Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.
Today my sergeant asked me if I knew why the lower-ranking soldier walks two steps to the left and one step behind the senior soldier. I told him "no" and in a typical sergeant way told me to find out for myself. He says it's something that's been around for a while but won't offer any clues. 70.122.122.112 (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's also the protocol for walking with someone of higher rank than you in the history of English aristocracy, if I recall correctly. It was supposed to show respect for them, because they are leading the way. Why to the left? I suspect that it's something to do with wear you wear your sword, but I have no evidence for that. Steewi (talk) 02:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I've always heard is walking three paces behind (usually in reference to women and children walking three paces behind their husband/father). --Tango (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about the sword issue as well, but it's on the left in all the images I've just looked up. --Sean14:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's on the left hip but is drawn across the body by the right hand. By being two steps to the left, you would be sufficiently out of the way so that the officer can draw his sword and completely out of the way when he came to use it. --Tango (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the usual approach in dogwalking is to have the dog walk near the walker's left heel. I don't know how closely relevant this is to the question. CBHA (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen dogs walked on both sides, probably the right more than the left. Maybe it depends on what side of the road you drive on - I'm in the UK where we drive on the left so if you are walking towards oncoming traffic (as you should do) and the dog is on your right then you are between the dog and the road. If you drive on the right, then you would want your dog on the left. I suspect none of this has anything to do with military custom. --Tango (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the past I went to several dog-training classes (in the UK) and the rule was always to have the dog on your left. --rossb (talk) 23:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That didn't sound quite right, so I looked it up. Per FM 7-21.13 Chapter 4, Customs, Courtesies, and Traditions: "Walk on the left of an officer or NCO of superior rank."[1] The FM does not give reasoning, but most Army customs and courtesies have obscure and conflicting reasons. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)talk15:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC) (First Team!)[reply]
The correct answer may be "because it says so in regulations", but let's assume your sergeant is better than that. I suggest asking more senior members of your unit. He may have asked this question before. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just to stay away from his sword side, but also to step up and guard his non-sword side. This is the proper position for the less-experienced or less-capable warrior, and particularly for a knight's squire. -Arch dude (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the United States, a bipartisan gas tax holiday proposal failed due to concerns the oil companies wouldn't pass the savings onto consumers. Theoretically, could these concerns have been addressed by setting a price ceiling per gallon, above which gas could still be sold but wouldn't qualify for the tax break? NeonMerlin02:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Theoretically, yes, I see no reason why they couldn't pass such a law. It would probably be better to set a maximum amount over the price of crude oil that can be charged (without being taxed) rather than an absolute maximum, though. --Tango (talk) 03:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Theoretically, Congress could have put aside its long-standing abhorrence of price fixing and done exactly as the OP suggests.DOR (HK) (talk) 05:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright on CIA code systems(not legal advice, hypothetical situation)
The book Without Cloak or Dagger, published in the 70's by a former CIA agent, contains some detailed explication of the codes and ciphers that have used by CIA agents. If I were to use these codes in a work of fiction(I'm not actually planning to, but I am curious about the laws involved), would I be violating copyright law? Would the CIA object to their(presumably obsolete by now) codes and ciphers being revealed in fiction once they've already been published in a(not particularly well-known) work of nonfiction, and what kind of legal action would be taken if they did? Who owns the copyright to code and cipher systems? 69.224.113.202 (talk) 03:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can't give legal advice, so I won't comment on the specific case you ask about. I can tell you, however, that copyright doesn't generally apply to mathematical algorithms (which codes and ciphers are). Patents sometimes do, though, and copyright will apply to the presentation of the algorithm used in the book (unless there is no other reasonable way to present it). --Tango (talk) 03:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
US intelligence agencies (CIA, NSA, etc) have in fact been known to object to disclosure of obsolete cryptographic technology (see our articles invisible ink (last section) and The Codebreakers), but there doesn't seem to be much they can do about it. There are several existing novels into which obsolete crypto systems figure in, with various degrees of realism. Books_on_cryptography#Fiction lists a few examples. 208.70.31.206 (talk) 04:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If memory serves, the US doesn't have any kind of Official Secrets Act, so unless you have signed a non-disclosure agreement I don't there is anything they can do about it (other than make you "disappear", if the movies are to be believed!). --Tango (talk) 14:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The CIA is an agency of the US federal government; works of the US federal government aren't subject to copyright - see Copyright status of work by the U.S. government. Naturally this doesn't mean that it's unclassified. Incidentally the government can be granted patents, and the NSA can be granted secret patents (yes, that is somewhat pathological) - see National Security Agency#Patents. It's very difficult for a regular work of narrative fiction to infringe on a patent (puzzle books might, I guess), but wouldn't this make for a nice plot element? 87.113.26.43 (talk) 12:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The government can classify patent applications, technically, not patents. They aren't in effect when they are secret. They only take effect if they are later declassified and granted. All they do is allow the government to avoid publication of the patent, but to have it on file in case they want to use it to contest a competing patent later. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Partitioned between Denmark, itself, and Delmenhorst
Here is my question who was this Christian IV who ruled (1386-1398). Christian IV in the French wikipedia was a co-count that ruled 80 years before the years where the two other Christian show up. The German wikipedia shows the dates when these people lived and it appears that the elder Christian was the father of Dietrich and the younger one was someone else, probably a brother. But could anybody tell me more and help fix the mixed up in the list.
I seem to remember years ago a Wikipedia article listing notable children, i.e. individuals who accomplished notability before becoming an adult. But I cannot find any such article anymore. I've tried notable children, notable teens, notable teenagers, etc. Any ideas where this article went? Was it deleted? Is there an AfD? Kingturtle (talk) 11:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be just notable people that are currently children, rather than people that were notable when they were children, which I think is what the OP is after. --Tango (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I remember them too, I think they were "List of famous children" etc. They were probably deleted so long ago that they can't be viewed even by admins. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a complete idiot when it comes to economics, but I was thinking the other day about how the GBP is always stronger than the USD or Euro, despite it seeming like the United States and EU economies are stronger. By this I mean that for one pound, you can get approx. 1.5 dollars, or 1.1 euros. Why is the British Pound so strong against other currencies of countries such as the United States? Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 15:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because that's the way it started out (or settled down to after some major economic event). The strength of a currency isn't determined by the absolute exchange rate (which is just an arbitrary number), but by how the exchange changes. When we say a currency is strong we mean it is worth more than it has done on average over recent history. --Tango (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The fact that GBP1=USD1.5 (or whatever it is today) doesn't tell you anything about the relative "strengths" of the currencies, as they effectively started out as arbitrary units. If the UK replaced the Pound by a "New Pound" (GBN) that was equivalent to 1p (GBP0.1) then you would have GBN1 = USD0.015, but that wouldn't mean that the GBN was "weak" compared to the Dollar. (France did the reverse of this in the early 1960s, when they introduced a "New Franc" worth 100 old Francs.) Strength refers more to how the relationship changes over time: I can remember the days when GBP1 = USD2.80; more recently it was closer to parity (GBP1=USD1). See Exchange rate. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But if you got 1.5 USD for 1 GBP, doesn't that imply you're getting more for your money? Or are things simply more expensive in America so it equals out? As you can guess, I don't know much about economics. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 16:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's consult amazon.com in the US and in the UK. An Xbox 360 with a 60GB drive in the US costs US$299.99. In the UK it costs ₤169.99 (normal price). The calculator at xe.com says today that one US dollar is worth about 0.611 UK pounds. Multiplying 299.99 by 0.611 gives us 183.29 pounds, meaning that if you took your US$299.99 to the UK, converted your dollars to pounds (assuming no exchange fees), and purchased the Xbox there, you'd still have 13.3 pounds in change; so today, you actually get a little more for your money in America, at least if you are in the market for an Xbox 360. (You don't get more for your money just because you're in America buying with dollars, though — I'm sure the price difference has something to do with shipping costs, and of course differing supply and demand in the region.) Does that help? Tempshill (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, when you hear on the news that the dollar "has strengthened" or "has weakened", that doesn't translate to "good for Americans" and "bad for Americans" respectively. If the dollar "weakens" against foreign currencies, that means that 1 British pound will purchase more US dollars, and 1 US dollar will purchase fewer British pounds. A "weaker" dollar is bad news for American tourists, who will find that foreign accommodations and travel will be more expensive for them, because they can't buy as many pounds as they could previously; but a "weaker" dollar is good news for the American tourist industry, because Brits will be able to buy more dollars for their pounds, and presumably more Brit tourists will come to America and spend money there, because they can get better value for the pound. The same applies to American businesses who import and export goods — from the perspective of a Brit, when the dollar is "weaker", American goods become cheaper and hence sales of American goods increase. The reverse is true when the dollar "strengthens". It's too bad we use the strong/weak verbiage when discussing currency fluctuations. The exchange rate article has more, and also see the "Foreign exchange" infobox links off to the right of that article. Tempshill (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Following on from Tempshill, it's worth noting that some countries prefer to have a "weak" currency (or, conversely a strong one) and design their financial policies accordingly. For example, if a country is reliant on its export trade, then they want a 'lower' currency, to entice purchasers of their products, or to get the maximum benefit from world commodity prices. (Take New Zealand, for example, who made a fair amount from exporting milk powder when the NZD was low and the milk price high.) On the other hand, countries which rely heavily on the import of commodities want their currency to have a high exchange value, to maximise what they can buy for their money. Gwinva (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hypothetically, say a woman in the US marries one man. Then she falls in love with another. The husband is accepting of this relationship and allows the second man to live with the couple. Legally, I guess, it would appear that there is a married couple and a single man living in the same residence. So, the wife decides to have one child with her husband which will have his last name. Then later she decides she wants a child with the second man. Would the hospital (or the state) allow the child with the second man to have the second man's last name? And if so, would someone look into whether she committed adultery? Is that punishable in some sense by law in the US even if all parties are accepting of the situation? --Reticuli88 (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the United States, laws vary from state to state. In those states where adultery is still on the statute book (although rarely prosecuted), penalties vary from life sentence (Michigan)[30], to a fine of $10 (Maryland), to a Class I felony (Wisconsin) [31]. In the U.S. Military, adultery is a potential court-martial offense.[10] The enforceability of adultery laws in the United States has been / is being questioned following Supreme Court decisions since 1965 relating to privacy and sexual intimacy of consenting adults, in cases such as Lawrence v. Texas.
I don't know about registering births in the US. In the UK the mother's husband is assumed to be the father unless the mother says otherwise or there is a paternity test saying otherwise (as I recall). Surnames in the UK can be pretty much anything you want (there are a few restrictions, but nothing says you have to have your father's name, or your mother's husbands name or anything like that). --Tango (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[3] Sounds like the General Register Office tries to deliberately keep it vague to avoid people rules-lawyering. Deed poll services often place sensible restrictions. Remember that in the UK there isn't really the concept of an 'official name' as such.89.168.106.72 (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the name on your birth cert, passport etc is your 'official name'. What meaning could 'official name' have, other than the name the state knows you by?Stanstaple (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These kinds of issues are generally handled at the state level, so it will vary. In North Carolina, it requires legal action to put someone besides the husband on the birth certificate. --Sean17:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The link actually shows the address and number of the site you are discussing, so by Googling the address, it appears to be a water treatment plant of some sort. The realtor.com site on it helpfully states that it was built in 1898. (What, by the way, is a smoke factory?) Tempshill (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Theoretically there could have been a bigger company 20 years ago but that does not seem likely so I agree with you. I guess there are some public organizations though like the U.S. military that are bigger. Jacob Lundberg (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1.4M people in the Catholic church? Try 1.086 billion in 2005 [1]. Not sure at all where you are getting 1.4M people from the Catholic Church article. "1.4" doesn't appear anywhere in the text. And you seem to have missed the first sentence of the article which mentions "over a billion"...and later in the article where it says "1.147 billion people." Kingturtle (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It's hardly reasonable to compare Catholic worshippers to Wal-Mart employees. A more sensible comparison would be of Catholic worshippers to Wal-Mart customers, or (as the OP seems to intend, and as I have done), Catholic Church employees to Wal-Mart employees. Algebraist19:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is why your comment about more than a billion Catholics was irrelevant. I'm not certain all of those 1.4M should be considered employees, but it suffices for an upper bound. Algebraist19:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about OPEC? Would you count all the employees of all the national oil companies of OPEC members?
Sorry to hijack the question, but what about a single person? I'm thinking QEII as the personification of Canada, but are there any of those interesting arrangements, like that one, in other countries? Or even any businesses where people are employed by jsut that one person? - Jarry1250[ humourous – discuss ]19:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nationalised oil company workers and those officially employees of the Queen of the UK/Queen of Canada/Queen of every other Commonwealth Realm are state employees. Moreover, Communist Party employees in any country such as the People's Republic of China are effectively state workers: officially they're separate, but practically they're identical. Nyttend (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. They are still GM employees. The U.S. is a 60% equity shareholder in the company, but the company is still a private company run by its own board of directors. The U.S. government does not "own" GM anymore than a single shareholder, even one with 51% or more of the stock, can be said to "own" any publicly traded company. --Jayron32.talk.contribs18:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not to nitpick, but the new GM is privately held and is not publicly traded (and is not expected to be until next year at the earliest). Details are here. I don't think that changes the jist of your comment though... TastyCakes (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if they were considered state employees, either all of them or none of them would be state employees; you couldn't take any five employees and say that three of them were government and two private. Nyttend (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nicolas Sarkozy is always getting height-based jokes about him in sections of the UK press, and he's 5ft 6 apparently. Not sure if that makes him smallest but he's the most prominent leader that I can think of that gets comments about height. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there was reliable data out there -- and I'd be astonished to find that there was -- it would be interesting to ask the same question on an all-time basis. My nominee for the recordholder would be King John I of France. But what if it was restricted to adults? The Napoleon article says he wasn't really all that short; are there any good answers? --Anonymous, 20:40 UTC, July 9, 2009.
Another historical king known as "the Short" was Władysław the Short of Poland. His Polish cognomen, also rendered as "the Elbow-high", is "Łokietek". It is a diminutive of "łokieć", which is an old unit of lenght equivalent to the cubit. I don't believe he was really that short (a cubit is less than a meter), but he must have been vertically challenged nonetheless. According to Internet sources, he was about 130 cm tall. — Kpalion(talk)07:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no indication that he was. His article states there are no surviving first-hand accounts, and the one second-hand one says he was merely "short of stature". Clarityfiend (talk) 03:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I remember going to the Cummer Art Museum in Jacksonville, FL a while back and I saw an interesting painting. I can't remember the title or artist, but I remember the painting was of an 17th or 18th century ship with its masts up. The ship looked like it had run aground on a beach and the ship was tilted on its side at about 45 degrees. It was also sunset. If anyone knows what painting this is, I'd be really grateful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.154.88.53 (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your description sounds like any one of a half dozen of Aivazovsky’s paintings. He is best known for his wonderful water, and often painted with sunset or moon glow, after a storm. (See the Gallery at the bottom of the article page, specifically the painitng entitled Moonlit Seascape With Shipwreck.) I don't know if the Cummer has any of his works. // BL \\ (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hypothetical scenario. If britain had a king who died but whose consort was pregnant what would happen then. Would it be held for the child and a council of regency be established. Or would he be overlooked in favor of the next in line to the throne? --Thanks, Hadseys23:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Legally, a posthumous child is considered to have the same status as it would as if it had been alive at the time of the father's death. In the situation above, the throne would be held for the child, assuming they are the only child of the royal couple. If the royal couple have an older boy, he would inherit; if they only had a girl, then inheritance would depend on the sex of the posthumous child.. a boy would inherit in preference to the older girl (in the British monarchy). A "regent" might well be established until the child is old enough to reign in his/her own right. This would have been a pretty powerful and essential role in the past when the king had more constitutional powers; now, they would presumably take on a similar the role to a Governor-General. Gwinva (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It actually happened in France. See John I of France, aka John the Posthumous, whose father died before he was born. He was thus officially the youngest King of France (being king from birth) and also the shortest lived, as child died at 5 days old. --Jayron32.talk.contribs01:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to precedent set by Queen Victoria's accession, in case of sovereign dying while his consort was pregnant (or possibly pregnant), the crown would be inherited by the person next in line. That person would reign until the birth of the child and would then automatically cease being a monarch as if he/she died. The child would become sovereign at the moment of its birth (unless it was female with an older sister). That's the scenario planned by Regency Act 1830 - had Queen Adelaide given birth to William IV's child after his death, the child would've succeeded Victoria as if she died. Surtsicna (talk) 10:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just imagine the fun if the queen didn't know she was pregnant with her first child at the time the king died. Here is his younger brother thinking he's already acceded to the throne (the coronation ceremony in British royalty is a formality and does not mark the transfer of power), and then the following week he hears "well, maybe not -- I missed my period". --Anonymous, 07:04 UTC, July 10, 2009.
I think that's a real possibility, and it would definitely put the royal cat among the royal pigeons. These days, having acknowledged the possibility that the widowed queen consort might happen to be pregnant without being aware of it, they could surely test that medically before proclaiming her brother-in-law as the new king. Coronations tend to occur quite some time (in Elizabeth II's case it was 16 months) after the accession, so the issue (in both senses of the word) would have arisen well before then and they wouldn't plan a coronation unless they were sure there was someone available to crown. There'd have to be a regent until the new monarch reaches 18, but regents are not crowned afaik.-- JackofOz (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The proclamation and coronation are purely ceremonial. Legally the new monarch becomes monarch immediately upon the death of the old monarch. They can delay the proclamation and coronation all they want, it would make no difference. --Tango (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
JackofOz who talked about testing before proclaiming despite the proclamation being completely irrelevant, legally. --Tango (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't arguing that at all. I was simply talking about a scenario where it was unclear who the new monarch was: the late king's younger brother, or the late king's as yet unborn child, whose very existence might not be certain until they could perform tests on its mother to see whether she was pregnant or not. Even if she were pregnant, the foetus could die in utero, and sometimes it's not clear for some time that this has happened. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The anonymous question reminds me of one that came up years ago, possibly here: what if the monarch disappears long enough to be declared legally dead, and then reappears after the heir has taken the reins? (My take is that the succession would be an error of fact, but the heir's acts would be valid as acts of a regent; likely there would be special legislation to confirm this.) —Tamfang (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
