Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 May 2

Humanities desk
< May 1	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 3 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 2

An evolutionary view on good and correct democracy

Imagine a prehistorical tribe, village, band, society ... where people are:

• each one has a vote; each one is encouraged to vote; each vote is equal;
• no discrimination as to gender, age, race, religion, skill/education level, look, sexual preference, wealth ...
• every person is treated as an individual with all reasonable freedom and liberty;
• friendly to the environment and other tribes as well;
• farmers and labors are well paid; ...

If political correctness is really good for the society as a whole, then I expect a group of people having these modern virtues would turned out to be a winner in the long human history (think of evolution). A group of people having limited amounts of correctness could improve their correctness by trial and error. Moreover, politically incorrect societies could have been elminated by the pressure of evolution ...

It didn't seem to be the case, did it? -- Toytoy 01:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me start, then. "Is good to society" doesn't mean "allows you to survive". A.Z. 01:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You are defining "good" here as "evolutionarily fit," which is not the same thing as "good" in a moral or ethical sense at all (a simple parasite is often more "fit" than the most wonderfully developed and intelligent mammal). It is no argument of those who prefer democracy that it would necessarily win out over all other options, especially not at different times in human history. If you give a dysfunctional society a lot of resources and good circumstances it will triumph over a generally more long-term stable and intelligently arranged society which happens to be ailing in the short-term (ergo the Vandals could sack Rome even though they had not the technology, the culture, the social complexity, or the long-term resources of the Romans, because Rome was in a bad spot at the time. That doesn't mean that primitive tribal militarism is a "better" long-term social solution than Roman republicanism). --24.147.86.187 01:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Then again, it doesn't mean that it isn't. A.Z. 01:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The word "winner" here is also used in the sense of "the ones who survided".

If you define "good" as "what allows you to survive" and "winners" as "the ones who survived", then I would expect your conclusion to be true.

Anyway, you can always consider "good" the high moral standards and define "winners" as "those who could resist being immoral." A.Z. 01:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What you describe is one method in which to attain stability in a society, and it's really the societies and governments that attain and hold on to that stability that are the big winners, until they have some kind of ecological disaster or get conquered by someone else. In a certain sense, whether your ideal society survives will be more scaled by geographical factors than anything else. It doesn't really matter if everyone is happy with each other if it stops raining for fifty years. –Pakman044 01:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's take a look at the countries that are "winners" in the Human Development Index:

1. Norway
2. Iceland
3. Australia
4. Ireland
5. Sweden
6. Canada
7. Japan
8. USA
9. Netherlands
10. Switzerland

What do those countries have in common? They're all liberal democracies. All except Japan and perhaps Switzerland could be considered progressive on women's rights issues. All of them except most of the USA and perhaps Japan can be considered progressive on gay rights. All have active environmental movements. All of them try to get along with other "tribes." Only the United States and maybe Australia have a above average income inequality. So it seems that what you consider "political correctness" does produce "winners." -- Mwalcoff 02:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"All except Japan and perhaps Switzerland could be considered progressive on women's rights issues" - tell that to the women in Ireland who have to travel to the UK to get abortions. No, I'm Spartacus 13:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I heard about the perfection of democracy over and over. It sounds like with some pot training, democracy shall root in a society, possibly, any society. I am skeptical. I assume democracy requires external resources to compensate for elevated loss, with or without corruption. If your voters make a truly bad and stupid decision (THEY GOOF ALL THE TIME), the government has to secure some resources overseas to ensure the short-term survival of the country. -- Toytoy 02:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the mistake being made is not that those top ten are democracies, but rather that they are republics. Republics are much more superior than direct democracies.--Kirby♥time 02:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I hate to correct you, but as political scientists use the words nowadays, "republics" are any country without a monarch. They may or may not be democracies. Democracies are countries where the "people rule," whether or not they are republics. Here's a chart that should help you understand:

	Republics	Monarchies
Democratic	Italy, USA	Canada, Netherlands
Not democratic	Cuba, Turkmenistan	Saudi Arabia, Nepal

Mwalcoff 04:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Australia is not yet a republic but many people would like it to become one. JackofOz 04:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

One thing to think about is that each of your countries is in a nontropical, and more or less nonarid climate. All of those countries also happen to be colocated nicely with an ocean, so it's easier to have commerce (this airplane thing hasn't been around forever). Sure there are similarly situated countries that aren't so successful without your attributes, but the attributes you mention may correlate with the fact that these countries don't have to worry so much about the next famine or the next conquering country, and instead can devote their time on social issues. –Pakman044 03:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Original Poster. I think you are greatly misunderstanding the processes and mechanisms of Evolution. I also do not understand your use of the term politically correct in this context. Unit of selection might be a helpful article in understanding various debates about whether natural selection acts primarily at the level of the group, the gene or somewhere inbetween. Also, bear in mind, history does have examples of relatively peaceful and egalitarian groups being killed, enslaved, or displaced by outside groups due to advantages in resources or cultural differences, such as emphasis on conquest; to name just two possible reasons among many. You might find Sociobiology to be pertinent and interesting, and also Evolutionarily stable strategy and whether your hypothetical population would necessarily qualify. Finally, if you're interested in winners and losers in "the long human history" and the distal and proximal causes thereof, Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel could help shed light on the subject. -- Azi Like a Fox 05:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear original poster, I think your view of pre-historic societies is idealized and on some accounts wrong and bias-towards modernity:

Imagine a prehistorical tribe, village, band, society (I think here is where your problem begins, you should imagine how it was but reconstruct it, on basis of existing primitive societies)... where people are:

• each one has a vote; each one is encouraged to vote; each vote is equal; (in many primitive societies there is no voting, the village elder(s) decide)
• no discrimination as to gender, (there is a strong division between the sexes in primitive societies) age (village elderly decide, it is an ageist society), race, (primitive societies have only one race) religion, (and one religion) skill/education level (education is very modern as well), look, sexual preference, (the very concept of homosexuality is modern) wealth
• every person is treated as an individual with all reasonable freedom and liberty (the very concept of individualism is modern and European and not recognized in societies like Japan and China, furthermore in these small societies there is no individual freedom and only social control);
• friendly to the environment (actually there is significant debate whether modern technology isn't better for the environment then primitive farming, if everyone would farm and hunt the planet could sustain a much lower number of humans than is sustainable with modern technology) and other tribes as well (cannibalism, war etc. is very common amongst primitive societies);
• farmers and labors are well paid (money/getting paid is a very modern concept); ...

All in all, there is no reason to believe modernity is worse (in a normative sense) than prehistorical societies consider: science, art, medicine, literacy, education, democracy, individual freedom, free time, recreation, things that primitive societies cannot offer you. C mon 09:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi C mon. As I understood the original question the OP was not trying to argue that premodern societies necessarily had those traits listed. Rather they seemed to be trying to ask why, if those traits are considered so "good", did no premodern societies having such traits, or at least their precursors, achieve long-term historical "success" by virtue of those traits? Or, if these traits are so "good" than why did they not confer an adaptive advantage which led to their increase and spread and that of those possessing them? Also, I'd be interested in this debate concerning the enviromental merits of modern technology versus pre-industrial agricultural practices. Seems to me the number of humans the planet currently "sustains", in large part due to modern agricultural practice and technology, pose significant enviromental problems now and in the not so distant future. Finally, not to take away from the many contributions of modernity and without making any value judgements about it versus "primitive" societies, I have to say that, in a purely descriptive sense, the fact that humanity now has an unprecedented capability for damage and destruction to itself and the environment is kind of frightening. Guess you have to take the bad with the good though. :) --Azi Like a Fox 11:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This whole question is founded on the false premise that what works in a modern, advanced, progessive, successful society will work in a primative village Nil Einne 21:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

C Mon, you sid that in primitive societies, there was cannibalism. Care to provide any evidence of that, as the vast majority of anthropologists conclude that humans have never actively performed cannibalism, and that it was merely libel.--Kirby♥time 19:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

My point: If political correctness or progressiveness really is good to a society unconditionally, then it could have been evolved without a thinker or an academic activist's help.

It is more likely that these good things actually cost the society a lot. Societies having fewer resources could not afford to give each of its member so much respect, freedom and justice. I may do whatever I want to please myself. However, I may need to do a job that I dislike to keep my wife and kids happy simply because the job has a better pay. My own human right does not equate to their human rights. To make a society more profitable as a whole, some may have to suffer.

What could happen if the U.S. gave all woman and colored person an uncompromised set of rights shortly after the Civil War, maybe under the political pressure of the inter-galaxy superpower Klingon Empire? -- Toytoy 04:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Nazis vs. Jews

How many countries were invaded by the Nazis because of the jews population? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.64.137.205 (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

None. Clio the Muse 01:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

More precisely, the countries that the Nazis did invade (including France, Poland, and Czechoslovakia) were invaded because Hitler wanted to rule the world. See also WWII, Third Reich, and Nazi Party. - AMP'd 02:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The answer I gave, in terms of the question posed, is as precise as it is possible to get. Your information, AMP'd is correct, but supplementary to the basic point. Besides, I think that what you will find is that Hitler specifically aimed at attaining Lebensraum in eastern Europe, a long-term goal set out in Mein Kampf and his unpublished book on foreign policy. He would have avoided war in western Europe if he could, including war with the French. I have never come across any statement by him, to the effect that he 'wanted to rule the world', though he undoubtedly wanted Germany to achieve a paramount position in international affairs. But if you have a source for his alleged desire for world conquest I would be pleased to see it. Clio the Muse 02:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

(I will not go the way of Loomis and squabble with the Muse) Can we agree that Hitler was a bad man who wanted power, specifically control over much of the civilized world? - AMP'd 02:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wise choice, AMP'd! Ok I'll shut up now. Lewis 10:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That depends on what you mean by control and civilised world I guess. I would say no he may have been a bad man and he may have wanted power and control but I don't know if it's accurate to say he wanted control over much of the civilised world Nil Einne 21:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"bad man who wanted power"...redundancy?--Kirby♥time 02:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

He was a man; he was bad; he wanted power. Yes, I think we can agree on that as a minimum! Clio the Muse 05:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

But you mean that he was a bad human being? A.Z. 06:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm presuming what kirby is saying is either that all bad men want power or that all men who want power are bad... Nil Einne 21:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Power does corrupt. - AMP'd 01:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC) I love how we hijack a question into these discussions.

At least it's said to tend to.  :) JackofOz 03:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that power corrupts people that much. It just looks like that because everyday corruption of people who are not powerful goes by unnoticed, and, when corrupt people become powerful, their corruption starts making a big difference in the lives of others. Thus the saying that power corrupts, which I'd change to: power unveils corruption. Also, good people don't want power as an end, they want power as a mean to make things better. Anyone who just wants power for the sake of it is bad. A.Z. 06:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with A.Z. Some very good people, had they not accumulated the power they had, could never have accomplished all the good that they did. I'm thinking of Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln, the Dalai Lama, and so many more that just don't spring to mind at the moment. Of course for some of the above, Gandhi and King in particular, the old "chicken and egg" argument could apply, i.e., they did not do good because they had accumulated power, rather they accumulated power because they did good. As for Lincoln, I realize that many skeptics exist who would argue that his "goodness" is greatly overstated. He merely issued the Emancipation Proclamation and engaged the South in civil war for political means completely divorced from anything to do with abolitionism.

Yet I feel compelled to deal with one particular example individually, not simply due to my extreme admiration of the man, but for the sake of this argument, due to the fact that his behaviour would seem to disprove the argument that power inevitably corrupts, and that the desire for power is invariably a sign of evil. In addition, the "chicken and egg" argument has no application, as this man only possessed and excercized power when it was legally granted to him, and once it was legally removed, he no longer had the ability to excercize it. This man is of course Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill.

From June 4th, 1929 to his appointment as First Lord of the Admiralty on September 5th, 1939, Churchill was but a powerless backbencher, ruthlessly heckled as a senile old warmongering drunk for his incessant and some would say obsessive ranting about the dangers of Nazism and Hitler. Even within his own party, he was an outsider. Were it not for the undying support of his remarkably sensible Tory constituents in county Kent, his fellow Conservatives would surely have thrown him out of caucus and revoked his party membership.

Yet upon being invited back into Cabinet in September 1939, and later upon being summoned to Buckingham Palace on May 10th, 1940, at approximately 6 P.M., when he graciously accepted King George VI's request that he become His Highness' Prime Minister, he excercized his power both judicially and selflessly, putting the interests King and country (and indeed the free world!) before his own, and without any trace of corruption. Churchill openly admits to the satisfaction he derived in finally being bestowed the power to conduct Britain's war efforts: "But I cannot conceal from the reader of this truthful account that as I went to bed at about 3 A.M., I was conscious of a profound sense of relief. At last I had the authority to give directions over the whole scene...[my] warnings over the last six months years had been so numerous, so detailed, and were now so terribly vindicated, that no one could gainsay me. I could not be reproached either for making the war or for want of preparation of it."

Yet on July 5th, 1945, mere months after the war in Europe officially came to an end on May 8th VE Day, and with Japan yet to mark the official end of the war by surrendering several weaks later on August 14th, the UK electorate threw Churchill out of power, effective July 27th. With remarkable magnanimity, Churchill did not display the slightest bit of resentment. In fact he seemed to display an odd sense of satisfaction about the whole thing. Though I can't seem to find the direct quote, his approximate words were: "The English People are tired, and understandably so. They have chosen to dismiss me of my duties, and so I shall do, satisfied in the fact that I have done my proper duties for King and country."

No, power does not inevitably corrupt, nor is desire for power invariably a sign of evil. Lewis 15:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The phrase is "absolute power corrupts absolutely". I do not know of any example in history in which a person with absolute power was not deemed corrupt by someone else. I mentioned it to a coworker just now and he immediatedly piped up that Jesus has absolute power from God. However, he was deemed at a minimum to be corrupt (among other things) and put to death. It may well be the view of others than the person himself, but I thought I'd point out that it isn't "power". It is "absolute power". --Kainaw ^(talk) 16:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"Also aber rathe ich euch, meine Freunde: misstraut Allen, in welchen der Trieb, zu strafen, mächtig ist! Das ist Volk schlechter Art und Abkunft; aus ihren Gesichtern blickt der Henker und der Spürhund. Misstraut allen Denen, die viel von ihrer Gerechtigkeit reden! Wahrlich, ihren Seelen fehlt es nicht nur an Honig. Und wenn sie sich selber 'die Guten und Gerechten' nennen, so vergesst nicht, dass ihnen zum Pharisäer Nichts fehlt als — Macht!"

• Translation:"But thus do I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful! They are people of bad race and lineage; out of their countenances peer the hangman and the sleuth-hound. Distrust all those who talk much of their justice! Verily, in their souls not only honey is lacking. And when they call themselves 'the good and just,' forget not, that for them to be Pharisees, nothing is lacking but- power!"

-Thus Spake Zarathustra

--Kirby♥time 19:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

And the world itself is the will to power, and nothing besides! And you yourself are the will to power-and nothing besides! Clio the Muse 20:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The possession of power unavoidably spoils the free use of reason.--Kirby♥time 23:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

A stitch in time saves fifty million.--Lewis 23:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Telugu calender

Hi I need 1979 Free Telugu calendar Please help me how can i get it Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.104.24.38 (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Elizabeth And The Occult

Is it accurate to say that Elizabeth's court was influenced by occult philosophers ? [1]

Has anyone ever heard of Francesco Giorgi and Paolo Sarpi ? Were they from Venice ?

Can the play The Jew of Malta be interpreted in a political way ?

It has been said that Robert Fludd was a co-author of the King James Version. [2] Why is that ?

Frances Yates, who is a historian, has researched on this topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.234.249 (talk) 03:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

On looking at this my nose started to tingle with the stale scents of 'conspiracy theory'. I got as far as reading the first paragraph of the linked essay, to discover that Bertrand Russell, the philosopher, and Aldous Huxley, the novelist, were both Satanists, and that fascism and communism were invented by the British Foreign Office under Lord Palmerston (yes, that's right, Palmerston!) to know that it was conspiracy theory of the most laughable kind. Clio the Muse 05:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that David Ike has written about the above clio, and if he says it's so, well it must be =P Perry-mankster 09:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What? No John Dee? I thought he was the very heart of all conspiracies of the Jacobean era. Geogre 10:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No, he wasn't - Edward Kelly wouldn't let him into the inner circle :-)User:EABlair

According to the links, Robert Fludd was Dee's disciple, so there you go. And I love this: the prime satanic evil that Venice really is. Corvus cornix 21:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

dow jones and co.

why make a $5 billion bid on a company with a market cap of closer to ~$3 billion?? Why not just do something like $3.5 billion or $4 billion

or better yet, why not slowly accumulate stock and then do a rush at the end to get up to 51%? That's got to save money, even though the stock will be increasing as you accumulate and at the rush, it probably wouldn't hit the $56.9 mark. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.199.5.80 (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

• Because that company owns The Wall Street Journal and you're starting Fox Business, and because that company owns newswires and other competing products that you'd like to control. Geogre 10:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. If that were so, its market cap would simply be higher to start with.

It's all in the Securities Regulations. I'm mostly familiar with the Ontario Regulations, but I don't think they're really any different in substance from the SEC Regs. One a person accumulates 10% of a trading company's shares, it must issue a public declaration of intention, i.e., whether it intends to go further towards attaining control or just stop there. 20% (not 50%) is somewhat arbitrarily considered a controlling interest. That's because in a widely held corporation only about 20% ownership is required for all practical terms to control it, as more likely than not, the remaining 80% is held by unassociated persons, most of whom don't bother to vote, and even if they did, they don't act in concert.

Once a person reaches the 20% threshold, s/he/it must issue a takeover bid in order to accumulate any more. That's why you tend to see so many persons with 19.9999% ownership in a company. This requirement is for fairness, as once one accumulates over 20%, one gets closer and closer into gaining de facto control of the company. De facto control entails the paying of what's called a "control premium". What that means is that those shares that change a person's position from being a de facto non-controling entity, into a de facto controling entity carry with them a premium, or in other words, have a greater value than their market price. (Which also, by the way, explains the extra bit the acquiring company is willing to pay over the company's market cap).

The 20% triggering of a takeover bid is a requirement to ensure that the remaining 80% of shareholders would share equally in the control premium paid, as they would all be required to get the same offer. Were it not for that, as you say, some 30% would be lucky enough to profit from the control premium, while the remaining 49% would essentially be screwed, as their shares would no longer be required for control. But that's only the extremely abridged version! I'm sure I'm skipping over a whole lot of detail, I just hope I'm not leaving you more confused than you were to start! Lewis 10:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

ok, well that answers one question, thank you! But I wasn't very clear on my other question about the actual bid itself. So fine, they want to take over the company by buying up stock, perhaps to the 20% marker. So why a 5 billion bid when the company just the other day only had a market cap of 3.1 billion? Of course after the bid, the stock shot so that now the market cap is ~4.7 billion, closer to the 5 billion bid. Why would the bid be so much more than the market cap of the stock? Why not just do a 3.5 billion bid?

Legal signature

An untimely unfair situation. Anyways, two years ago, I started signing my name in Arabic, mirroring my stepfather. Yesterday, I finished the last day of in-car Driver's Ed. at school, and on one of my certificates, I was required to sign my name. But they said it had to be in cursive and written exactly as it appeared on my birth certificate, and it couldn't be in Arabic! I protested and pleaded but to no avail. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the signature on one's Learner's Permit/Driver's License is their legal signature! Meanwhile, my stepfather has his name signed in Arabic on his Driver's License. Now why could he do that, but not me? When can I change license to reflect my now-abandoned Arabic signature?--the ninth bright shiner ^talk 05:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll start by assuming you're in the United States (otherwise this is worthless). I'll further note that local State laws are different. So as to the cursive, I have never heard of a requirement that a legal signature be in cursive. In fact, for many people who are illiterate, they can make a mark that will act as their legal signature (see Signature#Function and types of signatures). Now your second issue is more complex. Reading between the lines here, I get the feeling that whoever wanted your signature, felt that the spelling in Arabic was different than that of your birth certificate. And whether that's acceptable can fluctuate wildly between jurisdictions. In general, if someone wants you to sign your legal name, it must be exactly equivalent to what's on your birth certificate, unless a court order so modifies it. This being said, if your Arabic name is so different than your Latin-spelled name that it is construed as a name change, getting name changes are simple matters. You file a few documents with your county courthouse, and they will issue a court order changing your name (a person once changed his name to Trout Fishing in America). Now whether you can change your name to a character set that contains non-Roman characters is a matter of local law, so you'll need to talk to a legal professional about that. I do wish you the best of luck with this; it'll take a little work, but it isn't nearly as complicated as I've made it out to be. –Pakman044 05:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The late Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands was born as "Bernhard Leopold Friedrich Eberhard Julius Kurt Karl Gottfried Peter Graf zur Lippe-Biesterfeld", and his legal name as a Dutch citizen became "Bernhard Leopold Frederik Everhard Julius Coert Karel Godfried Pieter van Lippe-Biesterfeld". Does that imply that if he had rented a car (or more likely a plane) in the US, and was asked to sign using his legal name, he would have been required to sign thusly (cursive or not)?  --Lambiam^Talk 07:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What about Pedro de Alcántara Gastão João Maria Filipe Lourenço Humberto Miguel Gabriel Rafael Gonzaga de Orléans e Bragança, the living great grandson of Pedro de Alcântara João Carlos Leopoldo Salvador Bibiano Francisco Xavier de Paula Leocádio Miguel Gabriel Rafael Gonzaga de Bragança e Habsburgo, By the Grace of God and Unanimous Acclamation of the People, Constitutional Emperor and Perpetual Defender of Brazil? A.Z. 08:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Every autograph-seeker's worst nightmare. -- Azi Like a Fox 08:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No I'd assume that whatever was equivalent to his first and last name would be acceptable (that's generally what is required for a lega. Of course that's extremely US-centric, but that's how this place works. What would be good to find is if there are any statutory definitions of signatures and legal names, but finding that out is incredibly difficult. This is definitely approaching the point where the answer to any of these questions will hinge almost completely on what variation of law an individual State will use. –Pakman044 09:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Many people have signatures that are completely illegible. It seems irrelevant to me whether the illegible signature is based on a cursive version of the Latin alphabet, a person's non-alpabetic "personal mark", or the Arabic alphabet. I would contact a lawyer about this, if you are so inclined and can afford one. Otherwise, I would ask your department of motor vehicles for a copy of the laws and regulations governing signatures on licenses. I doubt that Arabic is prohibited or that Latin cursive is mandated. Even if Latin cursive is mandated, I might request that a new license be issued because the original person would not let you use your usual signature, and then try signing the license with your Arabic signature, and tell them that is how you sign your name as shown on the birth certificate. There cannot be any requirement that the signature is legible, since so many people's are not. But if you want to be certain, hire a lawyer. (Incidentally, the laws and regulations might have changed since your grandfather's day, and/or his birth certificate may in fact have been in Arabic.) Marco polo 15:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I still can't get past the requirement that it be "written exactly as it appeared on my birth certificate". How is that possible, even in Latin cursive? Who signs their own Birth Certificate? I realize my question is an incredibly silly one. I only ask it to point out that there must have been some serious miscommunication going on between the OP and the bureaucrat in question. Either that or the bureaucrat in question is a serious dolt, which actually wouldn't surprise me all that much. My apologies to all the bureaucrats who may be reading this. Lewis 00:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Au contraire, mon ami. That's a very apt question. The penny never dropped into my head that nobody signs their own BC. On the issue itself, how can any requirement to sign one's signature exactly as it appears on any official document be fulfilled? Who ever signs their signature exactly the same way twice? I certainly don't. JackofOz 03:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Our article on Louis Antoine Jullien doesn't give this information, but according to the world's most reputable musical encyclopedist Nicolas Slonimsky, Jullien's full name was:

• Louis George Maurice Adolphe Roch Albert Abel Antonio Alexandre Noé Jean Lucien Daniel Eugène Joseph-le-brun Joseph-Barême Thomas Thomas Thomas-Thomas Pierre Arbon Pierre-Maurel Barthélemi Artus Alphonse Bertrand Dieudonné Emanuel Josué Vincent Luc Michel Jules-de-la-plane Jules-Bazin Julio César Jullien.

It seems his father was a bandmaster, who named his son after every male member of the band. I wonder how he would have got on.  :) JackofOz 03:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

My grandfather signs all legal documents with his own ligature, no matter what language the legal document is (be it Turkish, Persian, Arabic, Urdu or English, all of which he has done). Signatures do not have to be in any language or in any script. They just have to be something that is identifiable. This restriction on your driver's license signature is ridiculous. But I have an idea: just write it in Arabic script, and just act nonchalant, and if they ask about it, just say "what are you talking about? This is written in English!" Given that most signatures are essentially a strange mess of lines, ask them to prove that it isn't written in English. --Kirby♥time 19:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Tell me more about your grandfather's personal typographical glyph? —Tamfang 07:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a stylistic drawing of his name using calligraphy in Persian script.--Kirby♥time 22:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good idea, but the thing is, I was told that the DMV wouldn't accept it unless it was in cursive, and English. And I've already signed a document from Driver's Ed, and they'll apparently turn my registration down if I try to sign differently...--the ninth bright shiner ^talk 15:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what else I can say to help ya. Sorry.--Kirby♥time 22:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

What does a 2/3 majority for overriding vetoes mean?

I have a wonderfully silly question that I should be able to answer for myself, but I'm not really sure about. When the U.S. President vetoes a bill, the Constitution states that to override it, each chamber must override it by 2/3 vote of each chamber. This is commonly interpreted as 2/3 of those "present and voting". So does "present and voting" just mean those who vote yea and nay, or does it also include those who vote "present"? Thanks! –Pakman044 05:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC) means those who are physically there and don't abstain

You can vote "present" on a veto vote and not have that throw off the quorum, I'm pretty sure. --24.147.86.187 12:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the quorum isn't related to how many are voting, but rather how many Senators are in the chamber when a Senator notes the absence of a quorum (no disappearing quorum here!). But as to the question, I did find an answer: "Under the precedents, Senators have voted "Present," which really is not a vote...." (Riddick's Senate Procedure at 1411). So I presume, even though the explanation was for another procedure, it only means yeas and nays. –Pakman044 17:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Most sources that I have seen refer only to 2/3 of senators present. (See for example this source.) The expression "present and voting" seems to mean "both those who vote yea or nay and those who are merely present". So I think that, in an override situation, voting "present" is tantamount to voting "nay". Marco polo 18:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Another page has mentioned that in parliamentary procedure that "present" votes are equivalent to abstentions, and thus the person isn't "present and voting". I wish I could find a really close vote in Congress where this would make a difference, but the closer the vote, the less likely people will be absent voting present. –Pakman044 04:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Virginity statistics

Out of curiosity… what percentage of adults in the United states are estimated to be virgins? — 64.178.98.18 07:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That is a difficult stat to calculate, but lets assume the vast majority of the virgins in the US are those that are young. Grunbaum JA et al. (2003) reports that 53 percent of U.S. high school students reported never having had sexual intercourse. This holds up relatively consistently between different ethnic groups and each sex. It even seems to hold up pretty well across grades (which is strange, because one might expect a significantly smaller percentage of seniors would be virgins than juniors, but that doesn't appear to be the case). I can't find any stats for sexual behaviour in elementary or junior high schools, but I would imagine its safe to imagine the proportion of virgins is high. So, what are the raw numbers: In 2000, there were:

• 19 Million aged under 5 (estimated % virgins = 100)
• 20 Million aged 5-9 (estimated % virgins = 100)
• 20 Million aged 10-14 (estimated % virgins = 90?)
• 20 Million aged 15-19 (estimated % virgins = 53)

Do the math and you have an estimated 67 million teenage-and-younger virgins. If you then add in the college students (apparently 1/3 of all undergrads are virgins, poor bastards) that gives you another 10 million or so. From age 25 upwards the proportions diminish rapidly. So say there are somewhere around 80 million virgins out of a population of 281.4 million (in 2000). That gives you a rough estimate of 28% of the population. Rockpocket 08:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The question was specifically about adults – a concept that is somewhat hard to define precisely.  --Lambiam^Talk 08:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Other then the difficulty defining adults, there is also the difficult defining virginity. Nil Einne 21:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

So work with the stats above and make the cutoff 18. Be sure and allow for some beyond college age. Might also check for the Kinsey Report or more modern versions of same. Edison 03:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

And I suggest that there is a difference between statistics based on surveys and other social measures, and statistics based on guesses. DGG 02:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The English restoration

what were the factors leading to the fall of the protectorate and commonwealth and the restoration of the English monarchy in 1660? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.39.159.3 (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Click on English Restoration and Richard Cromwell and/or Interregnum. I don't know if we have a good article on Rump Parliament, but that would be important, too. After you have read those articles, let us know what questions you still have. Geogre 10:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look at all of those pages, Geogre, and to be perfectly frank, they seem at best to skate along the surface, missing some of the deeper issues entirely. To understand the whole problem it is essential to go right back to the nature and outcome of the English Revolution, which began as a struggle against arbitrary power and absolutism, and ended in establishing forms of rule far more arbitrary and absolute than even the most whimsical exercise of the royal prerogative during the height of Charles I's personal rule in the 1630s. The real problem thrown up by the struggle with the king was that Parliament could win a war, but it could not win a peace. The execution of the king in January 1649 was a thrust at the Gordian Knot, a way of trying to end a constitutional impasse. But it only solved one problem by creating others. The execution of the king had only been obtained by purging Parliament of a large part of its membership; and what was left, the Rump, had to be held up by Oliver Cromwell and the New Model Army. The Commonwealth of England, which replaced the monarchy with rule by a Council of State, was a narrow, self-interested oligarchy, with little in the way of real legal or moral authority. It survived only at the discretion of Cromwell and the New Model Army; and when Cromwell lost patience the Rule of the Rump came to an end in 1653. The Parliament of Saints that followed failed to solve the constitutional problem, and England then underwent what might be called the first Restoration, when Cromwell was appointed Lord Protector, king in all but name.

Although Cromwell continued to look for parliamentary solutions to the problem of the constitution, the Protectorate was a military dictatorship, with forms of rule that were only ever paralleled by Continental despotism. In 1657 it was even proposed the political uncertainty be ended by offering the crown to Cromwell, who hesitated, Caesar-style, for some weeks, before rejecting the offer, largely because of republican sentiment in the army, the real source of his power. Cromwell continued to rule with enhanced, semi-regal powers, and England was placed under a burden of ruinous military taxation, that must have made Charles I's Ship Money tax seem positively benign.

Only Cromwell was able to hold the obvious tensions between military and civilian rule together. Following his death in September 1658, he was succeeded by Richard Cromwell, for no better reason than he was the son of his father. Richard, though not entirely without talent, had no power base in either Parliament or the Army, and he was sent packing in the spring of 1659. The Commonwealth was restored; but torn by tensions between soldiers and politicians, it too began to unravel. The only way out was to restore England's ancient constitutional order, and that meant bringing Charles II home from exile. The mood in favour of the king became irresistable after George Monck, the commander of the New Model Army in Scotland, declared for the monarchy, some months after bringing his troops south to London. Clio the Muse 12:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-reductive Materialism

I am a university student studying the Philosophy of Mind. I understand the issues pretty well, but a puzzled by one thing. Many philosophers would seel to solve the Mind-body problem by appealing to a "non-reductive materialism" of some kind. What do they mean by this? How can materialism be non-reductive? Surely materialism (or perhaps physicialism, but the two are often interchangeable) means that, ultimately, the Mind is, in some way, the brain; and this is surely reductive? (Obviously, there are issues with multiple realisability, but they we can reformulate our thesis by talking about a population's particular physiology, in the spirit of Lewis' Mad Pain and Martian Pain). What do others have to say on the subject? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Batmanand (talk • contribs) 11:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Congratulations if you understand the issues. The following is my possibly defective take on this. The fact that the Earth has the shape of a ball can be "reduced to" (that is, understood to follow from) established laws and principles of physics, such as the law of gravitation. The fact that Italy has the shape of a boot cannot similarly be reduced to any laws of natural science. This viewpoint does not imply a belief in a "higher" or "extra-natural" explanation or purpose for the shape, and is entirely compatible with the belief that the land mass called Italy is subject to the laws of nature like any other natural thing. However, it is hard to argue that the bootshapedness of Italy is objective reality if the descriptive categories of reality are confined to the province of physics, chemistry, cosmology, astronomy, astrophysics, geology, and such. The notions that are relevant to psychology (or at least to what most people would consider adequate psychological theories) likewise involve notions that do not fit the province of the "hard" sciences. While philosophers are hung up on conundrums like the mind-body problem, the same could be said for many notions in less soft sciences, such as comparative anatomy (in which the human species has Italy-shaped lower extremities).  --Lambiam^Talk 12:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure Lambiam is quite on what those philosophers mean when they say "reductionism". The Churchland's (Paul and his wife, whom I can't remember the name of) advocate a radical form of reductive (also called eliminative) materialism, here is the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on the issue. Basically radical reductive accounts make the claim that all the sciences operate on a system of supervience (I believe this is the correct term). So advocates of RM claim that eventually our understanding of psychological issues will be replaced with a much more precise understanding provided by neuroscience. Just as chemistry is (mostly) at the root of issues in biology (cells are made up of individual atoms, compounds and the like), and physics is at the root of chemistry, a more detailed conception of the human mind will come from neuroscience (they would also claim that theoretically we could understand the human mind based on physics but whether that is practical isn't clear to me, or them I suppose). Based on a brief scanning of the first page of Lewis' paper, it seems he wants to make the claim that if you reduce our perception of pain to the specific interaction of certain types of electrical signals and our brains, then how can you account for the madman and the Martian who feel pain similar to ours but it does not seem likely that they have the same electrical signals (certainly the Martian does not). If you have any further questions, just ask.--droptone 05:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, how is the boot shape of Italy not reducable to physical processes, at some ultimate level? Maybe we cannot ever have that much knowledge of physics, maybe it is computationally an impossible calculation, but that is no metaphysical contradiction in saying that the boot shape of Italy is reducable to physics. Secondly, with regards to Lewis, if you read further in the paper, he talks about populations and exceptions; ie that we call the madman not in pain because, in the normal human population, he is not in the functional state defined as pain. The Martian is in pain, because in the normal Martian population, he is what their functional state of pain. Hence the Lewis account allows for multiple realisability, without the ridiculous liberalism of some accounts - that was my point. My basic question remains, though. Is it not the case that physicalism is inherently reductive (and hence that so-called "non-reductive physicalism" is incoherent)? If not, why not? (I understand that, for example, Davidson's anomalous monism is supposedly non-reductive, so if someone could explain that one to me that might answer my question). Batmanand | Talk 11:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You can't explain or even understand the shape by only referring to physical processes. The very notion of shape is a human abstraction not inherent in any physical principle. If we can reduce our understanding of psychological issues to an understanding provided by neuroscience (and much more precise to boot), then surely we can reduce the latter to anatomy and biochemistry, which can be reduced to molecular chemistry, which can be reduced to physics, which can be reduced to QCD, which can be reduced to differential equations. So finally, we will obtain the unsurpassable ultimate understanding of psychological issues by explaining them as the solutions of differential equations.  --Lambiam^Talk 12:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I made no claims about the shape of Italy and its reducible status. I merely pointed out that philosophers do not argue over whether geology can be reduced to physics. That is uncontroversial. Whether mental processes can be reduced to neuroscience (or ultimately physics) is controversial. So if you argue over the implications of reductive materialism in terms of the shape of Italy, you are missing the actual philosophical debate. But that choice is yours.--droptone 19:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you certainly haven't clarified what "non-reductive materialism" is supposed to mean. My understanding, which admittedly may be wrong (in spite of the total clarity with which philosophers express their ideas), is that philosophers espousing non-reductive materialism – applied to mental processes – agree that these processes operate on a substrate that is fully governed by natural laws and are the result of physical processes, but that, nevertheless, the notions that are covered by these laws are inadequate for describing and understanding such processes, because they operate on the wrong level of abstraction. Philosophers who deny that mental processes operate on a physical substrate are not materialists.  --Lambiam^Talk 14:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Russia in 1900

For a history project i have to figure out certain things that happened in Russia during in the year 1900. I would like to know a certain part of my project that i don't really understand, the first part is:

Make sure you include in your project the following aspects of Russian life: Society-classes and their status.

There are other parts to my project but this is the only part i don't get, my teacher tried explaining it to me but he made no sense at all.

Thank you Duck away 12:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is it that you do not understand, Duck away? Is it the concept of social class? By 1900 Russia was undergoing a rapid industrialisation, with attendant growth in the urban working class, concentrated places like in St. Petersburg and Moscow. But by far the largest proportion of the population of the Empire was the rural peasantry, living in conditions not much better than they had under serfdom. You will find some leads to what you are looking for in the page on the Russian Revolution of 1905, but if you could try to be a little more specific I will see if I can provide you with some additional information. Clio the Muse 12:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) For a start, you could read our article Social class. The article Russian serfdom gives background information about a class that was particularly relevant to Imperial Russia. Although serfdom was officially abolished in 1861, the effects persisted into the 20th century. Study further the section on society in Imperial Russia. If you have further questions, please come back here.  --Lambiam^Talk 12:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Class refers to large-scale generalization about the social and economic levels in society. For example in current US society upper-class refers to people with a lot of money, usually with some sort of managerial or professional position; middle-class refers to people who are economically comfortable, probably own their own house, and probably work some sort of regular day job; lower-class refers to people with lesser means, probably rent their homes, probably do unskilled labor of some sort or another. Obviously each of these categories can be blurred and complicated but that's the basic idea. When asked about the social classes of Russia at 1900, you are being asked what sorts of large economic or political groups were there. Hint: Russia around 1900 had a relatively small upper-class which was extremely wealthy and politically powerful, and almost everyone else was in a massive impoverished formerly-serf lower class, to generalize quite a bit. --140.247.250.12 21:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Abdoulaye Wade

How does his name pronounced in Senegal? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.178.88.75 (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

In general, this type of question gets better answers at the Language reference desk. Skarioffszky 14:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the pronunciation is "ahb doo LYE eh WAHD" (IPA: ab du 'lai e wa:d). Marco polo 14:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Buddhist relics ?

Hi everyone

Is it posible that the Buddha bones change to Buddhist relics ?

Why the normal people's bone did not change to the Buddhist relics ?

How science can explain the Buddhist relics ?

thank 203.170.226.253 13:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• "Relic" is a religious designation, not a physical one. All sorts of things can be relics of all sorts of religions. The question of whether a given relic is "legitimate" in that it goes back to the purported source is case by case. However, physical sciences usually do not have a great deal of trouble explaining the strange preservation of human remains, although, again, that's case by case. There have been some spectacularly strange preservations of non-reliquary subjects, e.g. Bog people. Utgard Loki 13:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah met a coo

Does anyone know where these lines come from:

"As ah wis walkin doon the road, Ah met a coo — A BULL B'Goad!"?

A google search brings up people crediting William McGonagall, but a search of a McGonagall site shows this not to be the case. Lurker 15:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds like a "Punch" cartoon captionhotclaws**== 11:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Stuart Davis painting

I absolutely cannot find a reproduction -- a print or poster -- of Stuart Davis's famous 1940 painting, "Report from Rockport." I have searched all the web sites and googled endlessly and have contacted the MOMA and other museums. I am beginning to think that for some reason -- legal?? -- a reproduction of this artwork cannot be made. Can anyone give me any help? 129.64.71.72 15:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If the copyright holder does not want this work to be reproduced in printed form, then there is indeed a legal barrier. Did you try to contact the Met? The painting appears to be in their collection.[3] The text on the page states: "©Estate of Stuart Davis/Licensed by VAGA, New York, NY", so you could also contact VAGA for more information (info@vagarights·com). While the museum store has two sketchbooks by Davis on sale, I saw no reproductions of any of his paintings there.  --Lambiam^Talk 19:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Soviet space program

From an AP article about medical issues of going to Mars:

"NASA's three major tragedies resulting in 17 deaths -- Apollo 1, Challenger and Columbia -- were caused by technical rather than medical problems. NASA never has had to abort a mission because of health problems, though the Soviet Union had three such episodes."

My question is, what were these three Soviet episodes? Dismas|^(talk) 18:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked at the space disaster article? –Pakman044 19:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I should have figured that we'd have them enumerated somewhere... sorry for taking up your time. Dismas|^(talk) 19:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything in space disaster that answers the question. —Tamfang 18:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Was the union a good thing?

Tomorrow Scots will vote in their parliamentary elections. The Scottish Nationalists seem likely to do well which may mean independence from England at some future point. The question arises was the union a good thing or not for Scotland? SeanScotland 21:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, it is important to note that not every vote for the SNP is a vote for Scottish independence. Indeed, the future of any independent Scotland is far from the front of many Scots' minds, the SNP gets its votes by campaigning on day-to-day, bread-and-butter issues.

Secondly, I would personally say that the Union was one of the greatest political successes of all time. But, at the risk of breaking Reference Desk guidelines, I will try to stick to definite facts. If Scotland had been independent from 1707 to the present day then Scottish merchants would not have had access to the markets that the British (or, in this case, English) Empire opened. That means that economic development in Scotland would be greatly stunted.

Also, it would be fair to assume that an independent Scotland would occassionally have interests opposed to England's. And many of these conflicts could easily erupt into War. Indeed, without the Union, poor Scotland would probably become England's whipping boy - if anything went wrong, the Westminster government would blame the Scots and give them a 'good thrashing' in order to encourage jingoism amongst the English.

Both nations regarded it as truth in 1707 that neither was capable of destroying the other, and so, perpetual peace was in their best interests. And the Union has, more or less, provided that. Conversely, I find it difficult to think of anything that would have made independence a good idea for 18th Century Scotland... 194.80.32.12 21:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me begin by making my own views clear: I, too, think the union between Scotland and England, the three hundredth anniversary of which has just passed with scarcely a mention, was, and is, a good thing for both nations. The Union, in other words, was so much greater than the sum of its parts, and there are so many things that sprang from it that it is difficult to know where to begin. The Northern Enlightenment was the brightest sun of Union, with great Scottish intellectuals like David Hume and Adam Smith making a unique contribution to the wider English speaking world. Would the Industrial Revolution, which allowed Britain to dominate the world, have come in the shape and form it did without full political and commercial union? Is it possible to envisage the British Empire without the contribution made by the Scots, the Welsh and the English to that great joint-enterprise?

Might I suggest, Sean, that you have a look at the May edition of the BBC History Magazine, where you will find an essay by Eric Evans entitled Who Gained Most When Scotland and England Joined in 1707?, which deals with the issue you have raised here. Seemingly The Scotsman newspaper carried out a poll in February of this year, in which 76% of the respondents believed that the Act of Union had been a 'bad thing'. So, along the lines of 'What have the Romans ever done for us?', here are some of the real facts. First, and most important, the Union solved an immediate political problem over the royal succession, which could, as User 194 suggests, have had devastating repercussions if it had been left hanging at the death of Queen Anne. Scotland, moreover, had by 1707 barely recovered from the economic disaster of the Darien Scheme, which robbed the country of most of its available capital. Union, by removing the security threat, and opening up England's colonial markets to Scottish trade, allowed the economy to recover and flourish. It was from this free-trade union that the city of Glasgow marks its beginning as a great commercial centre, which, in little over a century, grew to rival Liverpool in its trade with the Americas. Before the Union Scotland, in economic terms, was at least a century behind England. Although at first some of the benefits were slow to appear, by the end of the century the gap between the two nations had virtually disappeared.

What have the Romans ever done for us? Well, quite a lot actually, if you consider peace, enlightenment, prosperity and enterprise to be important. But least it be though a shade too patronising for an English woman to detail the benefits of 1707 for the benighted, and unappreciative Scots, let's look at the picture from the other side. England, too, gained security from the Union, especially important in view of the fact that the country was about to enter a new Hundred Year's War with France. The risks that an unfriendly Scotland could present were fully demonstrated by the Jacobite Rebellions, especially that of 1745-46. England, moreover, gained enormously from Scottish ingenuity and expertise, which, in all possibility, would have been stunted by continuing political divisions. There was a lot of resentment in England over undue Scottish influence in London after the Union-one only has to think of John Wilkes and his infamous issue number 45 of The North Britain-but Scottish politicians, engineers, inventors and entrepreneurs, from James Watt onwards, were to have a lasting and positive impact on England's economy and society.

Yes, the Union was a good thing; yes, it achieved more than if the partners had gone their different ways; yes, it would be sad to see it die. As well as the article I have suggested you might also be interested in Linda Colley's book Britons: Forging the Nation, 1707-1837, which explores all of these matters at length. Clio the Muse 23:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As a brief counterpoint to that very comprehensive overview: in the early 1970s, a time when Scottish Nationalism was rampant, the (British) government commissioned report to study the consequences of Scottish indepedence on ownership and control over the UK's North Sea resources. The economists found that "for the first time since the Act Of Union was passed, it can now be credibly argued that Scotland's economic advantage lies in its repeal" and that an "independent Scotland could be transformed by oil revenues and become a leading power in Europe." Of course, this would have depended on Scotland having full control of the fields in its national waters, and managing them correctly (and anyone with any experience of scottish politics knows that a piss up in a brewery is the only thing they can manage with any success). Nevertheless, it does stand as an interesting counter-argument against the Unionist claims that Scotland would be financially crippled by independence (See the Barnett formula and It's Scotland's oil for more detail.) Rockpocket 00:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I've just caught the morning news here, Rockpocket, with various election reports, including one from Scotland. What was that you were saying about a 'piss up in a brewery'? Oh dear! Clio the Muse 07:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed, if anyone is searching for a good argument against self governance, look no further than this election. Rockpocket 08:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

declartion of aboroth

Hi: Im Ed. Can you tell me the year the declartion of aborth in Scotland was declared? was It In the 1300?

Thanks Ed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.72.98.85 (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

The Declaration of Arbroath dates to April 1320, Ed. Clio the Muse 22:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The Job of Court Judges

What do judges say while they're in court. Like,how exactly do they go about the —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Redheadamh (talk • contribs) 23:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

They say all sorts of fascinating things, such as Lewis 23:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Our article Judge may give you an impression, but the details depend strongly on the legal system in force and the kind of cases the court is handling (civil cases, criminal cases, or others). Note that, confusingly, the term "civil law" has two unrelated meanings that apply to either dimension. If you watch TV court cases, which are almost all about criminal cases under common law, you may get the impression that the main task of judges is to say "Order in this court" and "Objection overruled", but really a major task is to preside over the court session and keep the legal proceedings moving in orderly fashion.  --Lambiam^Talk 12:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Your question seems to have been cut off mid-utterance. Assuming your point of reference is Anglo-American Jurisprudence, see also Trier of fact, Bench trial and Court order along with the links provided by Lambiam. dr.ef.tymac 17:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)