Besides c (whose marriage prospects were Grand Duke Dmitri Pavlovich, Prince Carol of Romania, Edward, Prince of Wales, or Crown Prince Alexander of Serbia) did any of the other children of Nicholas II of Russia and Alexandra Feodorovna (Alix of Hesse)? Did they ever mention anything about their own children future marriages, especially Alexei and Anastasia? I don't think they would have been freely allowed to marriage Russian commoners.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "c"? Did any of their other children do what? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume "c" is Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna of Russia. Don't know what they did either. Have marriage prospects? ---Sluzzelin talk 08:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How did you come to the conclusion that "c" referred to Olga, Sluzzy? I'd be more inclined to believe it was a reference to the 3rd daughter, Grand Duchess Maria. Maybe QELS can elighten us. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's who QELS had there before the apparent copy-and-paste error when he edited the question. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't even noticed that [1]! My own guess was based on the dashing young princes mentioned as marriage prospects. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I ment Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna of Russia. So back to the question? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any roller skate cross events or inline skate cross events (cf. snowboard cross, ski cross, motocross)?100110100 (talk) 05:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the significance of this in Burma? It is not located in the coat of arms or flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.110.108 (talk) 06:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Grey Peacock-pheasant, also known as the Burmese peacock, is the national bird of Burma (officially known these days as the Union of Myanmar but the renaming has not been universally accepted or acknowledged). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The National Burmese Cock, not to be confused with this NBC. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a over the counter diet product that was recently banned because they found out it has a prescription drug in it. Would it be possible for me to still sell it and say "its for disposal only" or as a collectible item only and its not for human use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.39.243 (talk) 07:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a request for legal advice. Have you searched for this product in Google to see what a reliable source might have to say about it? Have you contacted the FDA or whoever banned it? As an example, I've sometimes had some discontinued medicines. But I'm not selling them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) We can't give legal advice, of course, but if something's "banned" then I imagine it's banned. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 07:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the answer might depend what country you are in. --ColinFine (talk) 08:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a general thing, I think TreasuryTag's exactly right here - if something's been banned from sale, you probably can't sell it regardless of what purpose you state it's for. I can't imagine "I was only selling that bag of crack cocaine as a collectible" getting you very far in court! ~ mazca ^talk 09:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In many areas the Refrigerant Freon-12 is banned due to concerns about the Ozone layer but it is legal to resell Freon-12 that has been recovered e.g. for car air conditioners.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Following a succession crisis in Burma in 1879"

What was this crisis?100110100 (talk) 09:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The crisis followed the death of King Mindon Min, who had not nominated a successor. After much skullduggery, he was succeeded by Theebaw - who got right up the British noses. DuncanHill (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the history behind this flag? How was it chosen?100110100 (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a blue ensign with a peacock badge. The peacock is a symbol of Burma (I think the Burmese kings had "lord of the peacocks" or somesuch amoong their royal titles. DuncanHill (talk) 10:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, in case it isn't obvious, the Union Jack in the corner is because Burma was a British colony. StuRat (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would anybody be able to tell me of which novel or short story is the following the last line:

"Yes we will" she said joyfully, "that would be grand. Daddy and I would simply love to be there"

Thanks. Pantscat (talk) 12:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I googled ["Daddy and I would simply love to be there"] and learned only that this same question has been posed elsewhere and has gotten no answer. So, where did you see that line? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you google that without the quotes you get Twilight fan fiction! MY EYES! Adam Bishop (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At a guess (and I've little to go on) I would start with British literature, becasue "grand" isn't a word I hear too much in the U.S.. Or, at the minimum, American but from around 1950 at the latest. I picture it as a word used more by a writer like Jane Austen. Also, you can presume the speaker is a mother, as "Daddy and I" is a phrase usually spoken by a mom. It need not be to a child, as there are times young women will call their fathers "Daddy," but usually the parents don't refer to themselves that way, so I would venture that it's a story with a child (or teenager) as one of the main characters. Perhaps you can try to surmise *what* the person is inviting his or her parents to, recalling that it might be far in that child's future (like their dream wedding.)

SOrry I can't be of more help, but at least that narrows it down a *little*.Somebody or his brother (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The line might also be spoken by a teenage girl (probably not younger because her diction is good), referring to her father and herself. --Anonymous, 22:25 UTC, March 10, 2010.

Grand and Daddy suggest upper-middle class to aristocracy in a British work probably mid 20th century, to me. In that context, the child could be any age, but is more likely to be female than male (given the use of Daddy rather than Father). 86.178.167.166 (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being British, I would say that "grand" was used in the past by people from northern England, and they could be working class or middle class. The text already says the speaker is female. Use of "daddy" is less modern than "Dad", so I would say best guess 1920-1940. The style is nothing like Jane Austin. 92.26.160.145 (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I find information about Moses, the Biblical figure, in Wikipedia. Please give me directions. Thank You; Gerald W. Maslin/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.251.90.212 (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your email address to prevent spam abuse, and given your question a separate section and title. Yes, you can find the information you seek by typing "Moses" into the search box at the top of this page, or following this link: Moses. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which opening times have Jewish shops in Germany? --84.61.162.111 (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

question is a word-word-word transcription from German. Instead it should read: "What hours are Jewish shops in Germany open?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.89 (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they have set opening hours any more than "Christian shops in England" – they open when the owner decides to open, and close when the owner decides to close... ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 21:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might religiously observant Jewish shop keepers close during certain hours when other shops were open? Perhaps that is what the OP wanted. Edison (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is that Germany, if I remember rightly, has regulations that keep many stores closed on Sunday. The question is probably whether observant Jewish shopkeepers are allowed to close on Saturday instead. Unfortunately I have no idea of the answer. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Various versions of this question turned up in a ref desk recently. As I recall the answer was that Jewish owners are allowed to open on Sunday. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite definitely not. Germany is a secular country, it doesn't have a state religion, much less does it have laws based on religious principles. The historical reason that shops are closed on Sundays is likely to be found in religion, but the modern law is due to pressure by trade unions. Ladenschlussgesetz is the appropriate link. This law would (of course) apply to everyone regardless of religion. Germany does have anti-discrimination law that ban to disadvantage anyone on the basis of their religion. Allowing people of certain faiths to open their shops on Sundays would discriminate against other faiths. 213.160.108.26 (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is farther up the page[2] and you're right, it's not Germany where Jewish stores open on Sunday, it's the UK. Interesting that it's the unions who keep the stores closed on Sundays. In the USA, most stores are open 7 days a week, thus bringing more revenue in. I'm guessing the union folks in Germany never thought of that consequence. The US used to have Blue laws in many places that forbade various types of businesses from opening on Sundays, but all or most of them have been abolished. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted looking on the British National Archive site and Scotland websites as well as many other ways to find the answer to my question. The years my great grandfather was a Scottish Merchant Marine the records were not kept for according to these sources. All I have is discharge papers from two tours on the ships CLYDESDALE and BISMARCK. I am trying to find out if the BISMARCK is a different one than the German ship of the same name as I read somewhere the English used it for training troops. However, my Grandfather's discharge papers from the Merchant Marines is dated 1883 and 1884. I assume he was with the British Merchant Marines although he was from Ayrshire, Scotland. I would like photo's of these ships and information on them during this time period of 1880-1887, particularly 1883-1884 as I know for sure he was on these two ships those two years on voyages to New York and Bilboa(I assume they meant Balboa,Spain although I am not sure about this either). He departed from Barrow once and Glasgow once. Any information will truly be appreciated as I have tried for several years to obtain further information to no avail.

Many Thanks in Advance, Sherry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esjmcban (talk • contribs) 23:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question. If it is the German Bismark, there's an article about it and photo of it on the German wikipedia - http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_Bismarck - and a babelfish translation of the same. Another photo here. Sadly our Anglo-German relations article is paper thin; I well know the monarchical (sp?) links between the two countries, but I'm ashamed & surprised to say that I don't really know the temperature of Anglo-German relations in the 1880s, so don't know what to make of the suggestion that of merchant marines training on a German navel ship. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the tensions really started to heat up until a decade or more afterwards, when Germany built up its navy (see German Naval Laws, High Seas Fleet, Tirpitz Plan etc.), which was really kind of a stupid move in the grand strategic context (since for Germany, a large navy was more of a consideration of international prestige, while Britain was not self-sufficient in basic food production, so that the UK government was grimly determined to spend however much it took to match Germany dreadnought-for-dreadnought in order to stave off the threat of starvation of its population). If bulking up the German navy laid the groundwork for the "Entente Cordiale" and Britain coming in on the side of France in WWI, then Germany would have been a lot better off without the navy (which ended up at the bottom of Scapa Flow)... AnonMoos (talk) 07:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know you've tried "many other ways", but you might get some joy if you consult the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich. [3] --TammyMoet (talk) 08:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clydesdale is probably a 608 ton screw steamer built 1881 for Robert McKill & Co., Glasgow, wrecked 28/3/1890 off North Bishops Island, Wales, while outbound Glasgow to Bilbao with coal. Careful in your searches, all the photos i've found so far are of another Clydesdale, built 1862 for David Hutcheson & Co., and wrecked 13/1/1905 on Lady Rock, sometimes referred to as Clydesdale I.—eric 10:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bismarck is probably Graf Bismarck 2,406 tons, 315'x40', single-screw, 14 knots, built 1870 at Greenock by Caird & Co. for Norddeutscher Lloyd, scrapped 1898.—eric 11:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried a few more searches, but been unable to find any images. For Graf Bismarck i'm pretty sure you are looking for a two mast, single funnel vessel with a clipper stem similar to Ohio. Google searches combining ship name/builder/owner various ways give a bit more info. Clydesdale was by Blackwood & Gordon, Paisley & Port Glasgow.—eric 00:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am looking for a good accessable reference to that effect. I see no reason why such an interesting story would not be readily sourcable from reliable publications if it were true. It appears on the Bram Stoker article, not on the Dracula article, and reference is light and from old books only. Surely anything interesting about literature like that is well documented somehwere or it is suspicious. ~ R.T.G 00:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am querying the barn or how the manuscript got there not its contents or anything. ~ R.T.G 00:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wall Street Journal reference - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122514491757273633.html - and the whole story seem quite credible to me. WSJ is considered a Reliable Source around these parts. It sounds as though it is a draft, one of several Stoker worked on. It's not that improbable that a draft might get lost and turn up years later. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also http://www.amazon.com/review/R1GOUL90T3ZWII and http://www.nypl.org/audiovideo/evening-dracula which also mention the Paul Allen manuscript. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The manuscript of the NYLibrary night doesn't return a hit for "paul allen" and the Amazon review isn't a reliable source. The Wall Street Journal is a respectable publication but it differs significantly with the current source that it does not claim it to be the original manuscript and differs in number of pages etc. That's probably a useable reference but I am still dubious. I will refer those argueing the worth of the story to this. If I see any UFOs I will let you know. That's what it sounds like to me. Thanks for finding that even though I am still slating it. ~ R.T.G 00:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of the NYLibrary article has a sentence "and to Seattle to spend two days with the guarded manuscript (Microsoft billionaire Paul Allen is the owner)." I won't quibble with the amazon article not being n RS, but at least it shows the story has legs. The WSJ article is one of the sources referenced in the Bram Stoker, so I'm not easily able to understand the point you're trying to make. The other - Latham, Robert. Science Fiction & Fantasy Book Review Annual, Greenwood Publishing (1988) p. 67 - also appears highly kosher. But you believe what you want to believe; your prerogative. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this, this and perhaps this tells as much of the history of that manuscript as I could find, which isn't much. Perhaps only John McLaughlin and the anonymous seller know where it actually was found, or maybe only the anon knows. Often "discovered" works like this have had a dubious history and sellers are none too willing to explain how they came in possession of them. Several news reports mentioned a barn but located it variously in New England, Pennsylvania or Massachusetts. meltBanana 13:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to argue with the Wall Street Journal and also one other ref from the BBC, which doesn't mention the barn, but with them all differing on particulars and Christies not showing the listing in their old lots... and the fact that almost all other publications haven't touched it... it must be the twiglet zone. ~ R.T.G 01:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded some photos to Commons, and need help identifying the subjects for better descriptions &categorisation, and eventual use in appropriate WP articles.

Can anyone identify these trench mortars from WWI? (Captured by NZEF soldiers and displayed in London at the end of the war.) I suspect they are Minenwerfers, of varying calibres. Gwinva (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ones in the back pointing to the ground look to me like 25 cm Minenwerfer. The one in front seems to be a Skoda 75 mm Model 15 mountain gun, used for anti-tank defense. But I am not an expert on WWI artillery. --Dodo19 (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also need help identifying these WWI tanks, seen here during a victory parade in London. Allied tanks? Or captured German ones? (The parade was made up of allied troops and their spoils of war, see plane below). Gwinva (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the British Mark V (from the photo in the article anyway). The Germans didn't have a whole lot of tanks in World War I. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If I'm reading our article correctly, the two raised cabins on the front one show that it is a Mark V series tank. The rhomboidal shape of the second one indicates that it's another British tank, and the one in back looks like a French Renault FT-17; but my poor old eyes can't see enough to make positive IDs on those two. Deor (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this flickr discussion about this very photograph, one person is "reliably informed" that the front one is a Mark V male and the middle one a Mark V* female. Does this mean they can mate and make little baby mark v's? Another participant thinks the one in back is a Medium Mark A Whippet. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ayup, the one at the back is indeed a Whipet - very distinctive hull. Skinny87 (talk) 07:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I feel stupid. I uploaded the photo from the Flickr Commons page, but never read all the comments; the early ones were not promising, so I never bothered reading the rest. (I tend to ignore most internet comment sections since they are rarely as informed as the ref desks). Thanks for the confirmation. Gwinva (talk) 07:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You realize of course we'll have to charge you three times the standard RD rate. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about just double - my first question remains unanswered; in addition, I'd like to claim my member's discount. Gwinva (talk) 06:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

"Tanks - Front is I think a Mk IV male, followed by a Mk. IV female (but both could be Mk V) with a Whippet at the back." suggests User:Monstrelet at MILHIST, so we don't quite have consensus. Gwinva (talk) 06:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The front tank has a rear turret (like the Mark V here) that I don't see on the Mark IV's.[4][5]. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are captured German planes. Any guesses? Gwinva (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The foreground plane is rather the worse for wear, but the shape of the tail parts appears to resemble that of a Pfalz D.XII more than any other of the German fighters listed at List of military aircraft of Germany#Before 1919. Deor (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Planes - front an Albatross DIII Second A Pfalz DIII (I think, hard to tell from this angle)." suggests User:Monstrelet at MILHIST. Gwinva (talk) 06:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just enjoyed the almost painfully beautiful film Miss Potter, in which the father of the author is depicted as being intelligent and sharp, and – more importantly – warm, and, when it really matters, understanding, progressive, tolerant, and even wise. He is able to listen to people, and to take their emotions and thoughts seriously, and he can overlook the narrow-mindedness born from the social codes of conduct of the mid-nineteenth century. How accurately is the film's description of Mr Potter? --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Dekotora

How do they make money? Would their customers pay more money to them? If not, how do they pay for all these additional lights? -- Toytoy (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article you link to says, in the first paragraph: "Dekotora may be created by workers out of their work trucks for fun, or they may be designed by hobbyists for special events." It doesn't sound like they are intended to make money. --Tango (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone help me track down Warrington & Co. of 23 Garrick Street, London? They were the publishers of this little guide, and other than the fact that—according to this list—they were engravers, I haven't been able to find any information about them. Said guide (as well as a later version of which I possess a printed copy) is undated, and although the on-line version is tentatively given the publishing year 1911, I am almost certain that it was printed in the first decade of the 20th century. But when exactly? (If the illegible handwritten note on the cover is to be paid any attention, it could be at least as early as 1903.) Waltham, The Duke of 04:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can point you to some more Warrington & Co publications at the Internet Archive, fwiw. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this snippet, the Warrington of the company name—in 1897, at least—was one Richard Silvester Warrington, and the business is described as "engravers (printer, die sinker and lithographer)". Their most notable publication seems to have been the annual British Imperial Calendar and Civil Service List (as advertised here). And if the footnote in the second snippet here goes with the text in the first snippet, they appear to have been publishing some version of your book as early as 1855, though early editions seem to be under the title The New Palace of Westminster. Deor (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A by the way - according to the London Times of 18 Jan 1900 23 Garrick Street was badly damaged by fire At about helf-past 5 o;clock yesterday morning the premises of Messrs. Warrington and Co., engravers at 23, Garrick Street, Covent-garden, W.C. were discovered to be on fire. The building is a large one of five floors it goes on to say that premises were burnt out and probable cause was entered by burglars. MilborneOne (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just another note - in the 1891 Census of Lewisham, London Richard Warrington is described as a Printer & Stationer aged 69 (born 1822 in London), he appears to have died in 1899 aged 77. Also he appears to have married Martha Sarah Swears in Kingston, Surrey in 1849. MilborneOne (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for not replying earlier (long story), but I'd like to thank you all for your efforts, even at the last minute before this section is archived. They have turned up some interesting things, like the fact that they started printing their guide just a few years after the Commons moved into their chamber, even before the Palace was finished. (It makes sense, of course, that they'd include the "New" part of the name, considering that most people would remember the Old Palace; interestingly, the 1866 version of Deor's link does bear a year of publication.) My principal concern when making the question was whether I could hope to locate a successor of Warrington still in business, so that I could ask about the date of the particular guide I have linked to, or perhaps the one I have in my possession (as they are both undated). I didn't really hope to find much, as this seems to have been a small family concern, but one can always hope, right? In any case, I've found out that HMSO started publishing their own guide in 1930 (having purchased a copy of the fifteenth edition, 1994), so I suspect that was the end of the Warrington version. It seems now that the only recourse left to me is to send an e-mail to someone in the Palace itself; since the guides have been published with the permission of the Lord Great Chamberlain, there must be a record of this somewhere. (Finding it, though, is another matter.) Waltham, The Duke of 23:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any roller skates or inline skates fit for performance?174.3.110.108 (talk) 05:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your link seems to have answered your question in the positive. Was there something else you wanted to know? Bielle (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, to be sure, I am almost absolutely certain that these are only for ice skates (including figure skates and hockey skates).174.3.110.108 (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a definition linked to an online english dictionary, in a post maybe a a week ago.

(The original poster posted after me about a week ago, so this link may have appeared several days afterward.)

I am curious which dictionary this was. I am not sure if this was on the humanities desk, or language desk, or possibly entertainment desk.174.3.110.108 (talk) 05:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this? 24.189.90.68 (talk) 06:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This question was also asked on the Language Desk and has drawn some answers there. --Anonymous, 22:27 UTC, March 10, 2010.

When did the County of Neuchâtel changed into a Principality? The article says "With increasing power and prestige, Neuchâtel was raised to the level of a principality at the beginning of the seventeenth century." But does any one have an exact year and date?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From searching the French Wikipedia, I found that Henri II d'Orléans, Duke of Longueville (6 April 1595 – 11 May 1663) was also Prince of Neuchâtel. Henri d'Orléans (1568-1595) was Count of Neuchâtel. That gives a range of 1595-1663. I'm looking for more. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 07:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka! 1648 or 1643. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 07:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never cry when I'm happy. I smile or laugh. I only cry when I'm sad. Why do some people cry? I can't really understand them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.120.162 (talk) 07:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Crying:

"To cry is to shed tears as a response to an emotional state in humans."

Being happy is an emotional state. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compare Berserker Tears, for emotions other than joy and sadness...Okay, it's only a trope, I've no idea if this happens in real life. Although the article does have a (short) "real life" section. Vimescarrot (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find it in a really short Google search, but I recall hearing on TV a theory that adults cry when happy, because it's a reminder of a special time in childhood when they really believed "fairy tales could come true" and that there would always be happy endings." Adulthood causes one to realize that isn't always true, so one sheds tears (as I do at times) at times one of those "happy endings" does occur. (Actually our whole family is that way :-) We often joke about wondering who will be the first to get choked up at, say, a wedding toast when we talk about how wonderfully happy we hope the couple will be, etc.)Somebody or his brother (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good explanation. Grown men cried at the end of Field of Dreams - both on and off the screen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People cry for all sorts of reasons other than sadness. People cry out of relief - say they've been worrying about a loved one and found out they are ok, they cry because of joy (they're watching their child stand up infront of people and take the vow of marriage - see DTF955 above, they cry because they're frustrated. It's pretty normal to cry at anytime where your emotions are highly-charged/on edge. Crying is an outward expression of intense feelings - that feeling can be for a number of different reasons. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tears of anger and/or frustration are very common in small children and not-so-small adults. It is not just strong emotions in themselves but also an inability to find another. socially acceptable, outlet for them that often results in tears. Bielle (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC) outlet for them.[reply]

Tears of gratitude come to my eyes embarrassingly often.--Wetman (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See this post from the Science desk archive: Emotional Crying. Jay (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do people cry when they are sad? We don't really know (there are plenty of guesses, though)... --Tango (talk) 02:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a website about Canada's role in producing energy for the world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.7 (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page from the US Department of Energy has quite a lot of information. --Normansmithy (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a Canadian website here: http://www.energy.ca/users/folder.asp --Kvasir (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the data section of the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, you will find authoritative and detailed information on national and world-wide energy. [[6]] DOR (HK) (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on the Poet Laureate Consultant in Poetry to the Library of Congress and POETICS list both state that members of the list protested the appointment of Billy Collins to Poet Laureate, but neither offers a suggestion of their reason for doing so. I've tried to follow all the citation links, but none seem to readily offer an explanation for the protest. Does anyone know (and/or have a good reference we can add to the articles)? JamesLucas (" " / +) 15:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These two posts kind of sum it up, popular, easy to understand, mediocre, quite possibly politically conservative, oh and actually makes money, poets hate that.

Let none presume the hallow'd way to tread,

by other than the noblest motives led.

If for a sordid gain or glitt'ring fame,

To please, without instrucing, be your aim,

To lower means your grov'ling thoughts confine,

Unworthy of an art, that's all divine.

Calliope: The Heroick Muse - Catherine Trotter Cockburn

meltBanana 02:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that digging. JamesLucas (" " / +) 18:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what is the easy way to be become millionaire? --Houndhog (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

become a billionaire and give most of it away--Jac16888^Talk 17:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a very good question for us. If we knew, why are we not all millionaires? One way to become a technical millionaire or billionaire is to buy some currency from Zimbabwe. I bet you could buy a ZIM$1,000,000,000 for very little on ebay. For a more serious answer, the majority of millionaires either inherited their $, or they started their own business. Few who are working at a salaried position will end up with millions. Googlemeister (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, you missed your chance at Zimbabwe money. See Zimbabwe#Economy. --Anonymous, 22:31 UTC, March 10, 2010.

Some bankers and footballers are employees who become millionaires. 78.151.126.97 (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, though the majority of both those employment opportunities have only a fairly low % involved actually becoming millionaires. Googlemeister (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gearing. Borrow a lot of money to buy an asset(s). Do something (which could be just waiting several years) so that the asset rises in sale price by a million currency units, and then you are a net millionaire. Becoming a gross millionaire is easier - simply borrow a million currency units. And the easist way to borrow a lot of money is to buy property (British english) or real estate (American english), since the property gives security for the loan and hence lenders are more willing to lend. People usually start borrowing smaller amounts, get a capital gain, then use their capital gains plus any savings as the deposit on increasingly larger borrowings. 78.151.126.97 (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Wikipedia page about this: Get-rich-quick scheme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Normansmithy (talk • contribs) 17:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the easiest... but however most unlikely way to become one is by winning a Lottery. This method avoids the legal hassle of inheritance or dealing with wills... and the time and risk of investing large sums of money. But as they say, "you can't win if you don't play". 10draftsdeep (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

looking at your user name, I'd suggest finding yourself a nice, rich widow and becoming a boy-toy. the world's oldest get-rich-quick scheme... --Ludwigs2 20:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"She may very well pass for 43, in the dusk with the light behind her." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whomever says "You can't win if you don't play" is an idiot. You are not required to purchase a lottery ticket to win the lottery. You merely need to be in possession of a winning lottery ticket. Many people win money from the lottery without playing. Purchasing a ticket does not increase your odds of winning any significant amount. -- kainaw™ 13:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gearing is a good answer, but it is important to point out that it can result in you losing $1m in exactly the same way. Since you don't have $1m to lose, you would be bankrupt. Generally and loosely speaking, your return is going to be proportional to your risk - if you want a really high return (relative to your starting capital) then you need to take really high risks. Gearing is the simplest way of doing that. --Tango (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can go bankrupt, then you escape your debts. So your net worth, after being bankrupt, can only be zero at its lowest, but unlimited in the other direction. If you have little or no assets thjen you can afford to take extremely high risks. When you have something to lose, then you have to be more cautious. 78.146.0.232 (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Declaring bankruptcy doesn't just reset everything. You usually have to pay as much as you can for the next few years and basically can't borrow any money - that includes things like using electricity and then paying for it at the end of the month. You have to either get someone to stand as guarantor for everything or pay for it in advance. Even after your bankruptcy is discharged you will have a terrible credit rating for many years, if not the rest of your life. Bankruptcy involves losing a lot, it doesn't doesn't involve losing everything. --Tango (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Googlemeister's assertion that it's hard to become a millionaire working a salaried position. My grandparents were millionaires upon retirement (granted, that's two people's income). They both got college degrees and worked good, but not extremely high paying jobs, invested wisely (and to some extent, got lucky in how they invested), and lived well within their means. I suspect that my dad, an engineer, will be a millionaire when he retires: he's always saved a large portion of his income and invests it prudently. Depending on what field I go into, it's quite possible that I'll become a millionaire too (especially with a moderate amount of inflation that will likely occur over my working years). So I'd say the best answer is: Get a university degree (at least 4 years, perhaps a graduate degree as well at some point) in a field with relatively high paying jobs (technical fields especially, but I'm sure there are others), and save a good portion of your income by investing it in a smart manner. Buddy431 (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. If you include people's pension pots (which you certainly should - they are assets) then a lot of people have very high assets when they retire (which they spend during their retirement, of course). Buying a house and slowly paying off the mortgage is one of the best ways of investing in addition to your pension fund - the interest is often tax deductible, you don't have to pay rent and house prices typically increase a decent rate over decades. --Tango (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

compound interest + time —D. Monack ^talk 22:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of householders (who are merely employees in average jobs) in Britain are at least the equivalent of dollar millionaires due to houses being expensive, particularly in London. 89.243.212.29 (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's only really true of older householders. You need to have either paid off your mortgage or have bought your house when it was much cheaper for it to contribute a large amount to your net worth. Unless you have a really high income (or were already wealthy) you can't pay off a large mortgage very quickly, so either of those requires you to be at least middle-aged. Also, the value of the house you live in often isn't counted as part of your net worth for the purposes of the definition of millionaire - see Millionaire#Net worth vs. financial assets. --Tango (talk) 02:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OP did not specify a time limit, and asked "what is the easy way to become a millionaire". Obviously, it is easier to become a millionaire over 50 years than it is by four o'clock next tuesday. 78.149.193.118 (talk) 10:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would help a lot to become an accountant and get management qualifications. 78.146.52.206 (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toron was a fief of Galilee, itself an important fief of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Lords of Toron, successive Humphreys of Toron, were one of the most distinguished families of that time. But who were they, and from whom did they descend? According to Wikipedia's article on Humphrey I, the founder of the dynasty was related to the House of Hauteville. But this claim isn't sourced. Has anyone heard about this? Is there any source that supports what the article says?

Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trybald (talk • contribs) 17:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Humphrey I is one of the many obscure nobodies who jumped on the crusade bandwagon after the First Crusade (Barisan of Ibelin and Hugh of Jaffa are similarly obscure examples). The Foundation for Medieval Genealogy linked in our article says nothing about his origins, nor does Du Cange's Familles d'Outremer, nor the Lignages d'Outremer. I don't know where our article got that info, except that it was taken from the French Wikipedia article, which itself has a "citation needed" note. It's easy to assume that he was an Italian Norman based on his name, but I'll have to dig further to see if anyone actually says where he came from. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's entirely possible he's a Hauteville, based on what I am getting from following threads from the Hauteville family article. Lots of late 11th century and early 12th century Hauteville's participated in the crusades. Bohemond I of Antioch was a Hauteville (male-line grandson of Tancred of Hauteville), and he was perhaps one of the most important military leaders of the First Crusade. Several of his Hauteville cousins were also prominent crusaders, Herman of Hauteville, his half-first-cousin, died at the Siege of Antioch, for example. Our article on Serlo II of Hauteville has redlinks for his sons, so its possible this line may show up producing our Humphrey of Toron. I mean, Tancred had an astounding number of children and grandchildren; Humphrey of Toron would have been of an age to be one of Tancred's grandchildren; if his connection to the Hautevilles is older than Tancred, it looks like this rather prolific family could include him quite easily. --Jayron32 03:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it's also possible that Humphrey's descendents wanted to give their ancestor a more noble origin, and chose Tancred without any basis, especially since the link (at least according to Wikipedia) was not made until the 15th century. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William of Tyre and Fulcher of Chartes don't mention it, there's nothing in collections of charters (Regesta Regni Hierosolimitorum, Cartulary of the Holy Sepulchre), and no modern histories say anything either, particularly Jonathan Riley-Smith's "The First Crusaders, 1095-1131". Alan Murray's "Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: A Dynastic History" might be a good place to look, but it is out of the library at the moment. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why does a court in Germany have jurisdiction over an incident that occurred in Kenya? [7] Woogee (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section 7 [of the German penal code]. Application to other types of conduct abroad

(1) The German criminal law is applicable to crimes committed abroad against a German if such conduct is punishable by the law of the place where it occurred, or if no criminal law enforcement existed at the place where the crime was committed.

(2) The German criminal law is likewise applicable to crimes committed abroad if such conduct is punishable by the law of the place where it occurred, or if no criminal law enforcement existed at the place where the crime was committed, and if the perpetrator:

1. was a German at the time of the crime or acquired German citizenship thereafter, or

2. was a foreigner at the time of the crime, was apprehended within Germany and, although the extradition statute would permit extradition for the type of offense involved, was not extradited either because a request for extradition was never made, or was refused, or because extradition is not feasible. [8] (my emphasis)

Ernst August was German at the time of the crime, and the act was punishable under Kenyan law, so the German penal code authorizes prosecution in Germany. - Nunh-huh 19:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Woogee (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this Ernst August, the father. The one wikified in the question was born in 1983, his son. --Kvasir (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, you're right. I linked to the article linked on Current events. I think I'll double check that. Woogee (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if you were to express it as a percentage, then in what part was world war 2 caused by an unjust peace agreement following world war 1? thank you. 82.113.121.89 (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an impossible quantification. obviously, the destitution caused in Germany by the terms of the WWI peace agreement was a major factor in the fall of German democracy and the rise to power of the Nazis, but (1) the peace agreement was only unjust in its magnitude, not in its intent and (2) the militant, expansionist, xenophobic mindset expressed in the Nazi party existed prior to WWI (Germany had had a strong nationalist movement for decades), and was only legitimized by the unjustness of the treaty. these kinds of moral/emotive judgements are impossible to quantify meaningfully. --Ludwigs2 19:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that the answer to this question could vary wildly. If you were set it as homework, it is a question designed not to have just an answer of "50%" but an explanation of the importance of the Treaty of Versailles, other factors, and an overall conclusion. Chaosandwalls (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a homework question, it is a poor one. As others have said, you can't quantify this. Causal factors in history interact in such a way that it is really impossible to assign a percentage value to any one of them. Even if you could, it would be a subjective judgment without any means of empirical assessment. If I were given this question as homework, I would state that it is impossible to quantify the relative importance of this causal factor and then go on to explain how important this was as a causal factor and what competing causal factors may also have contributed. I would just point out that it was far from inevitable that the Versailles Treaty should have led to World War II. If only one or two historical details had changed, it might not have. For example, if Adolf Hitler had been killed in World War I, the Nazi Party might never have taken the form that it did or have attracted such wide appeal. Or, if a man other than Heinrich Brüning were chancellor and were able to develop effective policies in response to the Depression that addressed lower-middle and working class concerns, he could have undermined both the Communists and the Nazis, saved Weimar democracy, and averted the war in Europe. Finally, the question completely ignores the role of Japan, which, once again, is hard to quantify. Arguably, World War II really began with the Mukden Incident in 1931, which had nothing to do with the Versailles Treaty. Marco polo (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question implies that the End Agreement to 1 was 100% unjust, and the cause of the 2nd was as a result to what %? The question is therefore loaded. If this question was put by a History Teacher, you could ask for it to be reworded. Not implying the first premise to te true or false, I would say the question is 100% true. I think the questioner is asking for a

desertation, though.

1. The splitting of the country.

2. The bill to pay was draconian.

MacOfJesus (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MacOfJesus (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for a desertation? I don't think he wants anyone to desert him. Did you mean 'dissertation'? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did, well spotted! I find it better to write with pen and paper, sorry for the mis-spell!

MacOfJesus (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Percentage of what? Wars either happen or they don't. The war wasn't going to half happen and half not if you halved the causes. Either the causes (all of them, in their entirety) are sufficient to cause a war or they aren't. In this case, they were. I think the closest we could get to a real quantifiable measure of how the unjustness of the treaties caused the war would be to ask how large the reparations bill (which is the main quantity in the treaties that can be varied continuously) could have got without causing the war. That is a meaningful question, but not one we can actually answer (we could guess, but that's all). --Tango (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does the question refer specifically to the war in Europe? The war in the Pacific was not caused by Versailles and would probably have proceeded anyhow (I don't think Britain's distraction with the war in Europe was Japan's decisive reason for attacking south east Asia, and the Sino-Japanese war was already underway before Germany annexed Austria and the Sudetenland). --Normansmithy (talk) 12:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you date the European war to the invasion of Czechslovakia in 1938, then the Asian war began in September 1931. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thread moved here from Wikipedia talk:Community portal

there was 6 japanese carriers, hiru, shokaku, zukaku, akagi, kaga and soryu. Information i am missing is how far those carriers were from pearl harbor? And how did defensive 48 aircrafts did act, were they on carriers and never did fly or were they assisting attacks?

ive been collecting some information of carriers, from single net page only: format: (carriers name: attack wave number, name of aircraft(number of that aircraft)

IJN AKAGI:

  1st wave: zero(9), "Kate"(15),"Kate"Torpedo"(12)
  2nd wave: zero(9), "Val"(19)

IJN KAGA

  1st wave: zero(9), "Kate"(14),"Kate"Torpedo"(12)
  2nd wave: zero(9), "Val"(26)

IJN SORYU

  1st wave: zero(8), "Kate"(10),"Kate"Torpedo"(8)
  2nd wave: zero(9), "Val"(17)

IJN HIRYU

  1st wave: zero(6), "Kate"(10),"Kate"Torpedo"(8)
  2nd wave: zero(8), "Val"(17)

IJN SHOKAKU

  1st wave: zero(6), "Val" (26)
  2nd wave: "kate"(27)

IJN ZUKAGU

  1st wave: zero(5), "val"(25)
  2nd wave: "kate"(27)

can somebody confirm these aircrafts in their right places, and which their objectives where? those defensive combat aircrafts seems not be in carriers so where they were? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.64.4.197 (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have what appears to be a comprehensive article on the order of battle of the Attack on Pearl Harbor. Does that cover all that you're looking for? — Lomn 20:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for adventure novels written by Americans in about the 1900s-1930s, that were not serialized, but have similar themes to novels that were originally serialized in pulp magazines, as well as the same cheap, adventurey sort of feel. I'm writing a paper trying to determine the effects of serialization on the way books are written, so ideally I want a few pairs of books: one serialized, one not, that are as similar as possible in other ways (setting, time period, etc.) This is the list of pulp novels I'm considering:

-The Curse of Capistrano (Zorro), 1919/1924
-Tarzan of the Apes, 1912/1914 (already purchased)
-The Man of Bronze (Doc Savage), 1932/3
-The Living Shadow (The Shadow), 1931
-Bar-20 (Hopalong Cassidy) 1907 (also purchased already)

So any suggestions of books that are similar to one above, or just other books that meet the criteria in my first sentence above, would be welcome.
Thanks.
208.252.2.254 (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of the Tarzan books would qualify. The Mucker (novel), also by Edgar Rice Burroughs, was serialized. Woogee (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. The "Tarzan of the Apes" article says it was "published in the pulp magazine All-Story Magazine. . . .the first book edition was published in 1914," from which I jumped to the conclusion that it was published in installments rather than all at once; was that incorrect? 74.105.132.151 (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Good question. It isn't clear, is it? Woogee (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the large majority of US 'genre' novels of this era and quality were serialised in magazines (mostly pulp, sometimes slick) before publication in book form: that was the default publishing model, since it maximised the author's cash flow and income. (It wasn't just downmarket works, either; remember that most of Dickens' and Conan Doyle's novels were also serialised first.) Identifying any that weren't would probably be quite laborious, unless by some lucky chance someone has already done it and published the research. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, time for a new project idea then. Thanks anyway. 74.105.132.151 (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Anthony Hope's books The Prisoner of Zenda and Rupert of Hentzau also fit the bill, but are English rather than American. Steewi (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to check out Gladiator by Philip Wylie. First published in 1930 as a hardback book and was hugely influential to later pulps and superhero comics (including Superman). 64.235.97.146 (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Fielding Elliot wrote (by his estimate) 2 million words of published pulp fiction, both novels and pulp magazines, starting in 1926, before switching to mostly nonfiction military. Federal Bullets, 1936, was a crime novel. See also his novels "The eagles of death" (1930); "The purple legion : a G-man thriller" (1936); "The navy spy murders" (1937). I don't think these were serialized, but I expect some of his detective stories, horror stories, science fiction and western stories were. His pulp magazine writings are harder to find online than thee books, but one Western magazine "Western trails" Vol 14 no. 1 1933 shows up at Google Book search [9] with something by Eliot. "Alias Mr. Death: the Complete Series" By D. L. Champion, George Fielding Eliot, Harold Ward, is available from an on demand printer. It has a 9 part series from "Thrilling detective " magazine and more stories(1932-1939) which supposedly inspired "The Phantom" detective series. Edison (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has Buffett been basically managing other people's money for free? Ignoring his relatively modest compensations, wouldn't he have earned much more if his company had been run as a kind of closed end funds?

It's not for free - he has benefited from the capital he got when he initially sold shares in his company. He might well have made more money had he run it as a mutual/hedge fund rather than a company, I don't know. --Tango (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because Buffett doesn't have the simple-minded view that money is merely cash-in-pocket, he hasn't acted to try to maximize cash-in-pocket. He could have, I suppose, but consider that A-class shares of Berkshire Hathaway sell for about $100,000 per share, and Buffett is the single largest shareholder (some 38% of outstanding stock, as of 2005), well, that gets you some idea of what he is worth. The very modest $100,000 (and no stock options or other compensation) salary he is paid as CEO thereof is quite enough to provide him with a very nice standard of living, especially when coupled with his other investment income, and any money he has made from other sources, (fees for speaking engagements and the like). Consider that he pays himself the cash equivalent of a single share in his company per year, and yeah, it does seem like he is essentially working for free; except in absolute terms his salary is just fine, and he recognizes that raiding his own company by paying himself an exorbitant multi-million dollar salary (as would be industry standard for someone of his position and power) would actually hurt his net worth in the long run. --Jayron32 02:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just thinking, closed-end funds take 1-2% of assets each year. Imagine Reason (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His initial investments were in fact organized as private partnerships. It wasn't until he took over Berkshire (a struggling textile company) that his investment became "public." (He maintained a large share of the ownership personally, of course!) A smart man like Buffet knows that making money in the corporate world is all about getting higher return than your cost of capital. That means always maximizing your return, and minimizing your cost of capital. Access to public markets provided an invaluable source of capital. If you'd like to know more about his early investments, I suggest Alice Schroeder's "Snowball" from last year.NByz (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true then, that although Warren Buffett is one of the world's richest men in capital, his actual yearly income is nothing special? 78.146.52.206 (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His salary is not special, but his income, made up mostly by profits from his significant ownership of Berkshire Hathaway, is. 67.243.7.245 (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since Berkshire Hathaway does not pay a dividend, it's not obvious that he has an income from the company's profits. He could have capital gains from selling shares, but I don't know if he sells routinely. -- Coneslayer (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This question suggests that the OP doesn't understand what Berkshire is, or what the difference is between a conglomerate and a mutual fund. Even the most conservative mutual fund has a fair amount of turnover (selling of positions to buy other positions) every month. Berkshire, theoretically, could continue without ever selling anything, but merely investing the "float" from its insurance businesses and borrowing when necessary to handle short-term cashflow problems. Moreover, mutual funds never have controlling interests in companies, while Berkshire has controlling interests in something like 70 companies. Buffett does not "manage people's money"; he allocates capital derived (mostly) from the management of others (he is famously "hands-off" in relation to the owners and managers of the companies Berkshire owns). As for the hypothetical case of being a mutual fund manager and making a small commission, that amount -- even on the full market cap of Berkshire -- would be vastly smaller on an annualized basis than the actual appreciation of Buffett's Berkshire shares in the long run. Finally, Buffett has "wealth," not (except tokenly) "income." He frequently points out that his tax rates (excluding capital gains) are lower than his secretary's, a fact he employs to support higher estate taxes on the very wealthy. 63.17.60.8 (talk) 04:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which OP are you referring to please, and why does their question suggest that "the OP doesn't understand what Berkshire is, or what the difference is between a conglomerate and a mutual fund"? And wouldnt it be unreasonable to expect questioners to know that? You've also said a lot about Berkshire Hathaway but not answered any question. 89.242.243.82 (talk) 12:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does the book Lolita contain any graphic or detailed descriptions of sexual activities, or are they only referenced during the narrative? If it does contain descriptions, approximately how detailed and frequent are they? No spoilers please, just general answers.--99.251.239.89 (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No graphic or detailed descriptions. Deor (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been at least a decade since I read it but I think Lolita at one point mentions how sore she is. And if I'm remembering correctly, that's about as graphic as it gets. Dismas|^(talk) 12:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's not particularly graphic, especially in comparison to the stuff that gets published or televised now without comment, but I recall that there were passages that were expressed rather frankly. Since Dismas has already mentioned Lolita's soreness, I suppose it's not a spoiler on my part to mention that she's not a virgin at the time, to Humbert Humbert's surprise. But no, there's no details about the sexual acts themselves. 64.235.97.146 (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the episode, Picard experiences an entire lifetime, virtually but firsthand. I've heard that this is something of a retelling of a Japanese folk story - something about a man who falls asleep beneath a tree with a similar experience; he awakes to find an ant colony strikingly similar to his memory of his dream. I cannot figure out the name of this tale (it could be a story for preschoolers, for all I know) but I'd enjoy reading it. Any ideas what the name is/how to find it? Thanks! Sopwith (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first Google hit on "The Inner Light" japanese ants was our article The Dream of Akinosuke. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oo. It's always the last place you look. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sopwith (talk • contribs) 00:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first place I looked was our article The Inner Light (Star Trek: The Next Generation), but I later found it was removed in this edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of my favourite episodes. Anyway, I proposed the deleted section be reinstated. Astronaut (talk) 02:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not completely familiar with the Icelandic debt repayment referendum, 2010. But 3.8 billion euros sounds like a lot of money. Could refusal to repay a debt lead to war? ScienceApe (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No way. 3.8 billion Euros is not that much in the scheme of things, for one (compared to the GDP of most European countries it is a tiny thing), and in any case the more likely result would just be lots of negotiations, maybe sanctions, maybe various economic means of punishment/redress. But war? It's not important enough, the money is not large enough, Iceland is not threatening enough, and defaulting on a national debt can lead to numerous things other than war that are easier for everyone involved. (And how would war get the money back?) --Mr.98 (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly two of the countries involved were earlier protagonists in the Cod Wars, which saw some warning shots and mild sort-of-accidental fender-bending between ships, but in the present circumstances anything more than harsh diplomatic exchanges and some tit-for-tat legislation is vanishingly unlikely. Of course, no-one in the governments of the parties concerned will mention the W-word even to rule it out, because to do so would itself be diplomatically unacceptable. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no chance of war. Iceland could lose access to the international credit market for a time, and the EU or individual European countries might conceivably restrict trade with Iceland, but that is about as serious as it would get. Marco polo (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a chance -- invading to take that money would cost the invading country far more than it would recover. To give you an idea of how much a war costs, consider that 3.8 billion euros would cover a week and a half of the US occupation of Iraq. I can't find a number for the cost of the Falklands war, but I expect it would be even higher. --Carnildo (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The UK could run into some additional troubles if they tried: Defense of Iceland: Agreement Between the United States and the Republic of Iceland, May 5, 1951 75.41.110.200 (talk) 03:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Broader question: What are the implications for the EU if Iceland absolutely will not pay. Yes, sanctions against them, as stated farther up. But what about implications to the EU overall? If any. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since Iceland is not a member of the EU, it is not obliged by anything to pay up, nor can it suffer any consequences for not doing so. On the other hand, the EU would like to see Iceland as a full member some time in the future and is likely to avoid making moves which might increase already high levels of euroscepticism among Icelanders. So the EU is likely to see this problem as a bilateral dispute between UK and Iceland, and stay out of it altogether. However, should Iceland choose to pursue full EU membership, this is certainly going to be a major stumbling block for them as individual countries have the ability to block candidates' negotiations (in spite the fact that the European Commission often insists that bilateral issues should be kept separated from negotiations and the enlargement process). On the other hand, if Iceland rejects the idea of ever joining EU, it would enable the EU to take more action and sanctions are very likely (as the EU would have more to lose for not doing anything). As for war breaking out, chances are absolutely zero. The US would probably do nothing to defend Iceland anyway (as NATO agreement is pretty unclear what would happen in case two member countries went to war), which would leave Iceland unable to do anything to defend itself, as they have no standing army of their own. But the question is why on Earth would the British public support such a move, and what would the British do with it once they had it? The whole thing would be pretty idiotic. Timbouctou (talk) 10:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking warfare, but I was thinking more of the economic implications - a possible domino effect if a country won't pay its bills, affecting other countries' ability to pay their bills, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few billion Euros will neither break nor make major European states like the UK or the Netherlands. It looks like they are bickering around the 3-4 billion mark now. The UK and the Netherlands have a combined population of around 75 million, i.e. you are talking about 50 Euro/inhabitant. On the other side, Iceland has a population of 300000 (about as much as a mid-size town) - the sum is nearly half of its annual GDP. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really an EU issue, although as already stated it does influence the decision about membership. The implications of any country reneging on it's financial implications are much the same regardless of who they are. Implications for their credit rating, hence ability to raise funds in the future, loss of confidence in their economic model so a disincentive to invest in the country on a commercial basis as there may be doubts about the reliability of the government with respect to commercial activities and obligations.

There is nothing to prevent the UK and the Netherlands to put in place some form of trade instrument to achieve a restitution effect, although there is a general view in both economies that barriers to trade are generally a bad thing (tm) and reduced trade barriers are inherently more value generating.

ALR (talk) 10:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are some good points above, but elaborating on Timbouctou's comment there's the obvious question of why anyone would want to go to war. It's not as if Iceland has an abudance of natural resources which the Netherlands or the UK could claim for restitution. Sure the could enslave the populance or less extreme set up a puppet government which demands high taxes and sends most of it to the UK and the Netherlands but that isn't exactly an easy thing to do in this day and age and liable to be even more controversial then the war itself. Nil Einne (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In any remotely realistic context, Iceland has no military power, while Britain already has the upper hand (with the Iceland bank assets held in Britain and a veto power over further loans to Iceland), so effective means and motive for war are lacking. AnonMoos (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've calculated that this debt imposed on Iceland is on a similar size per capita as the Versailles Treaty's reparations on Germany, which I found surprising. However, I agree that a war about them is extremely unlikely. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the psychology of bullies and how does one deal with them effectively? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.89.50.196 (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any background you can share--are you a parent? A teacher? etc.--达伟 (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bullies pick on those who are vulnerable or unable to defend themselves. Your options include; become cool so that the bully won't pick on you or risk scorn from those around him who consider you a friend, join a group even a group of nerds will do because strength in numbers, or become physically stronger than the bully and simply show them through physical contact that you can inflict considerable damage to them if they bother you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fire2010 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So bullies only respect force? --95.89.50.196 (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with respect. But basically yes, bullies will back off from situations they can't win. The whole point of bulling is to intimidate and win, if the opponent is stronger there's no chance of winning and therefore no point. Someone who continues to "bully" when faced with that isn't a bully, they're a jackass and possibly mentally unstable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fire2010 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thet may apply to physical bullying or intimidation, but does not cover psychological bullying as I've tried to describe below. 89.242.243.82 (talk) 13:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bullying and school bullying may not be the most complete of articles, but they do cite a couple of studies and offer some external links relevant to the question. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is a complicated topic and one on which a lot of research has been done. While I'm sure anecdotal experience is sometimes valuable here (if we could verify it was from experience and not just derived from television, as I suspect a lot of it is), I think it probably should be avoided... --Mr.98 (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

we had a thread on this just recently at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2010_February_24#Bully_.3D_gang_with_one_person_in_it.3F. From my view, the best way to handle a bully is to make him public. Bullies thrive by being private - they isolate their victims and bully them privately, and then pretend to be nice decent upright people in public. stand up and call them bullies and liars in public, tell teachers, seek out other people who have been bullied and get them to band together, carry signs with the bully's name, sign a petition. The more the bully has to face public criticism for his/her actions, them more freaked out s/he will get. yeah, you'll take some lumps for it as the bully tries to beat you back into private silence, but... --Ludwigs2 16:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed exactly the same behaviour myself - "Bullies thrive by being private - they isolate their victims and bully them privately, and then pretend to be nice decent upright people in public." Why do they bully people in private like that? Whats the point of doing that? Is it manipulation - they want the victim to be either fearful or angry with them in front of other people? If it is, why is that? Are they prima donnas or attention seekers? 78.146.0.232 (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should really write a book about this, Ludwigs2, or at least write an essay or paper. It would help a lot of people. I'd particularly like to read the sources of where you got this from. 78.146.0.232 (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lol - I probably should write a book, but the question is whether it would end up as self-help or philosophy. most of these ideas come from political science reading. For instance, the notion of enforced privacy comes up a lot is feminist and ethnic studies. You'll see books like "Public Man, Private Woman", or some of the books by people like Cornell West, which go into great detail about how women and minorities are dominated by being forced into privacy, while white males achieve power by being given privileged access to public life. It's why, for instance, blacks were forced to sit at the back of the bus under Jim Crow laws, and why women are forced to wear veils in traditional Muslim regimes. Then you'll get people like Foucault (and a different set of feminist/ethnicist scholars) talking about dominance through isolation and surveillance. it's the 'strip club' effect, where putting someone under a spotlight and effectively stripping them of all privacy reduces them to a dominated cipher. You'll also get some of the later Marxists (Poulantzes for a good example) who talk about how political power is secured in a democracy by hyper-individuating everyone: Keep people locked in as isolated, independent, disconnected individuals, and they are incapable of wielding any political power (since political power is a function of collective action). This is basically all a bully does, a kind of microcosm of dysfunctional politics: he forces people into his private world where he has control over the situation, and tries to blind them from seeing that there's any world outside of his influence that they can turn to. That's why bullies hate snitches more than anything, because snitches force the bully into a bigger world where the bully is the one being isolated and observed.

really, the best advice I can give on the matter is to remember that a bully might beat you up, but can only control you to the extent that you allow yourself to be absorbed in his world. treat a bully like a head-cold - something unpleasant and unavoidable, to be ignored while present and forgotten when gone, or laughed about with friends - and the bully will cease to have any real power over your life. build the world you want to live in, don't accept the bully's world as a given. That takes a lot of practice, though... --Ludwigs2 21:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection I think its more a matter of secrecy rather than in private. They want to enjoy hurting the victim without getting in trouble themselves, so it has to be kept away from people with power who disaprove of bullying or people who may "rat" to such people and be believed. In my experience adult bullying is often linked to people who are incompetant at their job or have some other secret to hide and find it easier or prefer to stage-manage things rather than do a good job: they reward and like loyal people "us" who they think will support the impression the bully is trying to give to those in power (eg by lip-service etc), and they isolate disparage and discredit "them" who they think will not do that. I think they try to lower the victim's self-eateem enough so that they will not complain, and also to discredit the victim so that the victim will not be taken seriously by those in power. If they think that someone that they cannot manipulate has power over them, then they suck up to them and try to manipulate the impression they get. In my experience bullies often may only bully when they have an audience of the in-group "us", because they want to seem powerful or as a hero in their eyes. With no audience, they sometimes behave normally. Another thing they do is make the victim fearful of or annoyed with the bully, so that the audience (who are not aware of the hidden 'grooming') get a manipulated view of the victim. They also like to make their victim feel ashamed of being a victim, so that they will keep it a secret. It does not help if those in power get self-esteem from being "strong" and believe that only the "weak" are victims.

Isolating the victim seems to be a common modus operandi of bullies and serves several functions: they do not want the victim to have friends who can back-up or witness what the bully does, they do not want the victim to get power by joining up with others, they want to reduce the victims self-esteem and discredit them by turning them into a 'loner', and so on. It also lifts the esteem of the "us" or in-group to have a despised "them" out-group individual - the in-group are pleased and grateful that it is happening to someone else, not themselves. 78.147.136.183 (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, bullies can also be encountered in adult life, whether in a family, social or professional context. I nearly resigned twice from my last job because a newly appointed supervisor began bullying me (and others) and our similarly new manager refused to take action despite my (and others') complaints. In the end both were effectively dismissed at the request of our client/host management for other (though not totally unrelated) reasons. In properly run organisations, there should be a grievance procedure to turn to, although in the case described it was blocked by the very individuals concerned. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you deal with bullies? By peaceful protest. As Ludwig said, make sure everyone knows what they're doing, but don't return cruelty with cruelty. It's hard, you'll suffer for it, but peaceful protest is the best way to turn people against the bully. Of course, that's a long-term system. Short term, you may still get beat up/harrassed and have trouble getting people on your side. In a school-environment, you also have to be careful your own protests aren't seen as harassing the bully, or the whole thing will backfire badly. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me I read someplace that Gandhi conceded that passive resistance would not have worked against the Nazis. Sometimes the method used in Romania becomes necessary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we're referring to bullies here, not homicidal idealogues. So I don't think that's a problem. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In practical terms it would be helpful to keep a diary where you record what the bully said or did, and when and where they did this, and who was present. You could secretly record or video the bully on a mobile phone, although I expect most of the time they do not do anything bad so you would be lucky to catch them in the act. Organisations should have clear anti-bullying policies, a code of conduct for staff, and a designated independant and impartial person to whom complaints can be made without fear of reprisal. Discuss the bullying with friends - do not keep quiet about it due to shame, which is exactly what the bully wants - and join up with other victims if you can to jointly complain about the bullying. 78.146.52.206 (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly recommend against "secret recordings," as that could get you charged with a crime. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think writing down what someone said or did would be a crime anywhere except perhaps North Korea. Secretly recording someone might be in some countries - I do not think it is in the UK as it is often used in investigative TV. I expect the latter depends on the reason you are doing it. I understand that public interest is a defence against the strict libel laws in the UK. 89.242.243.82 (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How would the straight guy feel toward a homosexual male who has a crush on him? The same goes for women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.120.162 (talk) 03:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it depends entirely upon the indiviidual. The reactions will range from smiling acceptance of a compliment to rage, and everything in between. Bielle (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The typical straight male might well wonder what's wrong with himself, that a gay male would find him attractive. How likely is that scenario, though? How many straight males are attracted to lesbians, for example? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How likely? Very likely. What visually distinguishes a lesbian from a straight woman? Or a straight male from a gay male? Leaving aside totally inaccurate stereotypes of how different people dress and behave, the answer is - nothing. Some of the lesbians I've known are forever fending off advances from men. A straight man could easily be attracted to a lesbian without knowing she's a lesbian. A gay man could easily be attracted to another man without knowing whether he's straight, gay or indifferent. Some of the sexiest men on the planet are, unfortunately, irredeemably straight, but that doesn't stop gay men from being attracted to them. And these days, it's much more likely that a man would feel somewhat chuffed that another person finds him attractive, regardless of the sex of that other person. Doesn't mean he's going to jump into bed with the guy, but equally he wouldn't get all defensive and uptight about it. It is, after all, a compliment, and not some sort of threat. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To a "traditional" straight man, being attractive to a gay man could raise questions in his mind about his own masculinity. However, attractiveness is hard to figure. I always thought Rosie O'Donnell was kinda cute, although I would have had 0 chance with her. Meanwhile, I never have been able to figure out what's supposed to be so hot about Paris Hilton. Meanwhile, Rosie supposedly had a thing for Tom Cruise, a guy with such broad appeal that even lesbians find him cute, evidently. It can be complicated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One wonders how typical straight man might be defined in this context? Attraction is in itself a one way relationship, although as individuals we may attempt to stimulate an attraction from another we have no clarity around how that effort might stimulate attraction in others.

The root of the question seems to be more oriented towards how one might react to being found attractive by another from outside the expected frame of reference.

It might be useful to consider that one might identify another as attractive without being attracted to, inasmuch as the characteristics are recognised but do not stimulate the response. In any case the range of behaviours amongst ostensibly gay men is extremely wide, in the same way that the range of behaviours in ostensibly straight men is also wide. To an extent it also depends on how the attraction is evidenced, a comment is a very different thing to a physical expression of the emotion and even that ranges from benign to explicitly sexual, some of which are acceptable, some aren't.

Reflecting on the comments above, and my own view, it doesn't bother me, I'm flattered and somewhat bemused that anyone finds me attractive. I have friends who are lesbian and I find extremely attractive, we have a bit of a laugh, flirt, tease one another but recognise that it's unlikely to go beyond that. Of course I've had comments from people who saw that and didn't realise my friends sexuality about what the rest of my night might have been like. I'm also quite comfortable with a little flirting with gay friends, and again it's recognised that it'll be no more than that. Of course I've not always been that comfortable.

ALR (talk) 11:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The full range occurs in both situations. I've had good reactions and bad (I'm male). Contrary to some people's expectations, the same reactions can be seen in a woman's reactions to a lesbian crush on them. The bad feelings seem to be primarily a bit of disgust, because they can't help picturing the possibility. Some people are fearful that something might happen, or that the other will force themselve on them, or insecurity over their loss of masculinity/femininity. Of fear of being associated, or that someone thought they were gay. Steewi (talk) 06:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the extreme reaction, see The_Jenny_Jones_Show#The_.22Same_Sex_Crushes.22_controversy and Gay panic defense... AnonMoos (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's usually insecure straight male would feel threatened by romantic crush from gay male. Straight male celebrities generally welcome a gay male fan base, for example. --Kvasir (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How hard would it be to say "I'm flattered, really, but I like the girls." I heard a female trainer at a health club say this to a guy who was a new member. Couldn't a straight guy just as easily say it to another guy who seemed to be hitting on him?" And contrariwise, mutatis mutandis for all possible juxtapositions of preference? Edison (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that hard, really, but reality implies that some people find it quite difficult. Steewi (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be difficult if one was not flattered, as that answer would be insincere-to-dishonest. More to the point, still polite, would be something like, "I'm into women. Thanks anyway." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering why a straight man who might be flattered by the attentions of a woman, would be something-other-than-flattered by the attentions of another man. He might not be interested in doing anything about it in any case - because he's married or in a relationship, for example. But that doesn't stop the sense of pleasure in knowing that someone else finds him attractive and sexy. Why would he alter his feelings depending on the sex of the other person? If the other person simply said "I like you and want to be your friend", that would be entirely acceptable no matter what the other's sex was. But if the proposal (possibly unspoken) is something rather more intimate than that, the man still has control over the situation, and can choose to either let it happen, or not. I don't get why a sense of offence, or worse, self-doubt, would enter into it. Unless one really did come from an antediluvian school of morality. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural conditioning, stigma, fear of the unknown all kinds of reasons.

Couple that with the societal mixed messages over homosexuality and it could be quite intimidating for an individual. Lots of homoerotic banter and behaviour is permissible as long as it's perceived as banter. There is some form of arbitrary line where it becomes less generally acceptable.

I imagine it's all wrapped up in the slightly victorian attitudes in some western societies to sexuality in general.

ALR (talk) 09:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The extreme case would be that talk show guest who was told by his homosexual neighbor that he had a crush on him, and he ended up shooting him. In general, it's not got to do with "morality"; it's got to do with, "if a gay finds me attractive, I must be gay myself". Which is a rather narcissistic, brainless, George Costanza-like conclusion, but that's show biz. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following this. First up, you said that the typical straight male might well wonder what's wrong with himself, that a gay male would find him attractive. Now, you're saying it's a narcissistic, brainless, George Costanza-like conclusion. Does the typical male frequently jump to such weird conclusions, or only in relation to homoerotic matters? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I admit I'm not being very complimentary to the apparent intelligence level of my stereotypical straight male brethren, and it wouldn't be the first time. :) Realistically, gays don't generally hit on straights; at least where I come from they don't. So it's more of a theoretical issue than a real issue. Which is probably why Seinfeld made fun of it. Not that there's anything wrong with that. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that we've digressed from the original question. The original answer, the somewhat weaselly-sounding , "It depends on the individual", is in fact about the best answer there is, barring a citation on the matter, which I'm not seeing here. So let me pose a somewhat better theory than my original comment: Some folks are simply flattered by attention, so they could be pleased regardless of its source. Others are thinking more in terms of opportunities to get laid, so the attention of an opposite-sex person would be of interest, while the attention of a same-sex person would not. (Or vice-versa if the subject is gay rather than straight). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved my response because it just didn't flow where it "should" have been placed.I think Jack's question is actually more answerable, so I'll try to focus on that. I think there are two related things at play. First, I think a lot of people (of either orientation) seem to think they possess a kind of "gaydar" - they can spot one of "them" at a glance. So, when a straight guy gets propositioned by a gay male, there's probably a feeling of shock where they are forced to consider why they're setting off someone else's "gaydar". The second, related, issue comes from the point that men of either orientation are out to attract something in particular. Even if you're in a committed relationship it is, as you say, nice to know people find you attractive. Part of why we flirt is to elicit that very response. But to a narrow-minded straight male, attracting a homosexual indicates that his "lure" is seriously out of whack - it would be like blowing a duck call and catching a fish. Both these things would cause the narrow one to question his sexuality, which is often a complicated and extremely emotional jumble of conflicting drives. Now place this naturally confused individual in a backdrop of hypocritical puritanism and gay-bashing and I think it's easy enough to see why even a nominally non-homophobic male can get in a bad place. Hopefully, as we work at improving the backdrop, it will become less and less of an issue and make things less volatile all around. 64.235.97.146 (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Agent 64, that makes a lot of sense when you put it that way. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing the article above and this page.

Which one's right? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not ours. It might be good to ask Haploidavey (talk · contribs), who has been working on our gladiator article for while. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My conclusion is, accordingly, that there is no evidence whatever for the much-quoted salute of the gladiators. The only two ancient references, those in Suetonius and in Dio, refer not to gladiators but to naumachiarii, men condemned to die, and even these references are to one specific episode, the circumstances of which indicate that the supposed salute was not even a regular salute of the naumachiarii. Leon, HJ. (1939) "Morituri Te Salutamus." Transactions of the American Philological Association, 70, 46-50. [10].

—eric 06:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm working on this article and have a follow-up question (not being a linguist):

Suetonius states "Morituri te salutant". Cassius cites it as "οἱ ἀπολούμενοί σε ἀσπαζόμεθα". The difference in tenseperson is noted in the literature. Can someone who knows Latin and Ancient Greek dissect the 7 words in these expressions word by word for me, and indicate the roots, the prefixes/suffixes indicating their tenses/person, and the names for the applicable tenses? Basically a linguistic dissection of their native meanings. Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Question corrected - see below. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what difference in tense you're talking about. The Latin and Greek expressions mean the same thing, "we who are about to die salute you."

morituri--nominative masculine plural, future participle active, from the verb morior, 'die'

te--accusative singular form of the personal pronoun tu, 'you'

salutant--3rd person plural, present indicative active, from the verb saluto, 'greet, salute, pay one's respects to'

οἱ--nominative masculine plural of the definite article ὁ, 'the'

ἀπολούμενοί--nominative masculine plural, future participle middle, from the verb ἀπόλλῡμι, 'destroy utterly'; in the middle voice, this verb means 'perish, die'.

σε--accusative singular form of the personal pronoun σύ, 'you'

ἀσπαζόμεθα--1st person plural, present indicative middle/passive, from the verb ἀσπάζομαι, 'greet, salute, welcome kindly'. This verb is deponent, which means that the middle/passive voice has the meaning of the active voice.

I hope that's helpful. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you were talking about a difference in person, not tense. The Latin verb salutant is 3rd person plural, the Greek verb ἀσπαζόμεθα is 1st person plural. I suppose it's better to translate the Latin as "they who are about to die salute you," then. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (and yes, I meant "person" not "tense"). Two last quickies -

1. "They" or "those"? "Those" probably works better in English but is it equally accurate?
2. What would the plural of "naumachia" be?

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "those" is equally accurate. The plural of naumachia is naumachiae. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all, I think I have my answers for this article now. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I keep seeing Dept. of Defense media and news sources referring to troops engaged in Operation Helmand Spider in Helmand Province. The sources are not clear as to the relation between the 2 operations. Is it related at all to Operation Moshtarak, e.g. a component of it? Thanks. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 06:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was Iraq an unprovoked attack like Pearl Harbor? If so, would Iraq have been justified in nuking two large American cities until America capitulated? 82.113.121.95 (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speculation, not an appropriate ref desk question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, though, if Iraq actually had had nukes to nuke us with, then our reason for invading would have been proven. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first part of the question is not so speculative. Answering it is tricky - just ask Tony Blair about the Dodgy Dossier. And I'd encourage you to ask yourself if Pearl Harbor was 100% unprovoked? --Dweller (talk) 12:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Iraq invasion was not unprovoked. It had been building to that point for a long time, and Saddam knew it was coming unless he was a total idiot. Hence it was not a sneak attack like Pearl Harbor, which was more like 9/11. Also, the reason given for invading was that Iraq was alleged to be a nuclear threat, so if Iraq had nuked us, that would have proven that we were justified to invade, i.e. that our claims about them having nukes were true. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm. The Dodgy Dossier was based on a claim of biological weapons, not nuclear. And I'm sure that the Japanese didn't believe the Pearl Harbor attack was 100% unprovoked. If you're going to read history, you need to clear your mind of preconceptions and bias. One man's provocation is another man's irrelevance. --Dweller (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I think you (BB) have the wording wrong. The alleged reason was that Iraq was developing WMDs (including nuclear weapons). Or, to be more cynical, it was alleged that Iraq was developing WMDs to have a reason to invade. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the invadee can see it coming is not very relevant to the question of provocation, imho. —Tamfang (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Events leading to the attack on Pearl Harbor outlines a number of points that would have been considered provocations by the Japanese at that time. --Dweller (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are three historical questions here. 1. Was Pearl Harbor totally unprovoked? (Depends who you ask.) 2. Was the Iraq War totally unprovoked? (Depends who you ask.) 3. Did Pearl Harbor justify the U.S. using atomic weapons on Japan? (Depends who you ask.) Note that in the latter question, the usual justification for the atomic bombs is not Pearl Harbor (though it sometimes comes up), but instead concerns about ending the war promptly. (Which is itself not necessarily factually true, or even if it was, agreed to be morally justified.) There could be another question: 3a. If the answer to 3 is "yes," would it then have justified Iraq using nuclear weapons? (Which is a tricky leap.) All three of these are interesting questions but ones on which even very excellent historians would and will disagree. Not a one of them has an objective, neutral answer forthcoming—all of them are about fuzzy definitions ("provoked", "[morally] justified") and subtle historical nuance (what is enough of a provocation to justify war?). I'm not sure the Ref Desk is going to do better than the historians on this one—this is just going to be a debate. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If anybody cares, my personal takes on the three are 1. not "totally" (but that doesn't justify it), 2. not "totally" (but that doesn't justify it), 3. no (but that doesn't mean I think the atomic bombs were totally unjustified/immoral), 3a. I'm not sure that we can talk about nuclear weapons pre-Hiroshima and post-Hiroshima in the same moral terms (there is a city-bombing taboo now that is quite different than it was in 1945, and so using a nuke today must have a much, much higher threshold than it did back then). A classic fence-sitting historian if ever there was one! --Mr.98 (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question is a prime example of trolling and I can't believe people are actually discussing this. User:Baseball Bug should have ended the discussion when they orginally objected to it. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the troll, sorry. I see a provocative question, but I don't think it's trolling. If the poster came back and goaded people on with silly comments, then yes, but the question is not itself inherently trollish, even if it is controversial. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the removal. I don't see speculation here. I see one factual question, and one question about its implications. Both are valid questions, if controversial. If it slides into endless debate we should can it, but it's not an invalid question. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question is meaningless as it depends on your definition of "provocation" - the word is so ambiguous and especially so in a historical context, that it doesn't mean much out of a propagandist context. Was Argentina "provoked" into invading Falklands? Was Germany "provoked" into invading Poland? It all depends on whose story you are reading. Pearl Harbor will be labelled as "unprovoked" by Americans, but it could just as easily be described as "pre-emptive" in Japan. The same thing could be said for Iraq. In order to avoid such issues, historians usually distinguish reasons and causes for wars, with the former meaning event that served as an excuse for starting a war and the latter events that led up to the rising tensions and what belligerents stood to gain from it. Contrary to nationalist ideologies (which are pretty much the same all over the world), very few wars were triggered simply by an isolated incident - but almost all of them were started becase one of the parties involved wanted to declare war (because of public opinion and/or the government's viewpoint). Public opinion is more often than not riled up by claiming that the nation is being "provoked". For the same reason, belligerents who occupy a previously foreign territory always claim that they are "liberating it", regardless of what the legal status of the territory is or what the local population thinks of this (you could rarely hear about Argentinians saying that they wished to "occupy" the Falklands or George Bush saying that the US is going into Iraq to "occupy it" - which is also a word describing an ideological construct, just from a different perspective). So labelling something as being provoked or unprovoked is just marketing speak in the business of selling war to the public. Provocation is whatever the person holding a gun wants it to be. Timbouctou (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well-stated. I had been thinking about 1939 earlier. I'm sure Hitler would have argued that he "had to" invade Poland, for any number of reasons. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There's a meta discussion of this question taking place on the talk page. Buddy431 (talk) 06:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The best I can come up with is that the Bush War was unreasonable, unnecessary, unjustified, irrational, perverse, illegal, unpardonable, groundless, inexcusable, unwarranted, unprovoked, out of all proportion, needless, pointless, excessive, and, most damning of all, avoidable. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you work for the US State Department, your opinion is not admissible as evidence. Googlemeister (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I find the views of how to achieve economic goals on the website of NDP, Conservative Party and Liberal Party of Canada? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.183 (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the difficulty in finding this sort of information. The optimal strategy for most political parties is to speak in generalities about economic goals. By making a lot of positive statements and avoiding anything controversial, they provoke a lot of "Oh, that makes sense, this party must be right." and avoid alienating people with specific views along the left-right spectrum. The NDP.ca and conservative.ca sites each have a "Plan" section, although only the NDP site mentions any specifics; it includes several populist statements and few figures. A good way to find out how the parties differ is through the debates. Good debate moderators will try to make the candidates reveal in their responses, how their policies differ by juxtaposing them against an other party. If anyone knows of a good independent and unbiased blog or website that organizes the various parties statements and policies by area of economic concern, I'd be very happy to know about it too!NByz (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.ndp.ca/platform

http://www.conservative.ca/?section_id=5317&section_copy_id=106960&language_id=0

These seem to be the best descriptions on the websites.NByz (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Can I also recommend directly ringing the headquarters, candidates, or elected members of these parties? Most politicians worth knowing about are always happy to take calls from the electorate, either directly or through their staff, and would almost certainly be pleased as punch to direct you to information about their current policies. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific way to earn the Spanish/Portuguese title of Don? And who is it that decides this?I've read the Wikipedia article but it doesn't explain the current day process or exact requirements. Thank for any help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.111.102.76 (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a title, like Duke or King or something like that, its a style, the equivalent of the english term "Sir". Basically, a more formal style than "Mr." Its usage depends on whether or not its being used in Italian, Portuguese, or Spanish usage. According to the article, Don (honorific), the most restrictive usage appears to be in Spain, where it is reserved for those of royal extraction, what the French used to call Prince du Sang. Portugal followed a similar practice, but the monarch could also grant it as an honorific to certain individuals. This is moot today, since both Portugal and Brazil are today republics, and the term in those countries now only applies to the clergy. In Italy, apparently, the title of "Don" was afforded to any non-ruling member of the nobility. Again, however, since of these only Spain is a monarchy, the style is only used in an official capacity in that country. --Jayron32 04:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Letters in Spain are usually addressed formally as (for example) Señor Don Felipe Gomez, etc. The title Don is still used by older people for professionals of some social importance such as a doctor or a priest. "I have just seen my doctor, Don Alvaro." The first name only being used. Richard Avery (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the British could stop Axis ships from entering or leaving the Meditteranean by having big guns on Gibraltar, then why could not the English Channel be blocked from Dover in the same way? The Strait of Gibralter is 8 miles wide, the channel is 21 miles wide. 78.146.0.232 (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In effect, the British blocked both seaways, although not only by guns, but also by aircraft and warships. It's harder for the Channel as it is wider, and the opposite coast was in the enemy's hand. Land-based guns and aircraft stationed near Calais can make the Channel much more dangerous for British warships and aircraft. But the Channel Dash was remarkable as probably the only time an axis force passed the Channel - and that by some of the fastest and best-equipped warships of the Germans, with heavy air cover and both surprise and luck on their side. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. It is not as if the Axis were cruising through the channel with warships frequently. The British had more important things to worry about. And it is not like they did not have any coastal batteries at Dover. Googlemeister (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then of course there's the problem that the Mediteranean is a "dead end" and so can be effectively blockaded at one point; while La Manche is open at both ends, and the western end is considerably wider than at its eastern. Sure, you could stop ships at Dover, but German ships in the Atlantic could approach from the Land's End side much easier. --Jayron32 04:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only big guns at Dover capable of reaching the far side at the time of the Channel Dash (14-inch guns named "Winnie" and "Pooh") were set-up for shore bombardment rather than shooting at fast warships. Consequently they only made some big splashes when it really mattered. As a result, two better equipped 15-inch guns were installed ("Clem" and "Jane"), but the horse had already bolted. See the Cross-Channel guns in the Second World War article. Alansplodge (talk) 09:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there was a business project which had a 75% of losing all the money invested in it, but a 25% chance of returning ten times as much money, then would it in principle be possible to finance it using modern financial techniques or instruments? Thanks 78.146.0.232 (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that this is the type of thing you'd want to finance by pure equity (meaning an "ownership interest" be it corporate stocks, a partnership agreement or a VC type ownership agreement) since any debt financing would probably be pretty costly. Once/If it reached the "ten times" scenario, then you could "cash out" some of that equity by taking on debt and paying out the original owners a little bit, leading to a more typical capital structure (assuming it was still a self-sustaining business at the point). In real life, many tech startups are like this. They tend to be initially financed by Venture Capital or Angel investors who demand either a big equity stake or a big convertible debt stake to offset the higher risk. I'm not sure how stock options would come into play here except they tend to be offered to interest and encourage skilled employees to come on board and give it their best.NByz (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention that the typical life cycle of a startup company in a high risk field is:

1)Venture Capital/Angel investor/Private individual or partnership until proof of concept

2)Public markets (IPO) or sale to a larger organization after the concept has been proven but before a distribution network or the necessary infrastructure is in place and (also it's usually good to get some debt in the capital structure at this point if there is an opportunity for profit in the near term as interest payments are deductible)

3) Secondary offerings and public debt markets (bonds) as the company gains scale. NByz (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, not to keep going here, but the expected return of this investment (E(r)) is 250% (10*.25+0*.75). It will be possible to finance any project that has an expected return of greater than the cost of capital at that particular level of risk. It's hard to say exactly what the cost of capital the market will bear for a project like this. The cost of capital for various levels of risk increases at a higher than linear rate (people are risk averse), and it will vary based on market conditions (risk costs/pays a lot when things look bad like during a financial crisis). It will also depend on the time frame (a 10 times return in 10 years is only 25.9% annualized). Sorry for all the technical stuff, I've just been doing a lot of finance work lately.NByz (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, although it did not seem technical to me. 78.146.0.232 (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...of a country purposefully bombing its own cities/attacking its own citizens in some manner, then blaming it on a foreign power - as a means to rile the People up into a sense of patriotic outrage and serve as an excuse to go to war? I've heard loads of conspiracy theories but in all of history, has it ever actually happened for real? I'm not thinking of any one event in particular here, just for what it's worth and I'm not trying to advance any conspiracy theories myself. Just interested in finding out more about it. Is there a given name for this type of ploy? --95.148.106.148 (talk) 04:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See USS Maine (ACR-1). The ship sank in Havana Harbor in 1898; the cause of its sinking is still entirely unknown. It was likely not purposefully sunk, however the sinking was blamed on the Spanish by the U.S. government, and used as a pretext for the Spanish American War, which went somewhat disasterously for the Spanish. While it is proposed (but unlikely) that the Americans sunk their own ship, it is more likely that they knew it wasn't the Spanish that sunk it, but let the rest of the country believe that it was to drum up support for the coming war. --Jayron32 04:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And then there was the Mukden Incident, which was the bombing of a section of Japanese-owned railway in Manchuria that the empire used as pretext to invade. It wasn't proven to be the Japanese, but the possibility of conspiracy is accepted as much stronger than that of the attack on the Maine. —Akrabbim^talk 04:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

see Category:False flag operations.—eric 05:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Gleiwitz incident fits the bill. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another famous example advocated by 9/11 conspiracy theorists is that 9/11 was a false flag operation. --Kvasir (talk) 05:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similar people make a similar claim about Pearl Harbor. They claim that the U.S. government had full knowledge that Japan was going to attack, but felt that the attack would bolster support for entering the war. In the case of Pearl Harbor, they aren't claiming that the U.S. bombed their own ships. They are claiming that the U.S. knowingly let it happen. The funny thing is that there are conspiracy theorists on the opposite side that claim the Japanese government had full knowledge of the planned bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but felt they would bolster waning Japanese support for the war. It seems that every devastating event is prime ground for conspiracy theorists to pick through the evidence, throw away anything that makes sense, and use what is left to make up claims about conspiracy. -- kainaw™ 06:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was an incident in Croatia in 1993 in which an artillery attack on the city of Šibenik was apparently staged by the Croatians, but this was done for show before a TV crew and did not (directly) cause any serious damage. See here.--Rallette (talk) 09:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the article on Operation Himmler there is mention that several Germans was killed by German undercover units (although probably unintentional), in the succesful attempt at creating a legitimate cause for the attack on Poland. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident was a pretext to the U.S. accelerating the Vietnam War, although that was not a case of the U.S. bombing itself, but was more like the Maine. There's a connection between Pearl Harbor and 9/11, in that opponents of the U.S. entry into World War II and the acceleration of the "War on Terror", respectively, made claims that the U.S. "let it happen" or even "made it happen"; namely, right-wing, isolationist Republicans, and left-wing conspiracy theorists, respectively. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other suspected cases:

• The Russian apartment bombings are strongly suspected of being caused by the Russian government to justify the Chechen war.
• The strategy of tension in Italy saw right-wing groups conduct terrorist bombings and blame them on left wing organisations (who also carried out terrorist acts such as the murder of Aldo Moro); many people suspect that the US government, Greek right-wing junta, and possibly Italian governments were involved.
• Many people suspect that the Turkish government was responsible for the Taksim Square massacre.
• Reichstag fire. --Normansmithy (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also see agent provocateur. StuRat (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some people or organisations treat people according to written or unwritten codes of conduct, laws etc. Others treat people according to the personal relationship they have with them, and laws or codes of conduct are disregarded or may not exist.

The latter would be called authoritarianism. But what would the former be called, in fields such as sociology, psychology, management, politics, and so on? Thanks 78.146.52.206 (talk) 11:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll probably find what you're after at Leadership#Leadership_styles.

ALR (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but none of the four types described there correspond to the former type above. 78.146.52.206 (talk) 11:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, personally I'd disagree with your characterisation of the latter point as authoritarian.

In leadership theory you'd consider relationships, explicit regulation, implicit regulation and archetypes within the organisation. You'd also consider a number of spectra; power distance, comfort with ambiguity, masculinity/ femininity.

Your question appears to hinge around the explicit/ implicit regulation issue and power distance. An authoritarian style would tend towards explicit regulation and high power distance ie a hierarchical structure. A style that works more with implicit regulation and low power distance would tend towards a more participative.

Without context for your question that's about as much as we can say for the moment.

ALR (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also guanxi for an example of one type of power system (and two closely related analogues: Wasta, Blat).--达伟 (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, a fictional example could be a traffic warden or traffic cop who tends to give out parking fines to people she does not like, while letting her friends relatives or men she fancies off. Another traffic cop does things by the rules and disregards any relationships, even fining her friends relatives and boyfriend if need be.

So the contrast is taking action or making decisions (including doing nothing) on the basis of attending to the rules or codes of conduct and disregarding the personal relationship; or doing so on the basis of the personal relationship and disregarding rules and codes of conduct. 78.147.136.183 (talk) 14:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's clearer. I think what you're getting at is more around how one approaches the regulation applied to the authority relationship. There is some work around how closely individuals adhere to the regulations around their role, and wheat level of pragmatism is applied. There are two aspects to what you describe; situating the application and consistency around the application. In the example you're talking about the pragmatism is applied to the relationship, not the situation.

I don't recall seeing anything formal, although there is bound to be something as the whole issue of power relationships is quite a big area of psychological study. What you're essentially getting at is nepotism.

ALR (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I was asking about was the non-nepotism (as you call it) case. Anyway, I'm not sure nepotism would be the best word for the fictional scenario I described. 84.13.30.185 (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The former could be legalistic or impartial or principled or simply just or fair. Or to use a slightly old-fashioned word untouchable, in the sense of The Untouchables. I'm not sure that the latter is authoritarian; authoritarianism implies ruthless enforcement of rules and controlling leadership, but if someone is letting their friends get away with murder then they're not being authoritarian, they're being biased, arbitrary, or corrupt.--Normansmithy (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think many people treat people in a personal way due to ignorance. I can imagine myself in their shoes and see that to them, it is a throughly good thing to be biased (although that is not a word they would use) to your friends and relations since they are good people, while people you dislike are bad people. They have the idea that you should judge (their impression of) the whole person rather than just their behaviour. (Unfortunately their judgement of others is overwhelmed by their personal liking or disliking and the halo effect, and popular stereotypes and other folk-psychology).

As the OP, the real aim of this question is to find a vocabulary I can use to try to gently persuade such people that they must instead be objective and rule-based in their judgements. They do not see themselves as corrupt, they see themselves as good honest people, and may believe they have superior judgement to others. Telling them they are corrupt is just going to alienate them and not be believed. What vocabluary or form of words could I use? 78.149.193.118 (talk) 11:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I pay a certain amount every month on my mortgage (which includes insurance as well). I was wondering what that math is that would let me calculate the impact of me paying extra (I think I can pay extra towards principal directly) on my monthly payments, and on the number of payments (years) I will be paying off my mortgage.

Basically I was looking for a way to confirm either:

• If I pay $50 more a month I will only pay for 29, instead of 30 years
• If I pay $50 more a month, my monthly payment will be X less a year.

Thanks! Chris M. (talk) 12:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you pay back interst and capital, the formula from present value is the following:

${\displaystyle Loan={X}{\frac {1-(1+i)^{-n}}{i^{(12)}}}\,}$

where payments are made at the end of each month, Loan is the outstanding amount you borrowed, i is the current annual interest rate from your contract, n is the number of years left, X is your annual repayment and

${\displaystyle (1+{\frac {i^{(12)}}{12}})^{12}=1+i}$

Using the current interest rate, you can set up the equation and then see what happens to n when X goes up by 12x$50 (I don't understand your second bullet). There will be all sorts of other funny fees/charges/stipulations which should be in your contract. This exercise will be much easier if you do it on a spreadsheet - you can use one line for each future cashflow and see what happens when things change. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second bullet was a question of mine. I pay a certain amount that is interest every month. I would think if my principal were lower I would have less interest accumlated and then have to pay less. But then again, I clearly don't know how this works (hence the question). I'll try to work out a spreadsheet for you. Chris M. (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was that you pay a fix amount each month: a portion of that goes to paying interest and a portion goes to paying off the principal you borrowed. But the monthly payment doesn't change over time. Is that right? If that is right, then the interest portion decreases over time but the principal portion increases over time so that total payment stays the same. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are right because I guess I've paid the same amount for 6 months. But I tried out your math above. I tried to calculate the principal with my rate and years and payment, with this in excel (C2 is year payment, B2 is interest, D2 is years left):

=C2*((1-POWER((1+B2),(-1)*D2))/POWER(B2,12))

What I got was a loan amount of 7.1621E+18. What did I do wrong? Chris M. (talk) 13:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was counting escrow before, When I fix it to only count yearly principal and interest, I get 5.4E+18. Chris M. (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't clear - you need the second equation to work out the ${\displaystyle i^{(12)}}$. So if i is 5%, then ${\displaystyle i^{(12)}=12*((1+5\%)^{\frac {1}{12}}-1)}$, which is 4.889...%. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So in your formula where it says

POWER(B2,12)

it should say

(12*((1+B2)^(1/12)-1))

. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most lenders will do these calculations for you, if you either go for a visit or phone them. they will take the guesswork out of all this. Some lenders have online calculators that will do the work too. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way the answer to the second one is "If I pay $50 more a month, my monthly payment will be $50 more". DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for whether paying your mortgage off early makes financial sense, that depends on what other interest rates you're paying. Since the interest rate on a home mortgage is usually the lowest interest rate anyone pays, it makes more sense to pay off higher interest rate loans, such as credit cards, first. Only after all those are payed off would increasing your mortgage payment be in your financial interest. StuRat (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think it prudent not only to eliminate all higher-interest debt before considering accelerated mortgage repayment, but also to amass enough savings to be able to cover one's expenses, including minimum mortgage payments, for at least a year. In this economic environment, you never know when you might face an extended period of unemployment. Marco polo (talk) 15:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you Google "mortgage calculator prepayment" there are many calculators that will figure this out for you. Another thing I really recommend if at all possible is to refinance into a 15 year loan, which costs more per month, of course, but it saves an enormous amount of money over time. 74.212.140.226 (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to consider the tax implications of paying down your mortgage early. In the United States, mortgage interest is (usually) deductible on your income taxes. See IRS Publication 936: Home Mortgage Interest Deduction. —D. Monack ^talk 01:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I paid off my mortgage early in the past, but now I think that was a mistake. What I should have done is to have used my spare cash (and the equity I had in my house) to buy more houses for buy to let. If I had done that I would have been much wealthier than I am now, due to rises in house prices since then. As someone is going to point out, if house prices were to fall then you would be much worse off. 78.149.193.118 (talk) 11:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dehra Dun, India. There are several Tibetan refugee communities in the Dehra Dun area. In addition, there is the main monastery of the head of the Kargyu lineage. Finally, there are 3-4 Tibetan Residential Centers to provide Tibetan children a place to live while they are studying in Class I through Class XII. I believe that all of these items should be mentioned under the Wikipedia topic "Dehra Dun."

Phillips Kindy, Jr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.167.245 (talk) 14:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If you think that this information belongs in our article, and particularly if you can cite sources for the information, then you should add it to the article. Marco polo (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Both my parents died by the time I was 15,and I have no other relatives alive today.I am trying to research my American grand father,and would like to obtain a copy of his birth certificate. HOW WOULD I DO THIS? I am living in London and i am a British citizen,my father was also born in Britain.

If i can obtain a copy of my fathers Birth certificate,with my Grand father noted on ths certificate,I presume with his name,and if noted his state of U.S. birth,I might then be able to contact that U.S. state office for a copy of my grand fathers birth certificate.

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Fluter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.86.15.15 (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, you need to know your grandfather's name and place of birth. It is likely far easier to know his name and location of death. Death records are public records, so if you know where his death is recorded, you can simply ask for it. From there, you can search obituaries for further information that will (hopefully) lead to his place of birth. Then, you can ask for his birth certificate. -- kainaw™ 16:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The General Register Office on London Southport holds copies of birth certificates for England and Wales; the General Register Office for Scotland in Edinburgh holds them for Scotland and the General Register Office (Northern Ireland) (which goes by the delicious acronym GRONI) in Belfast holds them for Northern Ireland. All are well used to providing genealogical information, including providing copies of certificates. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 16:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You will not need a copy of you father's birth certificate in order to get your grandfather's. There is no central U.S. birth registry or even necessarily any statewide one. You may need to request the information from the county or town he was born in, depending on the local system the information may not be publically available at all. And birth records are not uniformly complete. In some places they do not exist for pre-1920. Sites like this one can help with the procedures. Rmhermen (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Father's BC may show grandfather's date and place of birth, which would help. —Tamfang (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry.com is a subscription website which allows quick searches of millions of records of birth, death, marriage, military service, and immigration, It has a great many family trees already assembled by genealogists. There are also bulletin boards where queries can be made. It might save you a lot of random poking through records. Old U.S. census records through 1930 are also online there. They also have UK records, including birth records showing mother's maiden name and presumably father's name. Edison (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry is a pay site: the initial searches are free, but then if you want to see anything you have to pay for the information. I'd make two suggestions, based on the fact you are based in London: the first is that your local library should have free access to Ancestry, so make a visit there. The other is to visit the National Archives in Kew [11]. Their really helpful (if increasingly overworked!) staff will be able to point you in the right direction. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russia observes daylight saving time. Moscow is 3 hours ahead of GMT in winter and 4 hours ahead in summer. According to various sources on the web, Russia Railways use a single time zone, Moscow time, across the country. Does it mean Russian trains switch time zone twice a year every spring and autumn? How does the railway system do this during the daylight saving switch? Besides, for the international train K19 (China's code) / 019 (Russia's code) from Beijing to Moscow, since China does not observe daylight saving time, if Russia Railways does, does it mean the train spend one more hour in summer than in winter for the same trip from Beijing to Moscow? And it is weird, but according to the timetable at http://www.citsusa.com/train.htm , train K19/019 leaves Manzhouli in China at 07:01 Beijing time, and arrive Zabaikalsk in Russia at 02:26 Moscow time, if it was in summer, the train would leave at 23:01 GMT and arrive at 22:26 GMT, how can a train arrives before its departure? How does daylight saving apply to Russian railway system, need clarify. Thanks! Python eggs (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The times on that timetable really don't make sense. I suspect that they contain typos or calculation errors. I would look for a timetable from the Russian or Chinese railway authority. As for daylight savings time in Russia, see our article European Summer Time. Marco polo (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am only interested in how daylight saving affect the railway system. If they follow the daylight saving time, how they switch between daylight saving and non-daylight saving in March/September. Python eggs (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to think that the railway system shifts to summer time differently from any other institution in Russia. The article I linked explains exactly when the change to summer time takes place in Russia. Barring any evidence to the contrary (and I can't find any), the change takes place at the same time on the railways. Marco polo (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it legal? If so, up to how long after fertilization of an egg? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.188.14 (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Menstrual extraction#Legality has a little information on the subject. --Tango (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, trying again! This time without interfering with the above poster and wrecking the reference page... :) Dear Wikipedians... I, and many with me, can place the knee/leg at an angle to my thigh, and with a certain bit of circumstance produce a very vibrating knee. I guess it more jumps than vibrates. There is something happening, and I can't find the English term for it. =) Does Wikipedia have an article about the skiddy jumping sort of movement? Cramp-like, really. 77.18.1.69 (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OP here. Okay I am dumbstruck. If someone can find out why I am apparently writing with a tiny font, I'd be much obliged. 77.18.1.69 (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The previous section was missing a "</small>". Clarityfiend (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know exactly what you are asking. I'm interested in this as well. --Kvasir (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does restless legs syndrome describe it? Astronaut (talk) 02:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, RLS does not generally involve "vibration" so much as repeated need to move the leg every little bit. It sounds more like some sort of muscular tremor. Edison (talk) 04:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If i understand the OP's question correctly, I think he means that there's vibration that can be felt from underneath the kneecap when shifting leg and thigh at a certain angle. It feels like a creaking door hinge. --Kvasir (talk) 05:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sewing machine leg meltBanana 05:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic answer from MeltBanana. I conclude that if there is an article on Wikipedia about it, it does not go under the name of "Elvis syndrome" or "Sewing machine leg", nor is it mentioned in the calf muscle article. 77.18.77.254 (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hi there, I want to know on what basis did the U.S. Court of Appeal conclude that Microsoft was a monopoly? What was Microsoft's market share of Intel-compatible PC operating systems? Of all operating systems, including Apple computers? What evidence did the court cite in claiming that Microsoft changed above-competitive prices? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.139 (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our article, Microsoft Windows says: "As of October 2009, Windows had approximately 91% of the market share of the client operating systems for usage on the Internet." I think "client operating systems for usage on the Internet" includes Macs, but not servers, mainframes and special purpose computers. I don't think there is a set market share that constitutes a monopoly in law, but rather you have a monopoly if you are able to use monopolistic practises (whether or not you actually do use them). --Tango (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to United States v. Microsoft? Because our article says that the Judge did find that Microsoft was a monopoly, and that they had unfairly used their market share to promote their other software (I think internet explorer was the chief issue). An appeal did significantly reduce the remedies, but didn't change the findings of fact (that is, the appeals court still held them to be a monopoly). If you're referring to a different case, then I don't know. Buddy431 (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be agreeing with the OP... the OP said "was a monopoly" not "wasn't". --Tango (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does the OP mean "Is Microsoft a monopoly in fact?" or "Is Microsoft a monopoly under the law?" When it comes to economics, the law doesn't always coincide with reality. As far as the economic reality is concerned, it is unclear whether Microsoft is a monopoly (and many economists believe it is not). Market share isn't relevant -- what matters is market power. Given that Apple, Linux, and others exist as potential competitors, it is not possible for Microsoft to price monopolistically (in fact, Apple likely prices more like a monopoly than does Microsoft). Wikiant (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see on re-reading the question that 76.64 mostly wants to know about the case itself. Here's the findings of fact from the case. I have not read it, so cannot answer your questions, but it looks like this contains the relevant information. Buddy431 (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to the OP's 4th question would require thousands of words. Here is a partial answer to his first 3 questions, from the 1999 case cited above: "Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market. Moreover, it could do so for a significant period of time without losing an unacceptable amount of business to competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market.
Viewed together, three main facts indicate that Microsoft enjoys monopoly power. First, Microsoft's share of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems is extremely large and stable. Second, Microsoft's dominant market share is protected by a high barrier to entry. Third, and largely as a result of that barrier, Microsoft's customers lack a commercially viable alternative to Windows.
... Microsoft possesses a dominant, persistent, and increasing share of the worldwide market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems. Every year for the last decade, Microsoft's share of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems has stood above ninety percent. For the last couple of years the figure has been at least ninety-five percent, and analysts project that the share will climb even higher over the next few years. Even if Apple's Mac OS were included in the relevant market, Microsoft's share would still stand well above eighty percent."
Here's 750 words of "evidence" -- if it's unforgivably too long, feel free to edit:
"... just as Microsoft's large market share creates incentives for ISVs to develop applications first and foremost for Windows, the small or non-existent market share of an aspiring competitor makes it prohibitively expensive for the aspirant to develop its PC operating system into an acceptable substitute for Windows. ... The cost to a would-be entrant of inducing ISVs to write applications for its operating system exceeds the cost that Microsoft itself has faced in inducing ISVs to write applications for its operating system products, for Microsoft never confronted a highly penetrated market dominated by a single competitor. ... The experiences of IBM and Apple, Microsoft's most significant operating system rivals in the mid- and late 1990s, confirm the strength of the applications barrier to entry. ....The inability of Apple to compete effectively with Windows provides another example of the applications barrier to entry in operation. Although Apple's Mac OS supports more than 12,000 applications, even an inventory of that magnitude is not sufficient to enable Apple to present a significant percentage of users with a viable substitute for Windows. ... The experience of the Linux operating system, ... similarly fails to refute the existence of an applications barrier to entry. ... That Microsoft's market share and the applications barrier to entry together endow the company with monopoly power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems is directly evidenced by the sustained absence of realistic commercial alternatives to Microsoft's PC operating-system products. ....OEMs are the most important direct customers for operating systems for Intel- compatible PCs. .... Without significant exception, all OEMs pre-install Windows on the vast majority of PCs that they sell, and they uniformly are of a mind that there exists no commercially viable alternative to which they could switch in response to a substantial and sustained price increase or its equivalent by Microsoft. ... Microsoft did not consider the prices of other Intel-compatible PC operating systems when it set the price of Windows 98.... The license for one of Microsoft's operating system products prohibits the user from transferring the operating system to another machine, so there is no legal secondary market in Microsoft operating systems. This means that any consumer who buys a new Intel-compatible PC and wants Windows must buy a new copy of the operating system. ... while consumers might one day turn to network computers, or Linux, or a combination of middleware and some other operating system, as an alternative to Windows, the fact remains that they are not doing so today. Nor are consumers likely to do so in appreciable numbers any time in the next few years. Unless and until that day arrives, no significant percentage of consumers will be able to abandon Windows without incurring substantial costs. Microsoft can therefore set the price of Windows substantially higher than that which would be charged in a competitive market ... without losing so much business as to make the action unprofitable. ...Microsoft's actual pricing behavior is consistent with the proposition that the firm enjoys monopoly power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems. The company's decision not to consider the prices of other vendors' Intel-compatible PC operating systems when setting the price of Windows 98, for example, is probative of monopoly power. ... Another indication of monopoly power is the fact that Microsoft raised the price that it charged OEMs for Windows 95, with trivial exceptions, to the same level as the price it charged for Windows 98 just prior to releasing the newer product. ...Finally, it is indicative of monopoly power that Microsoft felt that it had substantial discretion in setting the price of its Windows 98 upgrade product .... A Microsoft study from November 1997 reveals that the company could have charged $49 for an upgrade to Windows 98 — there is no reason to believe that the $49 price would have been unprofitable — but the study identifies $89 as the revenue-maximizing price. Microsoft thus opted for the higher price. ... Given the size and stability of its market share, Microsoft stands to reap almost all of the future rewards if there are yet more consumers of Intel-compatible PC operating systems. ...Furthermore, Microsoft expends a significant portion of its monopoly power, which could otherwise be spent maximizing price, on imposing burdensome restrictions on its customers — and in inducing them to behave in ways — that augment and prolong that monopoly power. ...Microsoft's monopoly power is also evidenced by the fact that, over the course of several years, Microsoft took actions that could only have been advantageous if they operated to reinforce monopoly power. ...." 63.17.60.8 (talk) 05:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's perhaps worth remembering that being a monopoly isn't in itself illegal in the vast majority of jurisdictions. It's only when you abuse your monopoly in some way according to the laws of the country you're operating that you get into trouble. Even when a monopoly is broken up, it only happens because the monopoly was considered to be abusing their monopoly, not because the monopoly existed. BTW, in terms of Apple, remember the case was in 1998. Apple Inc launched the iMac which started their recovery but this was after they'd had a massive decline and so were still a very minor player at the time even in the US. For example [12] "Market share of personal computers in the USA during October to December: ... Apple Computer 4.5%." (they were 3.4% or 4.3% in the last quarter of 1997 [13]) Nil Einne (talk) 07:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, whenever I come across someone I know, I and the other person simultaneously say "How are you?". It's really embarrassing and weird. One person should say that while the other person is listening, but that just doesn't happen for me. I don't think something like this happens so often for other people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.129.94 (talk) 02:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It happens very frequently for me. In the past, relative social rank would probably determine who spoke first, but we don't really have that kind of etiquette any more (I'm speaking for Britain and its colonies, I suppose, I don't know too much about etiquette elsewhere). --Tango (talk) 02:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I avoid simultaneous pleasantries by swearing at people I meet, instead. That method works in most places, but in New York City I run the risk of simultaneous unpleasantries. :-) StuRat (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Jerry Seinfeld once proposed getting around that by simply saying "Acknowledge" whenever you run into someone you know, especially in an office setting.←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A smile and nod achieves the same goal without requiring a major change in etiquette. --Tango (talk) 03:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same similar thing happens to me when you are walking towards someone else going the opposite way in the street, and both you and the other person try and move the same way to try and get out of their way, it can be mega embarrassing! Chevymontecarlo. 09:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another difficult situation is when you ask someone how they are and you end up getting a complete medical history. It ought to be compulsory to say "fine thanks" unless you've just been run over by a bus. Alansplodge (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting one. I get that we're supposed to answer "Fine" or "Well", even if we're not remotely feeling fine or well (don't get me started about the answer "Good".) If I'm feeling unhappy or exhausted or stressed out, I give a 1 or 2 word honest answer that conveys my feelings, but I don't launch into a diatribe about it. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There can be a degree of cultural or superstitional mismatch operating also. Some cultures and individuals fear that it may "tempt fate" to say they are fine (when they are) and prefer to give a less positive answer. I have in mind Jewish culture in the UK (with which my family had some links) - If asked how business was going, a (successful) Jewish businessman would at least in former times typically reply "so-so" or the like - but I'm sure this is evinced in other contexts as well. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How honest I am depends on the situation. If I'm going to a job interview and the interview asks how I am, I say "fine, thanks", or similar, regardless of the truth. In less formal situations, I tend to be more honest, but (as you say) concise. "A bit tired" or "I have a slight cold", that sort of thing (almost always with a diminutive in there somewhere - Brits like understatement!). I would usually follow it with "but I'll be fine" or similar. One doesn't want to come across as seeking sympathy. --Tango (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is very important. When you detect that this is about to happen then do not make eye contact with the person you are approaching. Move to the nearest side giving the approaching person an obvious non-collision route to take. This works very well for me on my campus where biking is the normal transportation mode. I have never been involved in a bike-bike collision. Obviously this approach does not scale well but as long as it is relatively unknown it should be okay to use. Timhoooey (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that what everyone does when they walk, anyway? At least in the UK, this is what I expect other pedestrians to be doing as soon as we ping each other's (metaphorical) radar. 86.178.167.166 (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, making eye contact activates a tractor beam, especially when the people involved are riding bikes. Timhoooey (talk) 05:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that's the eye contact specifically, but rather the turning of the head. If you turn your head in a particular direction you are likely to inadvertently steer in that direction when on a bike. The effect exists when walking, but is greatly reduced. --Tango (talk) 09:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Hey, how are you?"

"I'm good."

"I know you're good, but how are you?" DOR (HK) (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The expected answer to "How are you?" is "Fine, thanks," unless it's clear the questioner actually wants a factual answer. "How are you?" is supposed to be an ice-breaker, so if you say it at the say time, it's good for a laugh, which is also an ice-breaker. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, excuse my ignorance of the American political system.

My understanding is that for a bill to be enacted it must be approved by at least 60 senators. As there are 100 senators, this means that quite a bit more than half the senate must approve of a bill for it to be enacted. I also understand that the Vice President can cast a vote if there is a tie. However, how can there be a 50-50 tie if you need 60% of the senate to approve anyway?--220.253.247.165 (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding is wrong. 60 votes are only needed for certain procedural votes, like imposing cloture to end a Filibuster in the Senate. Normal passage only requires a simple majority, so if 100 Senators vote, and the vote is 50-50, the Vice President of the US acting a president of the Senate, can cast the tiebreaking vote. Dick Cheney did this on occasion. If fewer Senators vote, the number for a majority decreases. Edison (talk) 04:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a lot of information about the evolution of the US filibuster. In general, a simple majority of the senate is all that is needed to do most things, but the rules allow for unlimited debate, so a small group of senators can just keep talking forever in order to stall a bill. Things have changed these days (for example, no one actually filibusters anymore, they just threaten it), and the 60% of senators needed to vote for cloture (to stop the filibuster) has become more important than the 50% needed to actually pass the bill. The modern party power dynamic in the US is probably responsible for this sudden change. Paul Stansifer 16:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody know what 山楂酪 is? Its a Chinese fruity snack similar to fruit leather. What is it made from and anybody know anything else--172.191.130.40 (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like hawthorn fruit snack. 酪 here means it's like cheese-rubbery kinda of texture. I'm guessing it's a fruit roll-up. --Kvasir (talk) 04:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you (original poster) have a link or some document for context?--达伟 (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the article Kingdom of Leon it says that title King of Leon was the more superior title and that modern Kings of Spain are crowned Kings of Leon in public ceremonies. If this is true, how come in the full title of Isabella II of Spain, by the grace of God Queen (King) of Castille, León..., and the modern day full style of Juan Carlos I of Spain, His (Her) Catholic Majesty, the King of Spain, King of Castile, of León..., Leon always comes after Castile. Don't tell me the obvious about how Castile the center of power and Leon wasn't; I already know those reasons. Does anybody know?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Castile was originally a vassal state of Leon, so Leon would technically be superior even after Castile became a kingdom (though as you say, in practise this wasn't really true). I don't know why Leon comes after Castile now though. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modern kings of Spain are not crowned at all. In fact, no King or Queen of Spain has been crowned as such. The last coronation ceremony performed in what is now Spain was the coronation of King John I of Castile. I have no idea what the Kingdom of Leon article is trying to say regarding "coronations". Surtsicna (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of copy/pasting Surtsicna's post to Talk:Kingdom of León.--Wetman (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's understood Willie Morris traveled by sea to get to the United Kingdom so he can complete his studies at Oxford University. After he graduated, he returned to the United States of America, also by sea. But what I'm trying to find out is which ocean liner did he travel aboard?24.90.204.234 (talk) 09:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find out the exact date he sailed (or even the month), there are many ship passenger lists available at geneology websites; you can pinpoint possible ships and search for his name. Knowing the port of arrival or departure would be a big help as well (probably New York and Southhampton). Do you have a biography of him with any of these details? Best, WikiJedits (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried one passenger list from Southampton to New York. But that would cost me credits. I really need help in finding more information, please. Thank you.24.90.204.234 (talk) 07:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given this graphic, can someone please explain to me why there is more worry in the financial world concerning a default by Spain on its debt than there is for the UK? Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The - slightly flippant - answer is that financial analysts base their predictions on more than just those two numbers. I don't know the details, and no doubt someone who does will be along in a minute, but there's obviously something else about the Spanish economy which is pushing the wrong buttons at the moment. FiggyBee (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there was a real "worry" about the idea of a default by Greece (I don't know why you mention Spain instead) but this was an orchestrated worry. I am not going to name names, but if you want more information you can leave an email address here in an altered form (so you don't get automatically spammed) and if you want I can give you more information. 82.113.121.167 (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite aware of the crisis, although I understand Italy, Spain, and Portugal are considered a high risk after the Greeks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current deficit isn't really important, it is the predicted future deficits that will (among other things) determine default risk. Also, the UK isn't in the Eurozone so can inflate its way out of debt, rather than default (and probably would if it needed to - inflation is less drastic than default. Default is an absolute, either you default or you don't and any default, however small, would destroy confidence. Inflation can take any value so you can inflate just a little bit and suffer only a little bit of reduced confidence). The other countries you mention all use the Euro, so they can't inflate it without the cooperation of the rest of the zone, which they won't get. --Tango (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What was the need for a tactical formation called "Regimental Combat Team" (RCT), while there were others existing like Battalion, Regiment, Brigade etc?. I was reading about the Pacific War and noticed that a RCT of one formation would be detached and sent with a different division to a different place. What size was it usually? (bigger than a battalion or smaller than it?). What rank would be the CO of a RCT normally be (in the US millitary).--Sodabottle (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bigger than a regiment: see Regimental combat team Rmhermen (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 442nd had a size of 3800 and it appears that Regimental Combat Team were usually commanded by a full colonel or sometimes a general. Rmhermen (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--Sodabottle (talk) 07:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's always been something I've been wondering about... When you look at maps of Kievan Rus (Here is a good example) you see that they have control of certain ports in the Crimea and the sea of Azov even though they're separated by about 150 miles of nomadic lands from the rest of Kievan Rus. How did they keep control over those ports?.The True Wiki (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nomads (Pechenegs and whoever else) weren't very numerous, and being pastoral steppe-people didn't really have much need for a port. The Rus were descended from Vikings, so rivers and seas were very important to them. They controlled the rivers as early as the 9th century, when they began to attack Constantinople. And like the Vikings they knew the importance of a good trade route - the ports on the Black Sea opened them up to trade from Byzantium and the Caliphate (there were also land routes though). A hundred and fifty miles isn't that far anyway, especially if the only other inhabitants are nomads who won't always be around. The Rus controlled the area through military might, economics, and lack of interest from other people in the area, the usual reasons (same as Genoa in the fourteenth century, really). Adam Bishop (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That should be edited into the respective articles, no?--Wetman (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it should be added. It would save some confusion.The True Wiki (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Tmutorokan... AnonMoos (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States there are many people who wear a do-rag featuring a cape. The other day I was wondering what influenced this particular style of head covering. There is a nice article about do-rags on Wikipedia, but it doesn't discuss the cape variation. Timhoooey (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sun protection for the back of the redneck, as well as to keep detritus from falling inside your shirt collar: both legit reasons to reverse your baseball cap.--Wetman (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, but there is a particular ethnic community that does not suffer from having red necks yet male members of this community seem to wear caped do-rags the most. I suspect that the reason for wearing them is more of a social one than a practical one. Timhoooey (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which, is there a special name for the cap you see in all the French Foreign Legion films, ze one with ze flap in back? Kepi doesn't mention it. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The French Foreign Legion version is a Kepi Blanc, which is in the article but the flap isn't. Comme ça[14]? I don't think it has been used in recent times. An omission. I have seen some pre-1920 British military caps with them too. Alansplodge (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A head- and neck-shading cloth attached to military headgear has a very long history, and was the original purpose of the mantling seen in an Achievement of arms. Although mantlings became very large and extremely ornate after armour fell out of practical use and heraldry was largely reduced to a paper art, UK heraldry in the second half of the 20th Century saw some revival of a simpler and more realistic style by artists like Don Pottinger. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could the "particular ethnic community" be Sikhs? In which case, the head covering is known as a patka. Monty Panesar is a famous patka wearer. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like a cape to me, merely the end of the scarf sticking out of the knot. A larger scarf will result in a larger "cape". FiggyBee (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When someone attributes words to God, is this blasphemy? Look at this video, which has been broadcast on a TV channel in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Here is a translation made by me.

God speaks to the Macedonians:
A divine blessing for you, My Macedonians! For thousands of years I have been waiting for you to call Me away. I populated your mother – the Earth – with three races: the white one – Macedonoids, the yellow one – Mongoloids, and the black one – Negroids. All the others are mulattoes. I conceived the white race from you, the Macedonians, the descendants of Macedon, and with you it all began – to as far as the Sea of Japan. All white people are your brothers because they carry the Macedonian gene. For thousands of years I have been sending czars for you and I now send them to you again. You give them away to everyone and keep no one of them for yourselves. The czars who are here with Me and the Macedonians are as many as the stars in the sky and the grains of sand in the sea. Now the Macedonian time has come. It is an honour and a blessing to be a Macedonian, a descendant of Macedon and a son of the God of the Universe. Amen!

Please note that Bulgaria and Greece officially do not recognise the existence of a Macedonian nation and a Macedonian language. They insist that the nation was invented in 1945 (this comment has not been posted by me) and the language they speak is a Serbian-influenced dialect of Bulgarian. So, my question is: is that video blasphemy or mockery towards religion? --Магьосник (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blasphemy is "irreverence toward holy personages, religious artifacts, customs, and beliefs" (and it should add toward God). Putting in the mouth of God words he did not say could be considered blasphemy, so it would really depend on whether you believe the speaker or not. That's a question the reference desk won't be getting in to. DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An example would be the movie Oh, God! which many found entertaining and thought-provoking, but which some considered blasphemous. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the video rant aside, attributing words to God ("Thus saith the LORD") is the stock-in-trade of prophets.--Wetman (talk) 01:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and wether they are blasphemers or prophets depends on their success, as per "a religion is a cult with an army". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...The Lord's our Shepherd / Says the Psalm / But just in case / We'd better get a bomb..." -- Tom Lehrer ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not blasphemy, it's heresy.
Sleigh (talk) 02:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is, specifically? The words of the guy on Macedonian TV? I don't see where he's contradicting the Bible as such, which is what heresy is. But then, it's a little hard to figure out what he's getting at anyway. Maybe something's lost in the translation. Anyway, Clayworth's definition of blasphmey is basically taken straight from the dictionary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heresy is actually divergence from established dogma, not disagreement with the bible. Only a part of the bible is significant for the dogmas of current Christian churches, and plenty of Christian dogmas have no foundation in the bible - see e.g. immaculate conception for a famous example, or immortality of the soul for a more widespread belief. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Immortality of the soul has no biblical basis??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The original biblical model is bodily resurrection. An independent immortal soul entered early Christian thought via Platonic philosophy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is immortality of the soul whether it inhabits a resurrected body or not. "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die." (John 11:25-26) seems pretty clear to me. Believers will live forever. --Tango (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One clue is where Jesus, on the cross, said to one of his cross-mates, "Today you will be with me in paradise." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you think is lost in the translation? --Магьосник (talk) 07:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A little hard to tell, since I can't make any sense of it, although if you substitute "American" for "Macedonian", you could well be quoting Jerry Falwell. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably not so good in translating such texts. After some googling I found a longer version of the same video. In the first part, a Macedonian man is complaining to God about the millenia-long suffering of his nation and about how the historical truth about the Macedonians has been hidden from the others (the others have been lied to about the historical facts). Then God replies to him with a text that is slightly different and more detailed than what I translated. It can be read in Macedonian here. Again, God speaks of the Macedonians' being the first population of the world, the predecessors of everyone else and the originators of everything. The video has been broadcast on the national television channel of the republic. Most of the comments below the video have been posted by Bulgarians and express that the Macedonians are to be pitied, that the video shows the Macedonians' inferiority complex, which is resulted by their having just a 60-year-old history. (By the way, that is the general idea about the Macedonians in Bulgaria, and the Macedonians themselves really claim that they are the oldest population (at least) of Europe and the Bulgarians originate from primitive peoples.) But there's also a comment in literal Macedonian, though written with the Latin alphabet. It has been posted by someone with the (nick)name Zarko Markovski and reads the following:

I am a Macedonian, but I renounce such acts of extremism. This is piteous to me too. I don't want you to associate Macedonia with this video.

--Магьосник (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shandong cuisine is one of the "four most influential among these ("Four Great Traditions", Chinese: 四大菜系; pinyin: Sì Dà Càixì).". Which are the others?174.3.107.176 (talk) 05:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to our Chinese cuisine article, there are eight great traditions. See bar on the right. --Kvasir (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is a conventional Eight Great Traditions and a Four Great Traditions, simultaneously, as the Shandong cuisine article states, but the sidebar ignores. The Four Great Traditions -- according to Chinese Wikipedia -- are 魯菜 (Shandong), 川菜 (Sichuan cuisine), 粵菜 (Cantonese cuisine), and 淮揚菜 (Huaiyang cuisine). The equivalent sidebar in Chinese Wikipedia mentions both the Four and the Eight.--达伟 (talk) 10:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there One Great Tradition to rule them all, and in the darkness kitchen bind them? Clarityfiend (talk) 11:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. Tevildo (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific word used in psychology to describe how similar people in unfamiliar settings will gravitate towards each other? For example, foreign exchange students from China who have never met gravitate towards each other in an American school. I am writing a paper on merchants in a foreign country during the 12th century and I would like to touch upon psychological reasons for grouping. Thank you. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 12:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's probably a term for it, having to do with relative comfortableness or cultural familiarity. A term I would use is "neighborhooding", as groups of immigrants to the US tended to cluster together, leading to "the Jewish neighborhood", "Little Italy", etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's "used in psychology," but how about tribalism? 63.17.50.41 (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a secondary question: Has there ever been an anthropological study done that showed how each proceding generation was more inclined to assimilate more aspects of the host culture than the last generation?

Thanks for the input so far. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you're looking for is affinity. It's one of a number of mechanisms that accelerate the forming and storming stages of group development.

ALR (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interesting question that certainly seems to be normal human behavior. The adults who came from offshore still have their roots in their homelands. The younger ones who followed their parents are more likely to assimilate more easily and to become naturally bilingual. And the children born in the new land have no connection to the old country and its language except what their parents teach them about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Part of that has to do with the level of need. Fully grown adults might feel less of a need to assimilate and more of a need to simply be with "their own", and can get by otherwise. The younger they are, the greater the need might be to assimilate to the population at large, as clinging to the old country will tend to hold them back from advancement. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There have, but I can't think of the search terms to find them. It's much more interesting than Bugs's guessing would suggest: there's stuff about later generations trying harder to differentiate themselves than earlier generations: it isn't linear. Hopefully one of the many people with experience in this area will find you some starting points. 86.178.167.166 (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Derailing comments moved to talk page. 86.178.167.166 (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]