Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 May 28

Humanities desk
< May 27	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 29 >

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.

May 28

Nuclear Bombs

What are the good for anyways? Please think positive and say nothing. If you have good primar sources that would be great too. I am counting on you wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkspartan4121 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Mutual assured destruction --Nricardo (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thinking "positively": they can be very destructive weapons, they can dig big holes, can potentially power spaceships, could serve as nifty paperweights, can potentially affect whether or not people want to go to war in the first place, or, conversely, serve as a great casus belli. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Believe it or not a plan was proposed and researched to determine whether power could be generated or an artillery shell launched by boring into the bedrock under a mountain, opening up a large cavity by nuclear bomb explosion and thereafter dropping bombs down the shaft to propel artillery shells or to use the escaping gasses to run gas piston or turbine generators. I saw one of the shaft doors that was closed from both sides by explosives after the artillery shell passed. The problem was that contamination could not be contained. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to PACER? --Mr.98 (talk) 12:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

And don't forget their potential role in asteroid impact avoidance. Warofdreams talk 10:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, most Americans would say that they ended a rather large war with a certain island nation about 65 years ago with fewer casualties on the winning side then one might have anticipated without their use. Googlemeister (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

And, quite possibly, fewer casualties on the losing side as well. Killing in the event of an invasion would have been spread around liberally. — Lomn 13:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably A LOT fewer casualties: estimated 400,000 to 800,000 US killed in an invasion against 5 to 10 million Japanese. See Operation Downfall#Estimated casualties. Alansplodge (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Their invention was a Big Science project which had a number of positive side effects. APL (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't it estimated that a million Americans would have likely been killed in an invasion of Japan? They were also considering drafting men over 35 years old as well.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Herbert Hoover estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 US fatalities. There were a number of estimates using different criterea; I gave the only one that compared US to Japanese. Follow the link on my last post for details. Part of the manpower issue was that troops who had fought in Europe were expecting to be demoblised. Alansplodge (talk) 08:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting article. It does not mention that they had considered drafting in older men. My dad, who was born in 1904, always told me that had it not been for Hiroshima abrubtly ending the war, it is possible that he (along with others older than 35) might have been drafted in to replace the high casualty rate that the US Forces would have doubtlessly incurred had the invasion gone ahead.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Was Hoover involved in the Pacific war? I thought that his role was relegated to the western front, and by August of 1945, why would he be making estimates about Operation Downfall? I don't know the answer, I just find that kind of questionable. Shadowjams (talk) 08:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to wade into this too much, but it's worth noting that historians are very divided as to the actual casualty estimates, towards the question of whether the Japanese would have surrendered without the bombs, whether an invasion would have been necessary, whether two bombs were specifically necessary, etc. It's all counterfactual, so who really knows, but accepting as gospel the Army/Navy estimates, especially when we know a lot more about the point of view of the Japanese leadership than they did then, is a bit too simple (and buying into a deliberately constructed narrative created by the U.S. military that was meant to justify the use of the bombs to an increasingly uneasy world). For a rather strong argument against the conventional/military wisdom, check out Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan (2005). (This is not the place for a debate, and I am not encouraging one to take one side or the other, but I am trying to make clear, in a way that the discussion above does not, that there are numerous sides one can take, and that people who have spent their lives researching this topic are no where near any kind of consensus.) --Mr.98 (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

home or self schooling

Some universities grant doctorate degrees in recognition of work an individual has done which merits such a distinction at that level despite the jealous rage of students who claim the doctorate was not earned. Are there institutions which grant lesser degrees when an individual demonstrates and equal level of achievement even though their source of education may be partly or entirely from home or self schooling? 71.100.8.229 (talk) 03:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

In earlier times, like the 19th century and earlier, an autodidact, a home schooled person, or someone educated only by a tutor might have written a brilliant dissertation, submitted it to a university or to a scholar at a university and been granted a doctorate, but today only diploma mills (unaccredited institutions which accept money for degrees) would consider such an action. It would likely anger the faculty and graduate students, and would deprive the school of tuition needed for expenses and to pay faculty, staff and administrators. Universities I am familiar with have minimum standards for time and credit hours as a student for an earned Masters or Doctorate to be awarded. Honorary degrees are a different matter, and are commonly given to rich or important people or celebrities of no particular academic attainment. Scholarship or brilliant writings by a self educated person, along with some recommendations and perhaps good scores on standardized tests might gain acceptance in a graduate school, perhaps on a provisional basis, without an undergraduate degree. There are "nontraditional" schools which might be less doctrinaire about requiring a bachelor's degree for admission to graduate school. The above is based on observation of the U.S. system only. Edison (talk) 04:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It is also possible to gain entrance to graduate school based on work experience or credit hours or the like. My wife had a professor in graduate school who himself had a PhD and that was his only degree. He didn't graduate high school even; he'd been in law enforcement for like 20 years, and accrued enough credit hours by taking classes at night over the years to gain admittance into a criminal justice PhD program. There is, of course, a "standard track" that most students are expected to go through, but there will always be exceptions, and its ultimately up to the admissions officers at the school in question. --Jayron32 05:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like academagarchy to me. Suppose for instance that during the course of study major discoveries are taking place which do not find their way to the classroom. A student under this system is limited by time slots. This actually happened with the "new math" and can be seen today in the difference between researchers and new graduates in a field, especially some areas of electronics and computer science. Yet I know students who have the basic classroom knowledge but spend all of their time updating it and building on what they know with the advantage of not having fallen into the trap of relying on only what they have been taught and made to learn. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 05:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There are also higher doctorates in some countries. E.g. [1] These are usually earned by contributions to one's field. However the title should give a clue, these are unlikely to be given to someone who doesn't already have a Ph.D or similar research doctorate. Nil Einne (talk) 07:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of universities will award a "doctorate by publication" to someone that has published work equivalent to a doctoral thesis while not actually on a doctoral programme. It is quite rare, but it definitely happens. --Tango (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Accreditation of Prior Learning is reasonably common for part time or distance learning first and Masters degrees in the UK, but I've not seen any doctoral programmes that offer similar. There are quite a lot of part time doctorate programmes, essentially taking ones day job and writing it up in the thesis for the award of the doctorate. This thesis still needs to meet the same standard, and the workload is high as frequently the day job is application so one needs to study the theoretical basis in the margins.

On the other hand I have meet a couple of academics who were uncomfortable that the academic awards were sullied by being based in the real world rather than the purist environment of academia :)

ALR (talk) 08:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

On further examination it occurs to me that the practical basis for awarding a degree of any kind is that it reflects the record as in the case of the criminologist mentioned above. What I am alluding to is that what if an academically trained student whose work is recorded forgets everything because hey just memorized everything short term to get through each course, compared to a self-taught student whose work is unrecorded except for letters etc. and comes from reading and the real world. What happens in terms of the validity of having a degree if the latter student is superior? 71.100.8.229 (talk) 10:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Degree programmes tend to start with the fundamentals of a subject, and move towards the more specific. If a student quickly forgets everything they learnt in the first year soon, they are unlikely to do well in the later years, which assume that they have remembered much of what they were taught. But, like any examination, it's best seen as a certification of achievement up to that point in time; if it is not used, it is entirely possible that some or much will be forgotten, but the student has shown the potential to learn whatever knowledge and skills are taught, and the ability to demonstrate them in some form of test. Warofdreams talk 13:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

All a degree represents is a certification by an institution that the individual holding the degree met the institution's requirements for granting that degree at the time that it was awarded. In the same way, having an Olympic gold medal means that you were the fastest in one particular race, not that you'll always remain the fastest. For that matter, getting a parking ticket doesn't mean that your car will for the rest of its life be considered illegally parked.

As far as I know, there is no way for a university to certify that a person won't forget anything after he has graduated, and no obligation – implicit or explicit – for them to try to do so. If you have a PhD in biochemistry but suffer a traumatic car accident and forget everything you knew about science, your degree won't be withdrawn — you did earn it. In making hiring decisions, a degree is one qualification that an employer may consider, but the track record since graduation is often equally (or more) important. In fields where retention and maintenance of specific knowledge and skills are particularly important (medicine is a big one here), there are often specific accreditation bodies which are responsible for ongoing testing, education, and certification.

Of course, what you're really asking is, "If it's possible for a self-taught individual to be 'smarter' or 'better' than a person with a formal degree, what's the point of the degree?" I'll leave that to others here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay I think I see what you are saying. A degree signifies that a person is prepared and trained to do a necessary job. Knowledge apart or beyond than which the job requires may be a disadvantage. Those who want to pursue knowledge instead of a job may find such job prep and training to be a good resource but not the entire means to their end and will therefore resort to being self-taught beyond or apart from job prep and training at some point. An example of someone who has commercial artist prep and training but decides to pursue a fine art instead. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

That may be what you're hearing, but that isn't what I'm saying. While some diplomas or certifications may be aimed at specific job skills or careers, this isn't universally true — and it becomes less true as you move into higher levels of education. Indeed, many universities firmly resist the notion that their responsibility ought to be some sort of job training. It's the difference between computer science (in which you might earn a university degree) and computer programming (which might be the focus of a training program). A good university education isn't about cramming students full of facts; it should also guide its students in how to answer – and even more important, how to ask – questions on their own. It aims to provide a firm foundation for further work or study in a given area; it isn't meant to be job prep.

I find your statement "Those who want to pursue knowledge instead of a job may find such job prep and training to be a good resource but not the entire means to their end and will therefore resort to being self-taught beyond or apart from job prep..." somewhat curious. I know of no educational institution which does not expect its participants to leave at some point to go on to new things, nor can I think of any respectable school that would presume that it has taught its students everything that they need to know and discourage them from further, independent study before or after graduation. I get the impression that you won't go away happy unless someone tells you that self-teaching (and individuals who are self-taught) are inherently superior to formal education and those who have gone that route, or that university education stultifies and blinkers its participants, so that they confine and suppress their creativity and curiosity to conform to the educational widget factory's demands — and I'm afraid you aren't going to hear that here. There are people with university degrees who are creative, who are lazy, who are curious, who are hardworking, who are slackers, who are procrastinators, who are personable, who are obnoxious, who are down-to-earth, who do the minimum necessary to get by, who are naive...just as there are without. A degree says that a person has at least been exposed to a thorough grounding in the fundamentals of a field, and it says the person carrying it cared enough and was dedicated enough to stick to it for three to five years (remember, that's longer than many people — especially those in their twenties and thirties have stayed with a single employer). Drawing further conclusions is fraught with risk. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No not at all. What I am saying is that institutions may grant an honorary doctorate not because the recipient has earned a doctorate degree but because the person or their work represents the person or goal the university wants its students to be like or to have and that by the same token a self-taught person even at a lower level may be equally or even more accomplished than a person with a degree. If a teaching institution were completely separated from the acknowledgment institution then this might be what would satisfy me, along with some creative and acceptable means of obtaining credit hours or their equivalent. . 71.100.8.229 (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Honorary doctorates are a completely different matter. They have nothing to do with academic achievement. They are mostly about publicity. --Tango (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You may differ as much as you like, but an honorary doctorate is not the same as a doctorate. It's not going to get one a job where a doctorate is a prerequisite.

ALR (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a different matter. Jesus Christ can not apply for a job with an honorary doctorate but what the institution that grants Jesus Christ an honorary doctorate is saying is that Jesus Christ is a role model which the institution desires the student body to emulate, i.e., be like or do like or follow. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

As Tango notes, an honorary degree is generally issued to someone famous or important in order to get them to deliver an address at a school's graduation ceremonies. The degree is often just a quid pro quo. Note, for instance, George W. Bush's Doctor of Laws from the University of Notre Dame[2] and from Yale University[3] in 2001, as well as a Doctor of Public Administration from Ohio State[4] in 2002. These are not universities acknowledging the cream of the crop; they're just giving George a robe to dress up in while he speaks.

On those occasions where an honorary degree is awarded to recognize accomplishment, it is usually well after the point where acquiring any new credentials would be of interest or necessity to the awardee. One receives an honorary award only after everyone outside of the university has noted one's decades of talent and achievement; the award is the icing on the cake and a pat on the back, not a license to go out and do things. In any event, as Tango again notes, an honorary degree won't get you any job or qualify you to conduct any task. It's a lifetime achievement award, not a skills certificate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I dare not think then what this says about the people who are awarded degrees because they have supposedly "earned" them. Every class I have every had the professor has expected me to follow him or her or at least to emulate their thinking and i know expert imitators that have been able to fool everyone. An example is a person who goes to church and people see as believing in God. Yet privately such a person will confide in you that you have to be careful of who you tell that there is a God as if they are invisible when attending church. Yes, I know plenty of expert imitators who supposedly hold a degree they have earned. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 02:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The value of degrees is another debate entirely, but for now I'll just say that it varies enormously depending on the subject and university. --Tango (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

IMHO the value of a degree would not be an issue for anyone if subject matter was required to be published in the form of a polychotomous key, although that opinion may or may not be sponsored by someone with or without a degree. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Our article on polychotomous keys is completely opaque. Can you explain what you mean by it and how it would work? --Tango (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

When was my house built?

Supposing I wanted to know when (and perhaps, by whom) my house was built, where could I look for the answer? Are there also publicly available schematics of current utilities locations, underground? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.105.95 (talk) 04:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Your jurisdiction likely has a Recorder of deeds or "Register of Deeds" or some other sort of office similarly named. You'd ask there; they probably have a chain of ownership for your home back to the original owner; as well as any significant changes made to your house etc. --Jayron32 04:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You local library or history society may have a collection of old maps of the area, which will give you some idea when it was built. Unless it's a significant building, tracking down the architect or builder may be more difficult.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It will vary depending on which country you're living in, so it always helps to let us know that information. From your IP address it looks like you come from Manchester, in the UK. To help answer the question, could you give a rough guess of when it was built? 1960s? Victorian? Medieval? 1930s? --Phil Holmes (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

As you are in the UK, the Land Registry will know this information. For a fee (which used to be £12 but that was a few years ago), if you tell them the address they will let you know when it was built and who owns the house and the land. If you are the owner, you will find the information you seek on the deeds to the house, which you will have stored safely (unless you have a mortgage in which case the mortgage lender will have the deeds). For part 2 of the question, try your local council's Planning department. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

According to the Land Registry's own site, 30% of land in England & Wales is unregistered. My house is unregistered, for example. It is impossible for anyone to find out who owns it or its history of ownership from publicly available records. The Land Registry doesn't have that information. Of course, I know I own it and have copies of the deeds showing chain of ownership. The building society with whom I have a mortgage have the original title deeds which I will receive when I pay off the mortgage.

If your house is old, and you are in a large town or city, then your address is probably listed in the annual Kelly's Directory, although it ceased publication many years ago. Your local library should be able to point you to an archive library. Look back through the Kelly's directories until your address disapears - that suggests it was built then. You can also look at old maps in the same way. If your house is registered with the Land Registry, then the title deed (or whatever they call them now) often mention covenants which give clues as to when the land was first sold as a building plot. You should also be able to estimate the age by the style of the building. For your second question, I believe the Ordnance Survey does sell very large scale maps that include utility pipes etc. 92.15.30.36 (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

To amplify 92's point, my local library (in Hampshire) has many old large-scale maps from frequently updated series which often explicitly show when a particular terrace of houses (the predominant design in my part of town) was built and by whom. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

One quick way of identifying the age of your house in the UK is to look at the pattern of the brickwork. If you can see any short ends of the bricks in the wall, then its almost certainly got solid walls. If you only see the long sides of the bricks, and no short ends, then its got cavity walls. Houses with cavity walls were built after about 1930, and solid walls before about 1930. Sidenote - the houses on the set of Coronation Street are obviously fake as the brickwork is not that of a solid wall. 92.28.242.45 (talk) 09:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a very hard-and-fast indication. The Cavity wall article states "The cavity wall method of construction was introduced into the United Kingdom during the 19th century and gained widespread use from the 1920s." My own house dates from very close to 1900 and has cavity walls. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Difference between debt and deficit

What is the difference, as used here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10150007.stm hanks 92.15.30.36 (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Deficit is how much we have to borrow this year. Debt is the total of all those borrowings (year after year), plus interest, minus repayments. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly. Deficit is the difference between income and expenses. If expenses exceed income, you run a deficit. Debt is money you owe someone else. It is possible, if you have extant savings, to run a deficit without incurring debt (by paying for the deficit out of savings). Likewise, you can incur debt and never run a deficit (for example, you can take out loans to make investments; if your return on investment exceeds your interest paid on your debt, you will run a surplus). From the grafics the OP provided, the term "national debt" refers to money that the national governments owe to others, usually in the form of outstanding bonds. The term "government deficit" refers to the difference between how much money the government spends on providing services and how much they take in in taxes. --Jayron32 03:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Internet and television advertisement

Is there a way to measure how much time people have spent watching a particular televison advertisement? (I mean a direct measurment not a statistical estimate)

Can Set Meters mentioned in this article do this?

This is easy to measure on the Internet, as the site is paied acording to the number of clicks on the ad link. If we are able to measure the television ad viewing time just as accurately wold the cost of television ads go down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diwakark86 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no way to avoid an estimate in any mass-deployed device.

• You can only say whether people are actually watching the ad if you can measure what they're paying attention to. There may be research in this area, but Nielsen ratings aren't using it (nor are ad clicks on the net). So you're left estimating.
• You can't, as a practical matter, give every person a Nielsen box. Ad clicks are better in this regard, but not all ads require clicks. So you're left estimating.

Anyway, statistical estimates are really pretty good. And more accurate info would, in many cases, drive the cost of ads up, not down. Advertisers pay a premium for things that can target an intended narrow audience. Quite obviously, this is the primary reason that Nielsen surveys, and demographic info collection on the internet, exist -- to enhance someone's (that is, the ad seller's) bottom line. — Lomn 18:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Luxembourg v. UK

According to this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10150118.stm , the per capita GDP of Luxembourg is about twice that of the UK. Yet the average amount earnt is more in the UK than Luxembourg. How is that explained? Where does the missing Luxembourg GDP money go to? Thanks 92.15.30.36 (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Where have you seen that average earnings in the UK are greater than in Luxembourg? According to this source, Luxembourg has the highest median household income in the world. The source states that the median household income in Luxembourg is $79,500 PPP ($103,000 nominal), whereas it is only $35,100 PPP ($45,400 nominal) in the UK. These numbers are line with your figures showing GDP per capita in Luxembourg to be twice that in the UK. Marco polo (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

See the Jobs section, the Average Full-time Earnings chart on the right, in the link above. 92.15.30.36 (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It does seem odd. Perhaps Luxembourg has a much larger proportion of its population working - that's the only thing I can think of (other than the BBC making a mistake, which is entirely possible). --Tango (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

If Luxembourgians worked jobs in Belgium or France, perhaps they could boost their median household income while not boosting their per capita GDP? Googlemeister (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

As long as they repatriated their wages, they would contribute to GDP. --Tango (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it is explained by the Luxembourgers having a lot of investment income. 92.15.30.36 (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe investment income is included in GDP. --Tango (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that the newspaper's full-time earnings number for the UK is right (and it seems surprisingly high considering relative living standards), this could be explained by a combination of a higher work force participation rate and higher investment income in Luxembourg. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that figure is correct, but it is massively skewed by a few people earning millions. The median earnings are about £20k. --Tango (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I am more convinced than before that something is wrong with the earnings figure given by the BBC. Here are my sources: According to Eurostat, gross wages and salaries for the UK in 2009 were about €725.5 billion. According to the same source (different page), the population of the UK in 2009 was about 61.6 million. Now, according to the CIA World Factbook, the working age population (ages 15–64) of the UK is 67.1% of the total, or about 41.4 million. (This is a 2010 figure, but these things change slowly.) According to the OECD, the employment/working-age-population ratio for the UK was 72.7%, for an employed population of just over 30 million. (This is a 2008 figure, so this number is higher than it would have been during the 2009 recession, but the same methodological error should affect Luxembourg similarly.) Dividing total UK employment of just over 30 million into gross wages and salaries of €725.5 billion, I get a mean wage or salary for the UK of €24,131, which is about what I would have expected. This mean includes the multi-million earners in the City of London, so the median would be a bit lower. Using the exact same sources and method for Luxembourg, I get a mean wage or salary of €71,995. While GDP per capita in Luxembourg is about double that in the UK, this wage and salary figure is even higher, as best I can tell, partly because the UK's population is slightly younger and its working-age population has a higher employment rate, so a larger share of the UK population is employed. I don't think that this accounts for all of the difference. Something other than wages and salaries seems to be pushing up the UK's GDP relative to Luxembourg's. Perhaps (just guessing) it is repatriated profits for the UK's many multinational corporations. Or, possibly, the lower cost of living in the UK (compared to Luxembourg) pushes up the UK's numbers on a PPP basis. Marco polo (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

A lot of people in the UK only work part-time, and I recall the average income is about £25000. The BBC webpage about says that the full-time UK income is over twice this. Perhaps part-time work in Luxembourg is less common, and more people have investment income. I'm not entirely clear why a little country like Luxembourg should be so rich - I will have to read its article. 92.15.1.82 (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization in legal documents

Why do lawyers capitalize (e.g., "THIS IS CAPITALIZATION") certain parts of contracts? I see it in indemnification parts mostly. I would be interested in knowing not only the rationale but also whether any cases made it so. Thank you. 143.166.226.64 (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason for this really unfortunate standard is that some laws require that some provisions of contracts have to be "conspicuous" — see the bottom of this page — and unfortunately going to hard-to-read all-caps is the most common way that lawyers draft this language in a way that is allegedly "conspicuous" and therefore abides by that particular law. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Positive thinking: given technical situations (such as a simple text box) where other font sizes, bold, or any other way to make text conspicuous are NOT available you should be HAPPY they chose capital letters, as it is a plain and simple fact that t     h     e     s     e          w     o     r     d     s          a     r     e          f     a     r          m     o     r     e          "     c     o     n     s     p     i     c     u     o     u     s     "          THAN THESE ONES. 82.113.121.38 (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Negative thinking: I'm sure there are lawyers who make certain things conspicuous in the deliberate hope that the individual won't read the bits which they chose not to highlight... ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 21:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization is often used for definitions because it delineates that it's being used as a definition, as opposed to as some normal usage. As far as I know, there's no particular law or principle that requires this, but capitalization has the advantage (over bolding or italics) of surviving copy-paste jobs, transfers between formats (the legal world is notorious for using, how should I say, esoteric, standards, like WordPerfect) and being conspicuous. Shadowjams (talk) 06:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Having gone through deeds myself, the capitalisation becomes a life-saver. It's easier to read than the surrounding lower case, but more importantly, I was trying to find key details from it. Reading only the capitalised words meant I didn't have to wade through all the text, but included most of what I was looking for. Even if that's not directly relevant to legal texts today, it could be a hangover. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 17:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Capitalisation in songs

A similar question in a different field: when the sheet music for a song is published, they often capitalise the title of the song anywhere it happens to occur in the lyrics. I've never seen the point of this, and wonder if anybody knows why? --ColinFine (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

These days, it could be interpreted as that's where the singer SHOUTS rather than sings the lyrics (assuming it's a song where there is in fact some discernible difference between shouting and singing, which is not a claim all popular songs can make), but that's probably not why the practice started. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Honorary degrees

What institutions have awarded Jesus Christ and honorary degree? 71.100.8.229 (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

None, as far as I know. Degrees (almost as we know them) started being issued in around the 1100's, I think. Honorary degrees were much later than that. While honorary degrees may sometimes be granted posthumously, they aren't granted that posthumously. You need someone to accept the degree. That can be the family of a deceased person, but that only works for a few generations before it becomes meaningless or impossible. --Tango (talk) 00:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Would Jesus even accept an honorary degree? Note, the previous link is provided for humor only. I neither endorse nor oppose any views or beliefs expressed in that discussion. Buddy431 (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's a different Jesus who has an honorary degree. Buddy431 (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure there are lots of people called Jesus with honorary degrees - it is a very common name (although not in the English-speaking world). --Tango (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)