Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 February 4

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.

February 4

Political terminology

Does anyone know if there is a term for the following: the act of posing or dressing as a civilian by a combatant (for the purpose of camouflage or human shielding). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.65.24.183 (talk) 03:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Perfidy includes this, but involves many other acts as well. --Bowlhover (talk) 04:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a perfidious ruse of war, or a perfidious False flag operation. -- Azi Like a Fox (talk) 08:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

One word is espionage - a combatant enemy alien found on a nation's territory can be tried and punished as a spy, if not in uniform. In the not so distant past, this often resulted in execution. Xn4 06:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

A Medal of a Friend

A friend of mine has a box of medal's he was awarded during his time in the U.S. Military. I do not know the war he fought in, or what the medal was awarded for, but I can tell you what it looked like if that helps.

It was a bronse star, with a chevron above it that had 13 stars within, below the chevron (the chevron was above the main part of the star and was used to attach the medal to the cloth that would be pinned to the vest that would hold it, it was White and Blue alnternating like this "White:Blue:White:Blue") was an eagle with its wings spread out.

I hope this is a good enough discription, please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.245.144.234 (talk) 05:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

A Bronze star with 13 little stars, an eagle and blue-and-white sounds awfully like the Medal of Honor... FiggyBee (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

All Medal of Honor recipients have a Wikipedia article. Does your friend have one? User:Krator (t c) 08:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If it is the US Medal of Honor, then see List of Medal of Honor recipients. Pace Krator, I see a lot of red links there. Bovlb (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately not all Medal of Honor recipients have their own article. There are many red links within the Philippine-American War, Boxer Rebellion, and United States occupation of Veracruz, 1914 recipient classes. Still your friend would have to be at least 111 to have fought in that last! --S.dedalus (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Britain and Rome

How did the Romans view Britain, both before and after the conquest? Ryan348 (talk) 07:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Before the conquest it was a source of plenty of natural resources, but also of assistance for the Gauls and Germans who were fighting the Romans on the Continent, and the Romans often launched raids against Britain as a penalty. After the conquest, it was the pride of the emperors, even as late as the 4th century it was somewhat of a private island for the imperial family (Constantine was born there, if I am not confusing things). It was also still a good source for lots of natural resources. But eventually, once the Germanic tribes started pouring in, they could no longer afford to keep their legions there, and it was basically abandoned in the 5th century, which allowed the Angles and the Saxons and the Jutes and all the rest to invade. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I share your view on Britain as the 'pride of the emperors', Adam; Roman attitudes towards the island were always complex, a mixture of the positive and of the negative. Before the invasion of 43AD Virgil wrote of Britain as a remote and barbarous place. In 416AD, after almost four hundred years of occupation, Rutilius Namatianus, the Prefect of the city of Rome, was still able to write of it as one of the most remote and wild parts of the Roman world!

I rather suspect, Ryan, that Roman attitudes towards Britain were rather like British attitudes towards the north-west frontier of their own nineteenth century Indian Empire: important to hold but difficult to love. Dio Cassius, when writing of the third century campaign of Septimius Severus in the north of the island, was to lament the difficulties caused by the 'bogs and forests', the very same things that had hindered the conquest under Claudius almost two hundred years before. Ammianus Marcellinus, a fourth century Roman historian, was to praise the Emperor Constans for a surprise visit he made to the island in 343AD, in terms that would suggest he had crossed to the ends of the earth!

But Britain remained attractive, in economic and strategic terms, for the rest of the Roman world; at once a place of profit and settlement in the south, and mystery and barbarism in the north, the direction of Ultima Thule and the Fortunate Islands. Even Antoninus Pius, the most unwarlike of Emperors, was determined to make his mark there, advancing his army into what was later to become the south of Scotland, the only expansion of his reign. And it was from Britain that Constantine the Great began what was perhaps the last great military campaign of the Roman world, one that was to transform the Empire. "Fortunate Britain, now most blessed of lands since you have been the first to see Constantine as Caesar." Clio the Muse (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Right; I don't know why I said that, I guess I was extrapolating from some old memory that Constans and Constantine had a connection to York. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

To underscore what Clio said, most Roman soldiers considered being sent to Brittania as doing hard time. It was not the most attractive climate for pursuing the typical Roman way of life. The women slaves from Brittania, though, were highly sought-after - especially the ones who had golden coloured hair. -- Saukkomies 13:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't add anything remotely as useful as the above comments by others, but if you haven't read Tacitus' Agricola I'd suggest it. Although the book is designed to praise a general (the "Agricola" of the title, Tacitus' father-in-law), as Agricola was stationed in Britain for some time, the book also gives an extensive account of the lives of Britons (from the perspective of someone whose accounts of the place must have been secondhand at best). You may well be surprised at how readable Tacitus is (in a decent translation), and although there are doubtless other commentaries on the British by Roman authors, Tacitus would give you an excellent sense of popular attitudes, I think. Plus the Agricola is wonderfully quotable--most famously Tacitus' comment on Roman attempts to 'civilise' Britain, when he says the Romans "make a desolation, and call it peace" (a quote I have personally applied to more recent foreign excursions of a world superpower). I hope you have time to give it a look. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 07:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

When did people start smiling in photographs?

In early photographs, subjects almost never smile. Today, it is almost obligatory. Does anyone know when the convention changed, and why? Lantzy ^talk 08:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

it probably had something to do with the invention of instant photography - at first, it took awhile for the photo to be taken, and people can't smile naturally for dozens of minutes. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, having one's photograph taken used to be a rare event, not unlike having one's potrait painted for posterity. One's bearing, smart clothes, and a dignified expression commanded much respect in Victorian society.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The examples middle-class people began to imitate were the ingratiating smiles of actors and actresses rather than to externalize a desire to look noble, and God-fearing, or at least serious-minded. The change becomes evident after WWI, and intrudes last among aristocrats. "Not to look like a 'grinning idiot'" was a concern voiced openly, if privately, even in my youth. I notice a kind of perpetual faint smile on people who've beenm trained to "look pleasant" and I seem to detect it even in tv news anchors reporting disasters. Today the middle-class in America are taking it a step further, to a "surprise face"— of eyebrows up, ears attentively perked— the "Have a nice day!" smiley-face; definitely cartoon-derived. --Wetman (talk) 10:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

For one 1855 view, look at Image:1855-daguerrotype-familyphoto-joke-Punch.gif -- Churchh (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This is interesting enough to be an article, as well as different cultural expectations in photographs, there's heaps here already. It's really weird when news anchors smile in the face of (or background of) disasters which aren't their own. It's probably just as strange when a reporter scowls or mugs seriousness at the camera to look "truthy". Julia Rossi (talk) 11:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What news program do you watch where the anchors smile when reporting a disaster? I've never seen that happen. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I remember watching a bbc series about the history of photography and i'm pretty sure they noted it to be around the time that photos changed from being 'formal portraits' (i.e. mimicking classic paintings) to being an every-day thing - so about the time that Kodak came about. Also this book link ([1]) has a bit of detail about it. I think film-speed will have had something to do with it - back in the day it used to take several seconds sitting still to expose a shot. Now it can be done in less than 1000th of a second! ny156uk (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The convention of smiling in photographs is a 20th century invention [2]. In the 19th century people looked serious in photos. It has little to do with the technology: people continued to look serious in phots long after relatively instant photos were possible. It also has little to do with amateur photos versus studio photos. Now, sadly, cameras are on the market with a "smile filter" which inhibits the taking of the photo until the camera brain decides the subject is smiling. Edison (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There also seems to be a difference between more developed countries versus less developed ones. In America, it's obviously a smiley place when the cameras come out. In Japan, things can be even worse, with most girls not only smiling for the camera but flashing peace signs as well. In Central Africa, cameras are still quite rare, and getting one's picture taken a special event. Accordingly, people rarely smile, preferring instead to gaze off into the distance to get a 3/4-view portrait. Clothing is also very important there, whereas in America and Japan, people are often willing to be photographed no matter what they're wearing. It's often difficult to get candids in Africa. — Dulcem (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

File:1903 world series crowd.jpg

Take a look at this picture from the 1903 World Series in Boston. You'll notice that all of the men and boys (there are no women) in the picture are looking surly, except perhaps for that one boy in the bottom right. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, I believe face recognition software works better when the subject is smiling. Perhaps that's why we smile when meeting. Adambrowne666 (talk) 04:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

To answer 206.252.74.48 I felt maybe I'd generalised unfairly from a couple of impressions, but nope, there it was on the news: flood rescue in the background and the reporter trying to look pleasant. Naming no networks, Australia, my friend. : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 10:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there a counter-trend among young people to scowl in photos? I have read that this comes from African American teenagers imitating rap stars. There might be a name for this. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

And, in particular, rock groups (that's a reference to singer/musicians, not geological classifications). The standard practice is (or used to be) for them to be deliberately not smiling, even looking slightly annoyed, when posing for the camera. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I remember my grandmother (born 1898) telling me that when she was about 16 or so, the family was having a portrait made, and she was joking around with her sisters, saying "I'm going to look like this" with a big grin on her face -- and just then the photographer took the picture, so she's the only one smiling. Her parents were not happy with the result. As for deliberately not smiling, I read a biography of River Phoenix in which it said he deliberately stopped smiling for pictures when he decided he wanted to be taken seriously as an actor and not be just a pretty face. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The OP stated that smiling on photographs "is almost obligatory" nowadays. I don't know about other countries, but in the Netherlands smiling on passport pictures is not allowed. Passport pictures with a smile will be rejected, someone must draw a neutral face. See [3] (PDF, in Dutch), in particular #6. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That's true in Germany too. I wouldn't be surprised if it were true across the EU. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 06:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That's also true in Canada. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

As a former shutterbug and videographer, I was always puzzled by tourists who posed with famous landmarks or works of art. I once saw a group of Japanese tourists gather in front of the famous Laocoön for a snapshot in the Vatican Museum. They obscured much of the statue. In the National Museum in Athens, there was a sign prohibiting the posing with works of art. What statement are the posers making? It may be similar to when travellers in Egypt carved their names into ancient works of art, or when soldiers carved their names into the fine-wood walls of great European houses.LShecut2nd (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Test of October

I understand that in the political struggles in Russia in the 1920s, after the death of Lenin, the attitude the various Bolshevik leaders took towards the desirability of the uprising in October 1917 became an important factor in establishing political credibility within the Communist party. Does anyone have any examples of how this worked in practice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.107.154 (talk) 09:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The obvious and great example of this came with the so-called Literary Discussion, 81.152, the name given to a particular phase of the struggle within the Russian Communist Party in 1924. It began after Leon Trotsky published The Lessons of October. In this he analysed the events leading to the October Revolution in 1917, drawing particular attention to the opposition of Grigory Zinoviev and Lev Kamenev to Lenin's plans for a Bolshevik takeover. Trotsky's intervention here had a crucial effect on the inner-party struggles that had become increasingly more intense after the death of Lenin in January of the same year. To keep Trotsky from power, Zinoviev and Kamenev had allied with Stalin in a triumvirate. Having served its purpose this alliance was already weakening when Trotsky published his booklet. But Stalin at once came to the aid of his associates, and all three began a renewed assault on Trotsky and the arguments put forward in the Lessons of October. Amongst other things, all of his alleged errors were publicised, including his former opposition to the Bolsheviks and his current opposition to the New Economic Policy. Trotsky was completely outmaneuvered, especially by Stalin, who played a skilful political game as always. In January 1925 Trotsky was forced to resign as head of the Red Army. Paradoxically, while indeed weakening the long-term credibility of Zinoviev and Kamenev within the Party, his actions only served to strengthen the position of Stalin still further. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What really is absolute pitch?

We've got an article for this, but I'm still wondering what it means to have absolute pitch. I never received musical training and I can't play any instrument. How do I know if I have absolute pitch? How would absolute pitch help in learning music and to speak a foreign language? Does that mean, if you have absolute pitch, you would have an advantage of identifying the right musical (to play your instrument better, for example) note / the intonation of a foreign language? --Fitzwilliam (talk) 11:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You can find out if you have absolute pitch by repeatedly consulting some sort of tuning device. Absolute pitch would initially help with tuning an instrument, which can make your output seem much better than someone who is out-of-tune. As to a foreign language, I don't see why it would help. Even with tonal languages, the important part is the changes in tone. So it really doesn't matter what pitch you start at. One of the benefits of absolute pitch is that when you're playing, you can easily notice when you or your playing mates are out-of-tune and maybe compensate for that (depending on the instrument you're playing).--droptone (talk) 12:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolute pitch is the ability to identify a tone (i.e. a sound frequency), without the aid of a reference tone. Relative pitch is the ability to identify a tone, given a reference tone. If you have relative pitch (as does any decent musician), you will be as capable of tuning an instrument as someone with absolute pitch, if only you have a reference tone, say a tuning fork. Someone with relative pitch will easily notice when they or their playing mates are out-of-tune. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 15:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The chances are that you don't have perfect pitch since it isn't all that common, though neither is it terribly rare. You could try humming the tune of a song you've listened to many times (always from the same recording), and then play that recording and see if you were in the right key. Like NorwegianBlue said, I don't think it makes a big different one way or the other as regards musical ability. It has disadvantages too, as the article mentions. -- BenRG (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as one who does have perfect pitch, I can attest to both its usefulness and its occasional inconveniences. For one thing absolute pitch makes it easier to take music dictation in a music theory class. It’s also a great party trick. Essentially I hear a note as having a unique sound associated only with that pitch. I don’t have to think about it. Of course if you don’t know the notes of a musical scale it may be hard to know if you could identify them. Some basic music training would help. There are a few limitations to absolute pitch though. For instance my ability to identify pitches breaks down in the extreme high and low registers. I also have trouble identifying notes that last for less than about an sixth of a second. As I mentioned above there are some times when perfect pitch is downright inconvenient. Baroque music is often played slightly flat from modern tuning on recordings in order to authenticate the original performance practice of the time. This drives me crazy! It sounds utterly out of tune. Contrary to common belief I also don’t find that perfect pitch helps me play more in tune. It just tells me how badly out of tune I am! (Playing in tune has a lot more to do with dexterity and memory than it does with your ear because by the time you hear a note it’s too late.) So anyway, even if you don’t have absolute pitch don’t be too disappointed. It’s unlikely to affect your ability to learn music significantly. --S.dedalus (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Muslims Hindus India Pakistan

What was the relationship between the Muslims and Hindus in India before Gandhi and India’s independence from England and what is the current status between India and Pakistan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.197.47 (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Long before Gandhi gave the Congress Party an ideology that drew heavily from India's Hindu tradition, the Muslim community was undergoing its own revival. By the mid nineteenth century tensions between the two communities were increasingly acute, particularly in the north of India, where there were disputes over the slaughter of cows and the replacement of Persian script in government by the Hindu Nagri script. Hindu revivalism also inhibited those within the nationalist movement when they looked for some form of rapprochement with the Muslim League. In many ways the British themselves contributed towards the growing divisions, classifying people by religious background in their decennial census of the Indian Empire, and by the creation of a separate Muslim electorate.

The Partition of India, it might be said, had roots in this policy of divide and rule. But it was fear of being a permanent minority in a Hindu-dominated India that led to Muslim intellectuals towards the notion of Pakistan. As early as December 1930, Muhammad Iqbal, poet and philosopher, sketched out his view of an independent Muslim state in the north-west of India, a position eventually adopted by Muhammad Ali Jinnah. The elections of 1946 gave the Muslim League an overwhelming majority within their electoral bloc, making the creation of Pakistan all but inevitable. By this time violence between the two communities was endemic, urged on by Hindu insensitivity, which amongst other things required Muslim schoolchildren to sing Vande Mataram.

As for the current state of relations you could do no better, 66.30, than read through the History of Pakistan. Relations are sometimes good, but more often bad, with the Kashmir question acting as a continual source of friction. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

One of the reasons for there being tensions between the Muslims and Hindus in India was due in part to the period of time when India and the surrounding areas were ruled by the Mughal Empire, which was Muslim. Although the Mughals were generally very tolerant of other non-Muslim religions, they served as the ruling elite, and this is when Islam really took hold of this region. Many of the people who converted to Islam during this time were considered under Hinduism as being members of the Untouchable Caste. There was no way that a person born into this caste could escape their unhappy fate within Hinduism, but by becoming Muslims these people were able to liberate themselves from this unjust system. If an Untouchable became a Muslim, he would no longer be considered to be a person that was automatically inferior, and this attracted a great many people to join Islam at this time. The problem was that this created tensions between the Hindus and Muslims, as the Hindus saw this as a system that was attacking their time-honored tradition of the Caste system. Muslims and Hindus lived side by side, though, in relative peace pretty much up until the 20th Century. -- Saukkomies 13:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Choosing a college

I'm a high school senior and I've been admitted at the undergraduate level to the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, MIT, Stanford and Caltech. Pretty cool, aye? Anyhoo, where should I go? Assume I don't care about factors like location, climate, size of student body and cost. I can't make up my mind and I'd like to know the opinion of the people around here.

Thanks in advance.

Hasanclk (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

As an Ohio native, I must say avoid UM, it's an evil school :-) In all seriousness, you'd do better to tell us what you want to study, since that affects where would be best for you. Nyttend (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Haha, evil! I'm looking forward to getting a Bachelor's degree in engineering, not sure about the exact field though. Hasanclk (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I know very little about Caltech, but I can say that UM is a HUGE school with a rather forbidding bureaucracy. You might feel like a number there. As for Stanford, I don't know anything about its engineering programs, but having studied in the Bay Area (at rival UC Berkeley) and known students there, I can say that it has something of a country-club atmosphere. (That might be a plus or a minus, depending on your perspective.) I now live in Boston and have lived here for many years. I have known many students and staff at MIT. I often use the MIT libraries myself. I have known very few people who did not enjoy their time at MIT. The school has a wonderfully informal and sometimes irreverent culture, which encourages collaboration, creativity, and innovation. Of course, MIT is also world renowned, and an MIT degree is certainly the equal of a degree from any of the other schools. Marco polo (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

MIT certainly has the cachet, but Cal Tech is no slouch, either. And the weather's better.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 20:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

True, but you'd have to own a car to get around Pasadena, whereas you don't if you live in Cambridge/Boston. Just another factor! But honestly... treat yourself and don't go to Boston. The weather is lousy here. Just plain awful. Either Stanford or Caltech are going to be miles better. I went to Caltech not too long ago to do some research and was just shocked by the fact that people were wearing t-shirts and shorts when everybody back in Boston was under two feet of snow. From a purely personal standpoint, I'd spend your relatively "carefree" undergrad time in a place of sun, and only if you've committed to the relatively monastic life of graduate study should you dare live back east. ;-) --24.147.69.31 (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I know that I am in the minority, but I moved from California to Boston partly because I prefer the weather in Boston. If you want it to be nearly room temperature outside year-round, with little variation, California is nice. If you enjoy a change of seasons, Boston is better. The snow is pretty, and snowshoeing and cross-country skiing are fun. If you are a student and not planning to drive a car (and you wouldn't need one at MIT), the snow is not really an issue. Just get a warm coat, and wear a hat when it is cold and windy. Marco polo (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The snow is pretty for about five minutes, until it is pushed into nasty little dirty drifts at the side of the road. And you can go snowshoeing and cross-country skiing in California as well. And snow IS an issue even if you aren't driving—it's cold, miserable, wet, icy, and stays that way for over half the year! Also you left out the whole "extremely humid and nasty summer" bit too. As far as I'm concerned the only bearable season in the Northeast is the early fall, and then only because it resembles a California summer! ;-) --98.217.18.109 (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

MIT, UofM, and CalTech are, in my humble opinion, diploma mills. They are only concerned with undergraduates to the point that they bring to the school tuition. You'll find overcrowded classes, cold uncaring administration and advisors who are too busy to really help. Of the choices you gave, I'd say your best bet would be to go to Stanford - especially if your field is in electronics or communication, since it's the university right next to Silicon Valley, and has many contacts in that community. There are, though, other very fine technological universities other than those you've listed. Perhaps you could expand your options a bit. -- Saukkomies 13:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

@Saukkomies: should we believe that you were at all these universities so you can give your 'humble' opinion on them? In my humble opinion they are far from being diploma mills, but they are way too often object of envy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.168.1.246 (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

A "humble opinion" is not a declaration of fact, but an opinion, which does not need to be substantiated with any proof. However, in this case, and since you are making a point about it, I actually yes do have considerable personal experience with MIT, UofM and CalTech. However, I do think that you are correct in pointing out the term "diploma mill" as being a misnomer in this case. I had a different idea of what this term exactly meant. Instead of using the term "diploma mill", I would replace it with the term "diploma factory", which I basically just made up. The idea is that these universities are not substandard in their accreditation (which is what a diploma mill is supposed to mean), but that they are huge impersonal universities that care very little about the individual student and are designed to crank out the maximum number of graduates with the minimum amount of cost and bother to the institution. They see undergraduates as cash cows, caring little whether the individual undergrad makes it beyond the first year, since because of their prestigious reputation they know that there will be many other undergrads willing to fork over the huge tuition they charge who will gladly line up to take the place of anyone who drops out. The reason they are able to maintain their status of academic prestige is because they emphasize research over education, which means that the over-riding focus of these aforementioned institutions is on the research being conducted by the elite members of the faculty, and these faculty members' enslaved graduate students. For someone who is considering entering a university as an undergraduate, I would strongly advise going to a university that might not have the most prestigious research credentials, but rather concentrates on the individual student and the instructional aspects of the institution. After earning a Bachelors Degree, such a person could then go on to graduate school at one of these prestigious universities, and the higher quality of education he or she obtained as an undergraduate would help a lot. Of course there is the point about gaining personal contacts with faculty as an undergraduate in a particular university, so when you go on to graduate school you'll have a better idea of who would be the better faculty mentor to select, but my feeling about this is that as a Freshman entering the world of academia for the first time it is much more advisable to attend a school that focuses more attention on the individual student. I hope that all better explains what I was talking about. Again, it is just an opinion, but it is however an opinion based on experience and sound reasoning. -- Saukkomies 12:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I know what Saukkomies is talking about. I was an undergrad at an institution (the University of Texas at Austin) that cared only about its graduate students, and a graduate student at an institution (Yale) that cared only about its undergrads. Within UT, though, there was some variation from department to department. I double-majored in Linguistics and Classics and noticed that the Classics department cared far more about its undergrads than the Linguistics department did. At Yale there was a distinct hierarchy of how highly regarded and well treated different groups of people were. At the top was the senior (tenured) faculty; next came undergrads; next came insects; next came junior faculty; next came dirt; and last came the graduate students. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 06:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Independence of Rhodesia?

Just curious: it seems that virtually everywhere I read, it's officially considered that the territory now the Republic of Zimbabwe only became independent in 1980 (for example, the article says "On 18 April 1980, the country attained independence and along with it a new name, Zimbabwe, new flag, and government led by Robert Mugabe of ZANU.") when given by the UK, rather than in 1965 when it declared independence. On the other hand, it is widely acknowledged that the USA became independent in 1776, when in declared independence, rather than in 1783 at the Treaty of Paris that acknowleded US independence — even the British The Post Office acknowledged it in 1976 with SG 1005/Scott 785, inscribed "Bicentennial of American Independence 1776-1976". Why is Rhodesia, which (unlike the USA) did not face military resistance from the UK after declaring independence, considered differently? Nyttend (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

United Nations Security Council Resolution 216 may be relevant. Algebraist 16:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

On the issue of military resistance, perhaps because it was not needed? The existance of the UN allows nations to act on a united diplomatic front in a way that just would not be possible in 1776. If Britain had left the nascient USA be, without invading it, but without recognising it either, it would be left in the position of being one of the only states to do so - France, for instance, would have definitely recognised the USA, leaving Britain's position looking rather ridiculous. In the modern era however, its relatively easy to get all of the most influential nations on board on a diplomatic decision. Rhodesia didn't need to be invaded, because their claims to sovereignty could be invalidated through High Diplomacy, rather than military force. Ninebucks (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The United States considers itself to have become independent in 1776. The government of Zimbabwe presumably doesn't recognize the apartheid regime of "independent" Rhodesia to be legitimate, so it considers itself "independent" as of 1980. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

So far as I am aware no country in the world, not even the old apartheid regime in South Africa, recognised Rhodesia after the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in 1965. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

can i eat dogfood?

i'm broke and have no family and nothing else comes close too as cheap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.6 (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it meat-based food for animals can often fall into the "not fit for human consumption" group. Petfood is no cheaper than human-food if you purchase the right goods - pasta, rice, bread, fruit, vegetables can all be used to produce meals at very little cost. Meat-based food is generally more expensive but seriously unless you are home and all that is left in the cupboards is pet-food - and even then i'd still suggest that there's potential for it to be harmful to you to eat pet-food - it's not produced for human consumption so will no doubt have less strict rules on its creation/food standards. ny156uk (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) as ny156uk said, the primary ingredient is often stuff that's been declared unfit for human consumption. Dogfood also probably lacks a lot of nutrients that humans need (for example, dogs can make their own vitamin C, humans can't). And - according to Dave Lister at least - the reason "dogs lick their testicles is to get rid of the taste of the food". FiggyBee (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

In my city, brand X tuna is available at the large discount supermarket chain for slightly more than half of a U.S. dollar for a 6-ounce can, while brand X bologna is less than a U.S. dollar per pound. Is predominantly meat-based pet food really so much less expensive than that? By the way, dogs are omnivorous while cats are carnivorous, so that cheap dog-food has a lot of non-meat filler... AnonMoos (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been through periods of being poor, so poor that I counted my money in U.S. cents rather than dollars. The foods that I found cheapest and healthiest were dried beans and rice. It's best to get brown (whole grain) rice rather than white rice, because brown rice has a lot more protein and vitamins. As for dried beans, any kind will do, chick peas, lentils, red beans, black beans, white beans. They tend to be cheaper than canned beans (when you consider that one pound of dried beans makes about 4 pounds of cooked beans), and they are easier to carry from the store. (If you are as poor as I was, you cannot afford the bus.) To add flavor and vitamins, you can cook these things with cheap vegetables, like carrots and onions. Dried beans take time to prepare. It is best to soak them in water overnight, the drain the soaking water, and then you may need to boil them for more than an hour. Brown rice also needs to boil for 45 minutes or so. But if you are very poor, you probably have time to do this. If you can afford a little cooking oil (or butter), the onions taste good fried in the oil. Also, it is good to have a little oil in your diet. There are few nutrients that you would get from meat that you can't get from rice and beans. If you want to add animal protein, look for kinds that are relatively cheap, like chicken livers (good fried lightly with onions), or possibly eggs. You don't need to have animal protein every day. Once or twice a week should be enough. It is more important to save money for cheap fruits (apples?) and vegetables so that you have vitamins. A diet of mainly rice and beans, with some cheap vegetables, would be MUCH healthier and no more expensive than dog food. Marco polo (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

We were all assuming that he was turning to pet food for cheap meat. I was just at a supermarket an hour ago, which happens to be part of the lowest-priced grocery chain in my mid-sized metropolitan area, and I found that the cheapest tuna ("Bumble Bee" brand) was at 52 cents for 6 ounces, or $1.04 a pound, while the cheapest packaged bologna (generic store brand) was at 88 cents for 12 ounces, or $1.17 a pound, and the cheapest canned cat food (didn't notice the brand) was at 28 cents for 5.5 ounces, or $0.81 a pound. (I didn't price dog food for the reason mentioned above.) However, the cat food is subject to sales tax (while the tuna and bologna aren't), so that the approximate 8% sales tax in my local area will raise the actual checkout price of the cat food to about $0.88 a pound. So I have to wonder if he's really so impoverished and desperate for meat that the 16 cents a pound price difference between cat food and tuna, or the 29 cents a pound difference between cat food and bologna, will really be worth it to him... 00:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnonMoos (talk • contribs)

Note that public relations people at dog food companies always make a point of eating their companies' products in front of the camera to prove how good they are. This has given rise to the expression "eating one's own dog food," meaning to use a company's own product internally. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Note to self. Never take a public relations job at a dog food company. Seriously though go with Marco polo’s suggestion. Eating a lot of canned tuna probably isn’t that good for you either since its mercury content is now very high. (Then again starving to death isn’t good for you either so do what you have to.) --S.dedalus (talk) 01:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If I were on the countryside and in your situation I would search for trees, cultivated fields and 'take' there something to eat. In a city I would try institutions like Caritas, monasteries, etc. Consider also that chains like McDonald's or supermaket throw tones of almost caducated food away. I would also try to get some of these.217.168.3.246 (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I just want to point out that according to the dogfood-eating article, they didn't eat it themselves but rather fed it to their own dogs. In Microsoft's case, the dogs are presumably the computers. -- BenRG (talk) 03:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where Microsoft got the phrase from or if the Wikipedia article is accurate. It is, however, true that at least some PR people for dog-food companies will eat their products. Jeanne Moos did a story on the practice, and I've seen pictures of a local dog-food maker eating her product in my local paper. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yuck! I guess that answers the question. . . --S.dedalus (talk) 05:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sometime in the last 10 years (sorry can't be more specific than that) there was a national news story here in the UK where a couple had been eating dog food for a while without realising it. The labelling on the can was of the "a hearty meal of meaty chunks in gravy" affair that didn't explicitly mention feeding to pets only and had a picture on the front of said product served on a plate. It made the national news for a fair while and resulted in tighter labelling laws, but I can't seem to find a google hit for it. The only related stories I can find are all from The Sun so must be taken with a fair pinch of salt, these include - Artic Explorer using high energy Dog food and that Pet food is more healthy to eat than Fast food. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 10:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You should look into Freeganism; at least they eat people food. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If you eat dog food and a doctor has to so much as look your way, you'll wipe out any savings you may have suffered through. Dog food components imported from China famously came with a lot of plastic in them, but I imagine it's not much better when they're toeing the line, rather than inching across it. Stick with beans and rice. --Sean 20:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I too have had periods in my life when I was so broke I couldn't afford to pay for food. However, I have found that it is times like that when it was very important to make sure to keep my strength up by eating well. I know you're talking about getting cheap protein, but I thought I'd share a little hard-earned wisdom from what I did when I was like this. First, buy bulk. It's cheaper in the long run. You might need to space your bulk purchases out so that you buy a 25 pound bag of rice one month, and a 25 pound bag of beans the next, but a 25 pound bag of rice or beans will last you several months at least...

The best bang for your buck is to buy rice, beans, oatmeal (get the kind that is as whole grain and unprocessed as possible), potatoes, onions, carrots and cabbage. You can live just on these foods alone. Make sure to eat onions, carrots and cabbage - these will help keep you healthy and give you the strength you'll need to get by. A person who does not eat onions is a person who gets sick often.

Next, keeping in mind the bulk idea, buy bulk meat. But you don't have to settle on cheap dog food. Often if you look for sales in grocery stores you can pick up a largish ham that will cost around $1 per pound - making it a very excellent buy, since ham keeps well, is incredibly versatile, and is yummy, too. At least a lot more yummy than dog food! Another good buy is pork or beef roast - if it's on sale. Another is turkey legs, which sometimes are sold for as little as 85 cents a pound. The idea is to buy a piece of meat that is large, and then after cooking it, cut it up into smaller portions, put them into individual bags, and then plop them into the freezer. That way you can take advantage of sales and stretch the meat out a lot.

An adult male needs to eat only 56 grams (or about 2 ounces or 1/8th of a pound) of protein a day[4]. This is not very much! A MacDonald's quarter pounder hamburger provides about twice as much protein as this basic minimum requirement... So if you are trying to live cheaply, eat the bulk produce and supplement it with small amounts of protein. That's what kept body and soul together for me when I didn't have money... -- Saukkomies 12:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

When I was poor, I virtually lived on ramen noodles; you could get a whole meal for 25 cents U.S. Unfortunately, I rather overdid it and now the smell of the stuff makes me gag. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Historical price data for retail automobiles

I know this must be somewhere on the internet, but I've not yet typed in the magical combination of Google terms to find it. Where can I find a chart of average/typical retail automobile prices (preferably inflation-adjusted) from 1900/1910 or thereabouts to the present (or within the last few years, anyway)?—Chowbok ☠ 22:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)