Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 December 16

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.

December 16

When did Germaine de Staël begin?

When did salonist Germaine de Staël open her salon? I have not found the exact year. Was it 1786, as she married that year? --85.226.41.42 (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no bright line between a formal salon and having people over for discussion on a semi-regular basis. At that time in France it wouldn't be unheard of for an unmarried literary woman to entertain acquaintances, but if the criteria is advertising to strangers, your suspicion is probably well-founded. Being married to an ambassador is a difficult job with heavy social responsibilities, many of which can be taken care of more easily by scheduling periodic parties in the living room. It was no later than 1791 when she moved back to Paris from Switzerland per the chronology in the external links, as I'm sure you saw. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 03:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Obama + the GOP

How can the GOP be certain the bill they passed will continue to advance through the system in the same form they passed it -- can't Obama do a line item veto? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The President is not allowed to do a line item veto. It's all or nothing. And if the House passes similar legislation, a conference committee will be formed to get the bill into a shape that both houses can agree upon. If the House votes it down, it's done. And if the House + Senate pass a bill Obama doesn't like... then it's all or nothing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Congress had passed the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 under, and of course with the approval of, Bill Clinton in 1996). That allowed the president to line item veto certain limited text within bills, mostly pork barrel type things (I don't remember all of the qualifications, but one was any part of a bill that "benefited fewer than 100 people"; our article doesn't have them, so I'll have to do some digging). But it got shot down by the Supreme Court in 1998, because they said that giving the president that sort of power would require a constitutional amendment. That's why you get some of this crazy shit with bills being used to pass entirely unrelated items. My favorite example is still that one senator from Nebraska who refused to approve of the healthcare bill until his state got special treatment under it. But back to the question; as of right now, the president can't, and it would take a constitutional amendment to give that power. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The reason, presumably, has to do with separation of powers. Some (or perhaps many) of the individual states allow some form of line-item veto by their Governors. At the federal level, it would theoretically give the President too much legislative power. I expect the founding fathers did not anticipate these mammoth bills or they might have addressed it. But there's always the Amendment option - which sounds like a good idea until your own state's "pork barrel" funding gets cut. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm from Connecticut, so it's not like we get much help; instead, we get a guy who chairs the Senate Finance Committee and evades his taxes while watching the economy get run into the ground. You should have seen the ad campaigns for the Senate seat in Connecticut this year; it was really quite amusing to see a guy who lied about his military service and a woman who pays pituitary freaks to dress in spandex duke it out. I do have to give credit to the Alaskans; they know how to get their people in position. I daresay that if such an amdendment got to the states by either means, Alaska would not be passing it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This is somewhat related to the failure to get anything done on a term-limits amendment. The Presidential limit was passed by Republicans in the wake of the FDR 4-termer... and which they discussed repealing once their buddy Ronnie got into office. The problem with term limits is that everyone would be quite happy to have other states have term limits, but "you better not mess with my representatives!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The Line item veto is one of those core constitutional questions that came up in a mildly political context, and the opinion that struck it down (Clinton v. City of New York) is a textbook Constitutional law case. Without revealing my personal opinion on the issue, I find some of the opinions in the case surprising coming from their particular sources. That said, there are powerful arguments on both sides... this is a fundamental structural constitutional issue about how laws are passed... little else is so fundamental to how a government operates. As for the OP's broader question... it's just politics. Getting indignant about this sort of thing is 99% of the time either posturing or extreme naivete. I'm not sure which is worse. Shadowjams (talk) 11:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Is the Maid of the Mist exclusive?

Is the Maid of the Mist exclusive, or can any boat tour that area? Ariel. (talk) 07:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I suspect the answer is that the company or companies that run those tours have licensing agreements, but I'll look into that. Of course, there are practical considerations: How would you get the boat there in the first place? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Presumably the same way the existing boats were gotten there. After some googling I found that the Maid of the Mist VII was brought in in 14 sections and assembled on-site. I don't know if different procedures were used for the older boats. --Anonymous, 14:10 UTC, December 16, 2010.

Yes, that's how they got there. The issue is, where would you assemble the new ones and where would you "park" them? If they don't have a license to operate, they might well be confiscated. And considering the danger of navigating near the falls, along with the need for international cooperation, the justification for restrictive licensing is fairly obvious. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I googled [maid of the mist licence], and this interesting article came up.[1] It seems that there is indeed an exclusive license, and also there is controversy about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Japan - The Emperor's Birthday

1) What do people do on this day? 2) What do kids do? 3) What clothing do people wear? 4) What kind of food does people eat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.126.19.174 (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Start with The Emperor's Birthday and see where it takes you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Almost all people do nothing special. Oda Mari (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep. As far as I remember, it's a day like any other, except for the (relatively) few who decide to visit the Imperial palace - it's one of the two days in the year when it's (still in a limited capacity) open to the general public. There they can crowd, hear the Emperor address them, and if they are lucky maybe even get a blurry snapshot of him waving. But that's really it, for the general public at large it's just a day like any other. To me personally it's the day the Embassy here in Slovenia throws a reception to which I am for some reason every year invited, and I can hobnob with the elites of the country for an evening :) TomorrowTime (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

What countries keep the exact number of their executions a state secret and why?

I know I have asked this before, but the results were inconclusive, so months later, I ask it again: What countries keep the exact number of their executions a state secret and why? As in "yes we execute, but we can't tell you how many we execute per year"? A good example would be China, who executes up to around 1000 to 4000 people a year, but the actual number is a state secret. In a search I did a long time ago, all I found were China, Iran and Mongolia. Apparently, Belarus, the last European country to still have capital punishment, has not released a number of executions for some time, but I have been wondering for a long time now: How many countries (and which ones) keep the exact number of their executions a secret and (if applicable), why?. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Much as has been answered before, the question is inherently unanswerable. "Not correctly reporting the number of executions" (which we cannot determine with any reasonable degree of fidelity) is effectively equivalent to "We're just not going to report anything". The answer lies somewhere between 0 and the number of countries in the world, as even those which have foresworn capital punishment could be conducting it in secret. That's the nature of a secret, after all. — Lomn 14:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No my question was of all the countries that are known to conduct executions keep the number of executions a secret. i'm not talking about secret executions... Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You twice asked "[what|how many] countries keep the exact number of their executions a state secret?" Asking which countries acknowledge keeping an execution count secret is a different question. In principle, this one is answerable, though I'm not sure it holds in practice. For instance, your Belarus example: our article notes that the government has not released official documentation since 2006. Is that a formal acknowledgment that they're keeping it a secret, or is it an implicit claim of zero executions? A quick survey of our article on the use of capital punishment by nation suggests that the People's Republic of China is the only nation that specifically claims its execution statistics to be a state secret. — Lomn 14:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok so most probably only China keeps the exact number of executions a secret. The question would now be: why? Is it for national security, or to prevent organizations like Amnesty International from criticizing them? I'm sure there could be other countries who also keep the exact number of their executions a secret, mainly communist ones like North Korea and Vietnam. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking again at the article Lomn showed me, apparently the only other country that keeps the exact number of their executions a secret is Mongolia, and even then, they carry them out in secret, so it seems China may be the only country in the world that admits executing people but doesn't disclose the exact number. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Mongolia has publicly established a moratorium on the death penalty. — Lomn 19:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

what he means is "Yes, we perform executions. As to the number and which cases, the official position is: it's a secret"

The guy means, which countries perform executions (we know it, they admit it, and maybe even we know at least 1 of the cases specifically). As to which people, when, and how many in total, that is an official, admitted state secret, i.e. "there's a number, it's more than 1 this year, but we won't tell you how many or which ones".... 82.234.207.120 (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, their admission only implies that there were more than none. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not impossible to add up the number of executions in China each year, it's just bloody difficult for the Western press (and the state-controlled press in China has no inclination to - both because capital punishment is not nearly as controversial in China as it is in the West, and also because the government does not want anyone to go around publishing these numbers). Nowadays executions have to be endorsed by the Supreme People's Court, and all of the Supreme People's Court's decisions are published - just not in the same convenient and accessible format that judgments in, say, the UK, Canada or Australia is. I have no doubt that a major domestic paper, if they could and also wanted to, would be able to find it. It's probably easier to ask for a number from an official rather than employ enough knowledgeable and sufficiently connected people to count up the numbers. It also gets you no results. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Another perspective - China realises that executing people is not a good look on the international stage, so tries to lower its visibility by not talking about numbers. What this says about countries that DO execute people and DO want it highlighted on the international stage I shall leave others to discuss. HiLo48 (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

That was some nice information, but you strayed a little too far from my original question of what other countries aside from China keep the exact number of their executions a secret. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Legal question

Wouldn't Assange be more secure in Sweden than in the UK? Sweden is by all means a democracy, with a working legal system, and, although the UK is also one, it is still a junior partner of the US in many cases, and thus, perhaps more prone to cooperation. 80.58.205.34 (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The UK dont have a reason as yet to punish, so he cant even be put up for trial to be prosecuted over anything. God knows why he doesnt stay celibate when doing such dangerous work, or at the very least stick to wikipeda  ;) instead of Giving the police state room for hocus-pocus.(Lihaas (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC));

Either one probably has a good chance to extradite to the US, so I'm not sure it matters too much. They are both democracies and have "working" legal systems; that isn't really the issue here. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

At the moment, Assange is much more likely to be charged with a crime in Sweden than he is in the U.S., and it's not even clear whether he can be charged with a crime in the U.S. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Just today in the New York Times, there was an article saying that the U.S. was looking into whether they could charge him on conspiracy counts, that he actively solicited and helped Bradley Manning steal the secrets from the government [2]. If this could be proved, it would help a long way in finding him guilty of something in the U.S. If he was only republishing classified documents that he did not solicit or help obtain, the government could pretty much only go after him with the Espionage Act of 1917, a pretty shaky law, legally. Buddy431 (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

theyve talked about treason but numerous external commentators (incl. aus officials), have said thats absurd. he cant have committed treachery to america when he has no loyalty to it in the first place.Lihaas (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Espionage (spying) can be done by anyone. No need to be loyal to anybody. --Lgriot (talk) 08:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Please note that espionage ≠ treason. Googlemeister (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It could be that Sweden's judicial system is based on civil, not common law. Apparently, only this year did they end conscription (Swedish Armed Forces). Seems to me that Swedish neutrality has taken a little beating.206.130.174.43 (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

things to do with the right roommate to increase my quality of living?

Here are two things I could do with a cool roommate to increase my quality of living:
- Subscribe to a daily like the New York Times, splitting the cost
- Cook each other breakfast while the other showers (on alternative days).
What is an exhaustive list of such things you could do with a roommate? (Note: I live in a major, major urban center, and both myself and the roommate/housemate would be working full-time). Finally, what do you reckon my chances are of finding the right/cool roommate? 88.182.221.18 (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You could shower together. That's cool and saves energy.80.58.205.34 (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Dude, that is NOT cool! NOT COOL!! I am looking for real answers, actual things real well-adjusted people would do for each other as roommates, expressly getting together partly to be able to do just this. For example, I think I would not be someone's roommate who wanted, before they have even met me, to find someone to give back rubs to each other with... whether they're a guy or girl, and I'm a guy or girl, looking for that from a roommate (that you're still looking for) is just too much!! I am looking for real answers, please. Thank you. 88.182.221.18 (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is cool. Choose a person of the gender(s) that you like. And it can get better. Just see here: [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.34 (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

All right, I'll add an extra condition below, just to rule out shenanigans like this... 88.182.221.18 (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You are blurring the line between being roommates and being friends. Then, blurring the line between being friends who live together and being married (as in having joint responsibility for one another). So, all you are asking is, "What are the benefits of getting married?" It won't be hard to search for many lists that do not limit themselves to the legal benefits. -- kainaw™ 17:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Really, think about an ad for a roommate from someone who ALSO wanted to find someone to split the price of a daily with, and to cook breakfast jointly with, and the difference between an ad looking for a romantic partner or spouse... You don't put up an ad for a "friend"... It just doesn't make sense. Surely you can see that difference. You know, people know the negatives inside and out: you have to do the dishes sometimes (and sometimes the other person). You have to take the trash out sometimes (ditto). You have to clean up the common areas sometimes. etc etc etc. Surely, we are totally missing something if we internalize these chores and negative tasks, without so much as allowing the possibility of increasing the quality of living by the same means. Honestly, do you think that sharing taking down the trash makes you just like a married couple? Seriously, if you don't know what I'm asking about, can't imagine it, or, just can't think about it in social terms, you had better leave this question to someone else... Thanks fro your contribution all the same. 88.182.221.18 (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No thanks needed. I like to help. 80.58.205.34 (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The new condition is, it has to be just as applicable to a roommate of a gender you're not attracted to. (e.g. you're a straight guy, another straight guy, etc.) I think both of my examples are perfect, and I would like more. Thanks. 88.182.221.18 (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, you could film him/her on the shower and upload it to some youtube-like site. THAT would be insanely cool. 80.58.205.34 (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the reference desk is a place where volunteers help to answer factual questions. The question you're asking is more of a brainstorming exercise. I suggest that you find a real person who might be interested in becoming your roommate, and conduct your brainstorming with him or her, to find things to do together that will make you both happier. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No, based on the comment you're immediately replying to, it appears the problem is that the reference desk is where everyone lives in their parents basement and films their cousins in the shower when they come over for the holidays! Ugh. 88.182.221.18 (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

wait a minute, i just realized i'm totally being seriously trolled by 80. You win, 80! Well played, my man, well played. 88.182.221.18 (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

As always: don't feed the trolls! Quest09 (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't care. I've been on the other side many a time in my erroneous youth, and that man had me livid. 88.182.221.18 (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Based on personal experiences with roommates, the following is my advice:

• Roommates are not friends, and are not spouses. Do not have the same expectations of them as you do other relationships. It is a business arrangement, and keep that it mind. That doesn't mean you cannot be cordial, even friendly with a roommate, but don't expect the same sort of relationship you would with a friend. Think of him more along the lines of a coworker. Be freindly when you are around them, maybe even have a beer once in a while, but also don't have any expectation for a relationship outside of the confines of the partnership.
• Establish clear boundaries regarding issues such as bills (have a plan in place; either split each bill 50/50, or alternate months, or something), personal space, maintenance of common items, cleaning, guest policy, etc. Be very straightforward with each other, and make and agree on clear expectations on how to handle these things before they become problems.

That's probably my best advice. --Jayron32 18:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say—stay out of each other's way as much as possible. That means physically. But that also means linguistically. Don't ask questions. Don't explore their feelings. Don't inquire of their opinions. Don't share your innermost thoughts with them. Don't even share your outermost thoughts with them. If something doesn't have to be said—don't say it. Silence is golden. Put every physical item back where it belongs. If your roommate doesn't put everything back where it belongs—don't complain about it. Forbearance is an ideal in such a situation. Bear in mind that the situation is beneficial to you—it would be more expensive to live alone. Keep in mind your more distant goals. Be mindful that the present living arrangement is temporarily worthwhile as a furtherance of your goals, and try not to get bogged down in the petty details of whether he leaves your box of favorite breakfast cereal in the bathroom or not. Bus stop (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Do strangers really have to share rooms in the US of A to make ends meet? Or is this an Americanism for sharing a flat or apartment? 92.28.247.44 (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

"Roommate" does mean "flatmate" in the US. (In Canada, I'm not so sure, because of Scott Pilgrim...) Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the comments above. The chances that you will find someone who happens to want to share a newspaper subscription and/or breakfasts is pretty remote. When I had roommates, I found that it worked best to keep things as separate as possible, right up to separate shelves in the fridge, and a rule that each person cleans his or her dishes as soon as their meal is finished. However, some people are open to sharing meals and food shopping and such. If that sort of thing interests you, you might include a line in your roommate ad like "Looking to share meals, shopping, and household amenities." Of course, then you will have to agree on what foods the two of you are going to buy, cook, and eat, you will have to coordinate your schedules, and you will have to agree on which household amenities you want to share. People are so different in their tastes that you may not find a person with tastes compatible to yours. Your roommate's schedule may also be very different. Even if he or she wanted to cook breakfast while you shower, he or she may need to be out the door by 7:00 to get to work, when you don't have to leave until 9:00. He or she may want oatmeal (porridge) while you want eggs and bacon. Or vice versa. And so on, and so on. So it might be best to just accept that you will share little more than the space. (To user 92.28..., roommate in American English is synonymous with housemate. Is it flatmate in UK English? It is not entirely unheard of to share a room, but usually people have their own bedroom and share the rest of the apartment.) Marco polo (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Flatmate if a flat, housemate if a house. (And roommate if literally sharing a room.) --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

From the way you phrase the question, you are looking for mutually beneficial and pleasant ways to interact with potential roommates. You may have luck researching housing cooperatives. Many such organizations will post rules/chore schemes that you may find useful.SemanticMantis (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

From my Google search for roommate quality living, I found http://offcampus.osu.edu/roommatesearch_safety_tips.asp.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Questions about prohibitions in Sikhism

I was reading the article on prohibitions in Sikhism and I was somewhat confused... I'm not sure if I should be asking this on the talk page, but that seemed more given over to debate on what exactly Sikhism prohibited and I'm more interested in the justificiations. At any rate, two questions are: 1) One of the prohibitions is basically no priestly class, and the article suggests that there is very little formal hierarchy at all. But later on it talks about a certain Sikh being "excommunicated" by "high clergy" -- is there some sort of hierarchy or synod that pronounces on theological questions? Wouldn't that sort be a priestly class? 2) Sikhs are forbidden from eating meat that is ritualistically slaughtered. Easy enough (unless you're in a kosher deli :P). But the article on Jhatka meat states that (at least some) Sikhs only eat meat from animals killed in a specific way -- isn't that ritualistically slaughtered meat too? I understand no prayers/benedictions/anointments/whatever are involved, but if you only kill livestock in one specific way that seems like a ritual to me. I'm not trying to be a smartass, it just seems like sort of a contradiction to me. Thanks for your time. 96.246.68.89 (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You are simply taking "ritual" in one sentence that clearly indicates a religious practice, and then using the word "ritual" in another area where it would mean a repetitious action. Then, you claim the first definition to be the definition of the second term. It is a poor argument of semantics that, when you remove the word "ritual" makes no sense. Sikhs are prohibited from eating meat slaughtered in religious practices. Sikhs can only eat meat slaughtered in a specific manner. There is no contradiction. -- kainaw™ 20:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

These might help. Animal sacrifice in Sikhism (cursory look says only certain sects practce it)and Category:Sikh groups and sects.206.130.174.43 (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Icelandic sagas at the time of Christopher Columbus

Would educated people in Spain and Portugal have had access to copies, at the time of Christopher Columbus, of the Icelandic sagas? And hence been aware of the existance of Greenland and perhaps even Vinland. 92.28.247.44 (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Can't say anything about the sagas, but the Catholic Church's reach included Greenland; see, for example, Gardar, Greenland. So somebody in Rome knew about Greenland, but this (as I am sure you know) does not mean it was known in Iberia. But it could have been. The sagas, someone else will come by to discuss, I'm sure. (You might also be interested in the Vinland map.) Jørgen (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly doubt that the sagas themselves were translated into Latin etc. at that time, but it's plausible that certain third-hand nuggets ultimately from the sagas could have been circulating along with information about Greenland, legends of St. Brendan's voyages, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, Columbus's connection to Iberia was mainly as a source of funding. He was a Genoese merchant by trade and birth. He would have been more likely to have been inspired by the story had it come to him in Genoa rather than Iberia. --Jayron32 21:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The translation of the Icelandic Sagas into Latin and other languages did not begin in earnest until the 17th and 18th centuries, when Old Norse was "rediscovered" via Iceland and began to be studied by Scandinavian scholars. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The knowledge of lands to the west may have been passed indirectly, rather than directly - for example, through Icelandic mariners' contacts with Ireland, Scotland or Norway, and through them in turn to other countries on the European mainland. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The other thing is this sort of inquiry is all over the historiography of Columbus. But its mainly driven by the desire to show that Columbus really was "searching" for something more than a convenenient trade route to Asia. The real deal is that Columbus likely wasn't searching for anything more than a different route to Asia. Genoa had LONG had control over trade with the Far east, largely through its bases in the Crimea: Kaffa was a major port through which a large portion of "silk road" trade entered Europe. The city was taken over by the Ottomans in 1475. Likewise, Constantinople, Genoa's main route to its Black Sea trading empire, fell to the Ottomans in 1453. So Genoa had been cut off from all of its major trade routes. It needed an alternate way to get to Asia. Hence, Columbus. There's no need to invent a motivation for Columbus to look for a reason to sail the Atlantic; the hopes of a dying trade republic probably were enough. --Jayron32 21:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

What would happen if the United States Congress all died?

What would happen if the entire United States Congress all died at the same time? (For example, as the result of an asteroid strike, or terrorist attack on the Capitol building, while both Senate and House are in session.) 97.125.81.59 (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The United States Congress is not involved in the day-to-day operation of the U.S. state. It is a legislative body, and it only passes laws. It is the executive branch that is involved in the day-to-day administration of the State. See seperation of powers. What that means is that there isn't anything that Congress does that requires a decision right now. It would be a major problem, don't get me wrong, but not of the "create instant anarchy because all government would shut down" sort of problem. Being that it would be a sui generis crisis, it would require a sui generis solution; the Constitution is silent on the matter. I would suspect that a nationwide special election would have to be called to replace all of the members; alternately in the short term the various state governments could appoint replacements until such election occured. --Jayron32 21:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The first thing we'd do is have a huge celebration. After that, every state has their own processes for installing a representative or a senator, and I'd think they'd go through that. Some have special elections for that purpose, while others (such as Delaware) have the governor select someone to serve for the duration of the term. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Article One, Clause 4 of the US Constitution provides for the case of "vacancies in Representation":

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

If all such vacancies occurred at the same time, if that is what you are asking about, the US government would still function. Celebration? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

CELEBRATION!!! Clarityfiend (talk) 05:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Like this? That should not be permitted. :| WikiDao ☯ (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The other point is that if there was an asteroid strike, there would perhaps be more serious issues facing the USA than the finer points of the constitution... ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 21:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not a trivial question, however, if it had been a terrorist strike. It's not unreasonable to come up with scenarios where both chambers of congress are relatively full, and a massive, well-coordinated terrorist attack were to strike the Capitol building and kill or incapacitate nearly all of them. It wouldn't have been impossible to imagine two planes hitting the Capitol rather that the World Trade Center; indeed there is some speculation that the plane that went down in Pennsylvania was going to do just that. I'm sure the government has contingencies for such a situation. Quite sure actually. --Jayron32 21:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Although there are procedures in place to ensure that no ordinary terrorist attack could annihilate the entire Congress... But pointn taken, I guess. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 21:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Surely, in such an scenario there would be some type of martial law until the normal government working can be restored MBelgrano (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The U.S. has no provisions for martial law. Also, because of seperation of powers, the role of members of congress is highly limited with regards to the day-to-day operation of the U.S. apparatus of State. Which is not to say that their loss would not be massively disruptive, if for no other reason than the likely collateral damage, but the actual day-to-day operation of the U.S. apparatus of the state is run through the executive departments, the bulk of whose personel is not concentrated in any one place. --Jayron32 21:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

A nuke would be bad. [4] WikiDao ☯ (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Or not-so-bad, depending on the nuke [5] (But with just 10-kt, that's still a big chunk of the Federal US gov't if you enter "Washington, DC" at that link). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Martial law would not be needed (assuming people didn't riot in panic). Aside from the annual budget, there's very little time-sensitive legislation that would cause problems. And the legislature has gone over the deadline on the budget before, without the country grinding to a halt, so even that's not such a big deal. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The pre-9/11 Tom Clancy novel Debt of Honor deals with this, when an embittered airline pilot crashes his 747 into the Congress building during the swearing-in of his hero, Jack Ryan, as the new Vice President; almost all of all 3 branches of government are killed, including most of Congress. Naturally, because Jack Ryan is the incorruptible hero, Ryan saves the country in the sequel, Executive Orders. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I read that some years after 9/11, and just reading the first sentences gave me chills down my spine. It was eerie reading that and knowing it was written before 9/11 happened. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Even better, Stephen King wrote of a man flying an airliner into a skyscraper in The Running Man in 1982.. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

See Continuity of government. After 9/11, this question was looked at with a bit more urgency, but they never got around to doing anything about it. One of the problems is that the Constitution requires members of the House to be elected -- no emergency appointments as you can have in the Senate. That means that if most of the House were to be taken out somehow, we'd have to wait for new special elections for Congress to do anything. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of COG, what if terrorists destroyed the backup facilities as well? --75.28.52.27 (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, they'd be pretty good terrorists then, since those backup facilities are usually secret. The secret bunker at The Greenbrier remained secret for some 30 years. --Jayron32 02:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, how would anyone go about finding one of those? Marnanel (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This year in my country, Australia, and my state, Victoria, we've had elections which were very close, and in both cases it took quite some time (weeks in one case) to work out who was going to be in charge. Some in the media and politics tried to whip up a frenzy about this, but the overall impact was, well, nothing. Things ran totally normally. Did we miss our politicians? Well, no. They were all being nicer than normal to each other out of their concerns about the possible need to make future alliances with people they normally condemned ideologically. It was a wonderful time. HiLo48 (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Belgians have been doing without a government (though not without a state) since June of this year, and nothing seems to have broken particularly. Marnanel (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is the OED online so expensive?

You can pay thirty dollars per month, or you can pay three hundred for the year, saving yourself a fin per month. Even so, that's about three times what you'd pay for a Netflix subscription, and quite a bit more than the average private citizen is willing to pay for the pleasure of looking up words. Consequently, they sell a handful of subscriptions to large institutions. Now, I'm no businessman, but wouldn't they sell a lot more subscriptions if they established an alternative price structure for individual, non-institutional subscribers? And wouldn't the increased volume of subscriptions compensate for the fact that each subscriber is paying less? (How do you suppose they determined the price in the first place?) LANTZY^TALK 22:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the key here is that you're no businessman. No, they wouldn't make money, which is why they don't do it. As to why, the reason is that the largest institutions have a fairly inelastic demand, whereas the OED could never compete with Mirriam Webster for the folks who have elastic demand, ie are price-sensitive. In other words: they would hardly pick up anyone, but lose all their institutions monopoly rents. 82.234.207.120 (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The OED used to be a print publication that was the size of a large encyclopedia. It was the kind of thing that few people would want in their house, compared to a Webster's. It was a product with a relatively small market, but with the kind of customers (mostly libraries) that would pay a lot of money for it. Even today, few people are going to pay for an online dictionary when they can use dictionary.com for free. So the OED is forced to live with a small market of potential customers, but customers who are willing to pay very high sums for the product. It's possible that they could reduce the price of the product by 90 percent but only increase their customer base fivefold, leaving them with a lot less revenue. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why it must be an either/or. Couldn't they charge one fee for institutional accounts and another, smaller fee for private subscribers? Why would adding a new class of customer cause them to lose their existing customers? I'm sure there are a lot of people who, like me, have a casual, hobbyist's interest in the sort of in-depth lexicography that only the OED provides, but who would rather not have to trudge to the library in order to satisfy that curiosity. As it is, I'm mooching off the library's account and contributing not one cent to the OED's coffers. Inconvenient for me, profitless for them. If not an alternative method of subscription, why not an advertisement-spattered "free version" on the Internet? Maybe these are all silly ideas, but the status quo just seems so capricious and weird... LANTZY^TALK 23:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I've always gotten that service for free, most recently by physically going in to my local library and getting an ID number that I can use to access the OED through their website (from physically anywhere thereafter). I think most places just require a valid ID and a couple of pieces of "official" mail addressed to you at your current address. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

That would suit me just fine. Do you mean that your local library simply confides their ID and password to you? So that you are, in effect, logging in as if you were the library? Or do you mean that you go to the website of the library and somehow tap into the OED through that? LANTZY^TALK 23:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

UK public libraries tend to buy subscriptions such that their members can log-in to the OED using their library membership number. If you're in the UK, you should be able to get access. If not ... --Tagishsimon (talk)

I'm in the U.S. My local library certainly has some sort of subscription, because the OED is accessible on their computers. But I don't know whether I can sign in remotely using a library card. I guess I'll have to interrogate one of the librarians. Thanks for the suggestions. LANTZY^TALK 01:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Ha! I can sign in remotely with my library card! I hereby retract all my cantankerous cnawvshawling about the status quo. LANTZY^TALK 01:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

As it happens, here in Toronto I just had a similar experience. As far as I know, this feature was added with no publicity when they revamped their web site sometime in the last year or so. Used to be, you went into the branch and from their in-branch startup screen you followed a "List of databases" link instead of the "catalogue" link. This still works. But now from their web site's main screen you can use the regular catalog search on "oxford english dictionary", and the results page includes a link to access the OED Online (using your library card number and PIN). Similarly I can now access ProQuested back issues of two Toronto newspapers via the library from home in the same way, which was the other thing in the "List of databases" page that I used to use from time to time.

I discovered this change by simply noting that it would have suited the philosophy they said was behind the web site revamp, and guessing that it might be worth trying; as I said, I saw no publicity about it. --Anonymous, 14:41 UTC, December 17, 2010.

Glad to hear it, it's a very useful resource. It's well worth asking your library if they have similar arrangements for any other online services - OUP, publishers of the OED, have a wide range of reference works available online. Credo Reference may also be available - you can see a list of what my local library service offers here. If your local library doesn't offer these, write to them and to the council (or whatever local authority is responsible) suggesting they consider improving the range offered. DuncanHill (talk) 11:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Brighton must be a bit of a snobbish area then. They don't mention Wikipedia, nor the Sun and Daily Mail ;-)--Aspro (talk) 13:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

UK access is near universal. From OED: "Nearly all public libraries in England, Scotland, and Wales — and all in Northern Ireland—subscribe to the Oxford English Dictionary online. ... Most libraries also offer ‘remote access’. This means that, if you are a member of your local library, you can access the OED online free anywhere you have internet access." http://www.oed.com/public/access/public-library-access-from-home See list of all UK public library subscribers here: http://www.oup.com/uk/academic/online/library/available/

I have remote access with my US city's public library card: no central database of US or any non-UK library subscribers -- first link says to the rest of the world, "Speak to your librarian to find out whether your library subscribes." (But when I clicked on that link, thanks to the miracles of browser cookies, I was immediately taken to login page, asking for last name and library card number, for direct access to OED via my library) -- Paulscrawl (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Amount present in banks

About how much does the money present in all the world's banks vary (i.e., major or mass withdrawals or depoisits)? What about a nation's? Is the amount fairly constant? If so, about how much is present? 23:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.70.160 (talk)

You may be interested in our article on money supply, which discusses the various forms that "money" can take. The US has a concept of a "reserve requirement" at a bank level (technically, at an FDIC-insured bank level, but that's close enough for jazz) which is the ratio of deposits to reserves. At a national level, the money supply will vary depending on the policies of relevant governmental bodies (in the US, the Federal Reserve Board) and the movements of the national and international economy (stock markets and so forth). The money supply of the world is generally growing in absolute terms (see this US chart, but note that other countries in the money supply article are roughly equivalent), but I don't know what relative growth (i.e. against inflation) would look like. — Lomn 23:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

First Amendment violation?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/16/district.of.columbia.protest.arrests/index.html

Don't the police's actions in that event violate the First Amendment's protections of freedom of speech and peaceful assembly? --75.28.52.27 (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

"The reference desk will not answer (and will usually remove) questions that... seek guidance on legal matters". AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not one of the accused protesters, nor am I in any way affiliated with any of the accused. I'm asking this purely out of curiosity. --75.28.52.27 (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The justice system will decide that question, assuming it even gets that far. There are any number of possible grounds for the arrests, not the least of which is that the "peaceful" part might have been debatable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Often times in situations like this, a great number of people will be arrested, and then most released without charges soon after. It has the effect of breaking up the protest, without the government having to have a real solid legal standing. At the 2008 Republican National Convention, about 800 people were arrested during the convention, with charges successfully brought against a couple dozen of them [6]. On the final day of the protest, about 300 people were arrested, with all of them subsequently released without charges [7]. Granted, that's at the extreme end of things, and there are a couple lawsuits pending against the police. But as a tactic for breaking up protests, arresting lots of people and letting most of them go is a fairly common, and effective tactic. Buddy431 (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I expect the arrests are intended to keep things under control. They might be a bit quick on the trigger, so to speak, but looking at the riots of the 1960s, it's understandable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The riots of the 1960s were not in any way connected to protests. It is a silly connection to make. The war and Civil Rights protests were organized, peaceful, and pre-announced affairs. The race riots were spontaneous reactions to incidents of blatant injustice in the poorest and most marginalized communities in the United States, and did most of the damage to their own communities. The only thing even slightly comparable is the 1968 Democratic National Convention, which went from being a "protest" to being a "riot" when the police started arbitrarily beating people. Do not confuse the source of violence in the latter, and do not confuse the race riots with protest activity. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

From news articles, it appears that the protesters were blocking the sidewalk and were ordered to free it up. Governments are allowed to make "time, place or manner" restrictions on demonstrations so long as they are reasonable an apply equally to everyone. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This brochure from the ACLU outlines some of the limitations on the right to protest in the United States. Permits are required for blocking streets; amplified noise requires a permit. In theory permit-granting is politically neutral. In practice, it's sometimes unclear. This is not a new thing at all, though. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Aren't large scale arrests of people who are clearly not guilty of any crime, in order to break up a demonstration, a case of false arrest ? And, as such, aren't the arresting officers themselves guilty of a crime ? (I'm not commenting on this specific case, just the general principle.) StuRat (talk) 05:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If one were falsely arrested and wanted to pursue it, you can sue the police department in question. I doubt they would hold individual officers, but it could lead to restitution. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Depends on your definition of "not guilty of a crime". In many jurisdictions, the threshold at which the police can arrest someone is if they have a reasonable suspicion that a person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime. You do not have to be by any means guilty to be arrested.

Furthermore, in many jurisdictions, there are a bunch of offences which (whether or not they were created for the purpose) are used almost solely for temporarily removing people from locations which the police, rightly or wrongly, fear may develop into violent situations that involve "real" crimes.

A common one is "loitering with intent" - the offence is usually something like a person is staying (loitering) in one place with the intent to commit a crime. A police officer who has a reasonable suspicion that someone is doing this could then arrest that person - and if it turns out they were not intending to commit a crime, they would usually be released.

Other examples include what are known in Australia (and possibly elsewhere) as the "trifecta" - offensive language, resisting arrest and assault (without battery -in practice, any menacing behaviour or threats).

Offences akin to, derived from, or relating to riot can also be used to arrest people in a crowd, and especially if the crowd turns aggressive. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If anyone wants to actually see the law that applies to this situation, look at Section 5-331.07 of the District of Columbia Code. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)