Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 February 9

= February 9 =

Teddy Roosevelt and National Parks
I have a paper to do on any American subject I would want, with various requirements. I want to write this paper on Teddy Roosevelt and the creation of National Parks. For this paper, I need opposing views on the creation of parks, who opposed the creation of such parks, and who supported. I read at Presidency_of_Theodore_Roosevelt that "In 1903 Roosevelt toured the Yosemite Valley with John Muir, who had a very different view of conservation, and tried to minimize commercial use of water resources and forests." The article goes into no more detail than that on Muir's "opposing views". On Muir's article I see no specific differences between Muir and Roosevelt. I also saw that they had no conflicts when the spent a night together under a tent at what would become Yosemite National Park. What were their opposing views, and who else opposed the creation of National Parks? Perhaps our article should make this clear? Thanks. Albacore (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * There was a multi-hour-long TV miniseries which explored these questions at length on PBS not long ago... AnonMoos (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, and here it is: . This quote from that page might offer some insight: "Muir's final crusade, to prevent the city of San Francisco from building a dam and creating a massive water reservoir in Yosemite's Hetch Hetchy Valley, ended in bitter defeat with federal approval of the project in 1913".  I don't think TR would have opposed such a project.  With Teddy, it was more of a case of environmentalism if their was no huge cost, while John Muir would be willing to pay any price. StuRat (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Those who opposed the parks are often those who used the future park areas for extractive purposes - lumbering, mining, cattle ranching, water supply, etc. And those dispossessed (settlers, Native Americans). But note that Yosemite was already a national park before Roosevelt was president and the national park service wasn't founded until seven years after he left office. Of the 5 national parks Roosevelt signed on, 2 were later demoted (and the other 3 aren't iconic). His big idea was the Antiquities Act and two of his four national monuments were later promoted to national parks. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I happen to have watched the PBS series quite recently. There are two things that stuck out to me as more interesting: 1. TR's views were basically along the lines of "let's save the buffalo so that we can hunt them later for fun." That is, it is old-school conservationism — preserve things so that people can use them. Muir's views were very different — he saw wilderness as a holy, transcendental experience and that it needed to be preserved largely from humans and overuse. They overlapped on the park question but for different reasons — Muir was not a fan of hunting, for example. 2. The act that gave TR the power to do these things was very broad. Basically it allows the President huge powers to remove lands from private use. This has always been controversial in the short term — though in the long term people are usually pretty happy that we have things like the Grand Canyon and Yosemite and places of that nature. Anyway, it's a good program, and there is ample discussion of Muir vs. TR's views, so it is a good place to start. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * We have the page Conservation in the United States, which has some stuff on this topic. I think Roosevelt's views were more in line with those of Gifford Pinchot. Roosevelt and Pinchot were "conservationists" while Muir was a "preservationist". If I understand right there was a bit of a struggle between these ideologies. The conservation movement created what began the United States National Forest system, and the preservation movement the National Park Service. One interesting difference between these—and a telling one I've always thought—is that the United States Forest Service, which manages the national forests, is part of the Department of Agriculture, while the Park Service is part of the Department of the Interior.


 * I'm not sure Gifford Pinchot was exactly against national parks, but he was certainly more in favor of national forests and his work undermined Muir in many ways. During the 1890s, when Muir and Pinchot were both working hard to made their visions of land protection a reality, vast amounts of land were designated national forest, but Muir only managed to get Sequoia and Yosemite designated national parks, in the early 1890s, then Mount Rainier in 1899. In contrast, something like 30 national forests were created in the 1890s, with an acreage that dwarfed the national parks. Muir and the Sierra Club spent much of the 1890s trying to get Mount Rainier National Park created out of land that had been set aside as national forest in 1893. This "redesignation" from national forest to national park was a major battle—previous national parks had predated the national forest system. It took many years and lots of work to get Congress to approve Rainier. Among other things, Congress demanded assurance that none of the park land had mining or farming potential, and that no money would be required to maintain it. I think the fight for Mount Rainier National Park is a good example of conservation vs. preservation, with powerful forces working against the national park idea.


 * I don't know about Roosevelt so much, and Rainier was created before he became president. But I note that only three national parks were created during Roosevelt's decade (1901-1909)—two of them, Wind Cave National Park and Mesa Verde National Park, quite small (the third being Crater Lake National Park). After Roosevelt, in the 1910s, quite a few national parks were made, some quite large. What, if anything, this says about Roosevelt though, I'm not sure. Pfly (talk) 11:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * BTW, there's also a book that goes along with the PBS documentary, The National Parks: America's Best Idea. It's not bad, although there are certainly more scholarly sources out there detailing the early history of the Forest Service and Park Service, and the ideological struggle between conservationism and preservationism. A Google Books search is bound to turn up some leads. Pfly (talk) 11:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Did Hitler really say that?
The American writer Philip K. Dick made the remarkable claim that Hitler had once said that the true victory of the Nazis would be to force its enemies, the United States in particular, to become like the Third Reich -- i.e. a totalitarian society -- in order to win. Hitler, then, expected to win even in losing. Source: http://www.philipkdickfans.com/mirror/websites/pkdweb/short_stories/Oh%20To%20Be%20A%20Blobel.htm

Did Hitler really say that and if so, where and when? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.107.215.90 (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It's going to be difficult to prove someone never said something, but this seems unlikely, to me. His biggest goal wasn't totalitarianism, it was having "Aryans" rule over (or just kill) "inferior races".  The US, being a melting pot, would be a nightmare for him. StuRat (talk) 02:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the quick reply. If you don't mind can my question be kept open for 24 hours in case someone finds a quote? Thanks again! 188.107.215.90 (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is the quote along these lines that I have seen attributed to Hitler:
 * The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it.
 * Not exactly the same; it doesn't indicate that this outcome is in and of itself a victory for his side. But it's close enough that it could have been what Dick was thinking of.  On the other hand I don't know that Hitler actually said it &mdash; I was able to find the quote easily enough, but I haven't tracked down the circumstances under which he supposedly said it.  --Trovatore (talk) 03:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I will just note that it sounds an awful lot like a very common Cold War claim that the USA had to become like the USSR to compete against them (hence the military-industrial-complex, which bores more than a passing resemblance to the Soviet command economy). --Mr.98 (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * We do have a large Wikiquote page for Hitler, which includes this quote: "I have sympathy for Mr. Roosevelt, because he marches straight toward his objectives over Congress, lobbies and bureaucracy." The sentiment is not dissimilar. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Procedures/Circumstances for reporting someone missing
Based on content from several TV series I recently saw, along with questions I asked close friends & family members, it seems that if someone has decided to vanish after deliberately declaring their intention to do so, then it would be no use to report them missing. Is that really true? 24.47.141.254 (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yea. They might file a report, but I wouldn't expect any real effort to be expended on the case.  StuRat (talk) 06:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Laws regarding declarations of "death in absentia" vary from place to place, but in some jurisdictions one can only be declared dead after a specific amount of time has passed following the initial report of being missing. If some of the family members are intending to access the vanishing person's bank accounts (or similar), it would make sense to file a report early. Gabbe (talk) 08:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * As I read it, this question isn't about death. Generally, in the absence of evidence of disease or intent for self-harm, the police won't search for an adult non-criminal who doesn't want to be found.  For example if I tell everybody I know that I feel a sudden urge to hitchhike from California to New York tomorrow, and tomorrow morning I walk out with my backpack and don't return, the police won't search for me, even if my friends ask them to.  What I am doing might be stupid, but there is no law against stupidity. Looie496 (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Early arrow-making
What did the earliest arrow makers use to keep the fletching attached to the arrow shafts? I vaguely remember reading something about glue made from sinew, but that might have been some other subject. RNealK (talk) 07:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This article says they used plant-based resins to attach the arrowhead, and I imagine they used it for fletching, too (once they figure out they needed fletching to keep the arrows stable in flight): . StuRat (talk) 07:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Any idea what sorts of resins? Might tree sap work?  RNealK (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Tree sap is usually too thin to start with, but can be boiled down to make a reasonable adhesive. Or, if you just let it sit, water will evaporate out, but you can't let it go too far, or will become solid.  StuRat (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The arrows found with Ötzi the Iceman (about 3,300 BC) had "the remains of three-part radial fletching attached with birch tar and thin nettle thread." The technique of spiral binding remained in use until the advent of plastic fletchings, and is still used by traditional archers today. Don't know if this YouTube vid will help, Alansplodge (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

War crimes during World War II
As a Japanese I acknowledge the multiple atrocities committed by our troops. I'm not sure if apologizing is the right way since nobody apologized for the war crimes committed against us. But right to the question, i.e. Yoshio Kodaira kept killing once back in Japan. My question is, war made him a serial killer or he was born that way? Kotjap (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The reference desk is probably not the right place to discuss this subject. Neither do we know whether you are Japanese nor do we know that Yoshio Kodaira was involved in War crimes during WW II (at least the English and the more detailed German article do not mention this). And what made him a serial killer is definitely beyond our knowledge. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The answer is easy... he became a serial killer because there was no Wikipedia around back then to occupy his formative years and tell him that such behavior was wrong. Blueboar (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Beware that those guilty of war crimes frequently try to make it look like "everybody else was doing the same thing". While undoubtedly their were some war crimes committed against the Japanese, the overwhelming trend was that it was the Japanese committing the war crimes.  The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are a special case, which some might consider war crimes, but others consider a necessary step to end the war quickly, thus preventing even more civilian deaths.  On the other hand, there's no way to argue that the Rape of Nanking, etc., was in any way for "the greater good".


 * Also, if you're talking about apologizing as an individual, then that seems unnecessary, especially if you weren't alive at the time or were too young to have fought in the war. The Japanese government, on the other hand, should apologize, and make sure that history books and schools tell the true story, and not alter history to make Japan look like the victim.  The US government has a similar issue with it's massacres of American Indians 100+ years ago. StuRat (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Kotjap, the German Government has apologised for the war crimes of the 3rd Reich, I don't see why the Japanese government still refuses to apologise. It think it would appease the relations with both Koreas and China significantly and would be beneficial to the country (it is much easier to sell your products when the people and the goverment like you). The Japanese pride may be what is preventing these apologies to happen, and that is not healthy. But I also support that the US should apologise for the Nukes. It would help. Even though it is Japan which declared war on America, not the reverse. --Lgriot (talk) 10:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I am withdrawing my previous statement, I have just read "List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_Japan", and clearly this is a common misconception that the Japanese government has never apologised for the war crimes of WWII. I wonder why it is so (I met a Chinese PhD student who was convinced that Japan had never apologised + I am pretty sure I have heard the British media say that Japan had never apologised as well). I clearly should read more before writing. --Lgriot (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The Controversy section of the article that you linked contains some clues as to why that myth persists. I remember a TV documentary in the early 2000s, 1990s about the Korean "Comfort women" who were forced into prostitution by the Japanese armed forces. In an interview, a Japanese minister asserted forcefully that no evidence existed that the Japanese government had been involved in the affair, which had been instigated unofficially (he claimed) by some wayward army officers. The journalist spent half an hour in the public archives, and came up with some very concrete evidence that it was organised by the government at the highest level. Some would say that an apology that has to be wrung out, isn't much of an apology at all. Alansplodge (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Is a ship safer than a plane?
since you have lifeboats and you don't crash against anything? Kotjap (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * List of accidents and disasters by death toll --TammyMoet (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That doesn't really answer the Q, as we'd need to know total miles traveled on each and divide the total death tolls by that. StuRat (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, ships are inherently safer, yes. However, there's an effect (I don't know if it has a name) where people take extra precautions to make inherently dangerous things safer, which they don't take for less dangerous things.  So, airplanes are likely to be given more thorough maintenance checks than ships, for example.  Then there's also attacks by pirates which are a concern for ships and not for planes.  StuRat (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * (e/c)The link you want is Aviation safety. The answer depends how you measure it; in terms of distance travelled, air travel is far safer than sea travel. Ships do of course crash against things, and planes also have lifeboats. But there isn't always time to get into a lifeboat.--Shantavira|feed me 16:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've added a I call on your statement, StuRat.  --  Jack of Oz  [Talk]  17:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you know what "Wikt:inherent" means, Jack ? It doesn't mean that ships are actually safer, just that, if no precautions were taken, they would be.  You have to admit that a ship's engine's stalling, losing electricity, or a collision isn't nearly as severe a problem as on a plane.  However, precautions are taken such as tracking planes on multiple radars, to ensure that things like collisions don't occur.  That even things out quite a bit.  Also, I don't think you should edit the posts of others like that. StuRat (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do know what "inherent(ly)" means, Stu. My question to you is: Do you know what "reference" or "citation" or "source" mean?  In the context of this specific question from the OP, it's not exactly an unreasonable request.  Nowhere did I actually dispute the veracity of what you said, I just asked for a citation; because ships are not inherently safer than planes just because you or I or anyone else says so.  That may surprise you after all these years, but there it is.  --  Jack of Oz  [Talk]  18:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You're not going to find refs for that, only if they are actually safer. To get refs for whether they are inherently safer, you'd need to fly lots of planes with no radar tracking or any other precaution not taken for ships.  That would be unethical.  So, we have to rely on common sense here.  StuRat (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If you only mean that a disastrous failure on an airplane is worse than a disastrous failure on a ship, then yes, common sense does say that. But if an airplane is 1000 times more reliable, less likely to collide, and less likely to be hijacked than a ship, the plane is still "inherently" safer by any reasonable definition.  If you want to make that claim, you need a source.  --140.180.247.198 (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I see no reason why an airplane would be inherently more reliable. You may be talking about them doing more checks and maintenance to make planes more reliable, but I don't consider that to be an inherent feature of airplanes, rather an adjustment we make to make them reasonably safe.  The same is true of collisions.  If we didn't add all sorts of collision avoidance systems and radar systems to planes, they would be crashing right and left.  This is the inherent risk in airplanes. StuRat (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The fact is there's nothing "inherent" about either a plane or a ship. They've both undergone a long development.  What you may think of as an "inherent" feature of a modern American plane, may not have been there even 5 years ago, may still not be there in a plane from another country, and would have been utterly unimaginable to the Wright Brothers.  There's the basic concept, and everything after that is essentially icing on the cake.  We tend to see the icing as the main thing and take the cake for granted.  --  Jack of Oz  [Talk]  19:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree. There are some inherent features of any airplane, which make them dangerous.  Among these are a height above the surface which makes falling to the ground likely to be fatal, a speed which makes any collision likely to be fatal, a need to reduce weight, which limits the emergency equipment which can be kept on board, the need to reach a destination within a few hours of departure, limiting options for avoiding dangers, and a higher fuel per passenger-mile ratio.  These make airplanes inherently more dangerous.  Only by taking extraordinary precautions have we managed to make them safer.  The economics of airplanes also makes it necessary to pack people into much tighter volumes, which can lead to the spread of disease and other problems. StuRat (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The closest named thing to what Stu says is the Peltzman effect, which now redirects to something with a more boring title. IBE (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yep, that's it. StuRat (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It really depends on the ship. Ferries in third-world countries are notorious deathtraps. Looie496 (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * An expert on marine safety told me that the reason travel on a plane is safer than travel on a ship is that rich people travel by plane, and poor people travel by ship. His implication was that when poor people die, less of a fuss is made. Slightly less cynically, one might also speculate that modes of travel frequented by richer people are more profitable and thus can afford more investment in safety technology. Of course, one of the premises of the expert's theory is less and less true in developed countries (budget airlines are now widespread). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I question the other premise, too. The only time many people would be likely to travel by ship is on a pleasure craft (luxury liner, speed boat, etc.), while they use the plane for basic long-distance transportation.  Their used to be luxury airplanes, like the Concorde, but those are gone now (although Learjets remain). StuRat (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No, that's the same premise, not a different one. If you're one of hundreds or thousands of people packed into a passenger ferry between Sumatra and Malaya, or somewhere in the Philippines and somewhere else in the Philippines, or Madagascar and Africa, or wherever else the third-world deathtrap ferries that Looie mentioned ply their trade, you are almost certianly not there for luxury or the thrill of speed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * A lot more people are robbed, go missing, and are thrown overboard on cruise ships than during flights to the same destination. μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Doing risk comparisons is notoriously difficult. There are different hazards associated with boats than with airplanes. There are different accident rates, both per trip and per distance traveled, and are hugely affected by the type of vehicle you're talking about (small versus large, for example). I don't think one can abstractly compare boating with flying, but one could certainly find statistics for a more structured query, like cruise trips across the Atlantic versus large plane flights across the Atlantic. I think any "common sense" claims that one is more "inherently" safe than another are baseless and should be ignored. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * See my comment above. --  Jack of Oz  [Talk]  19:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The question is too general. I would feel a lot safer in a large cruise ship than in a small plane. And I would feel a lot safer in a major airline's plane than in a small fishing boat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's true, and it really depends on the route. London to Paris: plane extremely safe, train extremely safe, car and ferry very safe, car and shuttle very safe, bus and shuttle very safe, motorbike and ferry safe, bicycle and ferry safe. London to New York: plane extremely safe, boat extremely safe. London to Beijing: plane extremely safe, train extremely safe, container ship and train extremely safe. New York to LA plane extremely safe, train extremely safe, bus extremely safe, car safe. Etc. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * 10 Feb, 2013: Five people killed in Canary Island cruise ship accident after lifeboat falls into sea during safety drill. Ever hear of five airline stewardesses plunging falling to their deaths from a coffee cart? μηδείς (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No. But it appears a trolley broke a flight attendants ankle once! -- Senra (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the operative expression in that joke would be "plunging to their deaths". --  Jack of Oz  [Talk]  19:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comparing the two requires a denominator to normalize to; are we talking about safer per passenger, per passenger-mile, or per passenger-hour? for that matter, by safer are we talking about deaths, injuries, maimings, motion sickness incidents, norovirus, ...? Gzuckier (talk) 06:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Is my country the only developed country to have the death penalty
in all parts of its territory? Kotjap (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * When you ask such Q's you need to say what country you are from. I happen to know that it's Japan, but others won't.  Some US states have the death penalty (although only Texas applies it frequently), and the Federal government has some rarely used death penalties.  Looking at Death_penalty, it appears that many Middle-East nations have it, and some of those might be called "developed".  Belarus seems to be the only one in Europe, however. StuRat (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Use of capital punishment by country might help. MilborneOne (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. It's Japan. Kotjap (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * But Belarus cannot be considered developed right? Kotjap (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It's borderline, but has a PPP GDP of $15,028 per capita, which isn't too bad. StuRat (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Belarus not developed? Ha!  All sorts of better countries than Japan have the death penalty: India, the US, China, Cuba, Indonesia, Russia, Taiwan.  You are quite familiar with how the ref desk works, Kotjap.  You need to do some basic research with the search bar on the left of your screen rather than posting every single question here that comes to mind. μηδείς (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * De facto there is no death penalty in Russia. The last execution took place in 1994 or 1996. --Ghirla-трёп- 07:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The OQ asked "in all parts of the country". The US does not have the death penalty in every state.  RNealK (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * However it does have it for crimes coming under federal jurisdiction Capital punishment by the United States federal government. Even if it's very rarely done and many crimes do not come under federal jurisdiction, people committing a crime in any state can obviously be receive the death penalty. So it's not entirely clear to me it's accurate to say the US does not have the death penalty in all parts of its territory. It's more a matter of frequency and types of crimes including variation where it's applied within the territory. Nil Einne (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's not a totally straightforward "yes" or "no". As a practical matter, if someone breaks a federal capital crime, the state in which it happens to happen has no jurisdiction, hence no say in the matter, regardless of the state's own death penalty or lack thereof. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not true, see Timothy McVeigh for example.   Hot Stop     (Talk)   04:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Your point is unclear. μηδείς (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oklahoma could've opted to try him on state charges, but didn't. I assumed BB meant that one could only be charged in federal court or state court, not both.    Hot Stop     (Talk)   05:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I would think he could be charged in both, as obviously there is overlap. Oklahoma could have found him guilty of the statute against murder and sentenced him to life, for example. Then the Feds could have found him guilty of breaking federal law against killing federal government employees and then sentenced him to death. OK would have no say in whether or not the Feds could put him down. In the case of overlapping crimes, it's possible the Feds get first dibs on the perp, but I don't know that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Better ? What does that mean ?  He asked about developed nations, not "better" ones. StuRat (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You know, inherently better. That should make sense to you, Stu. :)  --  Jack of Oz  [Talk]  20:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Ha, ha, ha, ha, good one, Jack. I am quite sure Kotjap does, or should, get my point. μηδείς (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * From what I gather from our list, the following countries that the UN considers to have "very high human development" have some form of the death penalty in their legal code: Bahrain, Barbados, Brunei, Chile, Israel, Japan, Qatar, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States. Out of those, only Bahrain, Japan, Singapore, the UAE, and the US carried out executions in 2010 or 2011. If you also include countries with "high human development", there are of course more, including Belarus, Iran, Libya, and Malaysia. Lesgles (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Let's all use this as a jumping off point to discuss the wisdom and ethics of capital punishment! Shadowjams (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You jump first, and if you land safely, others could follow. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My death penalty is better than your death penalty...  :P Blueboar (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, i laughed for 30 seconds at that one, Blue. μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Lethal injection is kind of anticlimactic. Things just aren't the same in New York since they put Old Sparky out to pasture. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * New York declared their death penalty unconstitutional (which you could get for killing two mere people, or one cop) way back under Pataki. μηδείς (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I see - Blueboar was being subtle. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The UK abolished it in the 60s, because it's better to give them a lifetime of being careful not to drop the soap in the showers. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, KageTora, for reminding us that forcible rape is funny, as long as it's directed at people who are often mentally ill, or members of undesirable minorities, or potentially wrongfully convicted. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So, you would prefer "people who are often mentally ill, or members of undesirable minorities, or potentially wrongfully convicted" to be executed instead? That's an interesting perspective, and actually the very reason the death penalty was abolished in the UK in the first place. At least putting them in prison gives them a chance to prove their innocence (if true). Executing them would not. My comment about dropping the soap was a reference to the fact that being in prison is not a barrel of laughs. Prison gives the prisoners time to think about why they are there and what they have done. This is what my reference was meant for. Sure, it was jokingly said, but it was meant that way. Execution, however, denies this opportunity. There are some countries (e.g. Japan) where people actually commit terrible crimes in order to be sentenced to death, because they do not have the courage to continue with life, nor to commit suicide. This is a fact. The OP, being from Japan, will know this, as it comes up periodically in the news. One might actually say that it |encourages crime. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 06:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's all a matter of perspective. Mel Brooks once said, "Tragedy is if I have a hangnail. Comedy is if you get killed." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, Bugs. Rape jokes are funny, and I'm glad there are people like you to stand up for the innocent people who spout them.  God, this place disgusts me sometimes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently there's a high-tech ball-and-chain keeping you here against your will. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Scam?
I am seeing advertisement for "invest in Brazilian eucalyptus plantations" all over the internet recently, promising +10% guaranteed return. Is that some sort of new scam or just risky business? OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If it were a proper business investment, would you really want to make money on the back of the obliteration of the rainforest?--TammyMoet (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If it was such a good investment, why wouldn't they just invest their money into it rather than spending their time spamming you for your cash? Invariably these days, whatever the question, it is a scam nonsense ferret  21:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It's all a scam by koalas to get humans to grow their favorite food source around the world, as a prelude to world conquest. :-) StuRat (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Beware a koala-bear market. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * How much can a koala bear? (I've had the misfortune to see this live) --Shirt58 (talk) 05:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Just How Many "scams" are you are party to, Osman? Are your local police and local secret police familiar with you? Should they be? μηδείς (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I wonder if anyone should take your comment seriously. You seem to be much more interested into scam than I, at a rate of 12/37. Just see: []


 * I'll assume the previous question is by Osman, and ask how many such questions did I myself ask as compared to him? My saying such questions are problematic doesn't count as my having posted them. μηδείς (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

neo-cyber-punk
Once heard some people refer to themselves as neo-cyber-punk, or just cyber-punk. Does this mean that it is an independent subculture in line with emo? --109.232.72.49 (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Has nothing to do with emo. Cyberpunk was a style of science-fiction writing popularized in the 1980s and 1990s and typified by the writings of William Gibson (especially Neuromancer).  The style evolved in the middle 1990s, and by the early 2000s had been replaced by steampunk in terms of popularity as a style of novel and graphic novel writing.  It has seen a bit of a revival lately, and "neo-cyberpunk" or "post-cyberpunk" writing has developed with authors like Neal Stephenson.   Emo is a style of music that developed at around the same time as cyberpunk, and I suppose there are some people who listened to emo music and read cyberpunk fiction, but I don't know that there is any overt connection.  -- Jayron  32  00:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A little off-topic remark here: Somehow when the term cyberpunk surfaced, I assumed that it was some very abstract thing, where you had to do a lot of work just to get past the difficulties of the form (think Time Considered as a Helix of Semi-Precious Stones or Stars in My Pocket Like Grains of Sand or The Beast that Shouted Love at the Heart of the World).  I still haven't read Neuromancer, but my impression from some of the "precursors", at least (say, Philip K. Dick) is that it's not like that at all &mdash; it's actually quite accessible, not that far removed from pulp.  I'm curious to hear from anyone here who's read 'core cyberpunk &mdash; is it closer to pulp, or to the three long-winded formalist works I mentioned? --Trovatore (talk) 08:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say the former: think along the lines of a mixture of a Raymond Chandleresque milieu, Punk Music do-it-yourself attitudes transferred to computer/internet manipulation, and general future dystopianism in a polluted world oppressed by corrupt corporations and/or governments. This is of course a wild generalisation not applicable to everything labelled "cyberpunk" (just as there's no satisfactory definition of "science fiction"), but it gives something of the flavour of many core cyberpunk works. I've never found most cyberpunk inaccessible (unless on the grounds of individual prose style), but then I think "Time Considered . . . " a brilliant and accessible piece so we may have different literary perceptions. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the OP was asking whether it is a subculture in the same way that emo is a subculture, examples from the past being punks, casuals, mods, rockers, hippies etc. The answer would be "no", it is the genre of literature that Jayron has explained. Young people may be fans, but I've never heard of them forming into groups or adopting particular dress or behaviour. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The fans of any genre of anything often develop a subculture which reflects their fandom; Emo is primarily a genre of music, but the fans of Emo music have developed a subculture which reflects the way that Emo bands dress and which reflects the tenor of the music. There's probably a real "cyperpunk fandom subculture" out there that borrows from the imagery and attitudes of cyberpunk literature.  Steampunk certainly developed a sub culture; steampunk cosplay and fanfic is a very common part of it.  I wouldn't doubt that cyberpunk similarly has developed such a sub culture, and I would not be shocked to see a crossover with Emo fans as well; however, it is important to understand that these fandom subcultures are still organized around artistic movements, and if you want to understand where the subculture comes from you need to first start with the art that led to it.  -- Jayron  32  18:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Cyberpunk has very definitely expanded into a subculture featuring its own (usually home-crafted) clothing styles, etc. I suspect some of its members don't actually read cyberpunk literature a great deal any more. You should be able to find copious illustrated references to this subculture by browsing the Blog Site Boing Boing. {the poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * seems to me a lot of ads on tv these days are halfway to cyberpunkdom. main discordant element would be the degree of happiness the actors express. Gzuckier (talk) 06:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)