Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 October 4

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.

October 4

Firefighters and smoke alarms

A question for any firefighters visiting the Refdesk: I don't think I ever see this in shows like Rescue Me or the like, but I figure that in any bad residential fire (e.g. there's smoke throughout the house), every smoke alarm is screaming its head off, and it's deafening inside, and probably impossible to use speech to communicate. True? Do firefighters wear hearing protection for this reason? Are firefighters ever able to actually use their radios in situations like this? Tempshill (talk) 02:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This is peripheral to your question, but many firefighters in the U.S. use (or should use) some hearing protection just to guard their ears from the sirens and engine noise going to the scene. What it would be like once on the site, I can't imagine. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

While travelling to the fire, I've seen many firefighters wearing a pair of Dave Clarks. This way, it keeps the noise out and they are still able to communicate with other people on the truck as well as receive information from the 911 operators. Dismas|^(talk) 08:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think smoke alarms would be a big problem, it would be the fire itself...a big fire is extremely loud. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Adam has hit the nail on the head. I am a (proud!) daughter of a firefigher of thirty years who has suffered hearing loss which is apparently not uncommon in long-serving officers. A fire, so I am told, makes a hell of a racket and while ear protection would be sensible it is impractical as you need to be able to hear a collapsing joist, a cry for help, shouts from colleagues. As for the smoke alarm, if positioned near the seat of the fire, it would soon melt!83.104.128.107 (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope she doesn't ever confuse a joist with a girder. They were both great writers, of course, but one was Irish, the other German.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

BIT torrent 6.0

I have for the first time installed Bit Torrent but unable to locate the tab to start searching.It just hass, 1. file. 2.options 3. help in the menubar and which ever i click to it says ADD TORRENT. i have the software installed but am unable to find the bar wherein i can enter the name of the file for it to search, can anyone help me please.thanks in advance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.161.88.48 (talk) 09:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

BitTorrent clients generally don't include a search engine. Try googling whatever it is you want to download; most projects that use BitTorrent for distribution will have a torrent link placed fairly prominently on their website. FiggyBee (talk) 12:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It works like this. 1. You go to a website that has ".torrent" files on it for distribution. 2. You download the ".torrent" file, which is a tiny file that just tells BitTorrent what to do to get the REAL files. 3. You open the ".torrent" file in BitTorrent, and it will then connect to other people to start trying to download the real files you want. Make sense? It's a funny way of downloading things but you'll get used to it after doing it once or twice. --98.217.71.237 (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

thank to both of you was waitin eagerly to download minitab video tutorials, but to no avail thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.161.118.37 (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Torrents are one of those technologies that takes a little effort to get working the first time, but if you stick with it, it works pretty easily after that. If you're having trouble, let us know. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

moss

What is the fastest growing moss in Europe ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WPRDQER01 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Moss, Norway Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

OP was probably referring to the plant, see moss —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avrillyria (talk • contribs) 17:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Brachythecium has a reputation for fast growth - and it's found in the UK. Sadly, we have no article on it - and I have no clue whether it's absolutely the fastest. SteveBaker (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Kate ? DOR (HK) (talk) 09:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Will never be anywhere near as fast as Stirling Moss Dmcq (talk) 12:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

<insert unhelpful joke here> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avrillyria (talk • contribs) 14:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

<insert sense of humour failure here> Gazhiley (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh okay then, I concede the Kate Moss one is better Dmcq (talk) 23:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

¶ Those who know more about botany are probably more likely to visit WP:Reference desk/Science. You might get a more-informed answer by reposting your question there. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

US discrimination against atheists

i just read the article about how americans (generally, that is) don't like atheists and all that. does this dislike translate into violence against atheists? i mean, if some atheists come from some other country ad settle in the US, will they be discrimnated against? i know, this question's answer depends upon the area in which he lives, but i wanna just hear what you have to say.

thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.50.142.126 (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Discriminating against someone because of their religious beliefs (or lack thereof, in this case) is illegal, at least in the workplace. In my area (Virginia, metro D.C.), there are a lot of Catholics and I guess they might look down on atheists simply because they disagree, but I don't know any atheists so I don't know for sure. The Family Guy episode "Not All Dogs Go to Heaven", where Brian Griffin announces he's an atheist and is made into Public Enemy No. 1., comes to mind, but I don't know if that really reflects reality. Xenon54 / talk / 14:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

USA is a big place, I'm sure there are parts of USA where people would give you a hard time for being an athiest. Here in the southern New England area atheism is considered perfectly normal and unsurprising. APL (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of the perceived discrimination discussed by atheists today is having to put up with things that they consider an official endorsement of religion. I've not heard of any violence in recent times. As a form of "discrimination" it is relatively cushy. (Which is why I, even being an atheist-agnostic, do not think that we are discriminated against in any way that is anywhere near the levels of discrimination against homosexuals, ethnic minorities, etc. I think even describing it as "discrimination" is more likely to incite backlash than sympathy, as it is not very convincing. I say this as someone who spent some time doing work for "atheist politics" as well and eventually just felt it kind of pointless to protest every time some city council decides to open its meetings with a lukewarm prayer.) It's more that most people don't want you to bring it up and discuss it, and that maybe 80-90% of mainstream culture assumes you have at least some belief in spirituality. You have to put up with a lot of nonsense whenever the issue gets discussed publicly ("how can atheists know right from wrong etc.") but that's the case with a lot of issues. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

How many national politicians, from anywhere in the country, are openly athiest? You could count them on one hand. To answer the original question about violence, the answer is no. Tempshill (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That's true, but that's true of many groups that aren't really openly discriminated against. I don't know how often atheism itself is made into a real political issue in such contexts, though. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This question is hard to handle because the OP seems to be asking for opinions ("I wanna hear just what you have to say") but as it says at the top of the page, this Ref. Desk is not (supposed) to answer requests for opinions. I offer some observations. APL's answer that USA is a big place means it is meaningless to generalize about Americans. The southern states are renowned for their religiosity and are identified as the Bible belt. To a European it is striking that so many in small towns are churchgoers, and that the usually protestant local church displays a bilboard with an evangelical message. In these areas a declared atheist may be viewed as an oddity, but educated Americans are generally friendly and tolerant. However there are social tensions, as parodied in Jesusland map, and more serious confrontations can arise when atheism is, rightly or wrongly, identified with other issues. These can be Communism, conscientious objection regarded as Anti-patriotism (although many conscientious objectors cite religious reasons) and/or too "liberal" politics or lifestyle. Discrimination sometimes occurs but a foreigner settling in the US may be reassured that the vast majority of Americans have learned tolerance from their recent history. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm an atheist - and I live in the heart of the bible belt (Texas) - and I'm from Europe. So I can confirm everything that Cuddlyable3 says. It's very apparent that attitudes here are not like in Europe (and why should they be?). When we first moved here and met our neighbors we were completely dumbfounded by almost the first question they asked of us: "Which church are you going to? Oh - you probably haven't had time to pick one out yet...I could introduce you to ours!"...without ever wondering if there was even the slightest possibility that you're an Atheist - or indeed anything other than some variety of Protestant. But when you explain - you get a feeling of coldness running through the air - like you personally insulted them. I don't like lying - so in general, it's better to simply avoid the topic. I certainly have not been the subject of violence - or even of particularly harsh words. But if you are at a party (why is it always a party?) and some discussion gets started about religion and lack-thereof - you'll often hear some really unreasonable and discriminatory language from people. They attribute so many strange beliefs to atheists - when in fact that label implies only a lack of one particular belief. This will continue right up until the point where you drop the "A-bomb" by saying that you are an Atheist yourself. Then there is rapid back-tracking and embarrassed self-justification - and the conversation changes direction with impressive abruptness. People are polite enough - and feign consideration too - but you know what they are thinking is unkind.

What amazes me the most is that people with strongly religious outlooks are often the most savagely un-christian. The callousness with which they treat their fellow man is horrifying to me. We had a recent situation in our neighborhood where an unarmed man was shot dead by a home owner who noticed him breaking into someone truck to steal the radio. It turns out this is legal in Texas - and I expected widespread horror - but no! The attitude over the whole healthcare debate seems to be "Well, I have really good health care - why should I lose any slightest part of that to help poorer people who can't afford it!"...this is not my impression of the teachings of Jesus! It's a deeply strange state of affairs.

But I wouldn't say that atheists are discriminated against in any material way...at least not obviously enough for me to have noticed. My wife (when asked) says she is a Catholic - she's French - so that's no surprise. However, she's never been to church or shown any other outward sign of her religion as long as I've known her (actually - that's not true - she's still in the habit of serving fish for dinner on Fridays!)...but I get the feeling that being able to label herself as a "Catholic" - even though she's lapsed about as far as it's possible to lapse - definitely helps to oil the wheels of social contact. Since Catholics are relatively rare in this part of Texas, nobody seems to be 'checking up on her' by asking which church she attends. Sometimes I wonder whether I should report that I'm a dedicated worshipper of the IPU and hope that nobody investigates any deeper! SteveBaker (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat off-topic, but the 'Catholic' discipline of eating fish (originally so as to avoid eating meat) on Friday (which I'm sure actually predates the Protestant Reformation) long ago became a non-sectarian general social habit in England, if not the UK as a whole. My agnostic (Jewish-influenced) paternal and agnostic (Socialist-influenced) maternal families both did so, and fish invariably formed the main Friday lunch course at my Methodist boarding school. In my experience, most English people have little consciousness that the 'fish on Friday' custom has a religious origin. I'd be interested to know if it's viewed as specifically 'Catholic' in France and elsewhere.

For the benefit of the non-USAians reading: in most (not all) of the UK asking someone their religious affiliation in such social situations as Steve describes would be considered weird and intrusive, while revealing it gratuitously (i.e. when a religious topic was not the subject of conversation) would also cause some unease in most listeners. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That is the case in the Seattle area too. None of our neighbors, who we are quite friendly with, have ever brought up the topic of religion. Nor have we. In general around this part of the United States it would be weird to ask such things gratuitously, as 87.81 said. Even the occasional Jehovah Witness's who come to the door never ask me what, if any, religion I follow. They just politely ask if they can give me a pamphlet or two. It is a big country and behaviors on this topic vary widely from place to place. Pfly (talk) 08:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, saying "I'm an atheist" is kind of treated with the same response as saying, "I cheat on my wife." It's not illegal, it's not dangerous, it's not hateful, but it's considered distasteful, disturbing, perhaps something you ought to have kept to yourself. Again, not exactly pleasant, and I don't generally tell people my take on things, or, if I do, wrap it up in something less confrontational (e.g., "I'm not religious"), but it doesn't stand in the way of getting/keeping a job, making plans as to what I would want to do with my time and life, whether I can walk the streets safely, etc. As discrimination problems go, it's definitely there, but it's not as pressing as, say, homosexuality or even racial issues. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of any active violence against atheists, but there is a great deal of discrimination. Just last week, the City Council of Lodi, California reaffirmed their policy of having an invocation before each meeting, despite objections from atheists, agnostics and even many religious who objected to the Christian-heavy prayers. The Freedom From Religion coalition stays busy. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The US is still relatively tolerant. I wonder how long an overt atheist would last in a place like Saudi Arabia. Regardless, America is still fairly religious, and a lot of folks look upon atheists with suspicion. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

"i just read the article about how americans (generally, that is) don't like atheists and all that." What article? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Discrimination against atheists - I suppose. SteveBaker (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A foreign atheist in Saudi Arabia would probably be fine. They might suffer some discrimination in the same way any non-Muslim would, but for the most part Muslim countries tolerate non-Muslims doing whatever they want as long as it doesn't disturb the Muslims. An atheist from a local Muslim family might well be in a lot of trouble. --Tango (talk) 00:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Comparing the US favorably to what is perhaps the least tolerant country in the world isn't exactly a ringing endorsement. --Sean 13:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This is, incidentally, the sort of thing I mention above. If the worst that is done to atheists in this country is that the City Council of hick towns (as Lodi is, I can safely say!) read prayers before starting their sessions... that's not really very bad, in the larger view of things. I know, it's distasteful and chauvinistic of them. I know, it shows some overt disrespect to separation of church and state. But really. Come on. It doesn't actually affect me, even if I did live in the town. It doesn't stand in the way of me living my life how I want to, it doesn't affect my ability to get justice, it doesn't even use tax money in any appreciable way. Who cares? I say this as an atheist (and someone who knows Lodi pretty intimately!). When atheists call things like that "a great deal of discrimination," it makes them look pretty petty (considering the kinds of discrimination one can still feel in this country if one is homosexual, Black, Muslim, Hispanic, etc.). They don't search us at airports for no reason, they don't pull us over routinely while we drive, they don't deny us our home loans, and they don't beat up our kids. There are bigger fish to fry. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree - but that doesn't make it a bed of roses either. According to Discrimination against atheists: "Several polls have shown that about 50 percent of Americans would not vote for a well-qualified atheist for president. A 2006 study found that 40% of respondents characterized atheists as a group that did "not at all agree with my vision of American society", and that 48% would not want their child to marry an atheist. In both studies, percentages of disapproval of atheists were above those for Muslims, African-Americans and homosexuals."...and Freedom_of_religion_in_the_United_States#Situation_of_atheists says "According to Mother Jones, 52% of Americans claim they would not vote for a well-qualified atheist as president. More recently a 2007 Gallup poll produced nearly identical results. A 2006 study at the University of Minnesota showed atheists to be the most distrusted minority among Americans. In the study, sociologists Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerties and Douglas Hartmann conducted a survey of American public opinion on attitudes towards different groups. 40% of respondents characterized atheists as a group that "does not at all agree with my vision of American society", putting atheists well ahead of every other group, with the next highest being Muslims (26%) and homosexuals (23%). When participants were asked whether they agreed with the statement, "I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group," atheists again led minorities, with 48% disapproval, followed by Muslims (34%) and African-Americans (27%)." - so there is considerable grounds to claim that atheists are indeed discriminated against in ways that really do affect you...it simply may not be obvious in the way it has been with other minorities. SteveBaker (talk) 02:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not this manifests in the behaviour of their citizenry I don't know, but several states discriminate against atheists in their state constitutions - Maryland, Mass, Miss, Tennessee, Texas, North Carolina, South Carolina and Pennsylvania being a list of some where it's surprising and some where it's not. To echo earlier comments on an outside perspective, I think it was best put in a faux-anthropological book "Watching the English" that "The Church of England is so constituted that its members can believe in just about anything, with the end result that few of them do" --Saalstin (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

A 1961 Supreme Court decision overturned the Maryland constitutional rule - it's widely assumed that the other states with similar constitutional bans on atheists are therefore unlikely ever to be enforced. It would be better if they were cleanly repealed - but removing something from a state constitution is never an easy process - it's probably just simpler to let the Supreme Court void it. SteveBaker (talk) 02:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps in the U.S. the "City Council of hick towns" read prayers before starting their sessions - the British Parliament does, too, and members can only reserve seats by attending the prayers. Warofdreams talk 00:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It's true that these things happen in the UK - but they are perpetuated mostly through tradition and not by true belief. I doubt that more than maybe 10% of British parliamentarians would claim to be religious. Also, it's not contrary to the constitution to do that - to the contrary, the monarch is described as "Defender of the Faith". It's a weird thing that the country with the constitution that demands disestablishmentarianism is so much more religious than the one where it's baked into the system by centuries of tradition. SteveBaker (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Not so weird, actually. Remember why the Founders wanted protection against a state religion: Many of them had ancestors who had moved here to be able to worship Jesus in their own way, not the way the Crown wanted them to. To the extent that they believed in Jefferson's "wall of separation between Church and State", it was likely more to keep the State from corrupting the Church, than vice versa. --Trovatore (talk) 09:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm skeptical that all US politicians are truly religious. Some, perhaps many, probably are, but a significant number are, I think, following tradition and not true belief, as Steve Baker puts it. In the US you cannot be a politician above the local level without going to church now and then, and without proclaiming your particular religion. This by no means is proof that US politicians are not doing what Steve says UK politicians often do. For some it is obvious that they believe, but for a great many--how would we know whether they are "true believers" or just doing the things you have to do if you want to be a politician in the US? After all, successful politicians are experts in showing the public what they want to see, sincerity aside! Also, at the local level (county, city), there is far less concern about religion, at least in the Pacific Northwest. It just doesn't come up much. Pfly (talk) 08:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I expect it is more than 10%. How many of them actually attend a place of worship on a regular basis, I don't know, but I expect a significant proportion would at least nominally call themselves Christian, or whatever. The best bit with the "Defender of the Faith" title is that the monarch is the defender of the Catholic faith, yet head of the Church of England - Henry VIII was given the title before the reformation and kept it and his heirs have followed suit. The bigger problem with religion and British governance is that there are Church of England bishops in the House of Lords, ex-officio. That will probably be sorted out in the next few years, though. --Tango (talk) 04:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no contradiction in the UK's monarch being Defender of the Catholic Faith. The Church of England is Catholic (" . . .I believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic church . . ." or something along those lines), it just isn't Roman Catholic. Henry's schism from the authority of Rome wasn't due to any quarrel with fundamental dogma as was the European Protestant Reformation of Luther et al (although it came to adopt some of their principles), it was primarily a disagreement over local jurisdiction. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 07:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It may not have been the case in Henry's time, but the Anglican Church certainly does not now accept the fundamental Roman Catholic dogma of transubstantiation. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The CoE may be catholic, but it isn't Catholic. There is a difference. --Tango (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually - I can think of one place in the US where anti-Atheism is practiced openly - the Boy Scout movement. Our recently featured front-page article "Boy Scouts of America membership controversies" explains this in some detail. They don't even accept agnostics! SteveBaker (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, up here in Massachusetts, the Boy Scouts certainly didn't care much about such things, regardless of the official policy. In the 90's I achieved the rank of Eagle Scout, and I made no secret of being an athiest. They simply checked me off on the official paperwork as being sufficiently reverent and that was that.

Somehow I had an older version of the Boy Scout handbook that said I would need a clergy person willing to vouch for my reverence, so I made sure that the catholic priest that sponsored the troop would be willing to do so. Turned out that wasn't even necessary anymore. (But I was prepared!) APL (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That's still the case with British Scouts too (at least, it was when I joined about 10 years ago), but I was an atheist scout without any problem (I had to take an oath I didn't actually mean, though - I discussed it with several people at the time and the consensus was that it was best to just say the words and then forget about it). --Tango (talk) 04:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The Governor-General of Australia has traditionally been the Chief Scout of Australia, but Bill Hayden, an avowed atheist, declined to accept the honour (maybe he was never even offered it) because of the conflict with his atheistic beliefs. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Scouts (under 18) in the UK do not have to have any relgious belief (but they do promise to "do my duty to god"). Atheists cannot hold uniformed leadership positions, but Buddhists can, and as I understand it, Buddhists can be atheists. Our application forms for adults wishing to be leaders have recently been redesigned and the question about faith removed. Don't want to get into too much debate about this here, but there is debate within the movement about whether the rule barring atheists from leadership positions is appropriate for the society in which we live. DuncanHill (talk) 11:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

In the US, there are different standards for private associations than for public organizations and businesses. Freedom of association is the individual right to come together with other individuals and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests. Thus, private associations can set membership standards that would constitute illegal discrimination for non-private associations. For example: it would be illegal for a business to discriminate on the basis of religion, but the law does not apply to a private association such as the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America— they can't be forced to accept non-Jews or non-veterans. The BSA does not have to accept atheists as members and the Girl Scouts don't have to accept boys.

As to the OP's question— "read the article" implies that one of our articles stated that Americans don't like atheists; I am going to presume this is irreligion in the United States. Looking at the numbers, the majority of Americans have some sort of faith— I don't think it is a big leap to presume a trust issue with irreligious politicians. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes - at least two articles say that: Discrimination against atheists and Freedom_of_religion_in_the_United_States#Situation_of_atheists - so being unable to trust someone with different beliefs to yours is OK? You're OK with distrusting Atheists - but not with distrusting black people or gays? That is what the numbers presented (with references) in both of those articles say! That's really the problem here. So many politicians who profess religion are untrustworthy (let's not bother to list them - we know there are plenty!) - so being religious is no gold seal of trustworthyness. You have to understand the persons character - and judge them by their past deeds. What makes people imagine that someone who isn't religious is any worse than someone who is? The reason seems to be this mistaken view that if you don't have some kind of threat of eternal damnation hanging over you - that you won't behave in a respectable and moral fashion. But most atheists are generally moral and honest people precisely because they've arrived at their moral position from introspection and observation of the world. An honest, moral, atheist is so because he or she believes it's important for its own sake - not because of some concern about a disasterous after-life! SteveBaker (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If Jesse Ventura had made his comments about religion being for the "weak-minded" before the election, he wouldn't have had a prayer (so to speak) in that election that put him in the Minnesota governor's chair. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course BSA has the right to Freedom of association. No one said otherwise. The original question is whether an athiest can expected to be discriminated against. Part of the answer is "Yes, From the Boy Scouts. (In theory.)". APL (talk) 12:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The controversy over BSA is not so much that they discriminate, but that they have tax-exempt status. In effect, they are adding to the tax burden of people who are not allowed to join. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The BSA issues have not been about tax-exempt status, but about support from government agencies such as the DoD. The BSA has responded to lawsuits over this by pulling away from government support. Traditional units can no longer be sponsored by public schools, military units, fire departments or other government agencies. Even though Congress passed the Support Our Scouts Act allowing the BSA to use Fort A. P. Hill for the national Scout jamboree, the BSA will move to a private site after 2010. There are other issues where local councils have had contracts or leases with local government agencies as in Cradle of Liberty Council v. City of Philadelphia. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The BSA are also strongly ingrained in American culture and has a number of areas of contention beyond their support. E.g. they have a federal charter and the US President is is the honorary president and have the trademark to the word scout and other words associated with their movement. They are also recognised by the World Organization of the Scout Movement. And it's likely to be recognised that part of the reason they got where they are now is because of years of direct and indirect support from the government. There are a number of other youth movements with similar goals but they seem to be the most visible by far. Therefore even if they completely withdraw from any government support, I don't think the issue is going to go away regardless of the legal situation Nil Einne (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Jack's comment above was a little confusing. Bill Hayden was certainly the Governor-General of Australia from 1989 until 1996. John Young was appointed Chief Scout in 1989 lieu of Hayden (Hayden refused to make an oath fundamentally at odds with his beliefs). Weepy.Moyer (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Your post confused me, Weepy, until I went back and re-read what I wrote. Yes, the "honour" I referred to was that of the Chief Scouthood (?). Btw, the "John Young" you mention (your link leads to a disambiguation page) was John Young (jurist). -- JackofOz (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I am quite confused. I have always been under the impression that Atheism was not a religion, however if it is not a religion, how is it entitled to religious protection? Googlemeister (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not entitled to religious protection. Nothing is. However, everybody is (or maybe at least should be), entitled to protection from discrimination on religious grounds. Most religious discrimination is not based on the religion that the victim has (or hasn't), but rather on that it is not the same one as the offender's. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the question conflates some subtly different things. In the US, religious organizations often have tax-exempt status; this is not strictly a first-amendment matter, I think, though it's related ("the power to tax is the power to destroy"). Probably atheist organizations are not eligible for this status. Similarly, if the draft were brought back, you couldn't claim to be a conscientious objector on the grounds that you didn't believe in God, and indeed such an objection doesn't really make sense — how can you have a conscientious objection based solely on lacking a particular belief?

However the State is barred from excessive interference with such organizations, on other grounds, such as freedom of association, and is barred from certain other acts that might offend atheists, not because they are anti-atheist per se, but because they would tend to establish a religion. --Trovatore (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Charities are tax-exempt, regardless of religion. The only kind of atheist organisation I can see a problem with is one dedicated to converting people to atheism - that's probably not a charitable purpose and it probably isn't a religious one either, so wouldn't fall under either category. Any other organisations run by atheists are likely to have some charitable purpose - atheists don't usually go in for organised (ir)religion. An atheist wouldn't conscientiously object based on being an atheist, they would do so based on being a pacifist (which is independent of theism). --Tango (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd be curious to know if anyone has ever successfully escaped the military by claiming to be atheistic but still a pacifist. The dilemma there is that conscientious objection is usually based on believing in God's teachings that killing is wrong. Just saying "I think war is wrong" is not likely to be sufficient. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

A charitable atheist organization? I never heard of such a thing. Lots of charities are non-faith-based, but specifically atheist??? What would be the point of specifying that? --Trovatore (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The point would be to make a point - namely that atheists are good and loving also. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not impossible. All the same, I do not know of any atheist charities. No doubt there are charities "run by atheists", as Tango puts it, but that does not make them "atheist organizations", which is what I was talking about. --Trovatore (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

A not uncommon issue which theists (particularly fundamentalist Christians) like to raise is the claim that atheists and atheism is immoral and selfish as evidenced by the lack of atheist charities. This is of course a silly claim (since most atheists see no reason why faith or the lack should have anything to do with charity) but given this claim it's possible someone may make such a charity although some may think it a bad idea and simply reinforcing or supporting the flawed claims made against atheists. In any case, as with you I'm not aware of any such charity. In terms of non faith based charities, they are likely to be seen as important to atheists, a number of charities while doing good work are also known for their explicit promotion of their faith often in controversial ways and many atheists may be concerned their donations are effectively supporting these efforts both directly and in giving these charities a greater voice then they would otherwise have. For example The Salvation Army does some good work in a number of countries including here in New Zealand but are also know for their lobbying against laws they don't agree with, e.g. those legalising and providing protections and rights for GLBT people. Nil Einne (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Got me curious, so I did some searching. The Council for Secular Humanism has the Secular Humanist Aid and Relief Effort (SHARE).[1] ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 01:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, specific groups which are atheist (like Secular Humanism) might have such organisations. I guess any Buddhist organisations would fall into the same category. A group which focuses on being atheist, rather than on a specific set of beliefs which just happen not to include any gods, is unlikely. --Tango (talk) 02:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it isn't likely, but I think it is more likely that an atheist group with non-charitable aims. Generally atheists don't band together for any purpose, it's just not the way atheism works. Whether or not you believe in god(s) is rarely relevant to anything. --Tango (talk) 02:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I've just remembered American Atheists. I didn't think of it because in Europe there is just no need for a group lobbying for atheist rights - in the US I guess such lobbyists would be just the kind of non-charitable atheist group I said wasn't likely to exist. --Tango (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Madeline O'Hare was once labeled by the media as "the most hated woman in America". Whether they would still say that, I don't know, but it gives a hint as to the perceived American attitude toward religion and atheism. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Baseball, how about an article Madeline O'Hare from you because she sounds at least as notable as Monica Lewinski.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If you spell it right you'll probably find it. Try Madlyn O'Hare. --Trovatore (talk) 08:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope, that's not it either. Here it is: Madalyn Murray O'Hair. Weird spelling -- could use some redirects from misspellings. --Trovatore (talk) 08:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Bucket List , does everyone has it?

Like the movie which was touching and we can relate to our own lives as well inspite not being diagnosed for any definite life taking desease like cancer or aids,but we have to die some day for sure and leave everybody behind, i have alot of wishes before i die and touch a million lives for the better and cause some smiles, but resources put me down,is there a way we can live our lives and spell happyness for others as well without the need of money in this life? but money seems to be source of happyness as well as misery.is there any other means tohelp others ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seekhle (talk • contribs) 15:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Serious response: "We cannot all do great things, but we can do small things with great love.” -- Mother Teresa[2].

Less serious response: A Dumb blonde released a genie from a bottle and in gratitude the genie offered to fulfil any wish. The blonde answered I wish for.....Gucci sunglasses! The genie said Of course you may have Gucci sunglasses but won't you think first of what an opportunity you have to use your wish to relieve all the suffering in the world? The blonde answered Oh yes, I should have thought of that. Let's have Gucci sunglasses for everybody! Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Off topic, but this reminds me of one of the funniest ever dialogues I've heard in the TV show Daria:

• One Fashion Club member: You know, the children in the poor African countries... if they can't afford food, does that mean they can't afford diet soda either?
• Another Fashion Club member: Yeah! But how do they manage to stay so thin, then? JIP | Talk 21:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can achieve happiness based on your own efforts alone - then you can find some remote place on the earth and be happy - and money need never be involved.

However, that's pretty unlikely. You'll want food and shelter - maybe an Internet connection - you can't do that yourself. You need to provide something outside of your own needs that you can barter in order to get the things you need - yet cannot provide for yourself directly.

So if your happiness involves the efforts of others - then those people need some fair recompense for that effort - or they won't bother to do it. Money is the means by which the results of one person's work can be used to recompense the work of others upon which we rely. Money is needed because sometimes the work that one person does is not needed by another. So, for example, if I need a thick juicy steak to make me happy - I can't deliver the farmer who raised the cow 0.001% of a computer game as recompense (I happen to write computer games for a living). The farmer may not be interested in computer games...without money, I'd have to find someone who was interested in computer games who worked as (say) a tractor repairman who could provide the farmer with the service he needs - and get in return some computer game enjoyment from me. These chains of transactions would rapidly become so complicated and tortuous as to be impossible to maintain.

Hence, we need money - it's a wonderful invention! It serves as an abstract way to measure your contribution to society in general - and as a way to prevent people from taking from society more than they give.

As for the trick to achieving happiness - that's a far tougher question.

SteveBaker (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It all seemed to work so easily in Eric Frank Russell's short story "And Then There Was None". (Link of dubious copyright status here : Eric Frank Russell#References.)

I've always thought that this would make a hilarious movie. APL (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a great story - but it's really seriously full of plot-holes. The most serious problem is any kind of population growth. Their system only holds together for as long as everyone knows everyone else. In a society with sufficient complexity to manufacture their busses and trucks and such - the 'ob' principle would soon become too complicated. People would be forced to start writing down who owes who what - if someone runs (say) a small-scale brewery - but the only roofing contractor in town is a teetotaler then it's hard for the brewer to get his roof repaired. He has to rely on someone else who drinks beer doing an "ob-swap" for some other obligation. Keeping track of all of these obligations in a town of even a few hundred people would become pretty nightmareish...pretty soon people will be exchanging written-down obs - and before you know it there is money, banks and a slippery slope leading to government. Without some form of organisation, public works such as roads would be impossible. The tale of the guy who never pays back his 'obs' is nonsense - it requires that there is perfect communication and perfect memory between the small towns - but since the number of people who have to be tracked would increase in proportion with the number of towns - you'd soon lose track of all of the moochers. With rampant moochers - you soon need a police force - and then again, you're back on the slippery slope to government. Having said that - there are some successful barter systems working around the world - but most are little more than money by another name - and their main attraction is the avoidance of income taxes. SteveBaker (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Tell me you want the things that money just can't buy. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally I like the Reiki precepts: Just for today, do not worry. Just for today, do not be angry. Work hard. Be kind. Count your blessings. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Helping "millions" is not usually possible for any individual. However, helping even just a few can make a profound difference in the world, and in many ways can be more worthwhile than worrying about too big a picture. There are certainly those nearby who could use your help, just your extra time and a friendly face. It's not a million, but it's a good start. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you written a WP:GA yet? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe better to start with the easy stuff - world peace, cure for cancer, going over Niagara Falls in a barrel etc. - then work up to writing a GA. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Or in a bucket. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Turning down Facebook friend requests

I have, for the first time, received Facebook friend requests from people I haven't even heard of. These friend requests are real and honest, as explained by the accompanying message - they're from fans of the ShareWare software I wrote and uploaded to the Internet in my high school and university years. But even though I'm pretty liberal at accepting Facebook friend requests, I draw the line at people I haven't even heard of. But I would feel very bad at turning down friend requests. If I just click on "ignore", will these people know I did it, or will the situation just continue as normal? Do other people do this? JIP | Talk 20:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't send them a message or anything saying "you were declined", it'll just change the little thing on their page from "awaiting friend request response" or whatever to "add friend". So if they have a good memory they can go and check if you rejected them, but it's not really "in their face"es. At least that's my understanding... TastyCakes (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Having been ignored before (and by people I know - the nerve! =P), I can tell you that there is only a notification if your friend request has been accepted. So if you don't check your friends list often to tell that the person you added has disappeared, you would never know that you had been ignored. Xenon54 / talk / 21:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't you just start a group called "I like JIP's shareware", and have them join that? You don't even have to do anything with it, and then they can be happy while not bothering you to be friends or whatever. (This is just a suggestion from someone who has never used Facebook themselves.) —Akrabbim^talk 23:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, you could create a group of people who liked your shareware. Then you would be able to limit the amount of your personal info that they see. Then if you want to ignore their status messages, you can do that as well. To do that, hold your mouse over their status update on your wall. A "remove" button will appear in the upper right of their status message. Click on that and away they go. Dismas|^(talk) 04:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Another option would be to accept the friend request and then change your settings so that that person doesn't appear in your news feed and (if you like) only has access to certain parts of your profile. That way you haven't declined the request but the person won't ever be "in your face" as it were. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought that's what I said...? Dismas|^(talk) 09:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, sorry. You threw me because I wasn't thinking in terms of creating a group of friends, just accepting each friend request as it comes in. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, you create the group first and then throw friends into it when you get/send the request. Dismas|^(talk) 10:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but accepting the friend requests but ignoring the friends is a terrible idea. For one thing, it would make them think they're my friends when they're really not, and they would notice it eventually and get upset. For another, they would get privy to all my private information that I choose to share with only friends. And if I wanted to get all paranoid, there's the yet additional fact that my existing Facebook friends would know I have added people I haven't even heard of as Facebook friends. No, the only available options are to turn down the friend requests, or keep ignoring them. JIP | Talk 19:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You can create a special "people I don't know group" that can't see your private information. (And that way, you can friend your parents as well!) T do so, you create a Friend List, add said people to it, and then modify your privacy settings to exclude the exiled Friend List from things you'd rather they not do. And I'm not sure anyone really thinks Facebook friends are "friends" anymore. But anyway, it's up to you, obviously! Do what you feel. I would just not friend them. Nothing wrong in that. People need to have their boundaries! You could send them a message that says, "Hey, I really appreciate your friend request! I'm trying to keep my Facebook account to people I know in person, but I am very grateful!" and most people would be cool with that, I imagine. (And if they aren't... who cares! They aren't your friends!) --Mr.98 (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

[A variant on the ideas above] I socialize a lot on the Internet (these days, sadly, probably more than face to face), but within pretty old-fashioned limits. Although I certainly appreciate the thought, I haven't yet accepted a Yahoo! contact, a Flickr "join my circle" request, or a Facebook "friending" request (even from friends I talk to in person every day or every week). The personal networking stuff just looks too insecure and too intrusive to me. So, having said all that, my idea would be to start (if it didn't seem altogether too arrogant and presumptuous) a Yahoo! Group, or some other off-Facebook chat group, that's a fan club for your software. You really don't need to put anything at all in a Yahoo! profile, which is anyway far less revealing than some of them used to be, and you could let your software's fans chat away among themselves and join in on your own schedule within your own preferred personal boundaries, for example answering general questions about the shareware's history, development, potentialities and technical challenges. You'd be acknowledging their interest positively without feeling the need to address each one individually and personally. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Casino payouts in BlackJack

When you split cards in blackjack,are you supposed to get the same payout as a blackjack if one of your hands is a blackjack —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leestark2630 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it's just considered to be 21. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You might like the Blackjack article, but what exactly are you asking? Is the question 'if you get a blackjack on one of your split hands does it pay out like a blackjack?' I believe the answer is usually yes, although it will depend on the rules of the casino you're playing. Shadowjams (talk) 05:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not guess. It does not pay an extra half bet when you split your cards in any casino I've ever been in (and I've been in plenty). "When your first two cards are 21, you have blackjack or what is known as a natural 21. This hand pays three to two or 1 ½ of the bet."[3]. "A blackjack is therefore an Ace and any ten-valued card, with the additional requirement that these be your first two cards. If you split a pair of Aces for example, and then draw a ten-valued card on one of the Aces, this is not a blackjack, but rather a total of 21."[4] Note: This applies only to regular blackjack. There may be some weird variation out there that doesn't follow this rule. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure who that's directed at. I'll guess at what the OP is asking to try and help out. You're right, it would be insane to forgo 3-2 (or 2-1 in some cases) to draw to a 10 and an A. I say that though not having run any simulations or referencing anything on that point. You've got two points: one that a 21 after a split doesn't pay 3-2; two that the odds of getting a 21 after a split is unlikely. On the second point, splitting 10s is generally stupid too, but if the modified count is about 2 or higher (depending on the method you're using) then splitting 10s makes sense. Anyone counting efficiently wouldn't have to ask this question, so I assume the OP isn't asking this sort of question. Maybe the more interesting question is if, in a Vegas casino (for sake of clarity), you would be allowed to do so. Usually they just pay out immediately and I've never seen one try so I don't know. On the first, I don't know what's standard. Shadowjams (talk) 06:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Recycled toilet paper

I mean how the hell do they recycle that?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpiceJar (talk • contribs) 22:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It's toilet paper made of recycled paper. Not toilet paper made of recycled toilet paper. So when you recycle your newspaper, they might make it into toilet paper. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

In the old days, they used to hang a mail order catalog in the outhouse. This recycling is not far removed from that concept. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be reuse, rather than recycling, technically. --Tango (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, have you seen some of them? Most mail-order catalogs are just... crap on paper. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course in the interests of economy some people use both sides of the paper.Froggie34 (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A priest was waiting in his Confessional and a stranger came in to the adjoining compartment and sat down, but said nothing. After a while the priest knocked impatiently on the grille separating them. The stranger said It's no good knocking, there's no paper in here either. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

See Paper recycling —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avrillyria (talk • contribs) 14:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)