Humanities desk
< June 1	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 3 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 2

Two short stories

I've read two short fantasy/sci-fi stories in the '80s. Unfortunately I can neither remember their titles nor the authors. Perhaps someone can identify them?
One is about a woman who undergoes some eye surgery and starts to see other people with various animal heads. She becomes hysterical and is later operated a second time. At the end of the story everyone looks normal but now she has a doe's head.
The other story is about two men on a remote island, experimenting for the military. They bring a robot crab that feeds on metal and reproduces. Soon they overpopulate the island and the metal stocks run out. The crabs then fight and cannibalize each other, each generation evolving to be a more efficient fighting machine. Things get out of hand and the crabs kill one of the men for his dental fillings. --88.241.172.166 (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is "The Blue Lenses" by Daphne du Maurier. Deor (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And a bit of Googling identifies the second one as "Crabs on the Island" by Anatoly Dneprov. Deor (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was really quick, thank you! How one's memory deceives himself, I always had a feeling that the crab story was written by Arthur C. Clarke. --88.241.172.166 (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Defending Macbeth

I'm lead defense for our class's trial of Macbeth. We're trying to get Macbeth to face lesser charges as mentally unsound. We have to call witnesses from the play and ask them questions to help get him off the hook. What mental illnesses could Macbeth possibly have, and how would you recommend me go about defending him? {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 04:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, figure out what test for diminished responsibility or "not guilty by reason of mental ilness" applies in your class or your legal jurisdiction. See Insanity defense, Mental disorder defence, M'Naghten Rules, Mental disorder defence. In the most absurd instance, someone got off by claiming he had been eating junk food. Once you have determined what standard applies in your situation, you can look for evidence the defendant exhibited behaviors or had beliefs which would get him off or allow a lower punishment. Edison (talk) 04:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the article says, the Twinkie defense was nothing like the absurd claim that people repeat. "White's consumption of junk food was presented to the jury as one of many symptoms, not a cause, of White's depression". Let's try not to perpetuate inaccurate press-renderings of reality. 86.164.69.239 (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't neglect the pressure his murderous wife put him under - spousal abuse has also, I believe, been used as a defence. DuncanHill (talk) 08:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could argue that the weird sisters are just voices in his head (I don't suppose the prosecution will say that witches are real, and the only other person to have met them is no longer around). Also, call the folks present at the banquet in Act 3 Scene 4 (during which Macbeth acts as if there is a ghost though nobody else can see it) as witnesses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be very difficult to get any of the characters qualified as an expert in the field of psychiatry since none of them are practicing psychiatrists and none have seemed to have published anything in that field, so Macbeth might be screwed. As an addendum, what point in the play is the trial supposed to take place, since obviously it can not be after the conclusion since there is little point in trying a man who has lost his head. Googlemeister (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Twinkie Defence won't fly; as a Scot Macbeth is already inured to the (short term) ill effects of a fried-cake diet - indeed salad is more likely to induce psychosis than any snack-cake. Given the relatively high latitude of Forres (it's at much the same latitude as Juneau, Alaska) one might like to argue the influence of seasonal affective disorder, induced by the short day length. I don't think the play clarifies the season, but the presence of a thunderstorm (which are rather more common in Scotland in summer than other seasons) and that of foliage in the Birnam Wood (it'd make for bad camouflage otherwise) would suggest it's probably summer or autumn, which nukes the SAD defence. But let's face it, Macbeth spends much of the play talking to three old ladies he imagines to be witches, and a homeless man he believes to be a ghost (ghosts are, after all, of "no fixed abode"). So he's suffering visual and auditory hallucinations, with supernatural voices urging him to commit acts of violence - you've got a very strong case for a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. Indeed, if you presented yourself at Raigmore Hospital's casualty ward and declared that three witches and a ghost wanted you to kill the queen, that's exactly what they'd diagnose you with. A forensic examination of three kindly pensioners (who Beckett names Flo, Vi, and Ru) and a tramp called Mickey, who all attest the accused believed them to be supernatural, would make for an effective (and if you want, rather comic) defence. As an, at least theoretic, descendent of the real Macbeth, it's incumbent on me to observe that the real king was none of these things, and that his rule was one of wisdom and peace, with lower taxes and improved hospital waiting times. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 15:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as a military veteran with recent and intense battle experience, Macbeth may be suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 15:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, also, you could paint his flicking between to kill the King or not as indicative of multiple personalities and/or high levels of stress. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 21:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since his crimes were predestined I would take a look at automatism as well. --JGGardiner (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's outwith the brief to argue that the whole evidence of the play is unreliable and defamatory hearsay and (as per Macbeth of Scotland) he killed Duncan in battle and ruled for seventeen years? --ColinFine (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

So you're asking, "Was Macbeth thane, or inthane?" 63.17.89.8 (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs?Edison (talk) 04:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, it is the sort of thing he would say.

Well, thanks to everyone for the advice. We've gone for PTSD, as well as panic attacks. And conjured up a psychiatrist to testify. We've also got Sweno testifying that Duncan was an ineffectual ruler, Lennox about Macbeth's behaviour at the banquet, the Captain from Act 1 about Macbeth's bravery in battle, Lady Macbeth about any number of things, and the Witches. But the spin that the witches decided on, is that they're wise women who've been excluded from society because of their experimenting. The captain of the Tiger was one of their backfiring experiments at medication; the potion they brewed up made Macbeth hallucinate, on top of confirmation bias. The idea was that they would have someone in power who would be hallucinatory and dependent on them, so they could bring about an acceptance of science. Which obviously backfired. (I really like the "three elderly pensioners" idea, but considering that the prosecution is also calling the weird sisters, we have to at least stick that much to the text.) Our Macbeth himself wanted to try out being a repressed homosexual as well, but I'm not sure how well we could argue that denial of his sexuality could have affected anything. It's going to be a hard fight to get Macbeth off the hook, considering how much easier it's going to be to prosecute him, so anything that makes any sense whatsoever is appreciated (forming a coherent defense will be interesting...) . Thoughts? {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 06:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

free speech mini forum

I remember KGO had this program called, "Speak Freely." It was a little forum in which San Francisco Bay Area citizens talk about important things on their minds. The opening and closing of, "Speak Freely," had a jazz music song. (Somewhere in San Francisco, I also heard the same song in a movie theater sometime before the featured movie started.) I'm interested in finding out what the song is and who does it. If anyone knows what I'm trying to say, please come forward. Thank you.24.90.204.234 (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An email to the television station might be able to clear this up for you rather quickly. Especially if it was a small local show which might not have any information about it on the internet. Dismas|^(talk) 07:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried. When I got a response, I learned the people behind the locally produced program has since retired. No one at KGO was able to help me. What should I do now?24.90.204.234 (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is China a manufacturing leader

00 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashankgandhi3 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article should give you a start. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tan authors of literature

Can anyone think of any authors (novels, plays, poetry, etc) that were tan (or I guess notably good-looking, not that the two are necessarily related)? They can be from any time period. Thanks! ?EVAUNIT^{神になった人間} 07:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you could clarify what precisely you mean by "tan". For example, there are about 30 slang definitions of the word "tan" here, including "attractive Asian" and "hated English person". Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Tan" to me is just an Americanism for "tanned", and in this context means attractively suntanned. In this, as in most matters, I defer to Bruce Springsteen: "But I remember us riding in my brother's car/Her body tan and wet down at the reservoir". It's actually an interesting question: contemporary writers aren't usually thought of as dreamboats, although maybe some Romantic poets would be. Are you interested in men, or women, or both? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 07:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would this then mean the authors have to be white with a suntan, as opposed to being more of a tan colour all the time? Or is the question really more about the authors being attractive? Or is it about authors who don't spend all their time shut away in dark rooms? Byron would fit the last two, being " renowned for his personal beauty, which he enhanced by wearing curl-papers in his hair at night", and got up to a lot of outdoor activity too. But he looks very pale in all pictures I've seen. 86.164.69.239 (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Italian television personality Fabrizio Corona has written a book. He's tan and good-looking. Then there's Albanian dancer Kledi Kadiu. He is also tan, good-looking and has written a book as well.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking mostly for males. Richard's understanding of what I meant by tan was good and insightful : ) So yes, whites with sun tans and people that are naturally tan are fine. Byron's a really good example, as are Jeanne's, two people I had never heard of. ?EVAUNIT^{神になった人間} 01:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actor George Hamilton is famous for his tan, and has written books. See George_Hamilton_(actor)#Books. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steady customers

I'm writing a paper for a class. In the paper, I have to try to convince my employer to add a machine to mass produce parts in an otherwise custom fabrication shop. One of my arguments is that my employer can have more steady income/work/contracts/etc. if they can produce small parts for local factories. It will lesson the need to win bid after bid and keep a regular flow of money coming in. Is there a term or name for this concept?

Additionally, I have to cite some figures or some expert in the field as to how this would help the business. Maybe if I had a term for this it would help but could someone point me in the right direction to look for a reference about this? Online ref's would be preferred. The course is online and the nearest large library is some distance away. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 07:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS Please don't tell me to review my text book for the term. This is a writing class and not economics. Thanks again, Dismas|^(talk) 08:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you want them to diversify their income streams. DuncanHill (talk) 10:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's a diversification, because this is a pretty major shift in how the company (or, at least, this new part of the company) will do business. I assume that the production of small parts for local factories is a lower margin business, in which case the company is expected to "make it up on volume", meaning each mass-produced part will make a lot less profit than a custom part, but the company is going to sell so many of the mass-produced parts that the profit from that "division" will be higher despite the lower margin. I googled high volume low margin, because that's what the new business entails, and found this article and this short article that seem pertinent. By the way, I don't think the ability to produce a lot more means that the company has a reduced need to win bid after bid. It's the nature of any business that you have to keep selling like crazy. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds more like a distraction. Diversification that draws capital away from the core business isn't taken lightly... usually. As they say on TV, if you have no idea how to waste someone else's money, then just start building something. East of Borschov (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the words of caution. This is just a writing course though and I don't have to actually make money at this, I just have to argue for the advantage here. I appreciate the help! Dismas|^(talk) 22:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capital punishment

How many countries in the world keep the number of executions a secret? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear that this question is really answerable, as it requires us to prove a negative: specifically, "X has not committed a secret execution." But if it's secret, how would we know to distinguish that country from one that didn't have a secret execution? However, our article on capital punishment may be of interest, as we note that many statistics on executions cannot be accurately confirmed. — Lomn 16:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question "How many countries which claim not to have the death penalty perform executions in secret anyway?" would indeed be a difficult question to answer with any certainty, although groups such as Amnesty International might have a "to the best of our knowledge"-type list. On the other hand "How many countries which freely admit to having captial punishment (try to) keep the execution numbers secret?" (e.g. "Yes, we execute criminals, but, no, we won't tell you who or how many") should be relatively straightforward to answer. Unfortunately, I'm not knowledgeable enough to attempt it. -- 174.24.200.38 (talk) 04:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Amnesty report on capital punishment in 2009 does not answer this question specifically, but it lists Uganda, Tanzania, North Korea, Thailand, Libya, Kenya, Iran, DR Congo, Chad, and China as countries where "an unknown number of people were sentenced to death". In addition to these, Amnesty names at least Belarus, Mongolia and Vietnam as countries that do not officially publish (complete) information on their use of the death penalty. Saudi Arabia also is said by Amnesty to execute more people than the government officially acknowledges. For most countries, the Amnesty figures have the caveat that "it was not possible to specify a figure", but that includes the US, which must mean that there were cases where the sentence was possibly not final, or something like that.--Rallette (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship between "France" and "Frog"

I have seen/heard many persons saying that eating frog is common in France or amongst French people; especially, in the film "Les Triplettes de Belleville," the Triplets cook their meals from frogs. Is that true or just a joke about the words "France" and "Frog" which are pronounced similarly?

124.121.183.170 (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that frog's legs is a genuine meal... ╟─Treasury Tag►Tellers' wands─╢ 10:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes folks, it's true, Frogs eat frogs. DuncanHill (talk) 10:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, why French people are called "Frogs"? The Wikitionary tells me that the word "frog" is a pejorative term used to mention to French person or France. Thank you, once again.

124.121.183.170 (talk) 10:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a pejorative term, particularly when uttered by an English person. We have some information under List_of_ethnic_slurs#F. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also Jean Crapaud. The Brewer Dictionary of Phrase and Fable says Nostradamus used this as a term for the French in the sixteenth century ... but it often lies. It's not a very good dictionary. Under frog, it says: "What with the frogs (people of Paris) say?" was in 1791 a common court phrase at Versailles. There was a point in the pleasantry [not sure what this means] when Paris was a quagmire, called Lutetia (mud-land) because, like frogs or toads, they lived in mud... 81.131.60.148 (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think "three toads erect, saltant" might be a confusion with the fleur_de_lis. 81.131.60.148 (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "three toads erect, saltant" comes from John Guillim. DuncanHill (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought french people were called frogs because in some old war with the french - possibly the Napoleonic wars - the soldiers wore a green uniform. 92.28.249.38 (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford English Dictionary says that it has been a general term of abuse for people since the 14th century; that in the 17th century, it was used as a pejorative term for the Dutch; and has been used in reference to the French (or, alternatively, their language) since the 18th century. The term "froggy" has been used for the French since the 19th century, "a term of contempt for a Frenchman, from their reputed habit of eating frogs." --Mr.98 (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the crapauds de Paris: n the Garden of Versailles is the Pool of Latona (Bassin de Latone) because the theme of Versailles is the triumph of Apollo, Louis XIV of France being the "Sun King". For the myth of Latona and the frogs, see Latona.--Wetman (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we french feel aggravated when rosbifs call us "frogs" ? A frog is beautiful & delicious, just as a rosbif, & was part of human diet even before Homo erectus, I believe. But unhappily, we don't enjoy frogs anymore, since like many fine fishes & crayfishes they have disappeared from our streams and ponds : chemical pollution. The frog-thighs you may find now, mainly deep-frozen & coming from Asia, taste like wood-saw mingled with urea, just as nowadays snails are like rubber bits in your mouth.

Fishing frogs is a grand remembrance of my youth, & I've fished a lot of fishes of all kinds & sizes. Look at Maurice Genevoix 's "La Boîte à Pêche" ("The fishing-tackles box") , 1926, if you want to know more about it (good article on Genevoix in WP:fr). And those tender fried muscles, with some garlic & parsley ... (as for nasty ethnic slurs, you may be interested in knowing that in France, when a woman is menstruated, she often uses à litote to speak about it : "Les Anglais ont débarqué" ("The englishmen have landed")...:-) ) T.y. Arapaima (talk) 09:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly a number of Gilray cartoons using the term; however the French wore white uniforms before the revolution and blue afterwards. To be fair to the French, they often take the joke in good part. A French president, (Mitterand?) when asked how the Channel Tunnel rail link was built through the French countryside more quickly than in England replied that you don't ask the frogs before you drain the pond! Alansplodge (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick look and found that while most of his troops wore blue, Napoleon's mounted troops did indeed wear dark green... which of course proves nothing, but I thought I'd mention it. 81.131.66.164 (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha. Because of redcoats, obviously. 81.131.66.164 (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sound correlation shouldn't be completely ignored. If you say "Frank" (as in Frankish) with a french accent, like [frãk], it does sound a lot like 'frog', particularly with some English accents. Steewi (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Music

Hi. I've been playing music since I was very young, and now I'd like to learn how to recognize different types of music. First off, I need to be able to tell the key and time signature of a piece without looking at the sheet music. Any ida how I can do that? Thx --~``` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.230.229 (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time sigs are relatively easy. Just count the number of beats in the bar, and you have the top line. The bottom line is a bit hit and miss, could be 4, 8 or even 16 but that one's rare. Key is a little harder. You should by now be able to tell major vs minor keys. Sometimes I amuse myself by guessing what key a piece of music I hear on the radio is in, and after 40 or so years I think I've managed to pin down all the "easy" keys. I do this by the way they sound - D major sounds particularly happy. Most rock music is in E. Music with brass instruments in is generally B flat or E flat because that's the key those instruments are in. What lets me down is where a rhythm guitar is being played with a capo on, which means I recognise the chords being played, but that fools me as to the key it's in. Hope this helps. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. No amount of listening to River Man has got me to understand how to count in 5/4 time. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So try Take Five by Dave Brubeck! The first beat of every bar is emphasised, so that gives you your starting point. The fourth and fifth beat also have some emphasis. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That worked, and has helped with River Man, too. Very slow tempo. Could you say some more about the /4 part of the fraction? What exactly is its purpose, if the length of a beat is itself a moveable feast? --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its purpose is in the written music, since it tells you the beats are crotchets. But you're right, Take Five could as easily be in 5/8, with all the crotchets replaced with quavers, and so on. You can't really tell by listening, except that you can usually assume the most conventional time signature has been used. It has some bearing on how easy it is to read the music, but you can rewrite something in 5/4 to be in 5/8, 5/2, 5/16, and set the beat to be the same length. 86.164.69.239 (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Very helpful. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to exercise your new skills, try listening to Money (Pink Floyd song), the majority of which is in 7/4 time and is relatively easy to count. Ka renjc 19:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, they're working. I'm not sure I'll be able to count some of Frank Zappa's more wildly timed pieces, having an insufficiency of fingers. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of musical works in unusual time signatures has some doozies - ⅗/4, for example. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! We truly do have an article on everything! I must check out my collection and see if I can add to that - think I've already spotted a 15 that's not there, for example. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh God! That gives me some flash-backs. The Scherzo from Borodin's Symphony No. 2, in 1/1. Great to listen to, a nightmare to play. Which probably sums up most of that list! 86.164.69.239 (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why, or what aspect of 1/1, makes it difficult to play? --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessarily difficult to play by ear, but difficult to play by eye, meaning it is difficult to conduct and also difficult to play when you're reading the score (which is what most orchestra musicians will be doing in this case). 1/1 lacks structure or partition within the time signature, sort of like r e a d i n g t h i s t e x t w h i c h d o e s n o t g r o u p l e t t e r s i n t o w o r d s a n d m a k e s i t h a r d t o r e a d, only harder. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That, and it's prestissimo. So the conductor is beating pretty much as fast as he can, and you're trying to fit a whole bar into each beat. Combine that with the lack of structure, and that in most orchestras I've been in you don't get much rehearsal time on each piece, so you're trying to pick it up at high speed without all the usual structural cues, and it adds up to Panic. As if you were trying to r e a d t h i s t e x t a s f a s t a s y o u c a n i n t i m e w i t h s o m e o n e e l s e. 86.164.69.239 (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, added a Bach piece in 2/1 to that page. On figuring out a piece's key, don't forget the difference between key and key signature. Being able to recognize the various types of modulation might be a good place to start. Pfly (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhists taking offense

Buddhists are known (or claim to be) indifferent to offenses (and apparently also to praise). However, how does that look like in real life? Can you insult the mother of one of them? How do Tibetan monks react to torture? Can you bully Buddhists at work?--Mr.K. (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is important to distinguish between Buddhist monks and regular Buddhists. Monks are very well trained and can probably ignore any insults and bullying. Regular Buddhists aren't really any different to anyone else. They may try and avoid taking offence at things but, just as with Christians trying not to judge others, say, they don't always manage. --Tango (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But some Buddhist monks were so offended by what was happening in war-time Vietnam that they self-immolated. It seemed to happen once a month for a few years back then (late 60s-ish, early 70s-ish). That's a pretty extreme form of protest about anything. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of practicing Buddhists that I have met are in fact, more calm and disciplined than most other people. This is because practicing Buddhists meditate very often. I have also met Catholic monks who meditate, too (they call it "prayer," although it is very similar to meditation because they are concentrating in silence for long periods). They are also very peaceful. Anyone who meditates (including, for example, Christians) will be able to control their emotions and clear their mind of un-necessary (i.e., immature) thoughts.

Another factor is the Noble Eightfold Path: (1) knowledge of the truth; (2) the intention to resist evil; (3) saying nothing to hurt others; (4) respecting life, morality, and property; (5) holding a job that does not injure others; (6) striving to free one's mind of evil; (7) controlling one's feelings and thoughts; and (8) practicing proper forms of concentration. New converts to Buddhism usually join because they already agree with these principles. Violent and restless people don't gravitate toward Buddhism.

Having said these things, Buddhists are still human beings. They can never be perfect. The more devout and experienced the Buddhist, the greater their discipline. The most disciplined Buddhists, especially those who claim to have achieved enlightenment, have complete control over their bodies and minds. They can tolerate anything you throw at them, including torture.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The core teaching of buddhism is that all suffering stems from attachment to "unrealities". If you approach a Buddhist monk and insult his mother, try to bully him, or etc, the monk should (ideally) recognize that your actions are not "real": i.e., your statements about his mother are untrue and designed to inflame, your attempts at bullying are based in unreal conceptions of authority and social interactions, and both stem from your own misunderstanding of the true nature of reality. He should, in fact, feel compassion towards you because you are so thoroughly lost in your own suffering that you feel the need to try to inflict suffering on others. How it actually pans out is a function of his meditation practice, his current state of mind, and etc. - even those who are enlightened are not enlightened all the time. Torture is effectively the same, with the distinction that physical pain (like pleasure and other sensations) is real. Ideally a practicing monk would experience the pain of being tortured without being attached to the outcome. in fact, the real 'torture' part of torture has less to do with the physical pain than with the fears and hopes that people cling to while being tortured - torturers want to put their victims in a place where they believe their only escape (attachment of hope) from further torture (attachment of fear) lies in cooperating with the torturer. --Ludwigs2 06:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In medieval Japan, some Buddhist monasteries took an active military role during periods of political disintegration and breakdown of law and order. Currently, some Buddhist monks in Sri Lanka have the reputation of being aggressive and militant supporters of Sinhalese nationalism. AnonMoos (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Indifference" doesn't seem like the right word, as it implies not responding. The Buddhists I've met who have been practicing intensely for years are all extremely engaged in the world. What's the point of compassion if you don't do anything about it? How would one of these people react if you deliberately insulted them? Who knows. Perhaps a punch in the face is exactly what you need. Pfly (talk) 02:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any sports/games where the player is drowned in vegetables/salad etc

I am looking for info on any sport (may be a 2 memebr team) where one of the players is lying on a table and vegetables/fruits/salads are thrown on her[[File:http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs652.snc3/32205_417461217968_150031197968_4156500_482065_n.jpg][1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.249.183 (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

non-fiction books

Suppose, hypothetically, I had written a novel, or perhaps some novels, and gotten it published, and decided to branch out into non-fiction writing, about world history for example, and found that my publisher doesn't print such books. What would I do then, would I be allowed to find a publisher that does, and would doing so be much the same as for the first novel, writing to them and submitting manuscripts, or is there a different procedure outside of the world of fiction?

148.197.115.54 (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on the contract you signed, which depends in part on you having a decent literary agent who didn't let you sign an unduly restrictive contract. What is and isn't covered by such a contract, and what happens when parties don't agree about the trajectory of their joint undertaking, depends on the hypothetical contract. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; and as to the original poster's last question, submitting nonfiction books is the same process as submitting fiction books, where you have an agent do it for you, or you send to all the slush piles and learn to relish total rejection. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking from past professional non-fiction publishing experience, whereas people often write fiction first and search for a publisher when the work is finished, it's much more usual with non-fiction for a writer to first find a publisher who will agree to the project, and then write the work to mutually agreed specifications, or even for the publisher to actively seek out a writer to supply a particular work.

Part of the reason for this is that, whereas the market for fiction is essentially unbounded, there is often a limit to how many non-fictional works on a given subject are thought to be contemporarily viable. A given publisher may have a notional gap in its non-fiction inventory it's desirous of filling, or consider its inventory in a particular area complete and not wish to create self-competing works which might dilute its marketing strategies. To convince a publisher to take on a non-fiction work, you generally have to convince a commissioning editor that the new or proposed work is/will be substantially better in some market niche than anything already on the market. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you had got work published, then you would probably have a literary agent. They would probably handle your non-fiction also. 92.24.181.176 (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capitulation during WW2

If Britain had not fought during WW2, and had let the Nazis have their way in Europe, would the total mortality have been less than what it was, including further Nazi genocide? On balance, all things considered, would millions of lives have been saved? I'm not suggesting capitulation would have been the right decision, I'm just curious how great the sacrifice was. 92.24.181.176 (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without checking the figures, mortality on the Russian front was greatest. Capitulation on the western front and lack of British support for the Russians would arguably have had little impact on that. And we can presume the Nazis would have found more people to exterminate in their camps. ON balance, I'd plump for "more deaths" rather than less. The graph at World War II#Casualties and war crimes is probably useful. Russia and China lost an order of magnitude more people. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Germans still might not have defeated Russia, but they would have had more troops to throw at them (assuming that they did not have to send as many to western Europe and Africa). So, at least, many more Germans and Russians would have been killed. Based on sheer numbers Russia probably still would have pushed them back, and I imagine they would have been a lot more unhappy about the lack of western support. Would Britain have fought in Asia in this scenario, when the Japanese attacked their colonies? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the first paragraph of Lebensraum for one take on this. 75.57.243.88 (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Had it ever came to you that "if Britain had not fought" than Stalin would have his way and that Europe would cease to be at all? East of Borschov (talk) 04:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From New Order (Nazism): ...Third, the neutralization or the conquest of the United Kingdom. Initially, Hitler wanted to make a deal with Great Britain in which the British Empire would be given a free hand over the oceans of the world and Germany would be given a free hand in Europe. The only way UK could have avoided prompt attempt of bombardment, strangulation and invasion was to come to terms with Hitler ensuring at least neutrality with regard to Nazi policies in Europe. Then, I think, Nazi Germany would have had the strenght and concentration to effectively invade and subjugate all the Soviet Union (at least to the Yenisei River...) maybe even without needing a very strict japanese alliance. The alliance of Germany and UK would have also prevented/retarded USA entering WWII, facilitating Nazi victory. With a total Nazi victory, UK would be eventually and inevitably asked for severe racial policies (extermination of the Jews and other Untermenschen and Mischlingen). Together with forced aryanization of continental Europe, Africa and at least half Asia, enslavement and gradual genocide of Slavic and other unwanted populations and a probable air war of conquest against North America (envisioned by Hitler in the Zweites Buch), the death toll would have been incommensurable high. --151.51.51.194 (talk) 09:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cracked says that Hitler would have been flattened by Stalin before that happened. Of course, it's not reliable and doesn't provide a source (other than one of our own articles). But it's compelling... 90.193.232.165 (talk) 09:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always amazed by people saying that the Soviet Union couldn't be defeated by Nazi Germany in WWII because it's so extremely huge. I think you have to consider that, once you have razed to the ground the european part of Russia, invading/annexing/subjugate the remains is, in comparison, like eating a piece of cake, expecially if Japan helps you on the other side (and Italy, Hungary, Romania, Finland, Vichy France... on the west part). Also, the Soviet Union was extremely sparsely populated ([2]). Look at this page's tables: World War II casualties. Looking at the population data of 1939:

Third Reich (Germany + Austria + Others) = 84,045,000, Japan = 71,380,000, Italy = 44,394,000, Romania = 19,934,000, Hungary = 9,129,000, Finland = 3,700,000, TOT = 232,582,000
Soviet Union = 168,500,000.

It wouldn't be too much unbalanced even with Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia alone.--151.51.51.194 (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See SS-GB for an "alternate history" account of Britain defeated by a German invasion, and the consequences. With Europe and Britain Nazified, the previous King would have been installed in the UK. The US would have possibly been involved in a fight against Japan for the Pacific. The USSR would have fallen, without convoys from the UK and the US, under attack from Germany and vassal countries, and perhaps Japan. Edison (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that Russia completely crushed the Japanese in all their encounters and was about to invade the main island at the end of the war. Dmcq (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have strong doubts about the capabilities of the Soviet amphibious fleets capabilities to invade Japan. Googlemeister (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]