Humanities desk
< June 9	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 11 >

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.

June 10

shi'a muslim in Pakistan

Which major cities in Pakistan have shi'a muslim population? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.27 (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every major city in Pakistan has a Shi'a community. Marco polo (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omni-Benevolent origins

What is the source of the belief in an "all good" omni-benevolent God in Christianity?

I have already looked for this on wikipedia, as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibenevolence#Religious_perspectives

However, I find the two proofs for omni-benevolence lacking. I have googled this as well, but to no avail.

Perhaps you could further extrapolate and explain the already existing entry that I cited, or perhaps you are better at googling than I am.

Whatever your method is, I thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steelersfan7roe (talk • contribs) 02:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many biblical quotes that could be applied to this concept. Perhaps you could explain exactly what you want to find, or what you find lacking? WikiJedits (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the cheapest camera you could use for an independent film?

Like In the soup or Π (film). GoingOnTracks (talk) 02:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could use whatever you want. A $200 digital camera with video compatibilities? Or you can make it a sideshow and just use a disposable camera? Paragon12321 (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My camera cost about £60, and I'm sure there are even cheeper versions around, which can at least record pictures as a film. Or if you don't mind tedious work and have a lot of time, they do, or at least did, an offer here where you can buy a camera for I think about £5, then pay some tiny amount of money, I forget exactly how much, to have the film developed, and then afterwards they give you a voucher for a free new camera to take the next few pictures with. Although I expect a very cheep digital camera would still cost less than this, as you can record a few hours of stuff onto a memory card and there's probably a really simple way of showing stuff on it to other people.

And then I doubt you would even need a camera at all, you could draw everything and scan it onto a computer to organise it, or even create the entire film in Paint, one pixel at a time. Which probably breaks a world record for boredom. Money buys you quicker, easier and usually more fun ways of doing things, and often increases the variety of options you have to work with. Except Paint, in which technically you can do anything you could with an expensive camera if you know how. It depends what sorts of things you would need to create all the effects in the film.HS7 (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Senator with missing fingers

Which recently-elected US Senator is missing fingers, or has a serious hand injury. I was convinced it was Jim Webb, but it looks to me like he has all ten, so I must be confused. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.121.46 (talk) 03:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Tester is missing three fingers. (Lest you doubt...)--98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yay, thanks. I don't know how I confused them. I guess they look kind of similar. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.152.238 (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Dole? Not too recent, though . . . DOR (HK) (talk) 03:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Todays Standard of Living As Compared to The 70's

I remember The 70's As being pretty tough financially,and the economy as a whole seemed pretty lousy(Stagflation,energy rationing,etc) but as you read about wealth/service distribution in the U.S. today, the idea you take away is that over-all, economically, things are worse today, is there a way to find out if we are better off now than we were then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.111.85.37 (talk) 03:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple measures such as comparing GDP and figures of that style will be a good starting point. That will show overall economic increase/decrease. Standard of living is much harder because local-economies/personal circumstances are harder to understand. You could compare a variety of figures and look for an overall-trend - say crime statistics, infant mortality rates, average life spans, average working hours, average free-time per week (as working hours have increased it is perhaps surprising to see that for many even though the hours of work have increased their 'free' time has also increased). A combination of those stats should help. Sorry can't do much research to answer Q at min but i'm certain there is a specific index/series of stats on standard of living just can't remember the name. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the numbers (such as GDP per capita), you will find that the average "standard of living" is higher today than it was during the 1970s. People can and do buy more stuff. They live in bigger houses, have more vehicles, more TVs, computers, and other possessions cluttering their bigger houses. Considered quantitatively, I think that you will find that the "standard of living" even of the least affluent quintile has at worst held steady since the 1970s, while that of the quintile with the highest income has increased dramatically. However, what these numbers fail to capture is quality of life. To afford this standard of living, people are working longer hours, and often a second or third job, dealing with mountains of debt, and sitting for hours in traffic. In the 1970s, many more households had a single earner (typically the husband) supporting an entire family. Today, both spouses have to work. In the 1970s, people had more time for social organizations and voluntary activities that might have given them more of a sense of connection. Today people arrive home exhausted from their long commute and sit, often solitary, in front of a computer or TV. So, while the "standard of living", measured in numbers, is higher today, I'm not sure that the same is true for the quality of life. You might want to look at Standard of living in the United States and this article on standard of living. Marco polo (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And remember, when looking at averages for a population, the mean may not be the most useful place to be looking. The mode may suit your purposes better. 79.74.56.70 (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another important idea in economics is that people tend to gauge happiness relative to their peer groups, rather than relative to any absolute measures. Also happiness tends to exhibit "Decreasing returns to scale" (the more you have, the less valuable an additional "unit" of it is.)

These ideas combine to suggest:

1) Actual life satisfaction doesn't increase at a very significant rate, as a function of GDP per capita

2) More income disparity (lots of rich people, lots of poor people) means overall happiness would be lower at any given income level than if things were more equitable (lots of middle class people)

24.68.228.182 (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that the U.S. standard of living is higher today than in the 1970's. Americans feel more economically stressed than they have in decades, however reassuring official government statistics may be. Wages are stagnant, fuel prices are up at a record rate, food prices are up, and home values have plummeted. [1] Several articles in major newsweeklies in the last couple of years have discussed the widespread observation that today a college graduate has less chance of "living the American dream" of getting a good job and a house in the suburbs. Wages for new college graduates have not kept up with inflation. [2] 50% more recent college graduates move back in with their parents than in the 1970s. Fewer get married or find a career appropriate to their education.[3] 42% of U.S. employers are only offering college graduates $30,000, or less which, combined with staggering college loans due to cutbacks in grants and scholarships, makes it impossible for them to achieve the independence they seek, and forces a prolonged adolescence on them.[4] It doesn't get better in the 30's than in the 20's. Americans in their mid 30's are almost three times more likely to live with their parents than in previous generations.[5] The "middle class" is shrinking. Less educated workers are far worse off, due to the widening disparity between the upper and lower socioeconomic strata, the shrinking number of unionized manufacturing jobs, the flight of jobs overseas and the influx of low paid workers from abroad. Edison (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the difficulties in comparing two eras so far apart is the enormous jump in technological innovation (he writes on the Wikipedia page in Hong Kong, which is then able to be read around the world in a matter of seconds.) And, along with innovation, massive deflation. Here's a neat example: in 1980, computing one million instructions per second (MIPS) cost about US$1 million. Today, maybe a penny, maybe less.DOR (HK) (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of gigaflop processors, HDTV and other shiny baubles does not make up for the declines in standard of living cited above. Edison (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a quote

I'm looking for a quote from British industrialism..

it begins "Two nations.." and ends "THE RICH AND THE POOR". Can anyone help?--Goon Noot (talk) 06:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two nations between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are ignorant of each other's habits, thoughts and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones or inhabitants of different planets; who are formed by different breeding, are fed by different food, are ordered by different manners, and are not governed by the same laws ... THE RICH AND THE POOR.

-Benjamin Disraeli

--Goon Noot (talk) 06:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

go thee to nunnery

when hamlet said go thee to nunnery did he really mean it? do u feel that it is the most cruel statement in english literature whether he meant it or not? remi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.88.252.28 (talk) 07:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Nunnery" was slang for brothel in Elizabethan times, so as well as telling Ophelia to go to be a nun, he could also have been suggesting she become a whore. Yes, it's a cruel statement. AndyJones (talk) 08:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In passing: it's "get thee", not "go thee", and in context, the admonition is clearly to become a nun, not to become a whore, since a whore can be "a breeder of sinners", while a nun would not. Hamlet is telling Ophelia to be celibate, not profligate.- Nunh-huh 08:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He might be telling her to stay away from crazy guys like himself. Or maybe he is just pretending to be crazy in that scene because he knows Polonius and Claudius are spying on them. Or maybe he resents his mother's quick re-marriage and he's taking it out on Ophelia (why would he marry Ophelia when women are so fickle?). Or maybe he just really is crazy. The Hamlet and Ophelia articles might help. In any case, I doubt it's the cruelest statement in all of English literature... Adam Bishop (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential pardon

May President Bush pardon senior staff members such as Karl Rove or Vice President Cheney as a preventive measure? May the president pardon someone who has not been indicted or convicted of a crime, but might in fact be indicted after the president leaves office? Jeffynelson (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as our article Pardon explains, the president may pardon any person of misconduct chargeable under Federal law whether or not that person has yet faced charges. When Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon, Nixon had not yet been charged with a crime. Marco polo (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Proclamation 4311 for the exact wording of a get out of jail free card. --Sean 18:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your last question, pardons, as far as I know, are permanent unless for some reason the President says otherwise. Keep in mind, pardoning someone in the middle of a big investigation could be seen as implicating yourself. Paragon12321 (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could he pardon himself proactively? DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Pardon me? the constitutional case against presidential self-pardons." Fribbler (talk) 10:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USPS book post

Does the USPS have special discounts for posting books within the US? How is the cost calculated? What is the procedure for it? Links would be very welcome. A Google search yielded no result for book post. Thanks in advance. Kushal (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's called Media Mail now. See United States Postal Service and Media Mail. Depends only on the weight of the package. There's also "Bound Printed Matter" rate, which is sometimes cheaper, as it varies by weight and distance. If sending things BPM, be sure to write "address services requested" on the package, as without this they are disposed of if undeliverable to the listed address, unlike media mail, which is forwarded or returned.John Z (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John. Thank you very much. I will go to the link right away. Kushal (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Relationship with Jesus

Modern Christians often speak about having a personal relationship with Jesus. What are the ways in which they would go about trying to develop or maintain such a relationship?

--91.104.47.60 (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to this website, it is more a matter of accepting certain assumptions and adopting a certain mental and spiritual attitude than of specific actions. However, according to this website, action, specifically prayer, is necessary for developing a personal relationship. Marco polo (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broadly, I'd look at Born again Christianity and Lutheranism.

Here are a few links I found that address the specific question: [6] [7] [8] [9]

I'm not supporting or endorsing any of those links, but they seem relevant. E^robson (T^alk) 20:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brother Lawrence might also be of interest, he is famous for having such a relationship. WikiJedits (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could I extend the question and ask if anyone has ever claimed to have had carnal relations with Jesus or to be in a somehow spiritual-physical relationship with the saviour? 200.127.59.151 (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a way these have. Fribbler (talk) 23:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminded of St. Theresa... E^robson (T^alk) 17:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]