:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Robot president
Simple hypothetical. Say in the future, robotics gets to a phase where they are sentient enough to take on certain tasks, analyze the needs of citizens, and wanted to become the president of the United States (provided it was manufactured there.) Constitutionally, could the robot run for office? 64.229.183.165 (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No possible way of knowing, but I'd suggest that governments all over the world would be forced to define "human being" well before such a possibility was ever realised, and to make it clear that eligibility for certain offices did not extend to other beings. Of course, that would open up a huge can of worms: such as, when does an unborn foetus become a human being?  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  22:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that the question is about the US, and that the US already requires a minimum age for presidential candidates, and that an unborn fetus will never reach that age (35) by definition, your last question would be mercifully academic. But the only future I can predict is one where this question will be hatted. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 22:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * For the United States, see Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution for the requirements. It strikes me that making such a clause viable for a robot AI would require a very liberal interpretation of the Constitution. (Plus, it would have to be a 35-year-old robot — it'd surely not be the most up to date model at that point!) You would have to argue that the robot was 1. a person, 2. natural born, and 3. a citizen. Not one of those things is a distinction currently given to non-living objects. Long before any Constitutional question about robots running for President would be the clarification of the legal code for robots or AIs of significant advancement to qualify for any one of those distinctions. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * But for a few votes in Florida, we might have had one starting in 2001. --Trovatore (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeh, Al Gort. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * For many social procedures, you need personhood. There is nothing new to be defined. Non-humans are not allowed to obtain it. And for many other procedures you need legal personality, which a robot could be, if a person creates a company that owes the robot and put a straw man director at charge. But a legal personality cannot be president, so you won't go that far with your autonomous robot. Philoknow (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Is there any court precedence, US or otherwise, that explicitly established that only humans are people? Perhaps a case regarding animal rights? Someguy1221 (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be careful in this context to say persons rather than people. People is not quite a plural of person; it has other nuances. --Trovatore (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly, it's all about being a legal person. There are certainly many laws and court precedence which clearly imply a difference between humans and non-humans. If you kill a dog, you won't be charged with murder. Birth certificates cannot be issued at will either and many legal procedures depend on a birth certificate. Philoknow (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't find the specific court case right now, but it had something to do with an animal-artist (Congo, Pierre Brassau, Tillamook Cheddar or Ruby, perhaps?), animals not being persons, and non-persons being ineligible to hold (and originate) copyright. Gabbe (talk) 09:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * There have been some small efforts in Europe, actually. Check out Great ape personhood. (There is also, conversely, corporate personhood.) --Mr.98 (talk) 02:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In Alexis Gilliland's Rosinante trilogy, sentient machines are legally corporations ... —Tamfang (talk) 06:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The Bicentennial Man didn't run for president, but perhaps some other robot following in his footsteps could have done so. 24.23.145.28 (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Robots at that level don't run for president because accepting power over humans conflicts with the first law. A robot would never put itself in a position where it might be necessary to order the deaths of humans. Paum89 (talk) 05:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In one of Asimov's other Robot stories, a journalist is trying to establish whether an ex-President was in fact a robot, or merely a very ethical human. I won't spoil the ending, but one of the story's points (in my personal reading) was that, in the context of Asimovean robots, the answer didn't really matter. Paum89's point about First Law does not apply, because Zeroth Law (the ultimate greater good of humanity), as later developed and applied by Daneel Olivaw but anticipated in this earlier story, can be applied by an advanced robot to trump it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.19 (talk) 12:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Asimov was a great writer, but a fast one, and his stories only have a certain depth to them. Show me a robot that applies the Zeroeth Law and I'll show you a machine teaching people Scientology at gunpoint.  (Because after all, it believes what it was told, because it was told to...)  I haven't tried it, but I really do wonder if I could speak any statement at all to a lie detector and have it be either true, or false, because the truth of things is in how you look at them and think about them.  The same should be true for robots following laws. Wnt (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In The Simulacra, the president was an Android (robot). Mitch Ames (talk) 08:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

If it were possible to build into the robot concepts such as ethicsand honestyand intelligence then I foresee a real advantage in your idea.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.56.105.253 (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

How about a vast database like IBM Wilson that analyzed all decisions of past presidents and all world leaders throughout history to determine a successful course of action. The advantage is being able to say what decisions achieved their goals and which failed. It could also compare the intention of the actions. So you wouldn't really need a sentient robot just one with a lot of capacity to compile all the intentions, decisions and outcomes. We could quite literally have all the past presidents be the president at the same time!GeeBIGS (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Define "success" and "failure". Or provide an example. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The decision to storm the beach at Normandy or not. What was the intended result and was that realized? The decision to bomb Pearl Harbor or not. What was the intended result and was that realized?GeeBIGS (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the trouble with trying to quantify history: We don't know yet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

OK. So limit the actual result to 10 or 15 years after the decision. Are you actually trying to say that we still don't know whether the outcomes of the two examples I gave achieved the respective decisionmakers' intended goals or not?!165.212.189.187 (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. A good President needs to have a long-term vision of the future. Warfare always has unintended consequences. Would you call the Gulf War of 1991 a "success"? It accomplished exactly what the coalition intended it to do. But what was the longer-term consquence? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

My EXAMPLES just happened to be about war. U need to see past the trees for the forest. Somehow you are misunderstanding a basic concept that is not whether the decision was altruistic but whether the decision (how ever moral or immoral it moght be) was successful based on how well the outcome matched the intention of the decisionmaker. Then you can begin to decipher what action lead to what outcomes and correlate that with the intention. Is that clearer?165.212.189.187 (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You can't quantify history that way. It might be centuries, if even then, before you can say that some action by a President was successful. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You obviously are what I would call hopeless. You asked me how I am qualifying success and I explained that "success" is simply realizing the intended outcome. Decision: storm beaches of Normandy ; intention: to stop hitlers nazi Germany from taking over Europe and world; outcome (drumroll...) : SUCCESS! You are claiming that hitler could still take over the world, or that te intention of the decision to storm beaches was somehow to save the world from all evil everywhere ever and thus it failed. Usually presidents have to make real life decisions that are far from perfect in order to do what is in their power to lead their citizens to the optimal outcome not the utopian one.GeeBIGS (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * And if further consequences of the SUCCESS are negative? —Tamfang (talk) 05:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Still missing the bigger picture. What no one mentioned to my suprise is how do we know the true intentions of the decision maker to begin with, that is the real key to this database. You seem to suffer from analysis paralysis.  So to go along with your line of thought: We can't know if bombing Pearl Harbor was a failure or success for the Japanese because ..... we don't know if their intention was to have nuclear bombs dropped on them or not? please, enlighten me.165.212.189.187 (talk) 13:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What about Decision:Enter World War I; intention: stop the Kaizer from taking over Europe; outcome (drumroll...): SUCCESS! (y'know, except for the punitive measures of the Treaty of Versailles leading to the economic downturn of Germany, which led to popular support of National Socialism).

Why stop there??165.212.189.187 (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It also bothers me that this algorithm would be based on success/failure, and not talk about the merits of the intent itself. The US's second foray into Iraq. Intention: Topple Hussein's regime. Outcome: Success. It just seems like "pass/fail" is a bad way to rate decisions. Achowat (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Now that I have at least one person this far: AGAIN, this is to correlate intent with outcome through/with decision. Input these three aspects of every known event in history and, voilee. I really should be charging for this.165.212.189.187 (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Supposing that the robot makes the "correct" short-term decision, and it proves disastrous in the long run, what's the advantage in having a robot? Humans are quite capable of that already. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Supposing that the robot makes the "incorrect" short-term decision, and it proves to end all war and human struggle in the long run, what's the advantage in having a robot? Humans are quite capable of that already GeeBIGS (talk) 05:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What if the robot reasoned that war is good? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that is science fiction, bugs. that should be on the entertainment desk.I really don't know why I'm even bothering but the database would be used by a real person(s) as a benchmark or sounding board. You put in a desired intention with desired outcome and the database goes through all the events in history to correlate whicht decisions worked and which failed.165.212.189.187 (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Stays of executions in the United States
The article on Ted Bundy reads as follow ''Minutes before his execution, Hagmaier queried Bundy about unsolved homicides in New Jersey, Illinois, Vermont (the Curran case), Texas, and Miami, Florida. Bundy denied involvement in any of them''.

My question is, if Bundy claimed responsibility in some of such cases, could his execution have been halted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.178.143.191 (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Not that it's the norm to answer a question with a question, but my question is "Why did they wait till so late to ask him?". --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  23:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Guessing: Hagmaier (whoever he might be; I haven't looked it up) probably figured that Bundy might be more forthcoming, having nothing more to lose (and possibly wanting to clear his conscience). To the original poster, I would ask, why would you think that would delay the execution? --Trovatore (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing they meant so that Ted could have time to give the details, burial sites, etc. Somehow I doubt that such a delay would be granted, as it's obvious he could have given the details earlier, without a delay. StuRat (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * An execution can be halted at any time by the Governor or a judge. They are not legally forbidden from halting an execution after previously declining to do so, they just usually don't. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, they probably asked him several times before, that was just another chance of obtaining the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philoknow (talk • contribs) 00:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks, But if he had answered in the affirmative, and he said he was the only one who knew where the bodies were, and if they executed him today they'd never find out, wouldn't that have been enough reason to call a halt?  One could argue that he could have been lying in order to postpone his death, but then, why ask him in the first place?  Knowing that he committed the murders but knowing no other details, would almost be worse than not knowing at all.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  00:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, he could have said: "wait, wait, don't execute me, I still have something to say", get a postponement and the next time the same thing all over again. Ted Bundy got information for a handful of postponements. Philoknow (talk) 01:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure. So again I ask: Why ask him the question?  It couldn't just have been for him to shrive his conscience.  Could it?  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  01:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Conventional wisdom at the time was that he was trying to stave off the execution by suddenly deciding to spill some details. The authorities didn't buy, and he fry. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not really responsive. Jack wasn't asking for an explanation of Bundy's actions, but of Hagmaier's.  It seems perfectly plausible to me that Hagmaier just wanted to clarify the facts, and figured this was the moment he might get the truth.  --Trovatore (talk) 04:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The OP's actual question was whether the execution could be halted. And since the possibility was debated at the time, it's clear that it could have been halted if someone in authority had decided to do so. And as I said just above your snippy and useless comment, those who were in position to make that decision concluded that he was just stalling, so they decided to let the execution go on as planned. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * By indentation, you were responding to Jack, but your comment was not responsive to Jack. If you don't like that being commented on, then either indent correctly, or respond to the people you're responding to. --Trovatore (talk) 06:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you had actually said that the first time, I could have change the indention. Or - here's a news flash - you could have fixed it yourself. In fact, you could do that right now, and then erase both your snippy comments and my perplexed responses to them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Boys, boys! Please don't fight over me.  There's more than enough for both of you.  :)  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  21:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That reminds me: Have you ever seen "The Chipmunks" version of Il trovatore? The highlight is when they try to cheer up the under-the-weather troubador by singing the "Alvin Chorus". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You might want to run that question past an attorney instead of eliciting speculation from people who claim to not give legal advice. Paum89 (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * When did "legal advice" become a euphemism for "anything even remotely related to the law"? Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 06:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless the OP himself is on death row for being a serial killer, it's not really a request for legal advice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * See also Scheherazade, after whom all such postponements should be titled. :) Wnt (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)