Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2015 November 3

= November 3 =

Boundaries of where?
This map can be found on Palestine, Syria Palaestina, and Palestine (region). I am not sure about how to correctly understand its caption. The legend of the green line reads: "Historical boundaries of Roman Syria Palaestina, where dashed green line shows the boundary between Byzantine Palaestina Prima (later Jund Filastin) and Palaestina Secunda (later Jund al-Urdunn), as well as Palaestina Salutaris (later Jebel et-Tih and the Jifar)" I can think of two possibilities: English is my second language so I find this sentence structure confusing. Please help! --Quest for Truth (talk) 05:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) The green solid line shows the boundaries of both Roman Syria Palaestina and Palaestina Salutaris (later Jebel et-Tih and the Jifar). The clause "where dashed green line shows the boundary between Byzantine Palaestina Prima (later Jund Filastin) and Palaestina Secunda (later Jund al-Urdunn)" is related to Roman Syria Palaestina.
 * 2) The green solid line shows the boundaries of only Roman Syria Palaestina. The clause "where dashed green line shows the boundary between Byzantine Palaestina Prima (later Jund Filastin) and Palaestina Secunda (later Jund al-Urdunn), as well as Palaestina Salutaris (later Jebel et-Tih and the Jifar)" as a whole is related to Roman Syria Palaestina.
 * I think the map at Palaestina_Salutaris should be useful for interpretation. It seems like the option 2 is the case: the solid line shows Syria Palaestina (which includes Palaestina Prima and Palaestina Secunda). The border between Palaestina Prima and Palaestina Secunda are shown by the dashed line. Confusingly, the same dashed line is used to show the borders Palaestina Salutaris outside Syria Palaestina.129.178.88.84 (talk) 10:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply! The source of confusion is actually from the map. Different colors or types of line should be used for the two different meanings. Shall we ask to modify the map? --Quest for Truth (talk) 04:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it is option 2. I have always wondered about this point, that the two dashed lines are confusing because they show two different things.
 * The bit that is complex here is that Palestina Salutaris is not really relevant to the concept of Palestine. It was an adjacent territory, so the only part that is interesting is the part that overlaps with Mandatory Palestine.
 * I'm not sure how to amend the map to make it clearer. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Story Id: Home-made doomsday bomb
I was recently reminded of an SF story I read a long while back, where someone (a scientist?) was in possession of a recipe for building an planet (or universe) destroying device with common household items in ones basement. The recipe was simple but the idea exotic (so the likelihood of rediscovery remote). The person considers publishing or withholding this dangerous knowledge, and decides on publishing when he witnesses some atrocity (I think a kid being shot when trying to escape an internment camp). The author may or may not be Norman Spinrad. Does that ring anyones bell? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Obviously Suicide" by S. Fowler Wright concerns a scientist who designs such a bomb and murders his collaborators to prevent the knowledge being released, but it ends with his wife killing him to save the world. "Little Girl Lost" by E. C. Tubb is about a scientist who works on atomic weapons, and sends the military the plans for a doomsday device rather than a normal atomic bomb (which they proceed to build and detonate), in revenge for the death of his daughter.  And, of course, there's "The Mouse That Roared".  But none of the three are a complete match. Tevildo (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but none of these seems to match my memory. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Mental aptitude
How to think logically and become a genius — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.113.135 (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The two are not necessarily related. You can study logic and learn all of that with only normal intelligence.  We could also argue that some types of geniuses, like artists, do not think logically (although they would need to, to some extent, like knowing which colors to mix to get the color paint they desire). StuRat (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but i mean those like steve and zuckerburg why are these guys so genius — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.113.135 (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg ? They aren't geniuses, AFAIK, at least in the high IQ meaning.  Jobs was more of a marketing person than a technical guy, I believe.  Also, a great deal of luck is involved with timing, as the same ideas would have fallen flat a little earlier (because the technology wasn't ready) or later (because somebody else would have already done it). StuRat (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also note that IQ tests solely assess your ability to pass an IQ Test. We use a word like "genius" to mean scoring above a certain level on those tests, but there's little evidence that the ability to answer questions correctly on that test is fungible to other life skills or measures of actual intelligence.  -- Jayron 32 16:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I think those brilliant guys were so successful because they are open-minded. They grew up being interested in a lot of subjects, reading a lot of books and asking a lot of questions about many different subjects. They were never afraid of looking stupid or ridiculous or such awkward feeling while learning and asking questions. They were just eager to learn and to discover and to explore. They also were never afraid of their dream, whatever it could be, these guys often say that they followed their dream without listening to those who were saying "it's not possible", they were believing in their dream and in what they really wanted to do and to be. In my personal opinion I think it is this type of personality. Akseli9 (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thinking logically could well be detrimental to being a "genius", as logic often tells you not to try something. There is no guarantee of success. But the odds are improved by thinking outside the box, and persistence. Luck may figure into it. But as Branch Rickey said, "Luck is the residue of design." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that the OP consider that the greatest genius who doesn't check his math may easily come up with the wrong answer much more quickly than an average person who methodically checks his steps to arrive at the right conclusion. There is a difference between speed and accuracy: festina lente. μηδείς (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)