Miscellaneous desk
< January 17	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 19 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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.

January 18

negative memory?????

Moved to Wikipedia:RD/C#Negative_memory Nil Einne (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time of Obama's actual oath

I've searched the Internet, and I've confused myself. Will Obama take his oath at 11:30am or noon EST? The Inaugural Committee's website states that the swearing-in ceremony begins at 11:30, which suggests that Obama will take his oath at 11:30. However, based on the Wikipedia article, it appears that the swearing-in ceremony includes some pre-oath events, such as an invocation and some musical selections. Based on this, if the ceremony begins at 11:30, Obama's actual oath-taking would appear to occur around noon.

I'd like to watch Obama take his oath, but if it happens at 11:30, I won't be able to watch it live. So, my question: does the swearing-in ceremony, which begins at 11:30, include events that will occur prior to Obama's taking of the Oath of Office, thus delaying his oath-taking until about noon? —Kal ^(talk) 07:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article: Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration the event commences at 10:00am and the oath will be sworn and inaugural address given at Noon. Further down the article is a list of events for the day where it says that the time will be "around noon" - so you might not want to cut it too close! SteveBaker (talk) 07:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Constitution requires that the oathtaking not take place before noon. Tb (talk) 08:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as discussed above. Algebraist 10:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ekchooli, the Constitution says he has to take the oath before executing his office. It doesn't say how long before, and he assumes his office at noon on the dot. I know I'll be watching. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I presume the "taking the oath before executing his office" thing means that he has to take the oath before signing any laws or issuing any orders as president. Since he can probably hold off doing that for at least a few hours - there isn't any urgency to take the oath on the dot of noon. He IS president at the dot of noon - but he can't use his powers until the oath is taken. Since he only has to take the oath sometime before he executes his office - he could also take the oath before noon. It's just convention to do it with this big hoopla on the dot of noon. Indeed, should the date he takes office fall on a Sunday - he takes the oath in a small private ceremony and the full blown inaugural happens on the following Monday. SteveBaker (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And for what actually happened, there is now an article on the Obama inauguration, which as far as I can see actually omits to mention that the (fumbled) oath-taking began at 12:05 or 12:06. --Anonymous, 06:05 UTC, January 24, 2009.

sex and sexuality in the 1890s

Hey, this is a homework question but all I'm looking for are some links for thing to read online, I hope that's ok. The topic is scientific research into sex and sexuality in the 1890s. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.240.66 (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 and the Labouchere Amendment are rather interesting (for context), even if they're 5 years prior to the time you're researching. Seraphim ♥ 16:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything about scientific research in those articles. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I clarified the reasons for providing the links in brackets... Seraphim ♥ 00:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try looking up the work of Richard von Krafft-Ebing—that should give you plenty to work with. There's also always Sigmund Freud, of course. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could find resources on this topic by googleling it.--Apollonius 1236 (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to offer some links, but then I got a glimpse of a woman's ankle and got too excited to continue. :-) StuRat (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]

For homosexuality in the 1890s, I'd suggest some research on Oscar Wilde, Havelock Ellis and Magnus Hirschfeld, as well as Edward Carpenter and John Addington Symonds. Havelock Ellis is part of the scientific group that you should definitely look at. Steewi (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ideas everyone. Apollonius 1236 I know I can google it but I was hoping for links to specific academic journals and such, there is an awful lot of google results to look at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.240.66 (talk) 12:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death

If death is so certain, why does it terrify? 117.0.1.59 (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because we're certain of it happening, but not of what happens next. Chaosandwalls (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, because it means we can no longer reproduce so those of our predecessors that were afraid of death and so avoided it lived longer and had more offspring, which were also afraid of death. Over many generations this resulted in the entire human race (or, more likely, a larger population - all animals, possibly) being afraid of death. --Tango (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But such a inevitable, post-facto evolutionary explanation runs up against the fact that from what we can tell, people had very different attitudes about death even just a few hundred years ago than they do today. There is much in our approaches and attitudes towards death which is cultural, not biological, in nature. One can see this even among people whom we know—some people are terrified of death to the point of being paralyzed in their lives, while others are accepting of it and willing to do quite dangerous things. There's quite a wide spectrum of possibilities, even assuming that at some level those who don't die before they reproduce are going to be selected for. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People have feared death for all of human history and throughout the world, as far I know. That's why almost all cultures have a concept of an after-life or reincarnation or something else to make death not seem as scary. --Tango (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"As far as you know"... you might spend a little more time researching the subject. There is a rich literature on the history of death and the fact that responses to it, literary, psychological, etc., vary quite a bit from time period to time period, culture to culture. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an example of a culture that doesn't/didn't fear death? --Tango (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that's the reason, it doesn't work very well, as Chaosandwalls pointed out, long after Shakespeare.

To sleep, perchance — to dream, aye, there's the rub. For in that sleep of death what dreams may come when we have shuffled off this mortal coil must give us pause.

Death as nonexistence is in some sense far less scary. But it's incomprehensible; the mind rejects it as inherently impossible. --Trovatore (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess because we should avoid it so evolution has made it something we fear. The article death doesn't even ave a reference to anything useful, the article fear has more. fear of death just leads to the phobia about dead things. Dmcq (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Conflict] Human happiness is based on order - it's what the human race has ultimately been trying to achieve in the past millennia. Death is inherently uncertain; that's why it is so scary. Also, most things rely on concious thought to determine - at least you can think about it. Everything we know is like this, except after death it does not exist - so it's so new. Additionally, the fact it is certain makes us uneasy because there's nothing you can do about it. You could save a million lives, and yet you'd still die. It's out of your hands, and that's partially why people fear death, because you want to do something about it but can't. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 21:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People worry more about things they feel they can do something about, so death being certain should decrease peoples worry about it. I don't know where your business about happiness and order come from, and personally I'm not particularly worried about either of them. What is this business about a million lives too please? Isn't that avoiding it a good idea reason enough like worrying when you're at the edge of a cliff? We come at the end of a long line of creatures that have avoided dying rather than just jumping over the cliff. Dmcq (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've known people who were sick or old who anticipated it as one might await the arrival of an old friend. Not everyone finds it terrifying. Edison (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionarily speaking, there is no need for people to avoid death once they're reproduced (or, at least, once they are no longer of use to their families). --Tango (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it's not so much about death itself, but about whatever leads up to death. That could include agonizing and debilitating diseases (hence euthanasia), being horribly burnt and scarred in an accident, becoming decrepit and unable to function, torture, being murdered in a zillion excruciating ways, etc. The pain and suffering of transition is often worse than the mere trifle of ceasing to exist; which is why many people would prefer to go to bed one night and just not wake up. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Woody Allen put it: "I am not afraid of death, I just don't want to be there when it happens." AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I find odd is that people I've talked to about death and possible 'afterlife' scenarios seem happy to know that they'd be reincarnated after death - they even seem happy if I say "But of course you'd be reincarnated without any memory of who you are now?" - and surprisingly - they are happier with this than with "nothingness". So given that somewhere in the world, a child will be born (or perhaps, conceived) at the very instant of your death - does it matter whether that child is "you - but without your memories" or "someone else"? So if it helps you to believe in reincarnation - go ahead - it's entirely equivalent to not believing in it. Personally, I'm happy if my genes and my memes make into the next generation. So far, my son has got the 'genes' thing reasonably well covered...now it just remains to make sure the memes don't disappear. SteveBaker (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edison's comment relates to something I was going to point out int he order thing, where someone asked what the dealw itht hat was.

I officiated a great-aunt's funeral last summer, and she was suffering with cancer; int he months leading up to her death, she spent that time, in her mind, putting an order to things; she had time to do this. Hospice worked wonderfully to help with that. I think sometimes, as JackofOz noted, it is what leads up to it, becuase poeple fear not being able to put things in order. They also fear going before their loved ones; hence awaiting an old friend when it finally comes. All of one's loved ones and friends are gone, one is ready to join them in leaving this mortal coil. Also, I've found what upsets people more about death is when someone dies "out of order" - for instance, an elderly man I know lost a son in his early 40s a couple years ago (older brother of a school friend.) One thing that upset him most was that he felt hid children should all outlive him; it was a more logical order, in his mind.

However, while one is healthy, one wishes to avoid thought of it because one doesn't want to think about one's life here being over. If things are pleasant, they think, why focus on change. When I was totally a wills and estates attorney, you wouldn't believe how many poeple either: 1. Promised they'd have me do their wills and never did, or did only after 5-6 years; or, 2. Had me do their wills when they were in their 60s or older, and had either never had one or their last one was 40 years earlier and only done to name a guardian for a minor child. So, I think the fact things were going well and they didn't want to think about the fact "you can't take it with you" kept some from thinking about it.Somebody or his brother (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fear of death is handy because it discourages suicide. If there were no FOD, people would knock themselves off whenever they had a serious cold. The same would apply to adolescent angst. Now that we have FOD, people wont kill themselves unless the pain is so bad that it overcomes the fear. Phil_burnstein (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never could understand this business of people committing suicide because of pain. It just seems unrelated to me. Dmcq (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it perfectly. Excruciating pain is ... well, excruciating. And if it goes on for weeks, months and years, with no possibility of relief apart from being sedated to a comatose or vegetable-like state, then what's the point of existing like that? Not that I'm advocating suicide in these circumstances, but if I were in that position, I may well choose to end it rather than having zero quality of life. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can see one would be being very counterproductive if one was just being looked after in a vegetable like state. Personally I'd be tempted to walk over a cliff if that was what was about to happen. I don't think long term excruciating pain would do it though. Dmcq (talk) 10:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]