Humanities desk
< July 7	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 9 >

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.

July 8

Was the name 'Damian' ever mentioned in the Bible as being connected with/another name for the Devil?

Question as topic. Thanks. --84.68.35.254 (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damian (or the more popular spelling, Damien) is not mentioned in the Bible in any way. The relationship to "the Devil" comes from the The Omen. That is a movie, not a Bible documentary. -- kainaw ™ 02:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is, however, a Saint Damian. The name has its origin in Greek. Gwinva (talk) 04:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damian (given name) has something on Damian's Greek etymology. The word demon might be of Greek etymology too, but apparently unrelated. Damien lists some interesting Damiens: e.g. Damien Karras, a clerical character in The Exorcist which came out before The Omen, the protagonist of which has his own article mentioning some speculation on the choice of name for Damien Thorn. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(OR) I always assumed that "Damien" was a play on the word "Daemon". 152.16.59.190 (talk) 06:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Territories

What country capitals other than the U.S. are located in a distinct district and not in a province or state99.144.230.97 (talk) 03:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australia's Canberra is in Australian Capital Territory, which does not have the same legislative independence as the various Australian states. Also check out Capital districts and territories. Gwinva (talk) 04:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just asked this Q recently, but don't know how to find it now. StuRat (talk) 04:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008_June_14#Alternating_DC_questions. Stu, I clicked on the link Australian Capital Territory, then clicked on What links here, set the namespace filter to "Wikipedia" and there it was (bottom of list). ---Sluzzelin talk 05:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, fancy work there. Still, it relies on you recalling that such a link was included. I'm afraid my memory isn't that good. I can eventually do a Google search, but Google seems to be several weeks out of date at times, meaning that recently archived questions are lost to me, unless I do an exhaustive search of the archives for every day and every possible Ref Desk where it could have been located. StuRat (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil? DOR (HK) (talk) 07:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Capital districts and territories article lists 19 of them. But it's a Wikipedia list; I would not expect it to be reliably exhaustive. --Anonymous, 07:20 UTC, July 8, 2008.

Wishbones and flight in classical times

I have a very vague memory of the ancients (whoever they were) noting that one of the anatomical features characterising birds was the wishbone, and concluding it's this that gives them the power of flight - which it does, because the wing muscles are anchored to it or something - but they thought it was a magical thing. My vague memory, perhaps totally constructed, also tells me that this is where the idea of the furcula being a wishbone comes from - when two friends snap it, the one who gets the larger portion is the one with the more magic.

But I can't find any reference to this in google or WP. Does the idea ring a bell at all?

Thanks

Adambrowne666 (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The Speech of the Grail" examines old Michaelmas feast, where the goose bone was examined for omens (being close to the goose's heart). This column also talks about the early use in omen reading. The breaking seems to have come later. Answers.com claims the custom was first described by John Aubrey in 1686. It seems to be a British tradition (where bone was called "merrythought"), later translated to America for thanksgiving dinners, and also popularised in good luck charms. The name "wishbone" invented America, 1850. Can't find any link to flight. (I found all these by googling "merrythought", but only followed a few links from the first pages). Gwinva (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, Gwinva, it's helpful - weird how something I've accepted as true all my life turns out to be completely unknown. Adambrowne666 (talk) 09:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History- Inventions that took place after the French Revolution.

What difficulties did James Brindley experience when inventing the Bridgewater Canal?or any other Canal that was invented by him?Saadiqah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.54.202.94 (talk) 12:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about the use of the word "inventing" for James Brindley's involvement in the design and construction of the Bridgewater Canal. His main contribution, according to the article, was the introduction of clay puddling to ensure the bottoms of the canals would be watertight. What difficulties he may have faced are not specified. Perhaps they are simply the ones resulting from the topography of the lands around the canals' routes. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "invention" probably dates back to the early Chinese dynasties, or perhaps Egyptian. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Example in history where politics blocked progress

I'm wondering if there are any specific examples in history where politics or religion has blocked scientific progress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.29.144 (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Ages, The Crusades, stem-cell research, cloning. Plasticup ^T/C 13:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now come on Plasticup. Exactly what kind of scientific progress did the Crusades block? You may not have liked them (and who does) but there's no discovery we know of that would have been made if they hadn't happened. Also the lack of progress in the Dark Ages had many causes, hardly any of the religious. In fact religious institutions (monastries) were chief centres of learning, and by preserving books actually helped progress. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They repeatedly ravaged one of the most scientifically advanced societies of the time. "There's no discovery we know of that would have been made if they hadn't happened"? What does this mean? There were brilliant discoveries already made by the Arab Empire. The ideas were later assimilated by Europeans (with some success), but the destruction of those great Arab institutions was a tragic tragic loss. Plasticup ^T/C 14:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"there's no discovery we know of that would have been made if they hadn't happened." ?!?! During the 'dark ages,' while the Europeans were very much lagging in scientific achievement the Arab Empire was engaged in translating ancient greek and roman texts and carrying out their own scientific and philosophical studies and coming up with innovations, if instead of crusading, the Europeans engaged more in trade and such, they would've benefited from the Arab learning centuries before when they sacked Toledo and finally translated all of those works and 'miraculously' had a renaissance. So I don't think it's too far a stretch at all to say the Crusades blocked progress. -LambaJan (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather sweeping generalisation, LambaJan. It's not as if Europe spent the entire Middle Ages fighting crusades while the Arabs sat translating ancient texts. The wars happened sporadically over a couple of centuries; you can just as easily claim the English spent the Middle Ages fighting France, rather than inventing. Secondly, it ignores the fact that wars increase technological development: the various wars of the period, and the need for attack and defence capabilities, brought about advanced weapon technology, steel forging, complicated engineering and construction, medical and surgical techniques, transport development, road building, throwing machines, mining techniques, incendiary devices, and so forth. It also ignores the vast development in general technology and science over the period. Basically, the Dark Ages is a myth, and no knowledge was "miraculously" discovered during the renaissance: it had been building up for a long time. Gwinva (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One sweeping generalization deserves another ;-) There really isn't space here for too much elaboration. If you notice, I quoted the terms dark ages and miraculous out of sarcasm. War doesn't directly increase technological development. Technological investment does. Those wartime technologies don't become anything useful to society without further investment, which is supported by trade and industry. Wars bankrupt countries and cause them to stop investing in innovation. Trade finances innovation in wartime and peacetime. Nevertheless, your argument doesn't invalidate the one I made about the European's receiving the benefits of the substantial advances in the Arab world much later than they would've had they cultivated good relations instead of crusading. -LambaJan (talk) 02:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some very obvious weak points in your argument LambaJan. If we consider World War II for example it was a time of enormous innovation, despite the fact that trade was very much lower than the periods before or after. Maybe you are right that not much of that innovation was immediately useful to peacetime society, but that wasn't what the question was about. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WWII was a time of enormous technological investment. The essence of my argument (which refuted Gwinva's claim that it's a "fact that wars increase technological development", which really gets at the essence of the question.) was that investment drives innovation regardless of wartime or peacetime. The trade before and after (not to mention all of the arms trade during) paid for it. The reality of the situation is that technological advancements have actually been happening at a greater pace since those wars have ended and more countries have been able to financially get involved. What are the other weak points in my argument? -LambaJan (talk) 14:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avro Arrow. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and some nutters tried to prevent an "obscene" anatomically correct drawing of a human male and a female from being included on the Pioneer plaque, and even succeeded with the Voyager Golden Record. I don't know for a fact that they were religious, but where else would someone find the absurd notion that anatomy is obscene? Plasticup ^T/C 13:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't know for a fact that they were religious, but where else would someone find the absurd notion..." is also a very good example of how deeply held irrational beliefs can cloud logical thinking. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A majority of Americans are morally opposed to nanotechnology (wtf?) because religion has taught them to fear science. Plasticup ^T/C 13:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can deduce people's motives that accurately. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not, but the article I link to says that this was the conclusion of the Arizona State University researchers.

[T]he differences can be attributed to Americans' religious beliefs and a perception "that nanotechnology, biotechnology and stem cell research are lumped together as means to enhance human qualities."

Plasticup ^T/C 14:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"attributed to Americans' religious beliefs" does not mean they were "taught to fear science". It may mean that their religious values teach them to hold life sacred. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nanotechnology has nothing to do with life. It means "building things that are really small". Plasticup ^T/C 19:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some more examples given at Criticism of religion#Impedes science and human progress. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might also like to look at heliocentrism and the history thereof. Whatever the myths about Galileo the church was certainly a strong proponent of geocentrism until it became essentially untenable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess that most of the historical examples arise from religion, or politics influenced by religion (such as anti-evolution efforts in the United States today), but Lysenkoism is an example of purely political interference. JamesMLane t c 15:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a rather sweeping generalisation to suggest that religion holds back science, or is inherently opposed to it. Much of the development of science, thought, technology has come from the learned religious scholars. Think Greek philosophers, the Arab scholars, the Spanish monks who developed horse-breeding strategies, mathematical developments, the institution of the three field system and milling technologies improved and developed in monasteries, Buridan, Mendel, the immense libraries collected by the church, cathedral engineering, the universities (established by the Church) and so on (anyone interested can easily extend the list). So why do we focus on a few high profile spats? (And don't forget, Galileo was a devout Catholic, so that's not really church vs science but some Christians vs some Christians.) Gwinva (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are focussed on a few "spats" because the question asks about specific instances of political or religious interference in progress. To reduce the end result of some of the involvement of religion in delaying progress to a "spat" is to mislead. As a single example, the WP article Galileo says: "Galileo was eventually forced to recant his heliocentrism and spent the last years of his life under house arrest on orders of the Inquisition." I suspect the gentleman so cloistered might think you are down-playing the seriousness of the matter and the seriousness of the Roman Catholic opposition. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right; Galileo is a good example of political inhibition of progress, and thus a good answer to the original question. (And, while a religious dispute, it was also political, given the intertwining of church & state at the time.) Forgive my off-topic musing on whether a ledger of technology/science enhanced by religion would balance or outweigh a ledger of technology/science held back by religion. I was distracted by the implication that religion is in some way incompatible with science. I don't think that's true. Gwinva (talk) 00:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though it should be noted that the Church only had power in some parts of Europe. The things that Galileo was getting arrested for were widely discussed and debated in England, for example. I'm not sure the incarceration of Galileo was necessarily against "scientific progress" in a broad sense. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the difficulty in answering this question is that it relies on hypotheticals—what would have happened? Even amongst professional historians, such hypotheticals are highly debatable, much less amongst amateurs relying largely on a class they once took or a book they once read or a special on PBS they saw or some articles they read on the Wiki. In any case, you're going to have a hard time arguing against some sort of "universal" scientific progress at any given time because things were relatively spread out. Lysenkoism devastated biology in the Soviet Union for many decades, but elsewhere tremendous progress was being made (Watson and Crick were not impeded by it, for example). Deutsche Physik screwed up the practice of German physics for many years but had the unintended consequence of making many top-flight German physicists emigrate and spend all their efforts developing weapons for the Allies (the atomic bomb, radar, etc.). Opposition to the federal funding of stem cell research might have slowed down "scientific progress"... or it might not have—it's not clear whether we'd be much further along today with or without it. Lastly, you seem to hold "scientific progress" as being implicitly better than "politics" but let's remember that's a value statement. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty has no doubt slowed down scientific progress in the area of nuclear weapons development, for purely political reasons, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. The cancellation of the Superconducting Super Collider was certainly a form of "politics" but one based on allocation of resources—is particle physics better than, say, space exploration, in a world of finite budgets? --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll chip in with the end of China's long-distance sea exploration, ca. 1425AD. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I skimmed through this entire section to see whether anyone brought this up, as, (to my opinion), its probably the best example of this. Alas, you beat me to it! Ninebucks (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flying the flag upside down

From national flag:

When a national flag, with some exceptions, is flown upside down it indicates distress. This however is merely tradition. It is not a recognised distress signal according the International regulations for preventing collisions at sea. Further an nation's flag is commonly flown inverted as a sign of protest or contempt against the country concerned.

How does a Italian, British, or Japanese protester do if he/she wants to fly the flag upside down? -- Toytoy (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with the British flag, except that it is often flown upside down through ignorance (including on a battleship shown on Britsh TV a few months ago - though it is possible that the TV company had accidentally flipped the image. Dbfirs 16:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely no-one's stupid enough to vertically flip a pic of a battleship? Algebraist 19:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the show was made for Australian viewers? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Union Flag is not a vertical or horizontal mirror image. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but flipping the image will also move the pole. The correct orientation is defined relative to the pole. Algebraist 19:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. You can't horizontally flip the Union Jack when flown from a pole or mast. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can. It just doesn't become wrong if you do. ;-) AndyJones (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid of me to suggest a (horizontally) flipped image - now I'm wide awake it's obvious this couldn't be the explanation! I can't imagine the Royal Navy making such a basic error (though it is common elsewhere!) so perhaps I just mis-saw the flapping of the fly and assumed that the pole was at the other side - it was only a brief clip.
Incidentally, many "toy" British flags are printed "back-to-back" instead of "through" the paper, so they are correct on one side and "upside down" (equivalent to horizontally flipped) on the other side, once the pole (or stick) is attached. Dbfirs 07:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if anyone is still wondering, this is all because the widths of the white stripes of a Union Jack are not symetrical. Some are wide, others are narrow. AndyJones (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... detailed information about which can be found here. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So all this time I was protesting the crown and I didn't know it! ;-) As far as the Italians and Japanese, they just find other ways of protesting. The Italians often fly the rainbow flag. -LambaJan (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help

I`m having trouble with a few quiz Q.s my mates roped me into helping him with and you guys are excellent at assisting with the answers. I`m sure the pictures are coming from here haha. Essentially I want to know who this is. Many thanks.

img157.imageshack.us/my.php?image=38335550zv8.jpg

Jeff Bezos, holding up a Kindle, which sort of gave it away. - Nunh-huh 19:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

of, by and for the people

Since the Constitution of the United States is the law of the land I was wondering if I might understand it more precisely were it found published in the form of a polychotomous key, yet I can find no such form of publication. Is it therefore only for lawyers and fancy words of deception for the rest? -- adaptron (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you are 71.100.5.4, who has on a number of occasions asked for a rendering of the law in a polychotomous key over the past months on various of these reference desk pages? You "wonder if you might understand it more fully" if it were published in such a key; than finding no such publication exists, decide that the law must be reserved to lawyers, which would seem contrary to the "of, by and for the people". I wonder if it has occurred to you that you might not understand it any better if it was in such a key? That the nature of the accretion of statue and case law does not easily lend itself to description in such a key system; and that, this being the case, there is little demand for such key systems in this domain. Bottom line: you appear frustrated that the world will not shape itself to your preferences, and better than that, see the lack of catering for those preferences as some sort of consipiracy against non-lawyers. That attitude considerably lacks good faith, besides being immature posturing based on an ill-thought-out premise. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One must know the law first before one can attempt to understanding the law. Enter any insane asylum and you will find that what is said there likewise "...does not easily lend itself to description in such a key system; and that, this being the case, there is little demand for such key systems in this domain." Bottom line my concern is that with a polychotomous key I might at least help my neighbors to know the law if not to understand it. Aside from that many lawyers are allowed to pass the bar who think the law is nothing more than a polychotomous key and it is equal footing with these types of lawyers which demands publication of an actual polychotomous key. For those lawyers capable of knowing the difference between right an wrong, however, a polychotomous key might be helpful but certainly not a requirement for justice since those kinds of attorneys usually have sufficient staff to serve in the capacity of a polychotomous key. It is the poor laymen, the average citizen who must suffer in absence of a polychotomous key. Arguing that the law is too esoteric to permit publication in the form of a polychotomous classification is like saying that taxonomy of insect species or chemical compounds or Language is a hopeless endeavor, although not quite as esoteric as the law. -- adaptron (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If so, take comfort: I've always thought not being a lawyer is its own reward. Adambrowne666 (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My confusion has gone on long enough. I tried WP, but got a useless redirect. I tried Google, but could not find a definition that would help in this specific use. Would someone please explain what a "polychotomous key" is (or might be), and how it might (or might not) relate to legal writing? Thank you. ៛ Bielle (talk) 04:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See single-access key. It's basically a sequence of multiple choices, each choice leading to the next choice, and, finally and ideally, resulting in an unequivocal identification (of a species in biology, or a legal category in adaptron's model). Etymologically, "polychotomous" is a false analogy of "dichotomous" (dicha = "in two", temnein = "cutting"). "Polytomous" is the better term. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Sluzzelin, I had the same problem as Bielle. I will now fit my front door with a polychotomous lock, meaning that after trying all the other keys I will logically derive that the last one is the correct polychotomous key leading to the time saving logical solution of entering my abode without the aid of sundry screwdrivers, sledgehammers, brigades of locksmiths and the usual gaggle of SWAT agents dangling from the roof and crashing through the windows.

If I understand it correctly, dichotomous would mean you are sneaking through a binary tree of choices whilst polytomous (polychotomous) refers to a tree with > 2 nodes per parent node. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, and Sluzzelin means little atomous skeleton key, so your protection is futile.

And what about the dichotomouse, the lair of which has 2 branches at every bifurcation and the hexachotomoose, whose antlers fork into six smaller twigs at each annual separation?

Donner and Blitzen, we got no articles on those... --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My experience with polychotomous keys has never been very good. You would be much better joining a Plain English movement. There has been a raging movement in England for some time, but apparently there is also one in the United States. The British movement acknowledges that the special language of lawyers serves a purpose in that is it incredibly precise, but also asks that a simple "Plain English" translation of the law also be published that the common man might understand. Plasticup ^T/C 13:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with publishing the law in "simple, easy-to-read forms" is that it doesn't allow the common man to understand it - it allows the common man to think they understand it, which might be more dangerous than not understanding it. It's the same reason nobody produces easy, non-technical, instructions on how to do surgery. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your help, especially Sluzzelin. I spent years in business trying to come up with a "simple summary" of a commercial standard form of lease, only to fail just as often becuase some significant nuance of a deal just would not fit into the format. As DJ Clayworth says above, law, like medicine, both of which are, or should be, freely available to the "people" remain disciplines where expertise is required to get it right. We don't do our own surgery; we don't do our own legal opinions. ៛ Bielle (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you do not expect me to swallow the idea that legal opinion is an adequate replacement for the law? In conjunction with publishing the law in the form of a polychotomous key for the purpose of identification is the idea of publishing legal procedure in the form of a flowchart. Flowcharts work well for surgical procedures as well as legal procedures. I know the difficulty of accepting and using polychotomous keys and flowcharts by professional persons. In many cases a professional person may disagree with a particular polychotomous key or flowchart and on that basis relegate all polychotomous keys and flowcharts to the trash heap. However, dynamic online polychotomous keys and flowcharts directly updateable with consensus or committee approval make them very potent indeed. -- adaptron (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not asking that you swallow anything, Adaptron, especially an idea. Ideas need light. And I was not suggesting that a legal opinion is a replacement for knowledge of the law, any more than surgery is a replacement for knowledge of medicine. Perhaps you could undertake to become a legal scholar and to devise a polychotomous key for the law yourself. ៛ Bielle (talk) 01:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my comment was a bit more brutal than I intended. In actuality neither flowcharting legal procedure or reducing the law to a polychotomous key are tasks to be taken lightly or left to a single individual. Both, however, can be developed over time based not perhaps on the wording of a statute and the intent of the law, but on what actually comes down. I suggest this approach only because I am familiar with the capability of unsupervised neural networks and in many cases where a jury is involved a polychotomous key (or rather a checklist of criteria, which must be met to reach an innocent or guilty verdict) is provided for them. Take heart, though. So long as the law is not published in the rudimentary form of a polychotomous key ignorance of the law on the part of those who are expected to obey it will not only remain a valid excuse to not obey it but an absolute guarantee. -- adaptron (talk) 08:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to determine the right direction of an insert in a plasmid?

Hey guys. I need an immediate help. I have this biology lab about plasmids that we are required to inset a cDNA into a plasmid. one of the fundemental question of the lab is how can we determine that we put the insert in the right orientation? they talk about the use of restriction enzymes and to see the results of agaron gel electrophorisis. can somebody explain this to me? or at least guide me to a website that i can find in it useful information. Thank you, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.50.42 (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: This question was copied or crossposted to the Science desk, here, where it has received replies. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Credit Card questions

Hi all,

I'm planning on getting a credit card, and am a little confused on a few issues even after reading quite a few articles.

How do grace periods and billing cycles interact? Let's say I get a bill on the 1st of every month, and have a grace period of 20 days on purchases. If I buy something on the 20th of the month, when will it start accruing interest? 20 days later, or 40?
If I spend $50 on the 1st, $50 on the 25th, and pay off $50 on the 30th, will I start accruing any interest on either purchase?
Finally, will it affect my credit history negatively in any way if I make 3-4 payments every month, in a hodge-podge fashion (always being sure to pay at least the minimum each month)?

Thanks! — Sam 20:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, financial institutions (including credit-card companies) like things to be consistent. Whatever payment schedule you devise, you are best advised to do the same thing every month. Most people make payments around their pay cycles, which tend to be regular, even if their hours are not. So, paying weekly, every two weeks or monthly is a better choice (calls less attention to your account) than random small payments. There is nothing wrong with random small payments; there is just nothing right with them. As for grace periods and interest start dates, different credit-card companies handle things differently. You would need to look at the contract you sign when you get your credit card, and address your questions, if any still remain, to the institution that issues your card. ៛ Bielle (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Credit card? The section on interest charges and grace period are quite helpful. In most cases, the grace period only counts if you pay off your balance IN FULL each month. If you do not pay off the balance, then you will be charged interest FOR THE ENTIRE AMOUNT over the whole period (including "grace period") not just the amount outstanding. (ie they backdate the interest, and apply it to the WHOLE amount.) Sometimes, if you have an outstanding balance one month, you will not have a grace period the next, but be charged interest from the day of transaction. But as long as you pay off the balance by the due date, you should not be liable for interest. (But check the small print for your card; some have fees etc.) Your statement will show the transaction dates and the payment due dates. (That's a long answer to your first question).

2. Generally, transactions are lumped into a month period, (say, 1-30th, or 20th-20th). You'll then receive a statement, and get a couple of weeks or so to make the payment. You will (typically) only start accruing interest once the "grace period" expires , but if not paid, then interest will be backdated. But do check your provider's contract.

3. Check with your card provider; some allow split payments, automatic payments and so forth.

WARNING: My above comments are generalisations, and describe typical situations; different companies may have differing terms: read the small print, and talk to the provider to be sure you understand what you are signing. Gwinva (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Credit cards are one of the best investment instruments ever invented. If you pay off the entire amount due, every single month without fail, you will earn an amount equal to the interest you did not have to pay. This is typically 15-30% a year, which is easily the very highest no-risk rate of return available anywhere. However, each and every time you miss paying off the entire debt, you lose that same amount of interest. (If this doesn't make sense, don't get a credit card. Seriously.) DOR (HK) (talk) 08:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a Jack Chick tract

I've been trying to find a Jack Chick religious tract which involves teenagers wanting to go to Hell-- and consequently taking up witchcraft, Satanism, etc-- because some popcultural source told them that it'd be an eternal wild party. If anyone could give me the title or find a link, I'd quite appreciate it. However, it's possible that I'm misremembering who was responsible for that statement; it might have been an evangelical other than Jack Chick. Any information or source would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.88.52 (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see anything like that on his site, but you might want to check yourself. Algebraist 21:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it "The Nervous Witch"? [1] bibliomaniac 1 5 01:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Fear? It's about suicide, but features commentary on the lack of a wild party. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This one is also about witchcraft. I can't decide which of the witch ones is more ridiculous, the one about evil Satanic witches sacrificing babies, or the one above about the need to throw Harry Potter books into bonfires. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a religious Christian myself, and I find Chick's claims pretty ludicrous, particularly his assertion that the Communists were bankrolled by the Catholic Church. bibliomaniac 1 5 22:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As there are those among us, readers and editors, who believe similar things about any religious claim, it ill behooves any of us to comment on others' beliefs. "Ludicrous" is in the eye of the beholder, even if some are more ludicrous than others. ៛ Bielle (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chick's ludicrousness is not so much his theology, which, as you say, is no more ludicrous than most theology (you know, he thinks people who haven't made a little pledge to Jesus all go to hell, no matter how young they are or how good they are, etc., which is extreme but certainly on the spectrum, and he's hardly the only one to hold those views), it's his claims about how the world outside of theology works. He sees the world as being made up primarily by literal agents of Satan—people literally in cahoots with the Devil himself, if not actually versions of the Devil themselves—and doing things like giving birth to babies just so they can sacrifice them to the Devil. Everybody who disagrees with him is not just theologically wrong, but usually actively and consciously working for evil, and doing horrendous (and illegal) acts in order to perpetuate the Devil's work. His religious views are on the more extreme end of fundamentalist American protestantism, but they're on the spectrum. It's his view of how the secular world works that is verifiably wacky and puts him in the total wackjob, conspiracy-theorist crank category. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you describe his beliefs, everything is within the realm of his theology. There is no secular world, as those who believe in, for example, the separation of Church and State understand secular. There is just "us" and the rest, but all are under his religious view. I still recommend that your judgements not be aired here. ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By "secular" I simply mean, the world of things and people, of politics and history. Obviously he sees all of that being shot through with theology, but I think one can meaningfully distinguish his views on what the Bible says from his views on how the UN works, for example. I would not hazard a judgment about his theological views—again, they strike me much like most theological views do, albeit extreme—but his political views, I don't have a problem saying they're wacky. People don't have babies just to sacrifice them, whether they read Harry Potter or not. That's just a fact. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I shall try one last time: not having any problem saying "they're wacky" is not the point. There are many beliefs held within religions of one kind or another that any one of us could call "wacky" and some might even start with a belief even in the existence of a god or gods. (No, I am not intending to go there.) However, the Ref Desk is not, in my view, the place to do it. The Pope also has problems with Harry Potter, as I recall. ៛ Bielle (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if the Pope said children who read Harry Potter became actual witches capable of casting real spells, using the spells from the books, people could legitimately call these views 'wacky'. They would not be theology but an actual testable claim about what a common book contains. Not criticising a view, particularly one stated as fact, purely because the person saying it defines it as being theology is the sort of thing that leads people to be intolerant of religious views because they feel they stifle debate! Politeness is one thing; Jack Chick's views on what people do when he's not looking are another. But all of this is my belief, so you can't judge or criticise it. 79.66.67.219 (talk) 06:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How much is the Mona Lisa worth?

If France were to auction it off, how much would it get for it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.44.43.163 (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This website says $500 million, but I don't know how they got that. --Allen (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our article has some information: it was assessed as worth 100 million USD in 1962 (about 700 million USD today, adjusted for inflation). Algebraist 22:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One might as well try to evaluate how many board feet of lumber would that amount to? "Prices" in such a case cannot be related to replacement value, so valuations are based on a "willing buyer-willing seller" basis. So, who would be the "willing seller"? --Wetman (talk) 01:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I see your point... there's no market value for something that isn't on sale and hasn't been sold recently. Still, in principle, why not try to estimate the answers to questions like, "How much would the French government be willing to sell it for?" and "How much would the highest bidder be willing to pay for it?" We might be able to approach the first number by surveying French political experts, and the second by surveying rich art collectors. Presumably the first number is higher than the second, and estimating both would give us a reasonable range for the value of the painting, right? --Allen (talk) 04:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first number (seller's price) must be higher than the second number (buyer's price) or the painting would already have been sold. i.e. it is worth more to its current owner than to anyone else in the world. Plasticup ^T/C 13:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless, of course, no one has figured it out yet. :-) --Allen (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If France was facing bankruptcy and the government had to find a quick couple of billion francs, maybe they'd be prepared to sell it to Bill Gates or someone up there with him. They'd be more than able, and probably more than willing, to pay the price. Mind you, this could precipitate a revolution that would make the events of 1789 seem like a Sunday school picnic, so maybe they'd have quite a long think about it before taking such a step. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A French franc would be pretty useless to them, seeing that they use Euros now. bibliomaniac 1 5 22:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about U.S. francs, obviously. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are most songs about love

Why are so many songs, disproprotionally (at least in pop culture) that are released into the media about love, specifically romantic love (I mean you rarely hear songs about love between family or friends). I mean, I know its a natural human emotion and universal experience, but there are tons of other things that are too (ie. eating lunch, fear,). Out of the myriad of topics why does LOVE dominate?

142.150.72.120 (talk) 22:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's universal and deeply felt, which means a well written love song is something the most general audience will become emotionally responsive to and, ideally, buy. Eating lunch is a bit less universal and much less emotional. Fear is as universal and deeply felt but the most common fears that most people can relate to are related to love. The music business shoots to the middle and only releases songs they're gambling will sell. They're trying to be safe with their money so if a song isn't a love song it still has to have a good argument for mass appeal, or else it stays on the album and doesn't get released. Songwriters know this so they write lots of love songs in hopes that some of them will make it big. Some songwriters want to write about other things and are very clever by weaving them into the context of a love song. -LambaJan (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, though, of course, there are less cynical reasons too: Songwriters also write about love because it is one of the most powerful motors of inspiration in their own emotional creativity-complex. If you compare to, say, literature or visual art, love does seem to be more prevalent in music than other media. Music has the key to our brain's emotional control center, otherwise we wouldn't spend so much money on it. I strongly recommend reading This Is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession by Daniel Levitin. When I was ten years old, I also thought "Why is every song about love? How boring!" Several years later, it made a lot of sense to me, especially the "you took my heart, and threw it away" variety ;-) ---Sluzzelin talk 04:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mascan civilization

I am having trouble find any information in ref to masca or mascan ancient people of peru.

Perhaps you're thinking of the Nazca civilization? They're the ones apparently responsible for the big geoglyphs on the Nazca Plain in Peru. Steewi (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broken links - try Nazca culture and Nazca lines Steewi (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a Masca tribe (Ayllu) somewhere in or around the Huatanay Valley, conquered by Apu Mayta, a son of Inca Roca. Huanoquite District, Paruro Province was formerly called Chilques and Mascas.—eric 05:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garcilaso de la Vega tells us the Mascas, the Chillquis and the Pap'ris were established in thirteen villages west of Cuzco along the royal road to Cuntisuyu (the quarter west of Cuzco, south of Lima and north of Peru-Chile border) in the time of Manco Capac.—eric 05:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Mascas (from Mascani, to search) are one of ten tribes mentioned in the Paccari-tampu myth.—eric 06:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a division of Inca society into Hanan and Hurin (which i cannot find any clear definition of), initially the division seems to be based on geography and simply for administrative purposes. Peoples would be Hanan (upper half) or Hurin (lower half) based on which of the four suyus (quarters of the empire) they were from. It seems that after Inca Roca the Hanan became the ruling class. The Mascas were Hurin.—eric 15:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intentionally Blank Page

Hello. Intentionally blank pages in documents, which missing pages can pose serious consequences, have "This page is intentionally left blank" labelled. This is a paradox. Why can there not be "The next X page(s) is/are intentionally left blank" on the page preceding the blank one? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As communication, it works fine. As a logical proof, it does not. Guess what the people who leave such pages care about more. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there was nothing on the page it would still confuse people, and I think "This page is intentionally devoid of content" sounds too weird.

The thing is, if you put it on the page before, a lot of people are not going to notice it and are going to get concerned when they see a blank page. However most people will notice it when the rest of the page is blank. Remember these are usually in circumstances where it matters and often when you don't want to spend a whole lot of time looking at previous pages to see if it mentions it somewhere (e.g. for both, exams) Nil Einne (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they could be labelled: "Aside from this notice, this page is left intentionally blank." Ninebucks (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]