Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 April 15

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.

April 15

Zoning

Hey, I have a question about some zoning laws that I don't udnerstnad. I am NOT looking for legal advice--I can afford a lawyer if I need one. In my city zoning or some similar kind of laws forbid raising farm animals (such as chickens, ducks, sheep, etc) in my neighborhood. Does this include pheasants, as pheasants are more of a game animal than farm animal? I want to raise one for a pet. Thanks! --Posted by: Zoned out about zoning laws —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.210.138.52 (talk) 01:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Every city's zoning laws are different, so your best bet would be to call your city government office and ask them. One thing about raising a pheasant - if it misbehaves, you can have it for dinner. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

By the same token, if your cat misbehaves you can just make a tennis racket. PhGustaf (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That would require some guts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sheep guts. Catgut is not generally made from cat. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles like that illustrate the wonders of human ingenuity. I can see this caveman Grog saying to himself, "Well, yesterday I invented the wheel. What shall I do today? Maybe if I take the intestines from a lean animal with the toughest gut, clean it, free it from fat, steep it for some time in water, scrape off the external membrane with a blunt knife, steep it again for some time in an alkaline lye, smooth and equalize by drawing out, subject to the antiseptic action of the fumes of burning sulphur, dye if necessary, sort into sizes, and twist together into cords of various numbers of strands, maybe I can make a stringed musical instrument from it. But what shall I call the instrument? The strings would be like little tubes, so maybe I'll call it a 'tuba'." [inventors are not always known for their marketing skills] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

A non-organic application of the logic behind Intelligent Design? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You know, Arthur Clarke implicitly postulated "intelligent design" in the book version of 2001: A Space Odyssey. In that book, the actual first invention was a nuclear thighbone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If your kid misbehaves, you can also have him for dinner, probably several dinners. Plus, the other kids will tend to behave after that. :-) StuRat (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You'd obviously need to check with your zoning board to find out how they interpret the rules. There have been cases of other people wanting to keep animals as pets which are normally considered food, particularly the pot-bellied pig. So, they might allow it, or they might take a hard line and say "once we allow one pheasant in we'll have hundreds of requests for variances". If you tell them you intend to keep the bird in a cage inside, they would probably be more willing to allow it. StuRat (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know from pheasants, but I've got a pet wolverine, and I wanna tell ya, nobody messes with me anymore. Least of all, the animal control folks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the local codes, and in some cases, they may not be well defined. In my city, we do not allow farm animals, but there was an exemption specifically made for fowl, including chickens, ducks, and quail. If no one's ever tried to raise pheasants before, then it's quite likely that no one has even ever decided whether pheasants are allowed or not. I agree, call up the city government. And hopefully, if you're just raising it as a pet (rather than running a big operation), your neighbors would be decent enough to not complain. And if you keep it inside all the time, practically speaking, no one would know (though really, I'm sure that a pheasant would appreciate getting out in the yard to strut around and eat insects). Buddy431 (talk) 02:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If it never gets a chance to go out and play, it could become an unpleasant pheasant. Unless he trains it to watch soap operas all day. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Who this in this picture?

The German text says it is "Elisabeth, duchess of Bavaria. Died 1314, daughter of duke Heinrichs 13 of Niederbayern. In the garb of the cistercians". --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That can be mean a lot of person because Elisabeth is a very common name in the Wittelsbach family and duchess of Bavaria can mean a daughter or wife of a Duke of Bavaria. And who is Heinrich the thirteenths? Ok I found who is she is now. She became a nun and was the daughter of Henry XIII, Duke of Bavaria--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 09:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sculpture of Cleopatra - is that what she really looked like?

The Cleopatra VII is illustrated by a picture of a sculpture or bust of herself. Is that what she really looked like, or was it just something made centuries later? Similar busts of Roman emporers look realistic rather than idealised, and perhaps in part served to identify them, so were likely to be authentic representations. The Cleopatra bust has quite a big nose, like that of the image on the picture of a coin. 92.29.104.157 (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If the caption on the photo is accurate, it's contemporary, although it seems to be in remarkably good shape. If the coins are also contemporary, then her big nose and braided hair would seem to be consistent. And probably closer to the mark than this:File:Guido Cagnacci 003.jpg ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Repeating the same detail of the same Wikipedia article, and part of the OPs question as well, is not a terribly good answer to a question about a detail in that Wikipedia article being authentic. 92.29.104.157 (talk) 11:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Getting snippy with those are trying to answer a question, for free, is not a terribly good attitude to cop. You asked if the sculpture was made centuries later, so I assumed you had not read the details on it. The sculpture's description says it's first century B.C. That would be contemporary with Cleopatra. If the coins are contemporary, then they are consistent. And you've seen noses bigger than that, so what basis do you have for questioning its realism. If anything, it might be more realistic than the Roman emperor busts which tried to make them look like gods or something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

What Bugs presumably did to get information about this bust was to click on the image and go to this page: [1]. The German caption on the page states that the bust is from the 1st century B.C., that is, the time when Cleopatra lived. The caption info states that the bust is in a museum in Berlin. This information is confirmed here. The latter site mentions one scholar's opinion that the bust was created in Italy rather than Alexandria, but at a time when Cleopatra was still alive, making it fairly likely that the bust was based on a likeness. Marco polo (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The "Statue of Cleopatra as Egyptian Goddess; Basalt" does not look like the bust, although its difficult to see. 78.145.23.61 (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That is because the bust is made in the Hellenistic style, while the statue is made in the traditional formalised Egyptian style on account of religious reasons. Obviously the Hellenistic style has a greater possibility of being a more realistic portrayal, as the Egyptian style mainly applies symbols instead of realism when depicting persons. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

After seeing further pictures of the bust, it does look more similar to the statue. The article says Cleopatra did travel to Rome, so even if made in Italy the bust could have been direct from life. I am surprised, I thought no images of Cleopatra existed. Wonderful to see her face reaching to the present from over two thousand years ago. If I had time I'd try putting together the images of her bust with Photosynth. 92.29.29.181 (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I am assuming that the "Statue of Cleopatra as Egyptian Goddess; Basalt" mentioned by the IP above is referring to this. That is at least what I based my answer on. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be interesting to use modern technology and merge what are said to be several surviving statues of her (according to http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/gr/l/limestone_head_of_a_woman.aspx ) and her mummy to create a definitive 3D portrait of her. Similarly for the Roman emporers. 78.147.241.153 (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedia Administrators

Hello Wikipedia Administrators. I want to inform you about the necesity of updatein a page on wikipedia the one about the polish catastrofy in the international response section. The Romanian Government anounced yesterday official mourning for 18 April but this doesn't appear on the page...and I am not familiar with doing this myself. please add Romania to the mourning nations in the list and on the map.Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddy89 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not a question for the Reference Desk. You should post this request on the 'Discussion' page of the page you are referring to. I would do this myself, but as you have not provided a link to the page in question, I have no idea which it is. Therefore, please go back to that page, and look above. You will see a 'Discussion' tab. Click on that and it will bring you to the article's 'Discussion Page' (also called 'Talk Page'). You will then see another set of tabs, one of which is 'New Section'. Click on that and post your request. Hope this helps. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

He's most probably referring to the crash of the Tupoljev plane about a week ago: 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. Since I last checked the article, the international response has been moved to a separate article: International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. To Eddy: Doing as KageTora suggested would be the fastest and most appropriate way, yes. TomorrowTime (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Free business cards

What is the catch with "free" business cards? Do they have the provider's advert on the rear side? 92.29.104.157 (talk) 12:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to an example? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Are you talking about "free business cards" in general, or free business cards from a particular provider? If the former, then all I can say is that in general some will and some won't and ones that do will have it either on the front or the back, depending on the provider. If the latter, then we have no idea unless you tell us which provider you are talking about, and, in fact, it may be just simpler to ask them directly. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The ones I've had in the past have the supplier's details on the back of the card, and a limited selection of styles and designs. That said, I've found them very worthwhile for my Scouting. DuncanHill (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

www.vistaprint.co.uk 92.29.104.157 (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There are some general "rip-off" business models that might apply here:

A) "We will send you an (absurdly small) sample absolutely free ! If you like them, you need do nothing; we will send you more each month (at an absurdly high price). If you aren't satisfied, you may cancel your subscription at any time (or you could, if we actually answered our phones)."

B) "Absolutely free ! You just pay the shipping and handling fee (which is enough to ship it from Pluto). If you aren't satisfied, simply return the unused portion, and we will refund the entire purchase price (but not the shipping and handling)." StuRat (talk) 12:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

As well as printing their name on the back. The OP could have answered his own question by following the process through (up to a point) on that link. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The supplier I've used (which is also the one named above by the original questioner) does charge postage, but the cards are still substantially cheaper than I could source them locally from a printer (and vastly and amazingly cheaper & better looking than they would be if I printed them off from my PC). DuncanHill (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I use that supplier too and often wonder what the catch is with them. I've only had one minor quibble with the printing in 3 years. The supplier's name is in print so small I can't read it! If anyone knows how they make their money, please let me know! --TammyMoet (talk) 13:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Enough free customers will go on to order paid-for goods. The cost of printing cards is vanishingly small if you have a sufficiently super printer, and the goodwill and consumer inertia generated by the free offers will make the costs worthwhile. DuncanHill (talk) 13:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. A supplemental question is - I would like just a plain white card without any graphics or lines or anything, just the plain print in black ink with all my details centred, my name in somewhat larger print than the rest of it. Does anyone know how to get this from Vistaprint or elsewhere please? All the ones I've seen have graphics of some kind. 92.29.104.157 (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Just be aware - Vistaprint has numbers of customers who express satisfaction with the service (I have used them myself, the cards were of OK-ish quality, and we had no subsequent problems). However, I have been told personally, and have read online, that others have had difficulties with what they claim are unauthorised debits from their card accounts after purchase. One such example is here. This may or may not be down to customers misunderstanding what they are signing up for, but if you are planning to use them I would suggest a spot of googling and a careful look through a selection of customer reviews, which may help you avoid making mistakes with their ordering system. Karenjc 14:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I did have this happen to me because of a mistake with the ordering system. However, I was sufficiently impressed with the attitude of their customer service department - who refunded every payment I'd ever made to VP, as a mark of goodwill - to keep on with them. It hasn't happened since, and I think because of the public outcry in the UK about it, they've changed their ways. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

To answer a question that you didn't ask: if you have specific (and relatively simple) needs, and you have any kind of printer at all in your house, you can actually probably do these in Microsoft Word and get decent results with the "print them yourself" cards now on the market. They are much better than they used to be even just a few years ago. They don't look cheesy and don't look hand-made if you do them right. They pop out of the sheets without any perforations of any kind. They are very cheap when you consider the per-card cost (less than 10 cents a card). Just putting that out there. Personally I prefer cheap-and-DYI to free-but-questionable for things like this. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

10 cents a card isn't all that cheap, that's $50 for a batch of 500. And, if you hand them out to everyone you pass at a convention, that could really add up. StuRat (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Assuming I can buy the 'print them yourself' cards and my old printer can process them, what software can I use? I do not like using Word, I have OpenOffice installed. I'm willing to instal other free software. Thanks 78.145.23.61 (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Open office write will work fine. If the cards come with an MS word template (or a link to one on the 'net) you can use that with open office. --Psud (talk) 09:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I got some "free" Vistaprint cards a while back. The experience was partly good, partly bad, overall not recommended:

• The cards themselves were of good quality, much better than DIY laser printer cards, mostly due to being printed on thicker stock than you can put through a typical home printer.
• The cards had a discreet Vistaprint ad on the back, which I expected, in fact I had found out about Vistaprint by receiving a card from someone else who used them, so the ad worked.
• The shipping charge was clearly high enough to also cover the printing cost and a profit margin, but it was still a pretty good deal if I just thought of it as the card price, so fine.
• They spammed the email address that I had supplied in the card order, but this wasn't a problem since I routinely use throwaway addresses, so I just shut the address off when the spam started.
• They also spammed the phone number (with robo sales calls) that I had printed on the cards. That pissed the hell out of me and went on for a long time (like a call every few months for at least a year), but it eventually stopped. I don't remember if I had to contact them to make it stop. I have a vague memory of this.
• It looks like you can get laser printer cards for 2-3 cents a card. I'll probably do that next time I need cards, since I'm currently not fussy about such things. If I become more fussy about cards, it's because someone is paying me to be fussy, so I'll go to a real printing shop and pay the big bucks for good cards.
• As someone else said, there are Word templates for DIY cards that work ok in Open Office. You can download a lot of those templates from avery.com, I think. They should work fine for all similar layouts of cards regardless of brand. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 10:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Did all these bad things - credit card fraud, junk emails, and so on, only happen in the USA and not the UK? I need to rephrase that - Which of the above happened in the US, and which in the UK please? 78.151.110.54 (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

balloon tying school tuition

if there were a balloon tying school, how much would tuition likely be? (I mean on economic grounds). Or is there no way to tell in advance, you just have to open one, try different prices, and see what gets you the most profit? 84.153.179.97 (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't imagine there being too many people willing to pay for this. Those who actually need such skills for their jobs, like clowns, probably are taught that along with other clown skills (either in a clown school or as an apprentice). Those who just want to learn for fun might get that info off the internet or otherwise learn it on their own. So, to attract customers, it would have to be cheap. Exactly how cheap is hard to say, but to try and see might be the only way to find out. StuRat (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This online course in "clown skills" presumably includes balloon skills, and they only charge $40: [2]. StuRat (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

But that link, unlike my proposal, is an online school, and not just for balloon tying. Anyway you say there isn't much demand for it, but if my proposed balloon tying school were only like 15 minutes long, couldn't the tuition still surpass the $35,000 per year at Harvard's undergraduate college, and yet still find plenty of buyers if the campus is in, say, central park? I say this because $35,000 per year is only 99 cents per 15 minutes. You don't think people would pay 99 cents for a fifteen minute course of study at a balloon tying school? It could be broken down into 7 two-minute semesters and a 1 minute graduation party. What do you think? 84.153.179.97 (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

A 15 minute class would be more of a demo than building permanent skills in the students. Some clowns do this at parties; they show the kids how to make some simple balloon animals. And yes, it might work at Central Park, but you may need some type of license to work there. Also, don't expect to have a continuous line of customers, you'd have long periods with none, when you would need to demo your skills to attract customers, and maybe occasional times when a group of 100 shows up. Also expect to provide the materials (balloons) for the students to take home with them. Balloons are quite cheap, but at under a dollar per student you could expect them to cut into your profits considerably. StuRat (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's misleading to suggest the $35k per year Harvard tuition can be said to be 99 cents/ 15 minutes. No one expects 24/7 every day in the year tuition for their $35k Nil Einne (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's a physical clown school with a class just on balloons: [3]. They have two 2 hour sessions. Call them to get the price. StuRat (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Balloon Knots 101 and 102. I wonder if they have a graduate-level study program? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure: balloon angioplasty. StuRat (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Not at Harvard though. Googlemeister (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Keeping us free

Interpret this as you may, but I'm genuinely confused about wars that claim to "keep us free". I don't like war (who really does), but I do recognize that there is a job to finish in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and pulling troops from either wouldn't be very helpful to the people in those countries, so, having started those missions, it makes sense to see them through.

But I honestly can't see how our troops (Canadian in my case, but that's irrelevant) keep me free in my hometown halfway around the world. For this reason, when I'm told I am supposed to appreciate and thank these people for the service they are apparently providing. 70.79.246.134 (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The theory is that the war stays overseas rather than coming here. Whether that theory is valid or not, and whether they are right or wrong-headed in their logic, the fact remains that we have fellow citizens willing to take a bullet for us. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Or at least, they're willing to go to war on behalf of our government in exchange for a paycheck and a benefits package. Their motives beyond that are not really clearly demonstrated. APL (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, at the plausible risk of being killed while on (or off) the job. Love the soldier, and vote against the people who put them in harm's way, unless there's a clear and present danger. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes yes. Lumberjacks, deep sea divers, and coal miners put themselves in harm's way too, but there's no evidence that they're "doing it for us". Putting yourself in harms way does not automatically imply noble intentions. Certainly many of the Army's recruitment techniques are designed to appeal to people's more selfish urges. ("Adventure! On the job training! Looks good on a resume! Pays for college! Keeps you out of trouble! There are no jobs in this town!)

The idea that every single soldier is out there because they believe what they're doing is vital to the security of our nation is propaganda idealism. APL (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

"A man does not have himself killed for a half-pence a day or for a petty distinction. You must speak to the soul in order to electrify him": Napoleon (apparently). - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 15:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, ultimately, if someone tried to invade Canada, it would be your army's job to keep you free. That much is clear.

Beyond that you get into a lot of rhetoric about "Taking the fight to the enemy." APL (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

As a member of NATO, all the NATO nations would defend Canada in case of invasion. But, of course, due to it's proximity to the US, most of those forces would come from there. StuRat (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you may be confusing the soldier with the war. Thank the soldier for being willing; judge the war as a separate thing. 64.235.97.146 (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the Reference Desk. There are many on-line forums.--Wetman (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok. "Thanks, Soldier."

So, now that We've thanked him/her, can we answer the question? APL (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Um, he did ask why he was supposed to thank them. The reasons for thanking them are not necessarily what the soldier is currently doing, hence my point to judge the merits of the war separately. 64.235.97.146 (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

There are two opposing theories on dealing with terrorists (or rogue nations):

1) Attack them wherever they are, to keep them weak, so they can't grow to where they become a threat to us. This is the most common view, used by all the major powers (US, Russia, China, etc.) against terrorist threats to them.

2) Leave them alone and they will leave us alone. While this is often true in the short run, especially for smaller nations, it's hard to imagine that if everyone left terrorists alone to do as they please, that they wouldn't attack anyone any more. StuRat (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The latter approach, i.e. the first sentence of item 2, could be called the "Neville Chamberlain approach". They attack us because they see us as an obstacle to their objectives, as Japan did in 1941. We could revert to isolationism, and then everything would be peachy. Only it wouldn't. Because no matter how you try to avoid thugs, they eventually come looking for you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

A wonderful strawman StuRat, truly enlightening. There are of course a wide variety of dealing with terrorism—the main responses are not whether you should or should not be involved, but whether it should be treated as a military matter or a police matter. This is separate from the idea of whether extensive overseas military holdings, propping up of dictatorships, or unconditionally supporting nations that perpetuate human rights abuses, actually contributes to the legitimizing of extremist viewpoints amongst the populations in question. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, StuRat's binary view is not really the range of choices. In addition to what Mr.98 discusses above, there's also a range of (controversial, I'm sure) economic attempts that could be tried — give them all a goddamned job, and fewer people will join the bad guys out of having nothing to lose — and StuRat's claim forgets about what Thomas Friedman calls the "super-empowered angry man" — some terrorists are lone wolves, and as technology keeps getting more advanced and more accessible, it will continue to be easier for individuals, or groups of 2 or 3 individuals, to create effective weapons of mass destruction without state sponsorship. Domestic lone wolves are terrorists, too, that we have to "deal with". Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should add two more choices:

3) Bribe them/pay tribute. The Pakistanis tried this with the Taliban, paying them $1 million at one point to stop fighting. Saudi Arabia also has tried this with militants. Neither case has been successful.

4) Bring economic and political equality to all. If this was actually possible, it might work, eventually. However, this would require violently overthrowing all the governments which are opposed, such as Saudi Arabia. Also, in the early stages of democracy, militants may gain control of the government through a legitimate vote. So, then, you have to decide whether to allow the violent militant government to stand, or overthrow it. If not, you could expect Sharia law to spread, with stonings of homosexuals, apostates, and women (for offenses which men can commit with impunity), genocide of ethnic and religious minorities, etc. StuRat (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Sharia has become a bit of a scarecrow. It's certainly not something to cherish. But neither is Leviticus. And both have been interpreted similarly in comparable socio-economic situations, by picking and choosing which parts to enforce, which to bend, and which to ignore. In Somalia, for example, the Sharia court system has been very much preferable to full anarchy for significant parts of the population. Sharia is a big step back for modern western systems of justice, but it can certainly be a step forward compared to my-stick-is-bigger-than-your-stick, especially in its more liberal interpretations. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Sharia in Islam is somewhat comparable to Christian Reconstructionism ideology in Christianity, but Christian Reconstructionists or Rushdoonyites have no practical political power or significant influence on governments or legal systems, while advocates for strict enforcement of Sharia have had a lot of real-world influence on a number of governments, from Zia-ul-Haq's Islamization to Amina Lawal... The Islamic courts union in Somalia might have brought a certain degree of welcome order to Somalia (at the cost of heavy repression in some fields), but the United States was convinced that elements of it had strong personal ties to prominent international terrorists. AnonMoos (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Returning to the original "question", well-designed to provoke debate, the confusion may be due to dubious embedded assumptions. There is a large body of opinion that the soldiers are not keeping anyone free, rather the reverse, that there is no job to be done in Iraq and Afghanistan, that the people of these and the soldiers' countries would be best helped by immediate withdrawal. That, in Glenn Greenwald's words "the very policies justified in the name of fighting Terrorism (invasions, occupations, bombings, lawless detentions, etc.) are the precise ones that most inflame and exacerbate that threat." [4] One can go further and consider terrorism as an application of StuRat's and Bugs' logic in reverse, a decision to take choice (1) instead of (2) or (3), to refuse to be Neville Chamberlains with respect to aggressive great powers.John Z (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Number 1 doesn't really work in reverse: "Attack them wherever they are, to keep them weak, so they can't grow to where they become a threat to us", since many of the nations they attack are already powerful. It's more like "Attack them wherever they are, so they will be afraid of us and will leave us alone/pay us tribute/counterattack and cause civilian casualties, so we can grow in strength". StuRat (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

War

This might be inappropriate for the reference desk, because it might be an opinion statement instead of a question, but I feel a strong need to write it anyway.

I don't understand the whole concept of war. It seems to be defined with mutually exclusive criteria. War is a genuine conflict, not previously arranged, between two parties that do not need to be equal. In war, people die. I feel the need to emphasise this point.

Yet, war is controlled. There are internationally recognised laws of war, disobeying which carries a penalty in peacetime. War can be decisively ended with declaring peace, after which the combatants put aside all hostilities. For most of the parties involved in war, they have been engaging in hostilities, even killing each other, simply because there is war, and they have been told to kill each other. They have no real, genuine hatred towards each other.

How can such a controlled conflict, among people who do not feel genuine hatred towards each other, go as far as people killing each other? I'd understand it in two situations:

• If it were only a match-up of force, with no real danger to people's lives.
• If the involved parties truly hated or feared each other. I like to think of the film Alien when I think of this. The aliens see humans as no more than food. In reaction, humans see the aliens as a genuine danger by themselves. The parties want to kill each other because they feel a genuine instinct to do so, not because they've been told to.

But real war seems to be both at the same time. How can this be? JIP | Talk 20:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the Reference Desk. There are many on-line forums.--Wetman (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that there have been many wars lacking an element of "hatred". It may be that an outsider sees no reason why one side in the conflict should hate the other, but generally there is animus and a desire for vengeance or for righting a perceived wrong on at least one side of every conflict. I am an American who was vehemently opposed to the invasion of Iraq (and who remains opposed to its occupation), and here is a case where there should be no hatred on the American side, since Iraq never attacked the United States. However, the U.S. media and politicians presented Iraq as an aggressive country that seriously threatened the United States and that was somehow linked to the deaths of 3,000 Americans in the September 11 attacks (even though no such link existed). So probably most of the U.S. troops who invaded Iraq saw the Iraqis as "bad guys" and murderers who had to be stopped for the sake of their country, their loved ones, and "freedom". Do you see how that happens? In many cases throughout history, elites have seen an opportunity to gain an advantage through the use of deadly force, and they have more or less cynically used propaganda to convince their people that the enemy is evil and that therefore war is not only just but an urgent necessity. Marco polo (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 The nature of war changed greatly in the 20th century. Prior to World War I, most wars did not feature widespread conscription, so most residents of a country did not feel the direct effect or it, nor were wars as deadly for the general population. Indeed, in the European tradition of decisive battle, whereby two armies met on a battlefield and organized as set pieces to do battle; the battle itself was somewhat ritualized. It was hell for the participants, but by its nature it spared non-combatants from the war itself; the two armies duked it out, and whichever one "won" got the reward; usually control over the particular territory. One thing that has not changed appreciably over time (indeed, one could argue that it has gotten worse) is that the decision makers; that is the people that stand to benefit from the war, do not actually do the fighting. Sending the peasants/plebes/serfs/poor people to die so that the aristocracy can gain control of some bit of land/resource/cultural influence is as old as warfare itself. The really nasty wars are always the ones where the people doing the fighting actually give a shit themselves. --Jayron32 20:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, not always. From the middle ages to at least the 18th century nobles (and sometimes even kings) were usually leading their troops personally in the battle. --131.188.3.21 (talk) 09:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. Any large war had a terrible impact on the non-combatant population. The Hundred Years War, the Thirty Years War, even the Peloponnesian War were all devastating for regular people who got in the way. Conscription existed long before the First World War. "Two armies meeting on a battlefield" is a mythological ideal, and I'm not sure I can think of any battle that was actually ritualized and not destructive. There are times where armies have marched out just to show off their strength, and battles have then been avoided, but that's much different... Adam Bishop (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not that wars prior to World War I had no effect; its a matter of scale; World War I featured orders of magnitude greater casualties than prior wars. Our article cites a total war dead of something like 39,000,000 people; compare that to the major European war immediately preceeding it, the Franco-Prussian War, which had less than 500,000 deaths. Admittely, the F-P war was smaller in scope, but even accounting for that, there were more deaths per year along the Western Front (roughly the theatre of the F-P war) than there were in the year of the F-P war... --Jayron32 21:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Our Philosophy of war article points to several books about this topic. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Edwin Star has some good points as well. --Jayron32 20:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you're also confusing the differences between the people who fight wars and the people who start wars. Politicians and generals see war a very different way that the grunt on the battlefield. The politician and general sees it as a map of little arrows moving into places, and maybe a list of numbers (expenses, casualties, poll ratings) at the end of the day. They are largely removed from the death. The grunt is the opposite end of the spectrum. He (or she) sees only the immediate objective: doing their job and not getting killed. They are not thinking about how much they love or hate the enemy or too much about the larger political merits of the conflict. They are often scared and running on adrenaline. They know (or think) that the enemy has killed their friends and would kill them if they got the chance. They often regard the enemy as not-quite-human (even if they know better). The great irony of war is that it requires both extremes on this spectrum to happen—those so far removed from the battlefield as to see it as purely abstractions, and those so close that they couldn't think abstractly about it if they wanted to. Obviously I am generalizing quite a bit here, but is not terribly original... recommended references are really any of John Keegan's works (esp. his A History of Warfare), Dave Grossman's On Killing, Michael Herr's Dispatches, Evan Wright's Generation Kill, and so on. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this is an opinion question ultimately, so it probably should be dealt with elsehwere. I certainly don't want "debate" about this sort of thing here, because it will spiral out of control.

Formal war (what you're talking about) is a question between sovereign nations entities. In all of these cases, there's a moral hazard because those that make the decision aren't necessarily those that suffer most directly. But if the question is about "why", I think the reasons are not so different from the same reasons that tribes of chimpanzees fight and kill each other, or why any other group of animals do so. Homo Sapiens are one of the most homicidal mammals on the earth. Shadowjams (talk) 07:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Any politician who cannot slime his way out of takeing his country to war should have to resign as he was unable to do his job —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.59.90 (talk) 08:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

A great example of why we shouldn't discuss this on wikipedia. Shadowjams (talk) 09:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is the Reference Desk. There are many on-line forums.--Wetman (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

If someone breaks into your house an attempts to damage your property what does your government do? They send the police over to arrest them. If the person resists arrest they forcefully restrain them. If they resist with a lethal weapon they will probably be killed.

Now if government A wants government D to do something, but government D does not comply, government A can send people over to remove government D from power. Government D of course will do the same thing it does with criminals, and send in security forces. However as both parties are exceptionally heavily armed there is no chance of non-lethally subduing the enemy. The reason they persist in fighting is because A's army strongly believes that what it is doing is right, while D's army believes what they are doing is wrong and needs to be stopped.

The Nazis, for example, genuinely believed what they were doing was right, they weren't just being dicks for the heck of it. They actually though the world would be a better place with untermenschen, and they were prepared to commit the most horrid atrocities in human history (I can't even think of anything in the ancient world that compares to it) to get rid the world of "judeo-bolshevik corruption". Stalin, although he loved power just for its own sake, thought communism provided a great quality of life for everyone.

As an aside, does this make conquerors like Napoleon worse than the Nazis? He understood perfectly he had absolutely no right to go marching across Europe ruining the lives of countless masses, yet he did it anyway.--92.251.167.128 (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

USA states - economy question

In the EU budget here, with eternal net contributors like Germany/Netherlands and net beneficiaries like Greece/Portugal [[5]], there are often people in the population like Germans or British who are "fed up" with always paying to help poorer countries (I read in newspaper comments) and really fed up with Greece etc. Does a similar system exist in the USA, and therefore which states pay most and which ones receive most and is there any animosity about this between long-term paying/contributor or long-term receiving/beneficiary states? (I've tried googling and wikipedia articles but can't get/understand info. - please explain in simple terms for economics dumbo, thanks). --AlexSuricata (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure there are some people who will complain about anything, but its not a major point except among those who see any taxing-and-spending program as "wealth redistribution" and oppose it on those grounds (see Tea Party movement ). You have to remember that in the U.S., people think of themselves as Americans first and citizens of their states second (well, except for Texans, but that's another story for another day). In the EU, no one thinks of themselves as "Europeans" before they think of themselves as "Germans" or "Greeks" or "Spaniards", so there's a certain amount of mild xenophobia in the European's concerns (i.e. why are we spending German people's money on foreign countries) that isn't present in the American situation. --Jayron32 20:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

For some numbers, you could start by reading through this entry (as well as the report linked therein). Gabbe (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, because of deficit spending of the US government, each and every state (with the possible exception of Alaska) receive benefits where the dollar amount exceeds the collected tax revenue. Googlemeister (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There's been some sarcasm over the fact that some of the loudest self-proclaimed "fiscal conservatives" or "small government" types come from some of the states which receive more from the federal government than they contribute . However, I don't really think that in the U.S. there are systematic regional resentments remotely comparable to those in Italy (where sufficient people in the north of the country resent subsidizing what they see as the corrupt and inefficient Mafia/Camorra/Ndrangheta-ridden south to have created a semi-major political party devoted to northern Italian autonomy), or those in Yugoslavia (where the fact that generally the further north you went in Yugoslavia, the more developed the economy, was a significant factor in the break-up of the country). AnonMoos (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Show was a sarcasm contributor on this point during the last Presidential election. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The U.S. has nothing equivalent to the Canadian system of "equalization" in which the less-well-off provinces get big chunks of cash from the federal government just for being poor. Because poor people, seniors and the like tend to live in some places more than others, as well as for other factors, certain states tend to be net recipients of federal payments while other states are net contributors. However, that is not a major issue in U.S. politics. People tend to complain more about certain classes of people, such as the poor, minorities and immigrants, who are (often unfairly) seen as being the recipients of money taken from hard-working "regular" people. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

An interesting comparison might be the early U.S. under its first constitution, the Articles of Confederation; as our article states, the more populous states were expected to pay more, but all the states had an equal vote in the Congress. In a way, the smaller states were "poorer" and would have received disproportionately high proportions of any general expenditures. This is a bit different from what you're talking about, though. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

More urban states, with more taxpayers, tend to be net payers in the US, while more rural states, with lots of national parks and such, tend to be net recipients. Ironically, those states with higher population (the net payers) also tend to be Democratic and the rural states (the recipients) tend to be Republican. StuRat (talk) 05:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I am skeptical. Because of deficit spending, all states are net recipients. Googlemeister (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the amount of net money gained each year by borrowing is largely offset by interest payed on what was previously borrowed, meaning there is not much new net money available from borrowing each year. And that interest is again largely payed by the most populous states. Also, consider that when and if those debts are payed off, yet again it will be mainly by the most populous states. So, no matter how you look at it, they are subsidizing the rural states. StuRat (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

StuRat is correct in that US states have different ratios of federal tax dollars received/paid. There's several graphics available that show the differences- such as this one. I just recently saw a more nuanced version of the same idea, which broke down the ratio even further so some parts of the states pay more than they receive than others. (I believe it was a week or so ago on Andrew Sulivan's Daily Dish blog) 69.10.218.131 (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

For comparison, this is a huge deal in Canada, where the federal government more directly takes large sums of money from the "have provinces" and gives them to the "have not provinces". See Equalization payments in Canada. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

To answer the original question, yes, some states give more than they receive, while other states receive more than they get. However, this has mainly to do with affluent people giving more than they get. Some states have more affluent populations. Every state has poorer people and poorer areas that are net beneficiaries of the system. So any resentment that exists about tax and expenditure inequities is mainly along class lines rather than by geography. Many of the rich and the upper middle class complain about how little benefit they see from their excessive tax payments (in their view). Geographic inequities, while recognized, are really not a significant political issue in the United States. Marco polo (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the affluence of each state, the population density is important, and, since military bases tend to be located in the exterior states, like Hawaii, being there is also beneficial for getting more federal dollars. StuRat (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

An important difference between the EU and the USA not mentioned so far is that while the US federal govt taxes individuals directly through income and payroll taxes, the EU gets most of its revenue through an assessment on member states that is paid by national governments. The US federal government doesn't have the authority to demand payment from state governments. The result is that while a New Jerseyan may chafe at the poor deal his state gets in the balance of payments to the federal government, as an individual he is treated the same as any other American in similar economic circumstances, thus his treatment doesn't seem unjust. A citizen of Britain or Germany has a stronger argument about the unfairness of the system. —D. Monack ^talk 08:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thisd sort of stuff happens mostly with in individual state boundries, not in the USA as a whole. seeSecession in New York and many of the entries in List of U.S. state secession proposals have to do with taxes.--Found5dollar (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

dust cloud

Are the RAF jets also grounded?

What happens if the Russians come with their Bear-aircraft type turboprops things armed with NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.240.169 (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you assuming that turboprop engines are not effected by volcanic ash? Googlemeister (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the RAF is prepared for this kind of event (while it is unprecedented on this scale, the idea that volcanic ash is bad for planes is well known). The ash also isn't guaranteed to stop engines and the level of risk acceptable to a fighter jet intercepting enemy aircraft is much higher than the risk acceptable to a passenger jet, so they might just take their chances. It is also worth adding that relations with Russia are reasonably good at the moment so there is really no chance of them wanting to nuke us. --Tango (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I wondered the same thing. Russia continues to probe UK air defences with Tupolev Tu-95 "Bear" and Tupolev Tu-160 "Blackjack" aircraft, doing so every few weeks.(ref) (ref) As Googlemeister notes, there's no reason to think that a Bear's turboprop or the Blackjack's turbofan engines would be resistant to the ash - it's hard to think what countermeasures you'd build for your engine being filled with an uncomfortable amount of molten glass. (ref). In practice military aircraft should be able to operate, as the ash is at a high level (ref) and, if they have to cross that layer they can do so much more quickly than an airliner (their climb and dive rates are hugely better, particularly for the fighters) - but I'm sure they'll still avoid it at all costs. But if you look at the full extent of the ash in this map you'll see why the Russians will stay at home. The cloud now covers the airspace north of the Finnmark, the Kola Peninsula, and the areas around Murmansk and Arkhangelsk from which the bombers operate. So they'd have to fly most of the way in airspace where the ash is, while the fighters (close to home, high performance, and with much better local weather intel) can mostly avoid it. There's probably nothing the Royal Navy would enjoy more than fishing a nice intact Blackjack out of the Norwegian Sea and shipping it off for lots of study. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Based on the stories I've seen, only civil airspace is closed, and the military generally gets to operate however they like. So no, the RAF isn't grounded in an official sense. As a practical matter, though, I'd guess they've suspended a lot of operations, so they may well be practically grounded.

Additionally, prop-driven bombers aren't really a threat to a modern state like Britain these days. — Lomn 03:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

What? The Tu-95 is a heavy bomber with capabilities close to the B-52 - it's almost as fast, and certainly faster than a lot of jet-powered airliners. And the Tu-160 is something else entirely... FiggyBee (talk) 05:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Surface-to-air missiles, specifically. Conventional bombers don't fare well against modern air defenses, and gravity nukes probably aren't in Russia's war plan these days to begin with. Sure, Russia could pack a bunch of nukes on cruise missiles and huck them from range, but they could do that anyway -- that's not a scenario that's really impacted by the RAF sitting out the volcanic cloud. — Lomn 13:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The Tu-95 is, indeed... And Great Britain is the place were the Russian barons stash their fortunes and send their kids to study ... Why would they bomb their bank vault, pray tell me? NVO (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Th BBC said that TV broadcasts were hamperes in Scotland (I don't see why, since they are line of sight and the cloud is not stated to be lower than the line of sight between transmitter and antenna. Could it be satellite relaying that is interfered with? How likely is it that the dust, at least in zones where it is thicker, would hamper radar detection of airplanes or incoming missiles? Edison (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand how these bombers are employed Lomn. They don't carry dumb bombs, they fly in to just over the North Sea then fire off the 10 long range missiles they can carry. Each of those can carry a nuke if needed. There's a reason that many militaries are not just keeping strategic bombers in service, but actively replacing them with more advanced models. These bombers aren't just good for strategic bombing, they are absolutely epic on modern battlefields as well. A modern attack aircraft can strafe and destroy a few tanks before RTBing. It's extremely vulnerable during that time. A large bomber can fly in above the effective height of enemy anti aircraft systems, and release a gigantic payload, each bomb guided to a different target. Enough to destroy an entire tank battalion.--92.251.167.128 (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

"Redmans Hall"

During the 1800's An organization (group),or club of men. Called the redmans held regular meetings and had a large following.One of the meeting Halls (buildings)still exist in a small village in southern Ohio. What was the reason to join this group,and what did they do and stand for?---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aseacapt (talk • contribs) 21:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Improved Order of Red Men.—eric 22:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)