Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 August 31

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.

August 31

Proving file sharing in court

(This is not a question for legal advice, in that I am not actually implementing anything below nor am I in any kind of legal jeopardy myself. I considered posting this at "Computing" but it is more a law question than a computing one.)

Let's say that the RIAA was going to sue somebody for downloading mp3s, as occasionally happens.

First: How do they prove that this actually happened? I mean, I get that they can prove that an IP address downloaded a song as part of a peer-to-peer network, because they can sit there and watch it happen pretty much in realtime as a peer. But how do they prove that the IP is the same as the person they are suing? Wouldn't it look identical from an IP perspective if the download it question happened from someone freeloading on an unsecured or hacked network?

Would they need to actually confiscate the hard drive and find the file on it? What if the file had been since "securely" deleted?

I am just curious about evidence procedures in this situation, I suppose, combined with liability (e.g. am I liable for something downloaded on an insecure or hacked network?). It seems like both of these could be quite difficult to prove, especially when combined with the fact that I don't think the police are actually beating down anyone's door to check their hard drives, no? --Mr.98 (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This was one of the problems with Capitol v. Thomas; Thomas claimed someone could have put the songs on her hard drive without her knowledge. (And apparently her hard drive was never actually used as evidence anyway.) Adam Bishop (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right, a hacked network would be indistinguishable. Similarly a shared network too. Civil cases like this won't regularly involve seizures like that. Often the IP information's enough. People could lie but lying under oath or to federal officials are both felonies. Many run of the mill copyright infringements aren't, although they carry hefty (one might say obscene) statutory penalties. A review of 17 U.S.C. § 506 should explain some of those thresholds, but I don't think anyone here can offer any precise guidance beyond that. Shadowjams (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Worth remembering of course the standard of proof in civil cases is different from criminal cases. And there's generally no presumption of innocence Nil Einne (talk) 06:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Legal differences matter, of course. But the original question references the RIAA, which is the Recording Industry Association of America, so I'm safe assuming U.S. law. That said, standard of proof in civil cases still is with the defendant, even in civil cases. It's merely a lesser standard. Shadowjams (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking in particular of advice that Bruce Schneier gave about wireless routers at one point, where he said that from a legal perspective, it probably made more sense not to secure them, because then if something dodgy happened on them (which might happen even if "secured"), you could always plausibly claim it wasn't you. I guess I'm surprised this isn't more common. Capitol v. Thomas was interesting, though I'm surprised more wasn't made of the evidentiary aspects. It seems to me like any good defense lawyer would focus on that angle of things, since it is the obvious weak point in the whole case. Once you let that go, it becomes unwinnable. It strikes me that a good Daubert hearing would make it easy to get a computer security expert who would say, "oh yeah, it's entirely possible that her computer was being used against her knowledge to do this." --Mr.98 (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

2010 census info

When does the new census data come out? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

DR, you've been round here long enough to know that WP is an internationally based set up, and that it doesn't do to assume everyone here knows where you're from. Even so, it wouldn't necessarily be safe to assume you were talking about the census in your home country, wherever that is. Be a good editor and please tell us which census you're talking about. Thanks. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's [1] the answer. 81.131.52.4 (talk) 04:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Haha. Well, the U.S. does tend to do their census every 10 years.... and that might be a likely choice..... but you know, you could respond like that I guess. Thank you 81.131 for the pertinent answer. I might also add to Rosenbach that censuses give out aggregate data pretty soon, but full census results aren't available for about 70 years (that number might be wrong but it's in the right range) after their made, to protect for privacy. Shadowjams (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's a little more complicated than that. The most important numbers for the United States Census's primary purpose, to equalize representation in the United States House of Representatives, must come out by December 31 of this year (2010) in order to allow state legislatures time to reapportion districts in time for the 2012 Congressional election cycle. Some states and cities, however, will hold elections next year (2011), and would like to have data that allow them to reapportion state legislatures, city councils and other multi-district bodies. The most important data are the number of people who can be classified as U.S. residents regardless of citizenship (excluding foreign diplomats, for example, but including those temporarily abroad on military duty). After that come data on race and ethnicity (such as Hispanic origin), in order to meet the requirements of the Voting Rights Acts and the 14th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. For the 2000 census, those data were released in summary form fairly soon after the basic numbers. According to the U.S. Census website:

The first data released from the 2010 Census are the official national and state population count, which are used to apportion seats in the US House of Representatives. As mandated by the US Constitution, this data must be delivered to the President of the United States by the US Census Bureau on or before December 31, 2010.

Then over the next two or three years, there will be a slow flood of data, both geographically-focused, for example, households, household income, school attendance, age distribution and housing starts in Pittsburgh, Pa. and Alpine County, California, and topically-oriented, e.g. a Census Brief on the Asian-American population, poverty in America or the distribution of American Indian and Native American tribes. In 2013, the Census will issue a County and City Data Book that will summarize many of these data. Every year, the Census publishes the Statistical Abstract of the United States; although the 2011 edition will have few data from the 2010 census, future editions will contain more and more.

For more information and time schedules, see our article on the United States Census, 2010 and explore the site at http://www.census.gov, especially the press releases.

You should also be aware that, since the first British census was held after the Union of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801, a number of interesting censuses will be taken in 2011, such as those of the United Kingdom, Canada and the Republic of Ireland. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

And Australia. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 06:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a side question - Shakescene used the wording "American Indian and Native American tribes". What's the difference? I thought the latter was just the more PC expression for the former. TomorrowTime (talk) 10:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he/she meant "American Indian and Alaska Native"? That appears to be, or have been a category in the US census, see Race and ethnicity in the United States Census. Jørgen (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I was being deliberately imprecise; the actual terminology gets quite cumbersome and loaded with political nuances (often changing from census to census). I prefer "American Indian" but I understand why others prefer "Native American". Cf. (I'm approximating from memory, and conflating questions from different censuses) "Black, Negro or African-American", "Latino/a or Hispanic Origin", and various other choices offered to census respondents in order to include as many of the intended group without giving offense. And if you want to start a (perfectly-legitimate) side-discussion of all those thorny issues, please start a new thread. —— Shakescene (talk) 12:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Drug Cartel organizational structure

I'm an HR guy, and after reading the Wikipedia articles about some of the biggest Mexican and Colombian drug cartels, I've become interested in learning more about how they organize their operations. The articles don't really go into any practical details other than to say that some use weak cells. Where can I find detailed information about how a given cartel was/is organized? Surely there must be some academic work out there on some of the more famous, and deconstructed, cartels like Pablo Escobar's? 218.25.32.210 (talk) 08:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

What's "an HR guy" mean? TomorrowTime (talk) 10:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Presumably Human Resources Rojomoke (talk) 10:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Freakonomics has a chapter studying this from the other end, asking why do so many street-corner dealers live with their mothers if drugs are such a lucrative trade. Their answer (I'm going from memory) was that, as with many other Multi-level Marketing (MLM) structures, the direct seller's hope is not to make a killing in direct retail (especially, in this field, considering the risks and costs of theft, violence and imprisonment) but to rise higher on the pyramid where he can profit more safely from the work of others. —— Shakescene (talk) 12:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

What interest can a HR guy (which I hope is a legitimate thing) has to do with organised crime ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he's just curious. Maybe there's a lesson to be learned from the way criminals operate that could be used in legitimate business - stuff like The Art of War and The Prince are used all the time in business courses to provide theories on strategy. Frankly, I don't care why he wants to know. Matt Deres (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Not on any of the many business courses I've been on. I think The Art of War and The Prince are just used as an excuse to write cheap trashy pulp business books. 92.29.124.214 (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

OP here. Organized crime, Jon Ascton, represents the extreme end of all HR. We are interested in motivating, retaining, developing, and - of course - at the end of the day controlling (though in a weak sense) employees. Criminal syndicates, the really big ones, do all of these things but with much, much higher stakes. If my company loses an engineer to a rival, we lose our investment in that person and perhaps a bit of our intellectual property. If a drug cartel loses a top member to a rival (or to the authorities), entire sections of their organization are compromised, families may be targeted, etc. Reading about Pablo Escobar and estimates that his syndicate made $60 million per day logically lead one to wonder how that was all controlled, how orders moved from top to bottom, etc. That's HR. 61.189.63.133 (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You are right. The Drug Trade is quite a phenomenon in itself, but strangely no businesses, legal or otherwise, in India reach that complexity and sophistication nor can I imagine any Indian HR guy reaching out for such bold solution i.e. trying to look at drug cartels for modeling. I even wonder if they dare to mention The Art of War in an Indian Business School class, such difference in minds has always intrigued me.  Jon Ascton  (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I expect that the drugs cartels and the Mafia do their "motivating, retaining, developing, and.... controlling" by simple coercion. Do what the boss wants otherwise you are dead. They would evaluate their "employees" on the basis of loyalty rather than of merit or ability. If you are suspected of being disloyal or a threat to the boss's power, then you are dead too. This also occurs in some non-criminal organisations with career-death rather than real death. 92.15.30.251 (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

GDP deflator question

Sorry if this is a(-nother) stupid economics question, but I'm unclear about a property of the GDP deflator.

Suppose bread is £0.75 a loaf currently. Suppose taxes are increased purely for the purpose of subsidising bread, such that it now costs £0.33 a loaf, and this process is, in some sense, efficient (net cost to UK customers is the same). Would the GDP deflator change, and if so, how?--Leon (talk) 08:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(Sorry, I just had to jump in here, feet first!). In the UK there is no VAT on a loaf of bread, and as far as I know no tax! (Now to be serious): It is best to ask this question on the Mathemetical Reference page, but do change the example. MacOfJesus (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't have to be VAT on bread to subsidise it from other taxes. Is Economics a branch of Mathematics, or a Science, or a Humanity, (or a Magic Art)? Dbfirs 20:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was/they were the Dismal Science. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe "Household Husbandry" of "Country Husbandry", but there is'nt a Reference page with that title. MacOfJesus (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Um...how is this a mathematics question? Because it uses numbers? Incidentally, what I had in mind was slightly increasing income taxes such as to subsidise bread.--Leon (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I felt that there might be people who are more familiar with the GDP on the Maths. desk. From past experiences of UK Government, the deficits were usually taken from Road funds. But, now it is possibly EEC law that govern this. MacOfJesus (talk) 08:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

GDP includes government spending, so increasing taxation to subsidise prices would have no net effect on GDP, and would not change the GDP deflator. Warofdreams talk 17:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Would that equally be true of the PPP (Purchase Power Parity) i.e. would it be unaffected?--Leon (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

PPP is generally misused, so be careful. If the wheat, etc and the baking and the sale are all within one economy, there is no need to use any exchange rate at all. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware that there is no need to do so. What I am trying to understand is a potential weakness of it as a tool for comparing two economies. If subsidising bread using taxes makes the PPP suggest a country is cheaper to live in i.e. some basket of goods appears to cost less, without the net cost to the resident being any different, that is a weakness of it as a measure. Unless I'm going wrong.--Leon (talk) 09:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

PPP makes no allowance for taxes or subsidies, so increasing taxation to subsidise prices would affect it. This could be mitigated by excluding subsidised goods and/or services from the basket considered for PPP purposes. For example, it would make little sense to use healthcare charges as an indicator of relative PPP, as subsidies vary so widely. Warofdreams talk 18:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

In that case, why is it reasonable to use PPP at all? Tax rates vary quite significantly, meaning (ultimately) that disposable incomes needn't very closely correspond to GDP per capita. And excluding such goods means excluding huge swathes of consumer spending, such as healthcare, transport, etc.--Leon (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

PPP isn't intended to take into account disposable income. It's not only taxation, tariffs and subsidies, but also income levels are ignored. Advocates of using PPP sometimes suggest that these differences are relatively unimportant, or should be. Warofdreams talk 10:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

But it is intended to compare cost of living, right? If it doesn't account for tax rates and ensuing subsidies, I don't really see how it can work well. In any case, I've been looking for a detailed breakdown of how it is calculated for specific states-without success, can you help? Thanks.--Leon (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting question. It seems that for most practical purposes, data from the United Nations International Comparison Programme [2] is used. According to their publications, they do attempt to include government expenditure in areas where this is known to be significant, such as education or health. Warofdreams talk 23:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Christian apologetics in the early 16th century

The article on Martin Luther states "In 1523, Luther advised kindness toward the Jews in That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew, but only with the aim of converting them to Christianity.[193] When his efforts at conversion failed, he grew increasingly bitter toward them".

Well, what did his conversion attempts consist of? What would he say? What would Jews say in response?--70.122.112.145 (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

His conversion attempts, according to That Jesus Christ was born a Jew, were that Jewish people should be treated friendly and instructed kindly through the Bible, and advocated dealing with them according to the law of Christian charity. We must receive them kindly and allow them to compete with us in earning a livelihood. That was in 1523. By 1543 in Concerning the Jews and their lies, he was instead advocating burning synagogues. What the response to his earlier attempts was, I really don't know. Marnanel (talk) 14:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't an active attempt at conversion. He didn't proselytize to them. He thought that by reforming the church (and society in general), the Jews would see how great Christianity was in it's proper, true form, and they would all convert on their own. I don't think there was any sort of actual dialogue between them, but their reaction was something like "yeah, right." We also have an article about Martin Luther and the Jews, if that is more helpful (heh, he thought the Jews tried to poison him with kosher food!). Adam Bishop (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It's as Mordechai Becher says -- Mohammed and Martin Luther attempted to create religious philosophies that they felt would be so consistent and compatible with Judaism that Jews would flock to their new visions for service to God. Luther tried to get rid of paying indulgences ("the coin hits the coffer and the soul springs to heaven), etc. But Jews sensed that there was no gain to these novel forms of religion because they already had what they considered the true monotheism, and they noticed how Mohammed charged that the Jews altered the true word of God, even though the Jews had the Torah before Mohammed was even born. Then he misquotes passages from the Torah...and when the Jews rejected Luther (and Mohammed) it caused them to become rabid anti-Semites. Becher explains that this was a result of what he call the "rejected boyfriend hypothesis." For an exposition of this (in the context of Arab-Israeli relations, in which he specifically draws parallels to Luther), listen to this 1 hr lecture. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

A Walk over water

Is there any historical evidence that Jesus did walk over water ? If yes how was it made possible ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

See Jesus walks on water. There is no historical evidence that Jesus and Peter walked on water as the Gospels claim, except for the stories passed down by his followers and recorded decades later in some books of the New Testament. Edison (talk) 13:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what sort of historical evidence you're looking for, other than the obvious: sources for an incident happening in the middle of a lake are going to be restricted to the accounts given by people in nearby boats, which is what the Gospels claim to be based upon, and I suppose people with telescopes on shore, which were in short supply in the first century. Marnanel (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There's very little historical evidence that anything before the year you were born actually happened. See Historical method. But yes, the historical evidence is that three evangelists recorded the story in their books. --M@rēino 14:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't answer "if yes how was it made possible". Three possible answers: a) It didn't happen and the authors of the Gospels were making it up. b) It did happen, but there was an enormous sandbank, or the lake was unexpectedly frozen, or something like that, and this detail was completely forgotten when the story was written down. c) It was a miracle, which is both the explanation given in the text, and also not a surprising occurrence if the claims about Jesus elsewhere in the story are in fact correct. I can understand the reasoning of someone who believes the story is made up, but it seems an odd idea to me to start positing non-miraculous hypotheses with the assumption that this one part of the story was true, while assuming that the other parts about Jesus's identity were not true. Marnanel (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a very important point now to be mentioned : There was an Indian saint Ramakrishna Paramhansa. One day another sadhu (Hindu holy man) came to see him. This chap said that has the ability to walk over water and offered to give a demo by crossing the river that had no bridge or boat etc. Ramakrishna was unimpressed, he asked him how many years has he spent to learn this art. The sadhu said he has spent twenty years in training hard to accomplish this feat. Ramakrishna repined him severely on the ground that he has wasted his life while one needs only 20 cents to hire a boatman to cross the river ! I have related this anecdote to show the philosophical state of mind of Indian saints. Such a spectacular feat (we'd give all we own to see a genuine miracle) looked a child's play to them. Does this mean that such feats were common in East ? Jon Ascton  (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it just means that Ramakrishna pointed out that the sadhu spent 20 years learning a very useless thing. It's far more practical to simply pay for a boat than spend 20 years learning one trick that won't be useful in everyday life. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Little Red Riding Hood is not evidence that wolves in European forests used to be easy to mistake for old ladies, and could talk. When children are told this story, they are supposed to notice the more relevant messages. 86.161.108.172 (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a matter of faith, and presented as such. King Canute demonstrated that he was not a god by this method,(not being able to achieve this), to show his subjects he was a human leader. MacOfJesus (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There are four first-person accounts of Jesus walking on water. No others. schyler (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll bite. The articles you linked to note that today's critical scholarship is that these are not even first-person accounts. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

And it's not in Luke either. Buddy431 (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Saint John's says as much at the end of his Gospel: "There were many other things.....", and indicates clearly why and what he writes. It is clearly a matter of faith, not a Science Journal. MacOfJesus (talk) 08:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

OP, in good faith, is collapsing this section because a user has expressed doubts that this was not written in true spirit of question-and-answer but the OP already knew and it, created an opportunity to give it, though OP was only presenting it as a hypothesis that others could deny or discuss furhter, misunderstanding regretted

::A Zen monk used to claim that a true master is one who can walk through water without getting his feet wet. His disciples had no guts to challenge him but were nevertheless dying to see a demo. After many years the occasion came that the whole party were to travel for a pilgrimage etc and a they all had to cross a stream of water by walking through it. The boss crossed causally and of course got his feet and legs all, wet. Now the disciples rose to debate that why his feet ain't dry. Then the Monk explained that "crossing without getting one's feet wet" is a metaphor. It simply means that a True Master can live through life without worldly attachments and should not be taken literally. This anecdote (must be historical account actually) is stressed upon in Buddhist scriptures and often repeated in discourses. It seems that in East, where language is poetic, were more so in past, the only way to say that a person is above worldly attachments is by saying that so-and-so can "walk thru water without wetting his feet". When this news traveled to West ( I think Jesus did visit India, there is a stint of dharmic teachings in his learning, that's what angered the Jews and led to his crucifixion ) the phrase was misunderstood for its literally meaning but gained currency in folk-lore. The original authors simply meant that Jesus was a True Master, but those who were responsible for carrying the news later added imaginary descriptions to impress more and more people. Their main aim, unlike us the contemporary people who perhaps obsessed with factual detail, was more humane and spiritual upliftment. When they did this they didn't feel they are "lying" or cheating someone.  Jon Ascton  (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That is your opinion and you are more than entitled to it. However, this is a reference desk, not show-and-tell time in elementary school. If you need references about Zen teachings, travels of Jesus, etc..., please ask. If all you want to show some idea that you came up with, please use one of the thousands of discussion forums available on the Internet. -- kainaw™ 16:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey man, this Zen-thing came to my attention only recently (after I had posted the Jesus question) It struck me that this might be the solution to the problem, so it was more than natural for me to mention it. Actually I have been constantly working on this problem after posting the question, more solutions may struck me, or you, or anyone so keep heart...Keep your cool, and read it - what I am asking is that how probable it is that this Zen anecdote traveled west and got misquoted and became Jesus walks on water myth ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 06:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Perhaps, Kainaw is put off 'casue it looks (to him) as if I am just trying to show off my knowledge, which I assure you is not the case. Perhaps I didn't phrase it properly which led him to conclude that what I am doing show-and-tell time in elementary school ! Of all the hypothesis given above by Marnanel, this part given by me, that it was a metaphor holds far more weight ! And to explain what I mean it was more that necessary to relate the Zen story. It was natural for me to wonder that what occurred to me why did not occur to Christian apologists who are trying to hard to explain this part which is most debatable. Or maybe someone reading this may know that what I am saying is already part of discussion (that's what RD is for) I hope Kainaw understands me now

• • This is not the way a Christian takes it. On reading the Gospels, this is not how the Gospel writers present it. Please read: Matthew 14, vers: 22-33, Mark 6, vs: 45-52, John 6, 16-21, also Jesus walks on water....MacOfJesus (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

We are in search of objective truth here, Bernard, so there may be difference between what you and I think

What causes me to be "put off" is the pattern of a user asking a question, waiting for a few answers, and then handing out his theory that answers his own question. That happens a lot here. The questioner is purposely wasting everyone's time as he already has an answer. He isn't asking a question in good faith. He is asking the question with the sole intent of later shoving his answer out to try and convert others to his way of thinking. I am overly sensitive to it right now due to the sudden onslaught of idiocy that occurs at the beginning of every schoolyear. -- kainaw™ 12:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for being so truthful and objective, I can see what you are seeing.I agree with you. I'd also like to request MacOf to say what he wants to say as there are no closed minds here, maybe I am terribly wrong afterall.  Jon Ascton  (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Thank you, Kainaw. I went through the Gospels and Commentaries for this and found what you found. And did not even sign their statement. Objective truth is what I'm after, too, but find closed minds. Really, it is of little importance if Jesus actually walked on water or not. What is important is the rest of it, which I shall not mention as there is no point here. Signed: MacOfJesus (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

To actually answer the original question, it is common knowlege that the Dead Sea has a high concerntration of salts and it is thus very easy to float on the surface, if there was for some reason a perticularly high concentration and with some balance it is plausible that he walked on the water with the water reaching just over knee level. Unlikley, but possible. Feel free to dispute this.

Distribution of oil/aid money ....

Some gifted or cursed countries have natural resources or nothing at all so their people do not work. How do their governments distribute oil money or foreign aid to their citizens? Is there an article on this interesting issue?

More specifically, how do Saudi Arabia and many other oil riches distribute money to their people? How did Nauru distribute phosphate money to their own people, well, a couple of decades ago? How do countries living on foreign donations distribute the money? -- Toytoy (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Foreign aid is handed out as food or blankets or whatever. Oil money doesn't belong to the government, it belogs to oil companies. The government taxes them and the workers get paid by them of course.--178.167.224.76 (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Related, perhaps: resource curse. --Sean 17:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Abbey of St. Juste

Does anyone have an idea where this abbey might be?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 16:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The French WP gives some tantalising hints; one of the sons of Philippe II de Savoie[3] (also Philippe) was "abbé de Saint-Juste à Suze". That could be Suze, Drôme[4], or La Suze-sur-Sarthe[5], or apparently it was the old French name for Susa[6] in Piedmont, Italy. None of these seem to have an abbey, but the articles are not very good. There is a Cathédrale Saint-Just-et-Saint-Pasteur[7] in Narbonne but it doesn't seem to have been a Carmalite abbey. Apparently, St Just and St Juste are variant French spellings of any of these saints[8]; below that is a list of towns called Saint-Just. Of course, there are two St Justs - St Just in Penwith and St Just in Roseland - both in Cornwall, but neither have an abbey. Sorry I can't find anything more at the moment. Alansplodge (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I was having the same trouble. Google seems to think that the only context in which this abbey is ever mentioned is in this specific reference to the invention/production of perfumed water. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22abbaye+st+juste%22+&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= Could it be a self-propagating false reference? I couldn't find a St Juste (or Saint-Juste or Saint-Just) on the French wikipedia list of abbeys in France: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_abbayes_et_monastères. Also no results on the French Carmelite order website http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=juste+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.carm-fr.org%2F&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= Best, WikiJedits (talk) 18:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This bunch seem to make Carmelite water (Eau des Carmes) these days. Their history page says that the secret of making it was obtained by one Father Damien of the Discalced Carmelites of the rue Vaugirard in Paris. They set about producing it, and it became incredibly popular. This site also gives a Paris Carmelite religious order as the source. I can't find any reference to an abbey or convent named Saint-Just(e) in Paris, on the rue Vaugirard or elsewhere, although there was a Carmelite foundation of St Denis and there's currently a convent in Montmartre, but it seems likely that if the stuff did indeed originate in a French Carmelite community, it may well have been in Paris. Karenjc 18:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

In Latin, it's Aqua melissa magistralis, I read, while thumbing on Google through N. Chomel's Algemeen huishoudelijk-, natuur-, zedekundig-, en konst- woordenboek (Amsterdam 1778) p. 570, under "Eau de Carmes" (with recipes). So, girded with the Latin, I googled it in Pharmacopoea universalis; oder, Übersichtliche Zusammenstellung... (1840), p. 131, with lots of synonyms, beginning Aqua aromatica, Spiritus aromaticus, s[ive] Melissae magistralis officinalis, Alcohol, s[ive] Alcoolatum Melissae, s[ive] cum Melissa compositus, Aqua Melissae compositae s[ive] Carmelitana s[ive] Carmelitarum... Translation: "Aromatic water, aromatic spirit, or sovereign Melissa (balm) [water/spirit] from the still-room (officinalis); Alcohol or Alcohol-infused [water/spirit] of Melissa or compounded ("macerated"?) with Melissa; Compounded Carmelite Balm-water or Balm-water of the Carmelites". I'm translating magisterialis as "sovereign" as in "a sovereign remedy". Apparently the Carmelite connection is important, the "St-Juste" connection maybe less so.--Wetman (talk) 02:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, this is great stuff!!!! Doug Coldwell ^talk 10:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it Against Wikirules?

This user User:Lihaas's user page has

en-us-3 This user has an advanced understanding of American English.

en-us-0 This user does not understand American English and doesn't bloody well want to.

at same time. There maybe other contradictions as well, for instance he claims to come from Lahore and Mumbai at same time. Other claims are also probably exaggerations. Is this all OK ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.253.129.74 (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything in Wikipedia:User_page or Wikipedia:How_to_use_your_user_space saying that what's in your user page has to be truthful. As long as it's not done with intent to deceive (as both contradictory statements are in plain view), I don't think this breaches any rules. Rojomoke (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

And this should probably be asked at Wikipedia:Help Desk, not here. Rojomoke (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

fortunately or not, it is never against wikipedia policy to be an idiot. we should all bear that in mind. --Ludwigs2 18:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a tag that says: "I don't suffer fools gladly". & "Common Sense prevails always". "I have a sense of humour". & "Pull my leg at your peril". MacOfJesus (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There probably already is, and it presumably serves to label those who have no sense of humour, react badly to people disagreeing with them, and have a short temper. Or do these phrases not have this euphemistic sense where you live? 86.161.108.172 (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes they do. I was using a form of ironic sarcasim, but I am aware that the sense of humour is different. However, all this can be very off-putting to the newcomer. MacOfJesus (talk) 07:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

fishing

In the US, do you need a fishing license to fish in the ocean? Googlemeister (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

According to The Fish and Wildlife Services website, fishing in saltwater areas require a liscense issued by your state. For instance, in Texas, you must have a liscense from The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and follow all regulations set out by The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. Get a fishing liscense from your state and follow all fishing season regulations and you are legal. schyler (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Does that include fishing from a boat, and how far from shore before a license would not be required? Googlemeister (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

A license wouldn't be required in international waters; I'm not sure how far from shore that would be. --75.33.216.97 (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

. Some places require a fishing license to bring fish to shore at that location and don't care whether you were 199 or 201 miles out to sea when you caught the fish. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Somewhere in that second link to the GMFMC it says that after more than five miles out you require a commercial liscense, maybe. 71.21.143.33 (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

In Florida you may fish without a license in either fresh or saltwater provided your feet are on land. This does include wade-fishing or fishing from a dock. However, certain species of fish (like snook) require special "stamp" permits to keep. You must also obey any slot-restrictions in effect. The moment your feet are no longer on earth - be you in a canoe, kayak, inflatable boat, or any other sort of water craft - you need to be carrying a license. I apologize for offering unsourced statements, but I haven't time this morning. As a 22 year resident of Florida and diehard fisherman, please trust me! 61.189.63.133 (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Fishing liscences are issued by the individual states, and like every single question that contains the phrase "In the US, do you..." regarding legal issues, it will vary wildly from state to state. Remember that, for most internal legal issues, the states operate independantly, so the only way to know is to contact the Fish and Wildlife Agency (or equivalent) in the state where you intend to fish. --Jayron32 05:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess I was unaware that the individual states laid ownership claims to the ocean. Googlemeister (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No, but presumably the boat you take too and from the ocean has to, you know, let you off on dry land somewhere. So you catch a fish in the open ocean. What are you going to do with it? If you keep it, you've got to take it back somewhere. Assuming you are taking it back to a U.S. state, that state's regulations will cover how you are liscenced to do so... --Jayron32 04:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

... so if you cook it and eat it on-board, are you free of all regulation? Dbfirs 08:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Flag colors

Why do so many countries use a red, white, and blue color scheme for their flag? Off the top of my head, I can think of America, England, France, Russia, and Holland, but I'm fairly sure that there are more. --75.33.216.97 (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Cuba, Liberia and Chile, Australia and New Zealand also come to mind... Googlemeister (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If you think of how many countries there are (I think the Animaniacs count 180) and how many colors there are (hmm...12 or so, with primary, secondary and dark and light, and not including colors that do not seem statesmanlike, such as magenta), you can easily figure out how many permutations are possible and how it's not altogether strange that 5 or 10 countries use the same 3 colors. And it's at least somewhat likely that certain countries took the colors of other countries -- the US split from Britain, so maybe they used the same colors. I mean, come on...New Zealand's flag is a complete rip-off of Australia, unless it's the other way around, and both are rip-offs of the British flag. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Then why did France, Russia, Holland, Cuba, and Chile also choose those colors? If there are 12 colors, then there are 220 possible three-color combinations for 180 countries, so it's still strange that 6 countries (I'm counting America, England, Australia, New Zealand, and Liberia as 1 because they're all ultimately derived from the British flag) would share the same colors. --75.33.216.97 (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You're forgetting a whole plethora of Slavic countries which use a variation of the Russian tricolor of, you guessed it, red white and blue. There's Russia (of course), Slovakia, The Czech Republic, half of the ex-Yugoslav states... TomorrowTime (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You may be intrested in a question, similar to this, asked on this desk on 29th July, entitled: flag question, 1.1 MacOfJesus (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

[written while other answers were being given (an edit conflict), so forgive some duplication.] Believe it or not there are Wikipedia articles and lists on this subject. Briefly and very partially, there are a couple of coincidences which happened among influential nations who inspired other nations to mirror their colo[u]rs. When England (St George's Cross, red on white or silver) progressively united with Scotland (Saint Andrew's Cross, white/silver diagonal cross [saltire] on blue), various combinations of these two flags were used at sea and on land, resulting (after the 1801 Union with Ireland) in the present Union Jack. See commons:Flags based on British ensigns. ¶ One such flag is said to have inspired Peter the Great to use a white-blue-red design for an ancestor of the Flag of Russia (as used before and after the Soviet period), which in turn inspired Slavic nationalists resisting Turkish, Austro-Hungarian or Greek rule. See Pan-Slavic colors. ¶ Various flags of the United Colonies copied, either consciously or unconsciously, the colours of the British East India Company (a Union Jack in the corner with red and white stripes in the rest of the flag). These flags evolved into the present Star-spangled Banner. Because the United States were an example to others of a republic breaking free of an imperial monarchy, red, white and blue were adopted by several new countries, especially those with a historical tie to the U.S., such as Liberia, Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Panama. ¶ Many other countries are or were part of the British Empire, and when settled or conquered by Britain, adopted a flag with a Union Jack in the first quarter (like the East India Company's), e.g. Australia and New Zealand. While many independent former British possessions deliberately adopted their own colours (often historical colours, Pan-African colours or Pan-Arab colors), some of them kept a red-white-blue scheme, with or without the Union Jack. For a historically-unusual example, see Flag of Hawaii. ¶ In 1789, the French tricolore (blue, white, red) was adopted, both as a flag and as a rosette, to symbolize the union of the French monarchy's traditional white with the blue and red which dominate the arms of the City of Paris. See tricolour. This inspired a huge number of republican and anti-monarchist movements, both within and outside Europe. ¶ There's a separate history, with which I'm not very familiar, for the horizontal Dutch tricolour used today. I don't have time now to give the bibliographic references, but most general authorities on flags for laymen, e.g. those of Whitney Smith and Alfred Znamierowski, discuss this topic in some detail. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

See also Gallery of flags by similarity#Blue, red, and white —— Shakescene (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Dutch flag comes from Napolean, not a separate history. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 04:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Not according to Flag of the Kingdom of the Netherlands it doesn't. Apparently, they used a horizontal tricolor of orange, white, and blue; the familial colors of the House of Orange, and over time the orange migrated to red. According to our article, the red-white-blue Dutch flag dates from at least the mid-17th century, with the earlier orange-white-blue flag dating from their independance from Spain. --Jayron32 05:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Lists of flags might be interesting, although not providing a direct answer.—Wavelength (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, on a completely unrelated but possibly interesting note, the Counts of Celje had a coat of arms design with a striking resemblance to the US flag. TomorrowTime (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

And that other family, though there's no blue. Marnanel (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Flag of Norway was apparently coloured due to both emulating France, America and Britain and their freedoms, and as red was a Danish colour, and blue a Swedish one. Flag of Iceland was designed to evoke snow, mountains, and volcanoes. --Saalstin (talk) 09:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The article on Liberia says their flag design, among a number of things, was taken directly from the U.S. design. I don't see a mention of Republic of Texas here; the article doesn't say specifically where they got their flag, but it certainly looks like it was inspired by the U.S. flag. The article on Flag of Cuba suggests it was arrived at independently, although some of its symbolism is similar to the U.S. flag. Flags of Puerto Rico indicates that their design was taken directly from Cuba's design. There's also a Flag of the Philippines which indicates their design was inspired by Cuba's design. Flag of Panama says that an original proposed design was stylistically similar to the U.S. flag, but they eventually adopted a design which is not particularly similar to the U.S. flag other than the colors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

¶ A striking result was that for most of 1917, the four leading Allied Powers (but not Belgium) had Red, White and Blue colors (France, the U.K./British Empire, pre-Soviet Russia and the U.S.A. [declared war on the Central Powers on April 6, 1917], in addition to Australia, Canada and New Zealand), as can be seen in some of the contemporary publicity. In the words of George M. Cohan from "You're a Grand Old Flag" (1906), "Ev'ry heart beats true under red, white and blue."
¶ Among the Central Powers, Imperial Germany's flag was black, white and red, while the Austro-Hungarian Empire's was red, white, and green (fusing Austria's and Hungary's colors), as was the Kingdom of Bulgaria's. The Ottoman Empire's colors, like those of today's Turkish Republic were red and white. So a wartime illustrator would have needed a lot of red and white ink or paint. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Dante and physics

On the Dante's Inferno article, it says that Dante feels a change in gravity after passing through the center of the earth. Would someone (granted, an intelligent someone) from the 14th century know that much about something like that? Myth of the Flat Earth says they knew about a round Earth, but what about gravity?  ?EVAUNIT^{神になった人間} 22:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The concept of gravity is ancient; it's easy to see, I mean everything drops to the earth no matter how high or far you throw it. Newton did not discover gravity, he just figured out how it worked, mathematically. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Specifically, Newton argued that gravity could be considered a "force" that acted at a distance, and that the gravity we experience on Earth (insert apocryphal apple here) is the same thing that holds the solar system together more generally. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Though folks in antiquity (followers of Aristotle, at least) and the Middle Ages didn't think of gravity in the way we do. They thought that matter had a natural tendency to seek the center of the universe—that is, the center of the earth. C. S. Lewis, by the way, called that point in the Inferno—where Dante and Virgil have to climb down Satan to his waist, then up to his feet—"the first 'science-fiction effect' in literature". Deor (talk) 02:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

True, that. Which is not a horrible way to look at things, providing you only concern yourself with terrestrial phenomena. (And in fact, seeing gravity as a "falling" rather than a "pulling" is actually more in line with Einstein, if we want to be anachronistic.) --Mr.98 (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, there's actually no gravity felt at the center of a spherically-symmetric mass... AnonMoos (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

::How was the "change in gravity" described by Dante, exactly? (You would feel weightless at the center of the earth). Wikiscient (talk) 10:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You wouldn't feel anything. You'd be dead, given the temperature it's reputed to be down there. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I alluded to it above, Wikiscient. To effect their departure from Hell, Virgil (carrying Dante piggyback) climbs down the shaggy side of the gigantic Satan, who is embedded at Earth's center; but when he reaches Satan's middle, he has to turn himself around and start climbing up instead: "When we had come to where the thigh turns just on the thick of the haunch, my leader with labor and strain brought round his head to where his shanks had been and grappled on the hair like one who is climbing, so that I thought we were returning into Hell again." Afterward, when Dante asks why he's seeing Satan embedded feet-upward rather than right-side-up, as he saw him earler, Virgil explains: "You imagine that you are still on the other side of the center, where I caught hold on the hair of the evil worm that pierces the world. As long as I descended you were on that side; when I turned myself you passed the point to which all weights are drawn from every part." (Singleton translation) Deor (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Ah, ok, thank you for the context -- and I apologize for missing your post above, my bad.

And this does indicate at least the understanding that everything is pulled "down" toward the center of the Earth and rises "up" away from the center of the Earth. Now, if only they'd had an (apocryphal) apple down there! (Or, wait, maybe not a good idea... ;) Wikiscient (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Historical dominatixes

What is thee first known record of a dominatrix, and are there known to have been any during Ancient Roman times or the 1920s?--99.251.239.89 (talk) 22:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The earlier reference in the OED is from 1967...the word certainly existed in Latin, but not in the sexual sense (and the non-sexual sense is much older in English, too). I'm sure the Romans knew of the concept though, they were pretty kinky. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The medieval legend of Xanthippe. Men need to feel firmly in "natural" control for the "reversed" role of a dominatrix to give a frisson of excitement. Matilda of Tuscany was admired as dominatrix in the broader sense, and pictured afterwards as riding astride, "like a man".--Wetman (talk) 01:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Xanthippe is a legendary nag, but a dominatrix? And if Matilda counts, Eleanor of Aquitaine probably counts too. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I had in mind a well-known Gothic brass aquamanile of Xanthippe riding Aristotle horseback style; and dominatrix in the political sense, as applied to Matilda, I read recently in Beth L. Holman, "Exemplum and Imitatio: Countess Matilda and Lucrezia Pico della Mirandola at Polirone", The Art Bulletin 81.4 December 1999:637-664.-Wetman (talk) 05:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that's his paramour Phyllis on top of Aristotle. Here. The story can be read here including some comment and reference to "The Wife of Bath's Tale". For 19th century, I'll throw in Venus in Furs and this illustration from 1895 by the great Aubrey Beardsley. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Here are some Phyllis and Aristotle pics: File:Aristotle and Phyllis.jpg , File:Lucas van Leyden Arisztotelész és Phyllis.jpg , File:Aristoteles and Phyllis.jpg . -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

99.251.239.89 -- probably your best bet in searching for historical antecedents would be the traditional flogging fetishism of British upper-class men (I believe there's a scene in Fanny Hill). Dominatrix-style illustrations (women in black catsuits or merry-widows and high-heels holding whips etc.) seem to have existed since at least the 1930's... AnonMoos (talk) 02:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, Catullus implies that there was some BDSM style stuff going on in Rome in some of his satirical poetry. Of course, much of the activity in the writings of the Marquis de Sade involve women in a dominant position. Steewi (talk) 09:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

For Whom the Bell Tolls

I remember a quote from this book that went something like "French is the language of diplomacy; Spanish is the language of war". What was the exact quote? I don't have th book handy right nw, 76.229.235.27 (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor supposedly said "I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men, and German to my horse" (a quote that's been circulated in a number of different versions)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The line from For Whom the Bell Tolls is:

What's the matter? he thought. From listening to him I am beginning to talk like Fernando. That language must be infectious. French, the language of diplomacy. Spanish, the language of bureaucracy.

Chapter 17. meltBanana 10:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)