Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 October 12

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.

Islamic Naval Technology

Did the islamic nations during the late 15th and early 16th centuries have ships that could cross the Atlantic?

The north Atlantic is notoriously stormy, and most of the seacoasts bordering on Islamic nations were in the Mediterranean and Indian oceans. They had ships that could probably have made a crossing in certain circumstances, but they didn't really have a habit of building ships that were reliably well-adapted to Atlantic conditions. AnonMoos 02:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, hmm. I'm not sure you can say that Columbus's caravels were significantly better than the contemporary Arabic designs though. It wasn't until after Columbus that ships were designed which could do the crossing safely and reliably. Columbus is probably as good a spot as any in history to mark where European shipbuilding surpassed Arabic. The Europeans were certainly inferior in 1400 and superior by 1600. --BluePlatypus 04:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, disagree. The advances in ship building which would allow consistent inter-continental travel had already happened by the time Columbus set sail. The major obstacle to be overcome was not stormy North Atlantic weather, but distance, and uncertainty. Mediterranean sailors had earlier been introduced to the lateen sail from Arab dhows, they found improvements in hull, rudder and keel in nothern square rigged cogs. Columbus' fleet were barques, square rigged fore and main masts (increased sail area and reduced crew requirement), lateen mizen (manuverability for exploring costal waters).EricR 07:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the Ottoman Empire was planning such an undertaking—American would be named Vilayet Antilia. EricR 03:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

What kind of navy did Morocco have? And southern Spanish Moors? They had to be able to communicate across the Mediterranean, could their ships have made it across the Atlantic? They were galleys, though, not sailing ships, weren't they? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Morocco and Moorish Spain were part of the Ottoman Empire and so any naval forces based in Morocco would be subject to orders from Constantinople. The Ottoman Empire's naval policy, though, appears to have been directed at protecting Muslim trading vessels in the Mediterranean from pirate attack, and occasionally fighting rival naval forces from Europe, eg: Battle of Lepanto. It's probable that Arab vessels could have reached North America, except for one obstacle: they had no motive. Remember that European ships were not looking for America, neither the Europeans nor the Arabs knew that America existed. The Europeans were looking for a quick route to Japan, to boost spice trading. The Ottoman Empire had no motive for crossing the Atlantic, as Arab trading routes already reached India and the Far East with no need to sail out into the unknown waters of the Atlantic. So in a nutshell, yes Arab vessels could probably have reached America, but they would have had absolutely no motive for doing so. This sounds suspiciously like research for a piece of alternative history in which the New World is colonised by Muslims... am I right? Rusty2005 12:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Communication aided by seeing a face

Does anyone know of any studies done that show that communication is easier if one can see the other person's face? Many thanks, --86.142.195.245 06:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know of any specific studies, but it's clearly through. When you see someone's face, you can see their eyes and facial expression which often tells more about what they mean than words themselves. You also see this a lot in discussions on Wikipedia. Without talking to someone face to face, it's easy to misinterpret what someone means. -Mgm|^(talk) 10:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Here's a case in point. If I could see Mgm's face, I might have some hope of interpreting what he meant by "it's clearly through". Without those non-verbal cues, I must sadly admit defeat.  :-)
• Neuro-linguistic programming and related modalities utilise knowledge of facial gestures, eye movements and non-verbal auditory cues to study what goes on when people are communicating with each other. To the extent of their visual and auditory acuity, people innately detect and respond to these non-verbal behaviours, in many cases without realising they're doing so. JackofOz 12:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, "Neuro-linguistic Programming" is the name of a specific New-Age type group or organization, and actual neuro-linguists feel that what they do has extremely little in common with the doctrines of the "NLP" group. AnonMoos 15:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE REFERENCE DESK

If you haven't been paying attention to Wikipedia talk:Reference desk, you may not know that a few users are close to finishing a proposal (with a bot, now in testing and very close to completion) which, if approved by consensus, will be a major change for the Reference Desk.

Please read the preamble here, and I would appreciate if you signed your name after the preamble outlining how you feel about what we are thinking.

This notice has been temporarily announced on all of the current desks.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  06:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

For convenience, I propose any reactions to this anouncement be limited to Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#PROPOSED_CHANGES_TO_THE_REFERENCE_DESK. DirkvdM 07:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Caps key stuck?--martianlostinspace 13:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Why does the word "Nazi" appear so often in this reference desk?

Can't find a single day without that word.

Just a couple guesses...

1. They were a group that made a significant (to put it lightly) impact on the world.
2. People reel at the shear numbers of people that were killed for no reason other than their god or what they looked like.
3. Even given the above point, people still to this day believe that the Final Solution is the best solution.
4. The expansion of the Third Reich into other lands was something that hadn't been seen to that scale in, I'm guessing here since I suck at history, hundreds of years.

But that's just of the top of my head... Dismas|^(talk) 09:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

In the Western world, the Swastika and portraits of Hitler have become the most powerful icons epitomizing modern evil and tyranny. In Germany, it is illegal to publicly display the Swastika, Prince Harry created a scandal when wearing a Pseudo-Nazi uniform to a party, and so forth. Taboos are attractive to all sorts of people, be it out of curiosity, for provocation's sake, or to morally disqualify another person's point of view. See Godwin's Law too, for the last example.---Sluzzelin 11:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Just try searching this page for 'communis', 'liber', 'democra' or 'iraq'. This is the humanities ref desk, so there are bound to be many questions about politics. Especially the ones that people have questions anout. :) DirkvdM 09:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

If it weren't for a few historic events that could have gone either way such as Einstein's exile in the US and that the bombing of Pearl Harbor brought the US into WWII, we'd all probably be speaking German now (presuming we weren't found to be within an 'undesireable' class of people). That historic near miss, probably to a greater extent than the US's major losses in Vietnam, creates cognitive dissonance for superpowers such as the US and Europe which we deal with in various ways such as defining Nazis as inhuman (when in fact most were political opportunists or just people who didn't think too much about the larger effects of decisions they and their government make--not unlike the citizens in most countries today). I think the vast amount of alternate histories focused on 'what if the Nazis won?' and efforts to paint Nazi's as 'inhumanly evil' are ways that we attempt to resolve this cognitive dissonance. The Man In the High Castle is my personal favorite. Antonrojo 13:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

North Korea's legal system

Besides North Korea what governments have legal systems that are based on pre-World War II German legal system that allowed and even accommodated the formation and existence of a dictatorship? Adaptron 09:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know much about the NK legal system and the article doesn't help very much. But as far as I can tell, their dictatorship as was Germany's didn't actually have that much to do with the legal system. Didn't Hitler largely dismantle the courts anyway and make up his own ones? Which is not to say legal systems can't be used to help dictatorships of course. In Singapore for example which is a dictatorship of sorts (although obviously not of the NK or Germany kind), the courts have been extensively used to hinder opposition politicians Nil Einne 11:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The main point here is the lack of checks and balances which modern legal/political systems incorporate. Dictatorship for any purpose is still dictatorship although a benevolent dictatorship with the goal of making everyone rich could possibly have merit except to those who's religion perhaps forbids wealth. Adaptron 11:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Germany's legal system today is essentially the same as it was pre-war. Hitler's coming to power had nothing to do with the court system - it had to do with the weak Weimar constitution and parliamentary system. The same legal system is used in most North European countries. The political show-trials of Nazi Germany, like those lead by the notorious Roland Freisler, were conducted in a completely seperate court system called the Volksgerichtshof (People's Court), which Hitler set up once he'd gained total power. (Exersise for the reader: Why did Hitler need to set up a new court system if the old one was easily corruptible?) The US court system would not have stopped Hitler. What would have stopped him is that the US constitution is not as easy to change as the Weimar one, but more importantly, does not have its state-of-emergency laws. The Weimar constitution did not accomodate dictatorship. It just didn't do enough to stop it. Anyway, this is all a moot point when it comes to the DPRK - it was created as a dictatorship from the start. --BluePlatypus 22:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

And I highly doubt that North Korea's legal system has any resemblence to the German legal system past or present. --BluePlatypus 22:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You might want to check various references such as the CIA Fact Book before reaching such erroneous conclusions. Nothing starts from scratch. Everything starts with a model. Pre-WWII German legal system was that model for the DPRK legal system in place today which served in no capacity to stop the formation of the DPRK. Even China has become wary of ulterior motives the law might allow hence its demand that UN sanctions against NK can not be used as a pretext for invasion or war - an opportunity either not provided by the historical German legal system or not taken advantage of by any opposition. 71.100.6.152 17:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Next war-time use of NUCLEAR weapons most likely to happen

I know it´s horrible, but some friends and I have been discussing the probable next use of nuclear weapons in a war-time context, can anyone say the MOST LIKELY (by military strategy experts etc.) CONSIDERED possibility of the next nuclear strike in history? We are arguing about: 1) North Korea on South Korea, 2) USA on North Korea, 3) Iran on Israel, 4) Pakistan on India, 5) India on Pakistan. (I think nº 4, although perhaps nº 1). Is it one of these or are others considered distinct possibilities and which are they please? --Joel--

I would go on USA against some other target using small tactical "bunker busting" weapons on the grounds of war against terror -- Chris Q 12:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Planners consider many different scenarios including alien occupied rocks from outer space but while so doing look very hard for alternatives WMD such as massive numbers of plasma jet type cluster bombs (billions) to eliminate an invading army such as the million man NK army long before it can cross the DMZ. 71.100.6.152 12:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This is completely speculative, but the US has already declared its intention to use "tactical" nuclear weapons "if necessary". I agree with Chris Q that the US is the most likely origin of the next use of nukes. As for the likely destination, Iran comes to mind. Another scenario is that the US gives tactical nukes to Israel, who deploy them against Iran in "preemptive self-defense". I don't see India or Pakistan using nukes against each other because each knows that it would receive a response in kind. I also don't see North Korea attacking South Korea. South Korea is one of NK's main sources of support at this point. I don't think that that NK would fire except in the event of US military aggression, and in that event, I think the most likely target would be Japan. Marco polo 14:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You are forgetting that North Korea has already stated its Casus Belli is any further sanctions and "rilements" by the US. North Korea is either blowing smoke or is actually stupid enough to take any military or other action except to back off doing the things that caused the sanctions to be put on them in the first place. If North Korea uses a nuclear weapon for any reason including defense of its illicit operation as a major illegal drug producer and exporter, counterfeiter and God knows what other crimes then the US might not be the only country that will turn North Korea into glass. 71.100.6.152 16:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a scenario I see:

1) Inspections of all ships leaving North Korea are put in place (either by the UN or a non-UN coalition of the US, Japan, etc.) to prevent North Korea from selling nuclear weapons to anyone who is willing to pay (as they have done with all their other weapons systems). StuRat 19:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

2) North Korea calls this an act of war and declares war on South Korea in return (technically, North Korea remains at war with South Korea, the US, and much of the world since the Korean War). Since they have a substantial military advantage in conventional weapons and troops, especially considering the US deployment in Iraq, this means they will soon defeat South Korea and capture the tens of thousands of American troops there. StuRat 19:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This is pure speculation. Their advantage lies in numbers but what about technology and simple experience? You are also forgetting that America would surely send reinforcements (imposing the draft, thereby recruting soldiers by the millions) and the possiblity of its allies fearfull of a strong North Korea also sending military aid. Many of them might disagree with the current administration but forced to choose between the US and North Korea they will choose the first one. Flamarande 17:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, any statement about what may happen in the future, is, of course, speculation. North Korean troops are so close to the capital of South Korea that the war would be largely over before the US could institute a draft, train new troops, and deploy them. Unless, of course, nuclear weapons were used. StuRat 21:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

And the SKtroops and the UStroops are completly unready for the loss of Seoul (they can't be ready for something everyone can predict) and must give it up if they lose that city. Somehow they have forgotten all the lessons of the last Korean War (in which Seoul was captured by the NKtroops). Since is the capture or destruction of Seoul vital for a Korean campaign? It's certainly a major step, but the troops in SK are there to mantain viable landing points (like the Pusan Perimeter) for the arriving reinforcements . Flamarande 21:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The US just considers use of nuclear weapons against NK to be preferable to the destruction or capture of Seoul. In war, killing millions of enemy civilians to save millions of allied civilians is justified. StuRat 21:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, because at the last time NK captured Seoul the Americans imediatly retaliated with Nuclear weapons (or they will do it now because they have grown dummer). Sorry, but recent history shows exactly the opposite: the loss of Seoul is expected, everyone is ready for it, and the war will continue. I really hope that you are not part of the American security council. Flamarande 21:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

General Douglas MacArthur wanted to do just that, and was fired by President Harry Truman, to prevent a wider war with China. In retrospect, that would have avoided the current situation, since China lacked nuclear weapons at the time. Under the current crisis, there is no reason to think that China would support NK militarily. StuRat 21:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that MacArtuhr was bit senile at that point and that Truman was right. There is no reason to think that China will ever agree with a preemptive Nuclear strike against NK. If China is willing to go to war with the US because of the current Nk is difficult to answer though. Flamarande 08:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Many people agreed with MacArthur at the time. In retrospect, it appears that he may have been right. StuRat 20:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Right in wanting to risk entering a war with China? Flamarande 21:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and in being at least willing to use the threat of nuclear weapons to get the Chinese to stop supporting NK (then, not now). StuRat 19:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

3) Rather than let this happen, the US is willing to use nuclear weapons against North Korea. Perhaps only one, to demonstrate their willingness, at first. StuRat 19:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Speculation (see Nr2) and not supported by facts. The US had a somewhat similar scenario in Vietnam (prisoners and all) and they didn't use the Nuclear weapons either. Flamarande 17:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any similarity with Vietnam. The US just withdrew and let the North have the South. I don't see that happening in Korea, unless South Korea gets some truly idiotic politicians who ask the US to leave. StuRat 21:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The similarity is that even if the US is defeated in Korea by conventional warfare (something I doubt) they would not retaliate with Nuclear weapons (they were defeated in Vietnam and still they didn't use the Nukes). Flamarande 08:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You keep lumping "defeat" all into one category. Voluntarily withdrawing is in no way comparable to having all your troops (tens of thousands) captured by the enemy. The first is acceptable in the minds of the US public, while the second is so unacceptable as to justify using nuclear weapons, in the minds of the US public. Vietnam was also a proxy war between the Soviet Union backing the North and the US backing the South, with the risk that any escalation could change the cold war into a hot war. The current crisis is not a superpower conflict, as nobody is going to come to NK's aid. StuRat 20:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

4) North Korea then reacts by firing a nuclear weapon at Japan or South Korea on a short range missile. StuRat 19:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Speculation (see Nr2). If this happened the entire world would turn against North Korea. Flamarande 17:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It is now, except for probably Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and a few other nuts. North Korea doesn't care what the world thinks. StuRat 21:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

NK doens't care what the world thinks, agreed. It does care if most of the world declares and then wages war against it. Flamarande 08:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The UN won't even declare war against a country it could easily defeat, like Rwanda or Sudan, to prevent the genocides in those countries. So, it sure isn't going to declare war on a country with strong conventional forces and nuclear weapons. NK has nothing to worry about from anyone other than the US and maybe China. StuRat 21:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It may shook you, but the UN is completly dependent on the national goverments and does not posses any troops of its own. As noone is willing to send troops to save African ppl (because the life of one white trooper is worthier than 10000 black Africans in the minds of jaded population who will vote accordingly). The Un is mostly a gathering place where every nation can say its peace of mind and the real power is in the hand of the security council.

5) The US then responds with the total nuclear annihilation of North Korea, using high altitude detonations to limit fallout risks to neighboring nations. StuRat 19:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Speculation (see Nr2 and Nr4). What for? You can bomb a country into the stone-age whithout using Nuclear weapons. Flamarande 17:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Not quickly enough to destroy their missile launch capability. Also, NK has sophisticated antiaircraft defenses, so only missiles could be used against them. This would dramatically reduce the portion of the US arsenal that could be used against NK. StuRat 21:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The only way I see around this is if China and South Korea actually put total economic sanctions on North Korea, now, instead of propping up the economy, which might finally convince North Korea to give up it's nuclear weapons. StuRat 15:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

All past sanctions couldn't convince them until now, and now they would change their minds because of what? Their ppl is starving and the whole country is (as far as we know) allready a "wasteland", and the regime hasn't changed its mind. Where is the allmighty diffrence? Flamarande 17:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The diff is that both China and South Korea were actively working against the sanctions, which made them totally ineffective. StuRat 21:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

So the ppl will starve even faster and the NK will use this in their propaganda. You can imagine the rest... China and South Korea will eventually donate food again for "pure humanitarian reasons". Flamarande 08:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, if inspections of ships are put in place, and as long as no neighbors (China or South Korea) go and buy the donated food back from NK, then they can't get cash from selling it to buy more weapons. They will then be forced to either let the starving eat the food or destroy it (so they can use their starving citizens for propaganda). StuRat 21:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps another way out is if China invades North Korea and installs a puppet regime. While most of the world would normally object to this, eliminating the extreme danger posed by the current North Korean dictatorship would ensure that there would be very little criticism, and no punitive actions, taken against China. Perhaps they could promise Kim Jung Il that he won't be executed as long as he doesn't use nuclear weapons against China. StuRat 15:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Why would China invade North Korea? What would they gain? As long as North Korea doesn't use the nuclear Bomb noone is going to invade it. Flamarande 17:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

If North Korea keeps it's nuclear weapons, then Japan and South Korea will need nuclear weapons to defend themselves. Once they have nuclear weapons, Taiwan (which China hates with a passion) will likely get them, too, as will perhaps most of Asia. The net result of this is to greatly reduce China's status as the sole nuclear power in Eastern Asia and ultimately poses a substantial threat to China. Unlike conventional weapons, even a small country, like Taiwan, can pose a significant military threat once armed with nuclear weapons. StuRat 20:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

That exactly is why these two (small) countries are allied with the US, so that the US Nuclear weapons defend them from any Nuclear aggression. That's the whole point of alliances, they don't need any Nbombs they only need to keep the alliance with the USA. That's why the big ones are keen to keep the lid on Nuclear profiliration. They don't want to oppress the other countries, they fear that a small country really uses a nuclear bomb against them or against an ally. Flamarande 21:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Once North Korea has nuclear weapons that can reach the US, then the US nuclear deterrent against NK attacking South Korea or Japan will no longer be credible. Why would Japan believe the US would nuke NK if they were attacked, knowing that the US would risk a nuclear attack if they did. StuRat 21:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

So if someone uses the NBomb against your ally, you (the US) won't do a thing, because you are too afraid that they use the Nbombs against you? Sorry, that's nonsense. You will use your weapons or you will lose all your allies (and believe me you want to keep them, to have their strengh at your side). Have you ever studied the Cold War? Soviet Nuclear weapons could reach American soil anytime and that didn't stop the US from protecting Western Europe. You might say much about the USA but they aren't cowards. Flamarande 21:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The US positioned nuclear weapons in Europe, so Europe could defend itself, rather than rely on US ICBMs to defend them (even so, both the UK and France developed nuclear weapons, apparently not trusting the US to defend it). That's another option, placing US nukes in Japan and South Korea, but China wouldn't like that, either. Hence it is in their interest to wipe out NK before it's able to put nuclear weapons on a missile. StuRat 21:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Something noone (not even the Chinese) knows for sure if they allready have done it or not, and I think noone wants to risk it to find it out..

The first step to end the nuke crisis is to disarm the US. Then the world can lobby effectively for disarmament.There have to be effective rationale behind this big brother attitude.[kjvenus]

The only way to disarm the US is to take back Pearl Harbor. 71.100.6.152 16:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The last two comments are simply narrow-minded. No nation allready possesing the Nuclear bomb is going to disarm them. No nation is going to invade (or bomb the crap out of them) them unless they use it. Ergo, they won't use it. Mutual Assured Destruction, the great reason for peace. Flamarande 17:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't be MAD in the case of North Korea, at least not at this point. They don't have the speed, the stockpile, nor the delivery system to strike back if someone did nuke them -- if they did it first, they'd at most get one city damaged before everyone falls on them. It would more than likely be stupid to nuke them though, especially considering the possible environmental impact to the whole peninsula, as well as the political/moral issues with killing innocent civilians. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Nothing is narrowminded. There is a serious problem with the Attitude. The US invaded Irag on grounds of it possessing weapons of Mass destruction. And today it has become a mess. The US is not shouldering its responsibility of having wrecked that havoc. Will The US challenge the stance of N Korea? Will it keep sending troops trying to impose its foolish freedom & democracy? Why is it not giving freedom to every country to enter the Nuke Zone?

Let every country acquire that power & then sign the Mutual Assured Destruction for peace & harmony! [kj_venus]

Unfortunately North Korea is not rational. Why? North Korea has the same buried in concrete mindset that Germany did prior to the end of World War II. North Korea sees itself in the same stubborn way as Germany did before it was defeated militarily. It is a mindset that only North Korea can change without suffering military defeat. The only option the rest of the World has depends upon what North Korea does. 71.100.6.152 17:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I really like that everyone is such a specialist about the NKregime. Do you base all your conclusions on something other than than the TV? Because if you have some real info and not mere speculation you might consider joining the CIA. Face it, we don't know almost nothing about the NKregime and all our conclusions about it are mere speculations and nothing else. The WOMD excuse was a lie from the start for the public (i.e. the American ppl). It wasn't the real reason. Flamarande 19:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

(I sigh and I wonder how I get into these arguments. Then I remember that I like politics (mainly international) ). You want the truth? You really want the real truth? It is most likely that Nothing is going to happen! So the NK has the Bomb, right?

Congratulations, they have the Bomb. Nobody is going to invade them now. Why? Because if someone does invade NK they might use the Bomb, and noone is willing to take that chance. Not the US , China, or Russia, etc.

The US wouldn't invade, no, but they might very well drop bombs, that doesn't require nearly the resources of an invasion and occupation force. China might invade, as they have the troops to get the job done and are close enough to have the element of surprise on their side (US satellites would show troops gathering on the border, but would likely keep silent). Russia has nothing to do with this crisis. StuRat 21:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a question of resources, it is a matter of retaliation. If the US bombs NK they would surely retaliate, propably with nukes, and their missiles have a wide range. Ergo, the Us won't risk it. China could surprise NK but would they be quick enough to prevent the launch of the missiles? I somehow doubt that the Chinese are willing to take that chance. Flamarande 09:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence that NK can even put a nuke on a short range missile yet, much less on a long range missile capable of hitting the US. Also, their one long range missile test failed and it appears that their one nuclear weapons test may have failed, too. So, the risk to the US is minimal now, but will be severe in a few years. StuRat 20:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I actually agree with you there, their nuclear capacities (number of nukes) and the range of their missiles is an icognito. They just might be a overblown paper tiger. But I doubt that anyone is willing to take that chance. Flamarande 21:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

They have the bomb. Congratulations. They most likely won't use it on someone. Why? Because if they use it against someone the chances are way too high that all major countries (i.e. those who also have the bomb) will retaliate against them. Even if somehow they don't (and if that happens they would lose an enormous amount of Face - something which really matters in politics and worth preserving at all costs) retaliate against you, you will not gain absolutly nothing except fearful hatred from everyone. Use the bomb on a country and then conquer it. You have gained a nuclear wasteland, now please hold it. Good luck.

NK has the bomb. Congratulations. Can they eat it? Will the bomb turn their entire shi*ty country into something better? Oh, they can threaten to use it and some countries will supply some food to the NK ppl but they won't supply plenty of food. Just enough to satisfy the regime. Just enough to prolong the agony of the NKppl. Just enough to keep the peace.

NK has the bomb. Congratulations. Can they sell it? Oh, There are many countries and organizations interrested in buying them. But can NK really risk to sell them? If they sell to the wrong buyer, this buyer might use a Bomb. If they use them, who do think is going to suffer the inevitable retaliatons? The buyer, sure, but also the NK. The Taliban regime was not truly guilty for the two towers, the Al-quaeda was, but boy did they also get a beating. Kadaffi learnt that leason, do you think the NK's are dummer than Kadaffi?

Nk has the bomb. Congratulations. The old Soviet Union and Communism also had the bomb. Did the bomb save either them on the long run? No, it didn't, did it? Economics and agriculture, simple as that. The NKppl will endure the current regime until someone of the same regime reforms the system from the inside like Gorbachew. Or their own military make a coup, which is about the same but a bit more risky. Noone from the outside is going to anything at all. Perhaps offer some bribes, give some food, and give some well-meaning or threatnining statements. Everybody is just going to wait paitiently for the inevitable: either the regime changes from the inside, the military makes a coup, or the NKppl starves to death. Noone is too concerned with the last and simply don't care much either way as there is nothing they can do about it. If NK uses the Bomb it will be wiped out of the map and that will be the end of it. If they don't use it, noone is going to bother them at all. So let us learn something from history for a change, and treat the NK like we did the old Soviet Union. Don't get frightnend because a lying politician tells you the world is going to end tomorrow. Tha lying politician wants to frighten you, so that you vote for him, is that truly so hard to understand?

How stupid do you think the NKregime really is? Do you really believe that they are completly mad or something? If they were, the NK military would have made a coup allready. Noone rational wants to die. Do you believe this is somehow diffrent in NK? Are they different from everybody else? Don't they fear Death, perhaps? Don't they love their children, wifes, and family? Do they really want to turn their own country into a Nuclear wasteland? That's why MAD worked, works, and will work in the forseable future.

The members of the regime don't wanna die and the military there don't wanna die also. If someone mad enough to use the bomb reaches to power the frightened military will seriously consider making a coup because they don't wanna die in the Nuclear Holocaust. The regime knows this and the military knows this also. They know it exactly because of WWII and rest assured they don't want to repeat the mistakes of Hitler and his regime. Why? Because they don't wanna die like Hitler and his henchmen, that's why. They don't want to follow someone into certain death.

The NK has the bomb, so what? There are more countries who have the Bomb and noone is (relativly) too frightened.

Only a completly mad person would use the bomb today. That, or a truly desperate one, like desperate because "another country has invaded "my" country and as I am going to die anyway, I will take many with me." So noone is going to force them into a tight spot with no exits, noone is going to invade them. And even if everything fails and someone really unleashes the Nuclear holocaust, relax, there is nothing we can do about it now. If you really want to ensure the survival of humanity as a whole, then keep your nerve, give a fair chance to the other side, vote for the wiser candidate, support a future world goverment, and support the expansion of Humanity into space (all the eggs in one basket, etc). If you really believe in something "above" then you might pray for peace, but as I don't believe that HE exists, I won't vouch for the results, LOL. We have lived with the Bomb since 1945 and I fear we will live with it in the forseable future. Flamarande 19:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC) As always this is mainly an educated guess, and if it turns out that I was mistaken you can collect my radioactive ashes and say to my remains: "Sadly, you were wrong."

If we allow countries governed by crazies to get and keep nukes, like NK and Iran, it's just a matter of time before they use them. Better to risk a small war now than to wait until they have thousands of ICBMs and can each destroy the world. StuRat 22:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Most likely it will be a country with nuclear arms that has a history of aggression. The US seems like an obvious choice, but somehow I don't think they will go that far because it will make the US look too bad and the effect will be too limited to be worth it. People may think that the US don't give a shit about what the world thinks about them, but that is not entriely true. It does hold true for a rogue state like Israel, though. So that's my best bet. DirkvdM 09:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Risk a Nuclear war to prevent a Nuclear war. Righ, sure. I hope the politicians in the USA show the sense they had during the Cold War. Stu, you are simply grasping at straws: you begin with one mighty argument (e.g. The war will be over if the Nk's capture Seoul, and as it is s close to the border...) and I explain why you are wrong (the US and Sktropops lost Seoul during the Korean War and still they kept on fighting) . Instead of accepting it, you grasp another argument and I demonstrate again that you are wrong. You are ignoring the following fact: Noone is willing to risk a full-scale Nuclear War. Therefore they will threaten and will impose whatever sanctions they like. Noone is going to invade Nk and risk taking a Nuke in retaliation. Noone is going to bomb NK, first because the necessary info on the targets is probably too meager and noone is willing to risk taking a Nuke in return. Everybody is just going to sit tight, do their best to contain NK, and patiently wait for an eventual internal change. It worked during the Cold War and the stakes were far higher. Why wouldn't it work now? Because the NK's are "completly crazy and have an allmighty Deathwish?" That's the same crap we were told about the Communists in the Soviet Union and China 1980's. "The Communists don't care if they die by the millions, they don't believe in God so they aren't afraid to go to Hell." Guess what? The NK's are ppl too, and they also want to live. Flamarande 09:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Having a small war to prevent a much larger war is a frequently used method, most recently employed against Serbia. Had they been unchallenged in Bosnia and Kosovo, they would have gone on to conquer the rest of the former Yugoslavia, then moved on to Albania and the other Balkan states. StuRat 20:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You are avoiding the point. Noone is willing to risk a full-scale Nuclear War. Serbia doesn't (and didn't) have any Nuclear weapons so your comparision is moot (and you knew it). Would NATO have intervened if Serbia had had Nuclear weapons? I somehow doubt it. Flamarande 21:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That's my point exactly. A war now would NOT be a full scale nuclear war, as NK doesn't seem yet to be capable of properly detonating a nuclear device or of putting one in a missle. The longer we wait, however, the more likely a full scale nuclear war becomes, if NK is allowed to continue to develop nuclear weapons and missile technology, and sell both the devices and the technology to the highest bidder. StuRat 18:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I will support Dirvd opinions. The US supports Israel to an excessive extent. [kj_venus]

Of course you will. Especially the absolutely absurd, ridiculous notion of Israel being a "rogue state". In what sense is Israel a "rogue state"? How does Israel pose a threat to anyone? If Israel were a "true" rogue state, why wouldn't it take it's overwhelmingly sophisticated army and vast arsenal of nukes to expand its territory and invade and conquer every one of neighbours? Why? Because Israel has no expansionist ambitions. That's why. Loomis 08:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you live in some parallel world where Israel is not expansionist and poses no threat to anyone? DirkvdM 07:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

They only invade Palestine or their neighbors when they are threatened by terrorism or military action from those places. They also leave as soon as they believe the threat to be reduced. That's not expansionism, that's self-defense. StuRat 18:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Those other places tend to disagree, which is why they attack in the first place. It's a feud. And feuds tend to be hard to end because either side will look at a differnt point in history as a reference to what is the 'normal situation' that needs to be restored. DirkvdM 05:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There's no disagreeing on the fact that Israel withdraws after the conflict is settled. They withdrew from Sinai, Gaza, and, just recently, Lebanon. I expect them to withdraw from Gaza again, once the situation settles down a bit. StuRat 17:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

How about nuking Mexico? Seriously, this is pie-in-the-sky. Hasbro 12:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Legal tender status of Jersey coinage in the UK

After being presented with a Jersey coin whilst doing my shopping (in mainland UK) this afternoon, and requesting it was switched, the sales assistant assured me it was legal tender in the UK. I know that's not the case, and the Sterling Area article confirms this. However, since the Jersey pound is not a separate currency, just a re-issue of coins denominated in pound sterling, for what reason, exactly, is it not legal tender in the UK (in a similar way to French-designed Euro coins are exactly the same currency and accepted exactly the same as German-designed Euro coins)? What would a good comeback have been?! Many thanks, _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 12:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

A good comeback? How about take back this filthy foreign lucre, bignose. As far as I know Channel Isles, Gibraltar even Scottish notes are not legal tender in England due to differing tax systems [1] The main problem is that shops accumulate these coins and they need to be exchanged like all other foreign currencies which costs a small percentage. The best way for the shops to not loose money is to diffuse the coins amongst the populous where the plebs will either take them out of circulation themselves or at least put them in somebody else's slot machines. MeltBanana 15:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps that's the best way not to lose money. But the best way not to loose money...glue it all together ? :-) StuRat 15:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Gah I'm such a pleb I've already corrected defuse and diffuse but I am a homophonaphobe. MeltBanana 15:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Among the populous what? --ColinFine 23:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"Homophobia"

I realize that this question is partially a linguistic one, but as it pertains to a larger degree about sociology, psychology and sexuality, I feel it's more appropriate to ask it here.

I've always had an issue with the term "homophobia" as basically meaning "gay-bashing" or "bigotry towards homosexuals", for two reasons. First, etymologically speaking, it's a rather terrible misnomer. "Homo" is Greek for "sameness", and "phobia" is Greek for fear, therefore, the term "homophobia" would seem to apply to some sort of "fear of sameness", and not at all to bigotry. The other reason I don't like it is because it sort of "sanitizes" this kind of bigotry, by referring to it as a "phobia". A "phobia" is a psychological condition of sorts, and as it almost never refers to a rational fear, but rather to an irrational one, has little to do with hatred. For example, while an claustrophobic may have an irrational "fear" about using an elevator (lift), s/he has no particular hatred towards elevators, and in most cases, would most likely wish s/he didn't have that fear. "Homophobia", as used in the English language just doesn't seem to be any sort of "phobia" at all, in the proper sense of the word.

In any case, just as they say "you can't fight city hall", you can't fight against a term that's been adopted by millions of English speakers, no matter how nonsensical it may seem from an etymological perspective.

My question, therefore is this: Should one, who, while not being bigoted, prejudiced, disrepectful, discriminatory towards, or unnaccepting of homosexuals, and while bearing no ill-will towards or hatred of homosexuls, yet who, nonetheless, can't help but be utterly revolted at the very idea of sexual intimacy between two males, be described as a homophobe? If not, what would be the proper term for that?

I'd be grateful for any possible views as to how to answer this question, as well as any related comments concerning the term "homophobia". Thanks! Loomis 13:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The only way to change meaning of a word in the U.S. is through mass media. For example, "metrosexual" is a common word now - not because anyone knows the definition of the root origins of the word. They just saw it on South Park and adopted it as the cool word of the day. So, if you want a definition of a person who is happy to hang around with gay men, but disgusted by gay sex, you have to get your new word into the media. However, it has to be a cool word. If it is stupid, like "manorexic" (a male anorexic), you'll be lucky to get a sound bite on late night CNN. For me, the word I'd like to change is "child" in phrases like "child sexual abuse". It refers to teenagers as well as children. I feel teenage sexual abuse, teenage pornography, and all of that should be marked as "teen", not "child". I am simply not much offended by an 18 year old boy having sex with a 17 year old girl. I am highly offended if he has sex with a 7 year old girl. Both are "child" sexual abuse. --Kainaw ^(talk) 13:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

There are other examples of -phobias used for a dislike, rather than a fear, let alone a clinical disorder. Phobia#Terms_indicating_prejudice_or_class_discrimination lists some of them. I can't think of a word that distiniguishes the aesthetically based sexual revulsion you described. If it doesn't have to fit a discomfort toward gay sex specifically, sexually repressed or prude might fit the category.---Sluzzelin 14:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The word "homophobia" goes well with the absurd "gay panic defense", where heterosexuals are supposedly so terrified of homosexuals that they react as if their life is in danger, so that, in their diseased minds, they attack the homosexual out of self-defense. Also, other fears of living things, like clowns or cats, could result in the person attacking what they perceive as a danger. However, you're correct in saying that many people dislike homosexuality but don't take any action based on this dislike. Thus, the term differs from others, like "racist", which do not imply that any action was taken against the race in question. StuRat 15:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that "homophobia" is an imprecise term. I do think that it can refer to personal revulsion, even when that revulsion is not accompanied by harmful or discriminatory actions. I think that it is analogous to "racism." That said, I agree with Loomis that the term is an etymological misnomer. However, it is the word generally in use to express a broad range of meanings. Marco polo 16:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%, Kainaw, about the fact that we're in desperate need of a distinction between sexually immature pre-pubescent children, and sexually mature (albeit not necessarily psychologically mature) post-pubescent minors. I've tried to argue that point at least a couple of times here at the RefDesk. It's not that I approve of adults having sexual relations with adolescents, and I definitely disapprove of "teen porn", it's just that I don't find it "sick" for a heterosexual adult male, for example, to be sexually attracted to a 17 year old girl. And if the adult male in question is within a certain age range of the minor, say two or three years, I really don't see all that much inappropriate for a 20-21 year year old guy having a sexual relationship with his 17 year old girlfriend. On the other hand, sexual attraction towards pre-pubescent children is clearly sick.

But this kind of nicely dovetails with my problem with the word "homophobia". Aside from the etymological problem, much more importantly it only leads to the lumping together of otherwise decent guys/girls having the same feelings about homosexuality as those expressed above (ok, I'll quit with the pretense, me!) with all those bigots and gay bashers. The two just aren't the same. It just came to me, but perhaps great example is the fact that I, along with, I would imagine, most other people, just find the image of my parents having sex with each other as completely revolting! Of course I love them no less for it, I'd just rather not think about it! And of course I'd be a total hypocrite for disapproving of it, as otherwise, had they not had a sexual relationship, I'd never exist!

Similarly, labelling all adults who are sexually attracted to minors as "pedophiles', and if they act upon their feelings, as "child sex offenders", regardless of the age of the minor, in the same way unfairly lumps together those truly sick individuals who are attracted to and abuse children, with those other rather healthy individuals who are attracted to sexually mature adult minors.

Let me be clear though, I definitely would not approve of a 32 year old man having sex with a girl half his age. That would be, to say the very least, extremely improper. All I'm saying is that whatever sexual attraction he may have for her, it's a far cry from pedophilia.

As for Kainaw's suggestion that I attempt to coin a term for a decent, accepting person who is nonetheless revolted by the idea of homosexual sex between men, I originally felt that the idea of little-old-me actually accomplishing something like that was astronomically tiny to none. But then I thought about how much wiki is growing day by day into more and more of an institution in pop-culture (I've happened upon no less than half a dozen articles about it in various newspapers, magazines, etc.) that I figured, what the hell? Might as well give it a try. What do I have to lose? Just imagine the thought of little-old-me coining a term that has the potential to one day make it into standard English lexicon!

The problem is, I can't really think of a more proper term to differentiate gay-bashing bigots from regular guys who are just really turned off by the very idea of homosexual intimacy.

What I can say is that the "phobia" part of the term should be replaced by the far more approprite "mis", derived from the Greek misos, meaning "hatred", as in the terms misogyny, misandry and misanthropy. It's the homosexuality part that's giving me trouble. I can't seem to think of a preferably monosyllabic, greek derived word for homosexuality. But I haven't checked a dictionary yet, so I might get lucky and find something suitable. Any suggestions? Lets make it a group effort. That way one day we can all have our tiny little spot in the history of the English language!

But still, I'm not deluded. It's probably just a pipe dream. Thanks to everyone so far, but I'd appreciate as many thoughts as possible on any aspect being discussed here. Loomis 18:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Checked the dictionary. How does "misomophile" sound? Catchy? Mark my words, people! One day you'll find that word in the Oxford English Dictionary! Yeah right...who'm I kidding... :-) Loomis 21:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably not quite euphonious enough to catch on, but best of luck. Btw, is "astronomically tiny" at all related to "microscopically huge"?  :) JackofOz 23:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Since it is probably difficult to redefine a word - how did "gay" get redefined? - you can make up a word to define a person who is not afraid of gays, does not hate gays, does not mind interacting with gays, but has a disgust towards gay sex. Something like phallanalphobia. --Kainaw ^(talk) 21:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You may appreciate this article: Here to Stay. The Jade Knight 05:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, homophobia derives not from "homo" sameness or "homo" man, but rather homo as a short form of homosexual. Homosexophobia might be better, but it's a bit unwieldy. Others have expressed its supposed inability to cover bigotry, instead from a -phobia, meaning fear. But there are terms like Francophobia, Sinophobia, which do cover bigotry against the groups mentioned (French and Chinese). Two alternatives to the adjective homophobic might be "anti-gay", "gay hating", "gay bashing". to the noun homophobia there is heterosexism, which seems to be rather a combo of heterosex and -ism, and anti-homosexualism, and "straight supremacism".

Marketing

1) What are the major differences of environmental scanning under domestic marketing and international marketing?

Read the top of the page and you will see Do your own homework. At the very least, reword the question and don't put the number in front. --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll get on it right away. How many words are required and what's the deadline? Loomis 08:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Flag Desecration Act

My college professor said that there is another way to accomplish the banning of flag desecration by one of the branches of government other than Congress. What is this act and what branch of government can do this? Kari Ruf

I won't be an ass and ask you "Which country's congress are you talking about"? The Congress of the Philippines, The Congress of the Republic of Peru, The National Congress of Brazil, The National Congress of Ecuador, The Congress of the United States? Obviously you're referring to the US Congress. But try to remember that we're not all Americans here.

I suppose, it maaaay be possible for the President, (the executive branch,) pursuant to his power granted by Article II, Section 3 of the US Constitution to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed", may possibly, in conjunction with title 4, Chapter 1, §3 (Use of flag for advertising purposes; mutilation of flag) of the United States Flag Code, issue an "executive order" banning the desecration of the flag. But that's just a spur-of-the-moment-wild guess. I really don't know a whole lot about the intricacies of the US constition. But please, as a special favour, come back to me and tell me what your professor thinks of that guess. Loomis 23:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC) Loomis 23:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

My guess would be the Judicial branch to declare the act of desecrating the flag unconstitutional, even though that would be unconstitutional in itself. Still, that's probably the easiest way to go about that. Pckeffer

I think you've misunderstood the question, Pckeffer. The Supreme Court has already struck down the portion of the law that bans the desecration of the flag, as being a violation of the First Ammendment. It's now legal to burn the American flag. What I believe the questioner was asking was how some branch other than the legislative can constitutionally reinstate a law banning the desecration of the flag. But then again, I could be the one that misunderstood the question. Loomis 01:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The effects of an executive order are limited to the executive branch of the government or where otherwise authorized by Congress. The president can ban flag-burning in government buildings, but he can't ban flag-burning by individuals. I'm sure your professor is referring to the idea of the Supreme Court reversing its previous decision and allowing the ban on flag-burning. -- Mwalcoff 01:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

(Groan) Awwww, don't tell me it was a trick question and I that overthought it! Of course the Supreme Court can reverse its previous position. But that just seemed too obvious. If that's the answer your professor was looking for, well, then, that was a pretty nasty trick s/he pulled. :-) Loomis 01:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Now wait a sec, that doesn't seem right either. Yes, it's true that the US Supreme Court can reverse its decisions, and yes, it's true that the US courts have the power of judicial review. But that only seems to allow them to strike-down unconstitutional law. Once the law is stricken down, it's gone forever. While they can reverse their decision by striking down a law as unconstitutional after having previously upheld it as constitutional, (as they had done by upholding separate but equal legislation in Plessy v. Ferguson, and then reversing that decision by striking down the "separate-but-equal" principle in similar legislation, in Brown v. Board of Education) I can't see how they can do the opposite. I'm pretty sure they can't "un-strike-down" law they had previously stricken down. I believe what would be required would be for congress to re-enact the previously stricken down legislation, have it challenged in court, and this time have the court decide that they hold it to be constitutional. But that would require action by Congress, which is out of the question according to your professor.

Mwalcoff, you said "[t]he effects of an executive order are limited to the executive branch of the government or where otherwise authorized by Congress". Well Congress apparently authorized restrictions on mutilation of the flag in the United States Flag Code I cited above. But I admit, that doesn't seem right either, as it would seem to allow the President to issue an executive order which has been determined by the courts to be in violation of the Bill of Rights. I'm stumped. But please Kari! I'm really curious, and I'd really appreciate it if you came back to me with your prof's "REAL" answer! Loomis 04:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

When the courts "strike down" a law, it doesn't go anywhere. It stays on the books, unenforceable, until it's repealed. Alabama's state constitution still says blacks and whites must go to separate schools. The flag code has never been repealed. If I were to be arrested for burning a flag, it's likely the court would throw out the case right away. But it's theoretically possible that the court could ignore precedent and convict me, and the Supreme Court could rule against me on my appeal.

You are right that executive orders, like all laws, must not violate the Constitution. In addition, the Constitution limits just how much authority Congress can grant the president. So if Congress were to pass a statute to permit the president to ban flag-burning everywhere, that statute would be unconstitutional. As I said before, the president could issue an order regarding protocol for handling the flag on government property, but he couldn't issue an order telling a private citizen what he or she can do with the flag in his or her house. -- Mwalcoff 05:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I'm no US Constitutional Law expert. I seem to have been applying my understanding of Canadian Constitutional Law and the Canadian variation of Judicial Review to that of the US. There appear to be some subtle differences. In Canada, when a law is struck down as unconstitutional, it is deemed to be "of no force or effect". I hadn't realized that the same was not true with American Judicial Review. In Canada, a law that is deemed by the courts to be "of no force or effect" is pretty much dead. Should a lower court encounter the law, it's not a mere matter of following precedent, which is so often ignored or worked around, but far more powerfully, it becomes a matter of of enforcing a law that the Supreme Court of Canada has deemed to be "of no force or effect". Therefore, no court can legally reconsider the constitutionality of the law. The law is dead. Apparently, unlike the US Supreme Court, while the Supreme Court of Canada may have the power to "kill" a law, it apparently does not have the power to bring it back to life. Loomis 08:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Holiday

What is the Day of the Race, which falls on October 12th 2006?

"Día de la Raza" seems to be a Latin American equivalent of Columbus Day. From the Columbus Day talk page:

"According to Spanish Wikipedia, this date is official at least in 4 Hispanic American countries:

Uruguay,as "Día de las Américas", since 1915.

Venezuela, as "Día de la Raza" from 1921 to 2002, when President Hugo Chávez change :the name to "Día de la Resistencia Indígena".

Chile, as "Dia de la Raza" from 1923 to 2000. President Ricardo Lagos renamed it as "Día del Descubrimiento de Dos Mundos".

Mexico, since 1928 as "Día de la Raza"." ---Sluzzelin 16:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Universities in Vermont

Hi guys, can anyone tell me about universities and/or colleges or technical schools in Vermont?...and make special emphasis on the 'hyspanic friendly' ones?. and also,about possible scholarships for non-residents and non-sport players?. (specifically for computer software engineering, but it can be for anything) before american wikipedians start hating me for asking about scholarships in their country, I have to say I'm just wondering. --Cosmic girl 16:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Scan the articles in Category:Universities and colleges in Vermont and its subcategories...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I live not far from Vermont, and while I don't know about specific scholarships, I have some sense of the geographic and academic landscape. Vermont is a small and mostly rural state. It has long, cold, and snowy winters, which are great if you like to ski, but maybe not so great otherwise. Because it is a small state, most of its colleges and universities are small. Many probably do not have computer software engineering programs. The largest college or university is certainly the University of Vermont, located in Vermont's largest city, Burlington, which has a population of about 39,000. On the other hand, a well-endowed college such as Middlebury College, may have more money for scholarships. As for "Hispanic-friendly," if that is important to you, I wonder why you would choose Vermont. Vermont has the lowest Hispanic population of any state, numbering fewer than 7,000 total. It has the second-lowest percentage of Hispanics of any state. You could probably fit every Hispanic student in any of the state's colleges or universities in a single room. Vermont has a reputation for being liberal and progressive, so you probably won't find too much outright prejudice as a Hispanic person. On the other hand, you will not have many fellow Hispanic students. Marco polo 18:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I live in Vermont, work for a technology company which is the state's largest private employer, and my wife just graduated from UVM last year. With that said, I don't think that you'd have any issue at all finding a college or university that has a software engineering degree program. Middlebury College is probably the least likely to have one though as it's more of a liberal arts college from what I gather. I haven't spent much time talking with anyone who went to Middlebury, so that's why I'm a bit shakey on that one. I would say your best bets are UVM, Vermont Technical College, or Champlain College. All three work closely with IBM to educate employees. In fact, if you were to get even just an entry level job with IBM, they would basically send you to school for whatever you want in the software field. That's what I'll be doing and I know many other people who have gone to school "on IBM's dime". So that might aleviate your concerns about getting a scholarship. That way all you have to do is get a job!  :-) Oh, and don't worry about having a harder time getting a job because you aren't a U.S. citizen. There are many employees that I work with who aren't U.S. citizens. As well as some who have become naturalized citizens while working there. As Marco polo said though, Vermont is one of the least diverse states in the country as far as ethnicity is concerned. There isn't a lot of bias or prejudice though, especially in the Burlington area. I could go on, but I won't here unless you have further questions since I think I covered what you asked about. If you want to talk more about Vermont, I'd be happy to try and answer any questions you may have. Just leave a message on my talk page. Dismas|^(talk) 22:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

thank u guys. =)--Cosmic girl 00:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

TV sets

When I was a kid, TV's were part of a big piece of furniture. What happened?66.213.33.2 17:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? That they're less stylish now, or smaller, or something? The trend is towards making them blend in with the rest of the room, rather than standing out as a huge box in the middle of it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me expand on my question: Until about 1970, a TV was part of a piece of wood (or fake wood) furniture. It was a long console, with legs. On the console were speakers and big knobs. I don't think any such TV is for sale today. What happened to the idea of the TV as a piece of furniture? 66.213.33.2 18:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Furntiure styles have changed, sheek silver objects are fashionable, fake wood is not. And you can put tvs in tv cabinets, which I think may be what you are reffering too, as I have never seen a wooden TV. TVs still have speakers, but technology outdated the need for knobs etc. So just because the wold has moved since the 70s doesnt mean that a televisions status has changed. Philc _T^E_C^I 18:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm know I'm really showing my age here, but Phil, I don't think you have the same image of "wooden TVs" as the questioner does. They aren't the type you can put into a cabinet, but were actually, stand-alone pieces of furniture. It's hard to describe. Just think of a coffee table, standing on four legs, only somewhat higher and with a somewhat smaller surface. Underneath, there would be a TV screen. I'll try to find a pic for you. (Sorry Marco...I hadn't scrolled down to realize that you said basically the same thing). Loomis 00:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think TV's were ever considered furniture. They probably needed the room for all the clunky parts. Clarityfiend 20:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

TVs certainly were considered furniture. I remember exactly the object that the person asking the question is talking about. It was was not a TV cabinet. The TV screen was encased in a wooden frame and could not be separated from that frame without using tools. Perhaps I am the only person posting here born before 1970. Lol. My guess is that when they were first introduced in the late 1940s and 1950s, TVs were unfamiliar objects. Marketers wanted people to feel comfortable putting them in living rooms. Before TVs existed, living rooms were formal rooms where the family kept their best furniture. Sometimes living rooms were used only for company on special occasions. For the TV to fit into that environment, it had to look like the other elements of that environment: formal, wooden furniture. Since the 1960s, the concept of the living room has changed, and the TV has become a familiar object. Therefore, it no longer needs wooden casing. In fact, the wooden casing would look out of place in a modern living room, where wood has largely given way to metal, plastic, and synthetic fabrics. Marco polo 20:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Prior to TVs, radios and phonographs were also sometimes built-in to a large piece of wooden furniture. The problem with this, as I see it, is that the electrical device is likely to need replacement before the furniture. This means either the furniture must be thrown out, or continue to be used as furniture, even though the electrical device inside is either broken or obsolete. So, all in all, it seems to make more sense to purchase electronic devices and furniture separately. Another issue is the weight, which can be so great as to require a moving crew, while the separate items could be moved (with some difficulty) by the consumer. StuRat 20:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

True, StuRat, the manufactures of these beautifully antiquated devices recognized the potentially fatal techno-flaw that the electrical devices within the "wooden box" would wear out before the structure itself. However, some brilliant mind in their marketing division was also savvy enough to realize the lucrative benefits of breaking apart the mechanism, only to remarket the pieces into two seperate, but necessary purchases (the television + the entertainment unit/stand/etc.) Unfortunately, for the original inquirer and the remaining handful who miss the old style television sets (myself included), I regret to inform you, that although many of the morphing newer technologies that have surfaced on the market (cellphones with mp3/blah/blah/camera/blah/blah) there is nothing to support a reintro retro-style consolidation of the those two (tv + furniture)items again. But you must admit,it isn't necessarily a bad thing if you're into minimalistic design...and, it's got to be more environmentally friendly...i mean, at least now when a TV goes bad, the plastic parts that enclose the electronic equip. can be recycled, right?

Also, the ratio of prices has changed. It used to be that the TV costed so much, and wooden furniture was so cheap, that encasing a TV in wood would only increase the price by 10%. Now, however, TVs are so cheap and furniture is so expensive that you might triple the cost of a TV by encasing it in a nice wooden cabinet. StuRat 20:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is a good example of a television of the past that was designed as a piece of furniture. It's also a good example of the inevitable fate of such television sets.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  05:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is it still called a "set" when it is one appliance with one on-off switch, one power cord, and one case? I do not have a microwave set, a radio set, or a computer set. 1942 was about the last year (in the U.S) that people bought a shortwave/FM radio to pick up the sound and a separate video receiver, constituting a "set." If you hate TV and refuse to allow one in your house, I suppose you own the null set: $\emptyset \subseteq A$.Edison 13:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

And if you take the innards out of your TV, do you have an empty set ? StuRat 20:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Soviet recognition of Irish Republic

According to some Wikipedia articles British Isles (terminology), Irish Republic and Imperial Crown of Russia, Lenin's Russia was the only country to recognize the Irish republic. However i cant find any other sources mentioning this. Only answers.com mentions it and it cites wikipedia. can anyone find a source or should these sections be deleted? Ken 18:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, answers.com is essentially a mirror of Wikipedia, so Wikipedia is still the only place you've found this putative fact. - Nunh-huh 19:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Bowyer Bell's "The Secret Army: The IRA" mentions (footnote #11, p38, 3rd ed) "The only result of the diplomatic campaign was recognition by Soviet Russia, felt to be a mixed blessing by many of the more pious members of Sinn Féin.". But O'Connor in "Communists, Russia, and the IRA, 1920-1923" (The Historical Journal, 46, 1, 2003, p115-131) says that a recognition treaty was drafted, but "While the Russians were keen on a treaty in 1920, President Éamon de Valera hesitated, apprehensive about the impact on the bigger prize of winning recognition from the USA. When he finally decided to send McCartan to Moscow, the Soviets had gone cold on ties with the republic, for fear of jeopardizing trade negotiations with Britain.". (McCartan being their envoy to Russia). So it seems it didn't actually happen in the end. --BluePlatypus 23:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but looking at the Irish Republic article, it's not quite wrong either - as it seems to base its claim on the fact that they loaned money to Russia. The O'Conner article does confirm that much. I guess you could consider that an informal kind of recognition. But it should at least be clarified. --BluePlatypus 16:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Irish Republic didn’t come along until at least 1937, maybe 49. In 1921, all they had was Irish Free State. martianlostinspace 13:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Read the article, Your mixing up the Irish Republic and the Republic of Ireland Ken 22:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Developing Nuclear Weapons

1. I'm wondering why a country needs to develop nuclear weapons over 50 years after their first use. Couldn't they have stolen the relevant designs in this time? What could be so complicated about developing a nuclear weapon? In a movie I saw, the radioactive material was blown down to critical mass using a coating of regular explosive - isn't that how it's done?

2. If nuclear power was more widely adopted, how long would it take to deplete the earth's supply of suitable material? In the event of a failure to develop other sources of energy before the depletion of fossil fuels, would countries turn to dismanteling their weapons for more radioactive ore?

3. How likely is North Korea likely to launch missiles at the US and if it does, what other countries are likely to suffer casualties? Should I be worried or will the politicians take care of it? Wont missile defense systems destroy any undesirable missiles on route? --Username132 (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Not very, largely because North Korea would be obliterated by the US counter-strike (the US some 10,000 nuclear weapons). Other than North Korea, the closest countries (China, South Korea, and Japan) would suffer the most from fallout. StuRat 19:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes but is the fact that both parties would suffer enough to stop it from happening? And when I asked about other casualties, I meant would other countries become involved (e.g. UK)? --Username132 (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Possibly Japan and South Korea would also be attacked by North Korea. China might also attack North Korea and set up a puppet regime there. StuRat 20:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You want your bomb to definately not be in danger of exploding under normal conditions, and to definately explode when recquired. This recquires more than just coating it with explosives, you have to understand the physics of it in order to be sure it will work etc. Modern Hydrothermic Nuclear weapons use standard atomic weapons to force hydrigen isotopes (probably dueterium and tritium) together which creates a far far larger explosion (in the region of tens of thousands times larger than hiroshima). This is more complex than coating a lump of uranium in nitroglycerene or something.

Also there are the political reasons, if you show that you have the capability to build and develop your own, its shows a far more advanced military, than one that can just steal and copy plans, as it means they also have the capability to develop further weapons, possibly leading to an arms race. And testing them is necesary to prove you have them. E.g. if Zimbabwe just announced it had nuclear weapons, people would just say prove it. Philc _T^E_C^I 18:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

PS, why do people insist on posting above replies that were there before theirs (sturat) Philc _T^E_C^I 19:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

In this case I had an edit conflict, so put my comment where I originally wrote it to go. In many other cases, I have a short answer, so put that in front of some long, rambling answer or non-answer (since, after reading all that, the reader will likely have forgotten the original question). StuRat 20:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

If you are really worried of a Nuclear War you might consider moving to Antartica, as that place is propably not a entry in the targetlist's (you will have to worry about freezing to death and skincancer though). You can also build a Nuclear bomb shelter in your backyard and practice Duck and cover alot, to give yourself a better chance of survival. Either way, the politicians won't save you from Nuclear missiles allready airborne ("Should I be worried or will the politicians take care of it?"). LOL Flamarande 20:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping the politicians would take care of it before the missiles get airborne... --Username132 (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Well to give my best answers 1) Mostly fissionable material. Exact schematics are probably hard to come by, but it's quite possible the DPRK could have aquired them at some point in the past when they were on better terms with China or the USSR. 2) Not nearly long enough. It would also be a desperate measure, since it's exponentially more expensive to refine fissionable material to a weapon-grade level than a power-plant level. 3) North Korea probably can't hit the mainland US at the moment. South Korea and Japan aren't so lucky. But the whole nuke issue and missile defenses is rather moot. Practically all of South Korea, with a dense population of 50 million is within range of conventional artillery from the North Korean border. A border which is completely stacked with camoflaged and fortified artillery, some of which may have chemical or biological shells. An attack from either side, nukes or no, is still likely to generate casualties numbered in millions even if the conflict is quickly resolved. When two people are holding guns to eachother's heads, does it really matter if it's a .45 or 'just' a 9mm? --BluePlatypus 22:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd strongly disagree with your answer too 2, firstly I fail to see how there can be an exponential increase, with only to data points (weapons grade and power plant grade) also nuclear power is more than enough considering how much uranium there is in the world, and that we need a couple of kilos every year to put a coal power station that burns millions of tonnes (and for the record, produces more radioactive waste, in the form of carbon isotope emmissions) Nuclear power is the only viable solution to our energy needs, and cracking fusion will once and for all solve our needs considering 98% of the universe is made up of nuclear fission fuel. Philc _T^E_C^I 22:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Although I didn't mean 'exponentially' in the strict mathematical sense, there are a lot more than just two data points. (Duh.) What I'm talking about is that the amount of refinement required does not increase linearly with the required concentration of the heavy isotope. The 90% level you need for a bomb does not require 30x the work it takes to get the 3% level you need for a power plant. (At least double that, I think) As for the rest of your answer, maybe you need to go back and read closer. (I'm not saying that we're going to run out of fissionable material soon.) But the universe sure as hell isn't 98% fissionable material. --BluePlatypus 23:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Gutted, what a gay typo, I meant fusion, I have changed it, 98% of the universe is hydrogen and helium, which is fusionable. Philc _T^E_C^I 17:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles you should read: nuclear weapon, nuclear weapon design, nuclear proliferation, nuclear power. --Robert Merkel 01:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

HM Prison Service

I was wondering if criminals in the UK are used to perform unpaid labour? If not, would this not enable some self-suffiency of the prison system so we wouldn't be forced to keep releasing criminals early and giving such short sentences for horrendous crimes? --Username132 (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not clear who you mean by the 'we' who are 'forced to keep releasing criminals early and giving such short sentences for horrendous crimes'. The US and UK, just for instance, have some of the highest incarceration rates in the world. And 'used to perform unpaid labour' is a pretty obvious euphemism for 'slavery'. Cheers, Sam Clark 19:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Laws against involuntary servitude do not apply to convicts according the the US constitution. 71.100.6.152 22:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. According to s.1 of the 13th Ammendment, (the one that finally banned slavery) involuntary servitude is prohibited "...except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted..." Just curious though, what does "HM" mean in this context? Loomis 00:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"HM" in this context means "Her Majesty's...". --Canley 01:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The US Constitution is not the last word in the definition of slavery. The fact that the 13th amendment excludes convicts from its prohibition of forced labour doesn't mean that such labour is not slavery. And even if it did, that wouldn't apply anywhere else in the world. Cheers, Sam Clark 10:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There are several problems such a system would create:

1) What do you do to prisoners who refuse to comply ?

2) This free source of labor undercuts the workers who were currently doing the job. For example, if you use prisoners to build roads, then whoever was being used to build roads loses their job.

3) This introduces corruption by leaving prison wardens in charge of a valuable resource (free labor), frequently with little oversight to prevent them from selling it to the highest bidder and pocketing the cash.

4) The cost of imprisonment is currently a limitation on the number of prisoners that can be kept incarcerated (as you had noted). Without this limit politicians wanting to seem "tough on crime" are likely to pass mandatory life imprisonment for minor crimes, like possession of tiny quantities of marijuana or parents with a pic of their kid in the bathtub. StuRat 19:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Re question 1) see Cool Hand Luke and the rhetorical statement "What we got here--is a failure to COMMUNICATE." The resulting consequences would motivate the recalcitrant prisoner to comply.Edison 04:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

See The Shawshank Redemption for an example of number three. Anchoress 13:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Barking dogs

Why do dogs bark at and chase bicycles? Is it canine neurosis oe what? 71.100.6.152 22:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It's more than likely caused by the fact that they're hunters and something that moves quickly could be thought of as prey. Dismas|^(talk) 22:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

But barking at prey seems counter intuative. Barking at an enemy yes but not at prey. 71.100.6.152 23:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I notice a great variation in the responses of the dogs that I meet as I cycle along the canal towpath in the morning. Some are highly exciteable (and usually held firmly by their owners until I have passed); others are completely uninterested, and don't even look up from whatever they are sniffing. I tend to assume that the 'barkers' are distressed; but I don't actually know. --ColinFine 23:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that this is the answer, but as a point of comparison, my dog barks at people she likes. The more she likes a person, the more she barks at her/him. Unfortunately, rather than being flattered, most of the objects of her affection feel threatened. Anchoress 23:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Some dogs are instinctive herders, and a bike may seem like a large ungulate in need of direction.Edison 23:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't take this harshly, Anchoress, but your dog is weird. :-) Seriously, it may not be about hunting prey, but rather protecting the dog's territory and "pack" (its master and his/her family). Dogs very often bark when the postman comes, as they see him/her as a stranger "invading" its territory and "threatening its pack". Perhaps they continue chasing and barking in a sort of "go away and don't come back!" sort of way. But I'm no animal psychologist, so my guess is probably way out in left-field. Loomis 00:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The difficulty with protecting the pack against territory invasion is that I know dogs that bark while behind a privacy fence at just the sound of a bicycle riding down the road and in many cases if you stop riding and get off the bicycle and stnd your ground the dog with stop baking and maybe even lie down. Its only when you try to move that the dog will getup and start barking again. Could dogs simply be control freaks? 71.100.6.152 08:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No harm no foul, lol. Seriously, she is weird. She also submissive pees for lesbians. Anchoress 00:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Your dog is not only weird but probably gay. 71.100.6.152 08:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"in many cases if you stop riding and get off the bicycle and stnd your ground the dog with stop baking" Dog biscuits?Edison 13:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Having some along might help with a timely escape. On the other hand... hummm... maybe the dog is more interested in making you part of his/her pack. In any event several hits with a sprayer filed with HN3 may permanently discourage chasing in only a few days. 71.100.6.152 17:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

On a trip around the block to test a new odometer I passed a house with a large Germany Sheppard in the yard. There was an elderly lady on the front stoop. The dog looked up when it heard the noise from the sensor being misaligned but went back to sniffing the ground. On the second pass I was busy monitoring the display but heard the lady make a comment to the dog. It apparently may have been headed for me. Consequently I now assume that whatever a dog does is merely a reflection of the mind set of its owner. Owners who do not regard other people as dog food don't let there dogs bark at and chase other people and the dog knows better than to do it. 71.100.6.152 12:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

2 Questions

1) I'm looking for information on class structure during Elizabethan times. I would appreciate any sources for information, but not straight answers. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabethan article seems to lack any sort of similar information.

2) Out of curiosity, does anyone happen to know of any seemingly meaningless or effectless laws involving immigration into the United States, such as 'no spitting on the sidewalk in Lincoln Nebraska'?

P.S. I know I suck at html, so sue me.

I don't get the connection between an ordinance against spitting in Lincoln, Nebraska, and immigration. I'm probably missing something. Loomis 00:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The questioner wants to know if there are any immigration laws that we (in modern times) think are silly. If you lived in Lincoln 200 years ago and everyone was spitting their tobacco juice on the dirt sidewalk making the town a sticky and muddy mess, you wouldn't think the law was silly at all. --Kainaw ^(talk) 00:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe so, but I'm with Loomis on this. What does that have to do with immigration? Is the OP talking about newly arrived immigrants being subject to deportation if they spit on the sidewalk in Lincoln Nebraska? Why would a law prohibiting public expectoration not apply to the general populace, not just immigrants? Or are there different sanctions against native-born people? What am I missing here? JackofOz 02:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the questioner typed immigration when he meant legislation. Kainaw provided the correct answer (which is quite interesting!). Hyenaste ^(tell) 02:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I kinda doubt that. That would turn "laws involving immigration into the United States" into "laws involving legislation into the US", which has no meaning for me. No, the writer seems to have a very good command of English, and has worded his question carefully. I think I understand it now. A law about immigration to the USA that happened to include a provision prohibiting spitting on a Nebraska sidewalk would indeed be a meaningless and ineffective law. He's asking if we know of any examples of such crazy laws. I know a few crazy laws, but none of them are laws about immigration to the US. JackofOz 02:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Or possibly he meant stupid laws concerning immigration, then provided an example of an unrelated stupid law for clarification. Hyenaste ^(tell) 02:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that's probably it. Unfortunately I can't think of any. Loomis 04:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I will attempt and fail to tackle the question on Elizabethan class structure. Here is what you do: Go to your local public library and get a recent annotated copy of the works of Shakespeare, with a chapter or two of academic discussion in the front of the book, or a book on the times of Shakespeare or the Elizabethan period. Skim the academic discussion until you get to the part about class. See what your book has to say about it. That's a start. But, more importantly, check its references to other sources, which should be listed in the bibliography in the back. Those sources will offer more detailed information on class in that period. You may find some of the sources in your local public library, but you might have to go to a university library. If you are in the United States, public universities (state universities) will usually give you access to their collection, but not borrowing privileges. But they do have copy machines. Marco polo 00:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hyenaste is correct, but I don't want Shakespeare's fictional, bourgeois terms of class relations. Something more realistic instead.