Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 October 10

Humanities Science Mathematics Computing/IT Language Miscellaneous 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 at one of the pages linked to above.

Top 22 Terrorists

On National Public Radio today I heard them say that on October 10, 2001, George Bush released a list of the 22 (maybe it was 20 as that would be more of a round number) most wanted terrorists. This made me a bit curious. How many of those that were named have actually been caught or killed? Dismas|^(talk) 03:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, here's the list. I'm sure a quick Google news search will establish which have been caught or killed so far. Ziggurat 03:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

United States Civil War

Does anyone know how many people purchased exemptions from war service from the United States government during the Civil War? 68.7.88.112 03:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Age of Sexual Consent

I am trying to find out what the age of sexual consent was, for the state of Alabama, in September of 2000. This is my first time using this website, so my apologies to everyone if I'm going about this incorrectly. Thank you for your time. Have a great day!! 03:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Try www.ageofconsent.com. Dismas|^(talk) 04:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I have asked a lawyer about www.ageofconsent.com, and he cautioned me that he would not trust it completely. So I would be careful before relying on it.

Check here [1] it is the current Alabama code on statutory rape, but it looks like the last update was in 2000, so it seems it has not changed since then.

Basically if one person is 16 or older and has intercourse with someone who is

1. under 16 but above 12 and
2. more than 2 years younger

it is second degree rape, a class B Felony

If the first person were over 16 and the second person under 12, then it is first degree rape, a class A felony.

Of course IANAL Nowimnthing 20:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The prevelance of female pedophiles?

I'm always seeing reports of male pedophilia in newspapers, on news websites and on TV. I've never heard of even one female pedophile. Has there ever been a case of a woman being charged with child sexual abuse? Pesapluvo 03:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The one thing that I notice as a constant in these affairs is that the news media will invariably paint the younger party as being 'victimized', 'taken advantage of', 'tricked', 'coerced' or the like. Now, I'm not advocating pedophilia by any stretch of the imagination, but this sort of pejorative, one-sided language really does nothing to help the affair. Demonizing a pedophile doesn't help them, and it doesn't help society. Judge not lest the be judged, and all that crap. <end sermon> Chris 17:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/10/nyregion/10teacher.html --Nelson Ricardo 03:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, but the boys were 13 and 17, not quite pre-pubescent, so I don't believe that quite counts as pedophilia. Pesapluvo 04:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that's not the only case; I recall hearing about a couple others, but only vaguely. Still, "pedophiles" are rarely looked at as being women as well, I would suppose largely for the same reasons that you don't hear about a "dirty old perverted woman". (A dirty old man? Hell, that's a catchphrase!) E Liquere 04:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I can remember (but not cite) several cases where a man and woman (or even a teenage boy and girl) were charged together in molesting pre-pubescent children. But in those cases it's always possible one of the couple was acting out of loyalty to the other (or under threat) rather than out of a desire to molest. --Allen 04:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

As to the ages, male pedophiles are often referred to as pedophiles when they prey on 13 year olds. Maybe there is a distinction between the term as far as journalists are concerned vs. lawyers. Dismas|^(talk) 04:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think among psychiatrists, the reference is mainly to attraction, (not real acting out, such as molestation) and the preferred term for attraction to pubescent adolescents is ephebophilia, whereas pedophilia is reserved for attraction to pre-pubescent children. 惑乱 分からん 07:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

But we all know how much actual meaning and legal meaning differ sometimes... Philc _T^E_C^I 17:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean with actual meaning? 惑乱 分からん 18:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

And psychiatrist are not particularly known to engage in legal language.  --Lambiam^Talk 21:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

A lawmaker might very well declare anyone having sex with anyone under 18 or even 21 to be a pedophile, for some political advantage ("his opponent is on the side of pedophiles !") but that has nothing to do with science. StuRat 23:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I made a whole rant about this a while back about how I found Dominique Swain in the remake of Lolita quite hot. I'll spare you any repetition. In any case, my main point is that I'd only consider one a pedophile if they're attracted to pre-pubescent children. Once a person is "post-pubescent", that person is, sexually speaking, an adult. It's true that in the early stages of "post-pubescence", the person's mind may be too young to make mature decisions regarding sexual matters, and therefore laws forbidding sex with "post-pubescents" are rational. Yet, I wouldn't describe any person who is attracted to another sexually mature person as a "pedophile". "Pedophilia" is the truly sick attraction to "pre-pubescent" children. Loomis 06:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

One way to rank "sexual perversions" is if they can result in children or not, since some religious fanatics insist that only sex for reproductive purposes is moral. This would make homosexuality and sex acts other than vaginal intercourse immoral (as well as sex with women past menopause and with the infertile). This view would not make sex with teenagers after puberty immoral, which is why Mormons and many states allowed teenagers (once married) to have sex. Sex with children before the age of puberty can't immediately result in children, although, if the relationship continues past the age of puberty, then children could result. So, using this wacky religious standard, sex with children under the age of puberty isn't quite as bad as other sex acts which can't ever lead to pregnancy. StuRat 23:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

As for the original question, I suspect that female pedophilia is more widespread than we think, it's just not reported, as nobody thinks any harm was done to the "victim", especially if it's a boy. They can't get pregnant, and don't have a broken hymen as a result, and we don't generally consider a boy to be harmed psychologically by having consensual sex, no matter what the age of the woman is. Thus, only a venereal disease would be considered "harm", by many. Female offenders regularly get much lighter sentences, as a result. StuRat 00:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

hester prynne

the page concerning Hester Prynne, the main character in the novel The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne, needs much revision. The information that is there is a vast misrepresentation (the phrase "one night stand" is used), and the length of the article isn't close to what it would take to correctly show the complexity of the character Hester Prynne.

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Dismas|^(talk) 05:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr Plow episode of Simpsons

Does anyone know what opera is Maria Callas singing in in Homer's second commercial from the Simpsons episode "Mr Plow"?

hmm, it would be the third commerical right? In the first one he does the "My name is Mr. Plow", in the second he raps "I'm Mr Plow and I'm here to say..." The third is done by an ad agency, but I don't remember the song. This [2] doesn't list it either. Nowimnthing 15:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Wait... the third commercial started out with the snowglobe from Citizen Kane, maybe one of the songs from it? [3], didn't see Callas though. Nowimnthing 15:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If you are sure it is Callas, you may be able to figure it out by litening to the clips here: [4] Nowimnthing 15:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I recall it as being the aria from Bellini's Norma, but it's been a while. Natgoo 08:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

By "the aria", do you mean Casta diva? JackofOz 09:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I think so. Natgoo 09:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Was Rudolf Hess murdered?

He got arrested,Nazis then declared him insane,he spent more then 45 years in jail,watching his country being burned almost to ashes...

And finaly,after all these years,in 1987 he got a real chance to get free,and they say he killed him self?!? His family claims that he was killed,and you have to admit that it is a little strange that 93 years old man commit suicide,just before he is to be relased.I mean,being 93,he probably wouldnt live more then 10-15 years maximum.Plus he was about to get freed...So,my question is,from the medical,or simple logical stand,is there any possibilty that a man in his condition commit murder?

Thank you XXXXXXX 09:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• 45 years in prison does a lot of damage to someone's mental health. It's entirely possible he commited suicide. Whether he was actually murdered, I can't say. I have no proof either way. - 131.211.210.13 10:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you never watched The Shawshank Redemption? --Dweller 10:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

XXXXXXXX, please read the Rudolf Hess article. You have his life story seriously confused. While he sat out the rest of the war in a British prison, disowned by his former Nazi friend who called him insane as a matter of public policy, rather than admit anything. He then got returned to Germany after the war and got to watch Germany rebuilt into one of the world's leading economies while imprisoned there. Rmhermen 16:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Like dweller insinuated, it may have been his deepest horror to return to the outside world...

Still,he was trying to get free for about 47 years,and then when he was just about to get it,he commited suicide? As for Shawshank,that guy that hanged him self,had no family or anything,but Hess had both children,greatchildren and a home. Plus,he was 93,like i said before,he could hardly live more then 10-15 years,so why kill him self at that age? XXXXXXX 20:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the point of the question. "[H]e spent more then 45 years in jail, watching his country being burned almost to ashes". What country are you talking about? Germany thrived in the post-war period. In an economical sense, Germany actually won the war, in the sense that Germany replaced the UK as the strongest economic power in Europe. Is there perhaps some other vision of Germany that yourself and Hess see as having "burned almost to ashes"? Loomis 05:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I rather suspect there is. I recently watched a British TV documentary on Hess at the Nurember Trials. If I say 'more nuts than a fruit cake' I assume people will understand. As for the murder theory, self-respecting neo-Nazis were probably falling over themselves to dispose of the Führer of the Fourth Reich, rather than have the world face the embarrassing reality. White Guard 05:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hahahaha ,Loomis,when is said burned to ashes,I ment on the year 1945. His Nazi goverment was burn to ashes,so to speak,so I ment if he was going to kill himself,he would have probably done it in 1945,rather then in 1987 —Preceding unsigned comment added by XXXXXXX (talk • contribs)

Postwar, he considered himself the heir to Hitler and Fuhrer of the Fourth Reich. If he'd been sane, by the time he hit 90+ he would have realised that any life he'd have outside would be pretty sad and meaningless. But there's substantial evidence that he was insane and sadly there is a strong connection between people with mental health problems and suicide and looking for rhyme and reason isn't necessarily going to bear fruit. --Dweller 09:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

If he did indeed commit suicide, I imagine that the motivation for it would have been fear of the public's attitude towards him. A former Nazi walking about in the open during the 1990s? I doubt he would last a week before being murdered. Pesapluvo 02:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Albert Speer lived well into 1980s and he was never even close to getting killed.As a matter a fact he became somewhat of a celeb.

And Dweller,I dont think that Hess really considered himself the new Fuhrer,I think it were German Neo Nazis who considered him to be the new Fuhrer(because there is not a single written document by himself that is saying how he felt after World War 2).So,we can only speculate if he considered himself a Fuhrer,but I really doubt it,not even his son mentions it in a very long writing about his father. XXXXXXX 11:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the BBC documentary this week, Hess did write about being the new Fuhrer. I guess you'd need to argue with their researcher, rather than me. --Dweller 11:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont argue,its possible,I just wanted to say that its not avalible on the internet,or at least not on languages that I understand,thats all...I would be very greatfull if you or anyone else can provide me the links to those writings,because I would really like to see it.Thanks anyway. XXXXXXX 12:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

gandhian ideology

tell me something about gandhian ideology

Welcome to Wikipedia. You can easily look up this topic yourself. Please see Gandhism. For future questions, try using the search box at the top left of the screen. It's much quicker, and you will probably find a clearer answer. If you still don't understand, add a further question below by clicking the "edit" button to the right of your question title. --Shantavira 13:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

In fairness, a search on "ghandian ideology" turns up nothing. Perhaps the user did search. It's often hard to find things (either on Wikipedia, or on the internet at large) if you don't know the right words to search for. Chuck 21:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"Gandhian ideology" does turn up a number of links (many of them not very relevant) and Gandhism appears in the middle of the first page. It would have helped if Wikipedia search could suggest alternate spellings like google :) Tintin (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

movie review

review of lage raho munnabhai

Welcome to Wikipedia. You can easily look up this topic yourself. Please see Lage Raho Munnabhai. For future questions, try using the search box at the top left of the screen. It's much quicker, and you will probably find a clearer answer. If you still don't understand, add a further question below by clicking the "edit" button to the right of your question title. --Shantavira 13:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

are car prices increasing or decreasing

I just want to know whether car and other prices like that of SUVs are increasing year by year or decreasing year by year. This is for a research conducted by me. Can anyone talso tell about how many percent has the car prices increased/decreased in the last 6 years from 2001 to 2006.

My research: Whether cost of living inching upward or downward. Already I have found that computer products pricing are decreasing and food prices are increasing. Thankyou

Which country are you referring too? It could depend on where you live (although I think the costs for living generally has increased...) 惑乱 分からん 15:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

over the average prices do increase though there is no real percentage to go by but inflation is the closest thing around. Inflation is used in economics as to how much prices rose. I suggest looking up your country's balance for the second question, as for the first question; the prices of cars have actually been quite still(not considering inflation) with a slight increase, but when considering inflation they actually have dropped minorly (from european continental view). as a comment to your research: Computer prices have indeed been decreasing but that is because the hausse is gone which drove them up like a soapbubble which then bursted(stock exchange market). food prices are actually the most influenced area by inflation. that would be my suck-thumb(first idea, made up on the spot,derived from dutch proverb) explanation. Graendal 19:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Taken in mind that the power of general computers have been exponentially increasing quite rapidly, the prices have indeed decreased quite rapidly in actual money value... 惑乱 分からん 11:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Vestica Veca

Kako se u originalu, na engleskom, zvala glavni junak crtanog filma koji je prikazivan u Jugoslaviji tamo pocetkom sedamdesetih?

Maybe try asking your question at the Croation language Wikipedia (Hrvatski). (At least, I suppose that's written in Croation...) Philbert^2.71828 16:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

When written in the Latin alphabet, it'd seem Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian is nearly identical... 惑乱 分からん 17:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Lol lol There is no "Bosnian" language,it is called SERBIAN language...And it was asked in Serbian...

Well, at least there's a Wikipedia article about Bosnian language. Not interested in any further arguments, here. 惑乱 分からん 20:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

From those "2.7million speakers" I doubt that more then few thousend know they speek "Bosnian"...

A ti,sto te uopste koji kurac zanima Vestica Veca hehehe XXXXXXX 20:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What, exactly, does this mean? | AndonicO 12:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The post above by XXXX reads "What the fuck do you care about Veštica Veca lol". Except that the profanity used was "dick" rather than "fuck" but I think this is better than literal translation.

Original question asked for the original (english) name of the cartoon character "Veštica Veca". Veštica means Witch. Original name is probably very different as it seems that "Veca" was added to rhyme with Veštica rather than as a straight translation of original name (which is a common form of editing for cultural reasons). It would help if OP could describe the cartoon he is thinking about.

ALso, I have removed the email address to detract spam. Shinhan 10:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

XM, Sirius, and MTV

In USA,

• 1) Does XM and sirius broadcast full new songs or do they broadcast only one minute clips of songs?
• 2) Does MTV full new songs or do they broadcast only one minute clips of songs?
• 3) Does local FM channels full new songs or do they broadcast only one minute clips of songs?

I heard that some media in USA only show clips of songs. What media is it?

MTV Nordic airs full videos, anyway, probably the US version, too... 惑乱 分からん 14:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

All of the above broadcast the full song, unless it has been edited for content (MTV/ FM radio) or length (some 30 minute epic ballad). The only places that play song snippets are places that are trying to get you to buy the song like amazon.com. Nowimnthing 15:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

To be more complete, I guess you do see just a clip of some videos on certain shows like those on MTV that count down the top 10 or whatever videos. Nowimnthing 20:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

sherman's march to the sea

trying to find what plantation's were raided during march to sea it would be the southern group that would have been the raiders "name of family would have been the huston plantation.

any help would be greatly appreciated. thank you

bob jones

See Sherman's March to the Sea. But Wikipedia does not get that specific. Try a local historical society for the county where the plantation was. The County Court Clerk for the county could direct you to the local historical society if there is one. Sherman burned many of the county courthouses as well in 1864, so many older records were destroyed. Good luck.Edison 23:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The Maki Maki language

Where is maki maki spoken? I see that maki is one type of Japanese egg roll, and also Maki-maki is the name of the deity on Rapa Nui (Easter Island). Does anyone know where maki maki is spoken? --Filll 17:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no language known as "maki maki" according to Ethnologue.com, the most thorough catalog of languages I know. Marco polo 18:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The bigger question is, when will there be a Maki Maki Wikiwiki?Edison 13:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible that maki maki is related to "taki taki" a slang term for Sranan, one of the languages in Suriname? --Filll 14:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Political science/ Micheal Manning I.E.M.P model

How is Ideology,economic,millitary,and political simmular and how different.

I suspect that you mean the sociologist Michael Mann, not Manning. Certainly Mann is the originator of the IEMP model of social power. But your question is far too broad for me to answer here, without writing a whole essay. Try reading the first chapter of Mann's Sources of Social Power, volume 1. Cheers, Sam Clark 16:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

political sicence/federalisum

what are the pros and cons of federalisum.

Thank you shentell o'neal

Welcome to Wikipedia. You can easily look up this topic yourself. Please see Federalism. For future questions, try using the search box at the top left of the screen. It's much quicker, and you will probably find a clearer answer. If you still don't understand, add a further question below by clicking the "edit" button to the right of your question title. --ColinFine 19:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I would consider whether you are referring to Federalism in the United States as conceived by the framers of the Constitution. This issue is discussed in the Federalist Papers, written by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. Urban commercial interests favored the proposed constitution while agrarian rural states feared a strong central government. The debates in the state conventions that ratified the Constitution are illuminating. Present day federalism is addressed by analyzing Supreme Court decisions dealing with the Interstate Commerce Clause and federalism from the New Deal. Chief Justice Rehnquist refined this area of law considerably. There aren't easy pro and cons from my understanding. So much depends on where you live, what the time period is, what your social status is, etc.--jhussock 10/14/06 7:00 p.m. UTC

How do I see the answer to my question?

On or about October 2, 2006, I asked here in what key did Victoria originally write his motet O Magnum Mysterium? Several days later I returned and edited the question as suggested above in the hopes of getting closer to an answer. The instructions above clearly state it might take seven days to get an answer. Here I am, on day eight from the original post, and just a few days from the suggested edit, and the question seems to have been deleted, moved, or floated off the top of the list. Should I have expected that? If so, it might have been made more clear. What I should like to know is, can I still see the response, and if so, how? Thank you very much. BillWhite 18:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

To answer my own question, on October 10 October, 2006, HappyCamper made a "massive archival of the humanities reference desk, leaving ~4-5 days of questions". The archived material can still be viewed in the History. BillWhite 18:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives (or the "Archive" link at the top of this page). Specifically, your question is at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006_October_2#In_what_key_did_Victoria_originally_write_his_.22O_Magnum_Mysterium.22.3F. Unfortunately, it looks like the discussion ended with only one outsider comment, which often happens when no one with specific knowedge of the topic is around. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you could ask to jeff.covey (at) pobox.com who published the piece in mutopiaproject.org. --193.56.241.75 06:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Medieval Christian heretics?

Are there any offshoots of Christianity or any other European religion between AD 600 and 1600 that believed in anything like:

• Spiritual authority comes from within, as opposed to from the church hierarchy or from an outside God (or basically God comes from within each of us)
• Women's rights
• Sexual liberalism
• There is no "sin" or punishment, we must learn from our mistakes and take our own responsibilities and gain wisdom after our own experimentation or experiences, but still pacifist and basic values like "don't hurt others"
• Music or merrymaking or altered states of consciousness

--Sonjaaa 18:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There were certainly groups, including many of the early Protestants toward the end of your period, who believed in the first item in your list. Earlier groups who believed in that first item included the Hussites, Lollards, and probably the Cathars. The Cathars also allowed women to assume roles of religious leadership. As for sexual liberalism and altered states of consciousness, I can't find evidence of groups during your period that believed in those. Marco polo 18:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Try also Paulicians, Bogomils, Cathars, Waldensians, Brethren of the Free Spirit...they were medieval heresies, although they probably didn't believe any or all of the things you listed. It's a start, and you may find more sects by following the links and categories from there. It's unfortunate that we don't have a specific medieval heresy article. There were some 17th century groups in England that may have believed some of those things, if I remember correctly, like the Levellers and the Diggers, which are a little out of your time range, but their roots are in the middle ages. Adam Bishop 18:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't leave out the Gnostics.Edison 23:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The Beguines were mostly a women's spiritual movement within Christianity during the high middle ages. They didn't practice sexual liberation or the other points specified, though. Hildegard of Bingen was an abbess, mystic, and composer - almost the earliest composer known by name in Western music (she was not a Beguine). Also in terms of music, look up the fourteenth century Ars Nova movement. Neither Bingen nor the Ars Nova movement were ever deemed heretical, but the Beguines went through a period of persecution during the fourteenth century before being rehabilitated. Durova 06:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Alliteratively speaking, one might say that Bingen didn't Begin the Beguines. :) JackofOz 09:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

A traditional name for such practices justified in quasi-religious terms was Antinomianism. The old Catholic Encyclopedia has an article from one traditional point of view... AnonMoos 09:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Also have a look at the Anabaptists.Hornplease 10:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The fourth one is the one you are least likely to find represented. The concept of 'sin' (though not necessarily punishment) is fairly fundamental to Christianity. Universalism may give you some clues there. DJ Clayworth 17:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Concept of playboy/playgirl

What exactly is the whole idea/purpose behind a playboy/playgirl? How creative is that? [kj_venus]

The idea/purpose? It hasn't changed, even though both are commonly called "players" or "playaz" now. How creative? It isn't. There has never been creativity to it. Read Shakespeare and you'll see the same player schemes were being used then that are being used today. --Kainaw ^(talk) 20:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

How does one differentiate beteween shakespeare's playboy and the present trend of Hugh Hefner's? His business is dwindling! Why is the playboy mag of the US being promoted to an excessive extent? What are the vital stats associated with readership? [kj_venus]

The magazine is suffering because nobody needs to buy a magazine when the Internet offers porn for free. That has little to do with the lifestyle of a playboy. Also, it is not Hugh Hefner's business. His daughter took over the company long ago. See Playboy. --Kainaw ^(talk) 20:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the same vehemently "anti-porn" troll who's been trying to make some sort of point for the last few weeks. I still don't get the point. Porn is a cheap thrill. Too cheap for me. But in a free country with freedom of expression, I feel it must be tolerated. The alternative, what I keep calling "sexual repression" is exponentially worse. Loomis 05:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably, I don't think the problem is porn itself. Banning it seems as pointless as banning alcohol. The market would only go underground. Also, it's unclear whether the question was about the magazines or the lifestyle... 惑乱 分からん 10:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I just realized I haven't answered the question. To be frank, the whole "idea/purpose" behind Playboy/Playgirl is to offer photographs of nude women/men, to sexually titilate its readership. But Playboy/Playgirl is actually a relatively tasteful version of pornography. Remember that many of the greatest artists throughout history were known for their renditions of the naked human body. In this sense, I would qualify "Playboy" (though I'm not as familiar with "playgirl") as the mere 20th century version (not that I'm comparing them in quality) of the works of Michelangelo.

If you're talking about harder porn, well, the "idea/purpose" behind it is quite frankly to give its readership/viewership inspiration for masturbation. It's that simple. Now what in particular is your REAL question? Loomis 05:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Prior to Hugh Hefner's foray into publishing, open sexuality was associated with radical left politics. Hefner's magazine associated it with the traditionally lax mores of prosperous men, which made it more palatable to middle America. Durova 05:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop the nonsenese loomis. Accept the fact that u may be a porn-addict too.Porn is the creation of sick minds, out of lack of preoccupation of the mind ,wavered minds conceive some nonsense that deprives all romance in any sort of relationship, lack of family values.

I think you've totally misunderstood my argument. I've got nothing against Gary Sinise, though I believe you've misspelled his name. In fact I believe Sinise is an excellent actor, so I'm definitely not "non-senese". In fact, I suppose you'd be accurate in calling me, according to your spelling, rather "pro-senese". Loomis 00:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, do me a favour and PLEASE get yourself a girlfriend/boyfriend! Perhaps that might mitigate to a great degree your obvious sexual frustration. Loomis 00:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You dont have to indicate that i am sexually freustrated. I will go after a gal only when desired. Thats none of your business. But, my stance is firm and Porn is the manifestation of sick minds

• but at least we porn lovers can spell (hotclaws**== 18:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC))

The questions asks about a playboy/playgirl. A playboy is a man who basically "goes around" with a number of women. A Lady's Man, if you will. They may or may not "cheat" on the others, as there usually is not "real" relationship there. Or at least that is my old-fashioned take on the term :P -Russia Moore 01:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

WWII : First soldiers on German soil, first Russian soldier in Korea

Hello,

I have been searching through the internet but I'm not able to find this.

1.What was the first time an allied soldier (USSR of from the West?) set foot on German soil during the Second War? Where did he cross the border (or she, you never know) It must have been of major psychological importance, because for the first time, German troops were not fighting to hold on to their conquered territory anymore, but to protect their own country. Now this question might be difficult (do you consider Austria a part of Germany etc....).

2. When did the first USSR soldier set foot on Korean soil? Is it correct to say that all of present day North Korea was "liberated" by the Soviets between the start of Operation August Storm and the end of the second World War?

Thank you very much, Evilbu 21:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Aachen says that was the first German city invaded, October 1944. "Sept. 11 (1944) Invasion of Germany" is found at http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/adaccess/wwtwo-timeline.html with no details. The first allied soldier on German soil in WW II was probably a prisoner of war, a spy or a traitor somewhat earlier. Edison 23:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no. The first Allied troops to enter German territory in WWII were the French during the abortive Saar Offensive of September 1939. Soviet troops entered northern Korea in September 1945. It was taken from the Japanese, who had occupied the peninsula since 1910. Whether it was 'liberated' or not is another matter altogether.White Guard 00:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Depends on what you call Germany. East Prussia is no longer part of Germany, but it was before the war, and I suppose that's what counts. This was conquered by the USSR in Operation Bagration. Neither article says when they first set foot there, but the maps suggest it was on 19 August at the latest. But it was probably in late July.

Btw, I don't think anyone bothered to keep track of who entered Germany first. It was such a major push to get to Berlin and secure as much territory as fast as possible that that detail was probably pretty irrelevant.

An interresting anecdote here is that my mother, who lived in Heerlen, near the German border, was surpised to see the US army arrive from the East, from Germany. Don't know the date for that, though. DirkvdM 08:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Operation Bagration did not get to Eastern Prussia. Unless both maps I have are wrong the offensive stopped a little short of the borders. AFAIK the Soviet forces entered Eastern Prussia only in January 1945. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia maps show the southeastern point included in the territory covered. DirkvdM 08:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, are you telling me that the USSR didn't have to fight one bit for its control over North Korea, that they gained control AFTER the end of the war?Evilbu 08:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Unless you don't count the elimination of the whole Quantung Army... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

President of the United States election

Could someone explain to a poor ignorant Briton what happens (in the US) when someone elected to one position then gets elected to a more senior position? (e.g., a senator/representative/state governor being elected president or vice-president.) Would the original position be kept? Can someone be simultaneously a senator and president? And, if they cease to hold the original office, would there be a by-election to fill the vacancy?

Thanks, Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

No, they can't be both. They take on the role of the new office. Quite often, though not as a rule, the person will resign from the first position in order to concentrate on the election of the new position. They often use the reasoning that it's better for the people they represent that they resign from their original post since their full concentration wouldn't necessarily be on their old job. Whether that's true or if they're just trying to get those voters to think that the person is dedicated and such is up to you to decide. And as far as the coverage of the old job, I'm not sure. Dismas|^(talk) 21:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

As for senate vacancies, they are filled according to state law, either by special election or gubernatorial appointment, usually depending on the time remaining in the term. This is in accordance with the 17th amendment to the Constitution: "When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct." (Prior to this amendment, passed in 1913, senators were chosen by the state legislatures). House vacancies are always filled by special election. Temporary appointments are not possible for a vacant House seat. - Nunh-huh 22:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Is it therefore just convention that the former office is renounced, or is there a constitutional requirement somewhere? Thanks, Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's just convention. StuRat 22:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is an explicit Constitutional requirement, but the dogma of separation of powers would guarantee that it would never be possible for a person to serve in more than one of the three branches of government at one time. - Nunh-huh 22:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

At which point in time? When running, it's convention, and by no means universally observed (e.g. Kerry retains his Senate seat because he didn't resign it to run for President). Once elected or appointed to an office however, Article 1 section 6 kicks on - "no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office." --Mnemeson 22:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

When Senators run for President, most often they do it in a year when they are not up for re-election, They can do this because they are elected to a 6 year term. So a Senator elected this year could safely run for president in 2008, but in 2012 he would have to choose in most cases. Joe Liberman's state allowed him to run for both offices simultaneously (Vice President and Senator) in 2000, so he did not have to make the hard choice Barry Goldwater did in 1964, when he abandoned a safe senate seat to run a quixotic race for President.Edison 23:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Article One of the United States Constitution, Section 6, states, no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office. Does that apply to this question? Or does "office under the United States" mean something else? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I suspect something else; in context, it's related to ensuring that legislators not personally profit by appointing themselves to office. It's the separation of powers that guarantees no senator/presidents. Though of course there's no telling how any of these words mightspecifically be interpreted/distorted/construed by a judge if it came before him... but though the means by which the decision would be made is in question, the decision, I think, is not. - Nunh-huh 12:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Short answer... members of Congress may not hold any other office. In 1960, when Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson became President and Vice President, they resigned their Senatorial seats. That's the legal part.

All the rest of the previous answers have been dealing with politics and customs. Elections take place in November; terms of office begin the following January. By resigning his Senatorial seat immediately after being elected President, the candidate allows the Governor of his home state to appoint a temporary replacement. This replacement will have seniority over incoming freshman Senators, which is a slight advantage to the home state.

Kennedy's Senate term extended beyond January, 1961, so his seat was not up for election in November, 1960. Johnson's seat was up. So he ran for both Vice President and re-election as Senator. Having won the Vice Presidency, he resigned the Senate seat. Had he lost (he did win Senatorial re-election), he, like Kennedy, would have remained in the Senate. B00P 18:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

social order

how can social order be maintain?

Surely you meant, how can pecking order be maintain?

Through whatever means possible. --The Dark Side 00:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair or foul. White Guard 00:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Social order is maintained through government, luck, and skill. You might consider clarifying your question. It is almost as vague as "What is the meaning of life?" --AstoVidatu 00:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Social order is more than a matter of government. It involves the acceptance by society as a whole of a set of norms and of a power structure. A power structure and government are not sufficient without societal acceptance, as we can see in Iraq. The acceptance need not be heartfelt or enthusiastic, it can be based on fear, but it must be in place for social order to exist. Marco polo 01:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Social order is maintain by Social cohesion. Social cohesion is form when everyone (or most people) is looking after everyone else's interest. If group A (muslims) does not look after the interest of group B (infidels) or vice versa then there is a lack of social cohesion. This implies the existances of common values (or shared values) and common behavior norms. If one group wants to behave the way of X while another group wants to behave the way of Y and X & Y are incompatible, then you have an ideological conflict. Social cohesian is maintain by having a common/shared (non-violent) method of resolving such conflicts that all members of the society will accept it's decision. The actual method is irrelevant, what is importance is for all members of the society to accept the legitimacy of the method (in other words a common dispute resolution method). 202.168.50.40 01:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this argument. Marco polo 19:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

In addition to the essentially sociological answers above, you could have a look at political philosophy. Cheers, Sam Clark 22:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)