Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 October 6

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.

Attributive Monism & Pantheism

Is there a relation between the two ? And to what extent is attributive monism actual --Hhnnrr 00:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC) ?

Something is either actual or it isn't. I can't see how it could be a matter of degree. JackofOz 01:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

True, but if you asked me "to what extent is the danger of drowning in a bath actual" and I replied 100% you might get the wrong impression even though it is literally true. BTW the Monism#Monism, Pantheism, and Panentheismdescribes the relationship between Monism and Pantheism. -- Chris Q 14:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I assume either there is such a thing as "attributive monism", or there is no such thing. If it exists, it's 100% actual, but if it doesn't, it's 0% actual. JackofOz 21:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Help about the UN!

With 191 member states and a bureaucracy built over 60 years, but with waning support, is the United Nations still a viable organization? --Longhornsg 01:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it ever was. Look at its track record for starters. Most of their missions are too late or don't accomplish anything, as in Sudan, Rwanda, and North Korea. The fact that each nation in theory has the same voting power (excluding the veto powers) means that Luxembourg (population of 465,000) has the same votes (one) as India (1,103,371,000 people). Does that make sense? I don't think so.

Most of the time the UN just debats things but doesn't come to a resolution as in the case of the Israel - Hezbollah war this past summer. In fact, I remember reading that the US of A doesn't even pay their membership dues anymore. Most countries just use the UN as a political forum to attack each other. --The Dark Side 02:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Support is only waning from those who disagree with whatever decision the organization has just made. One year the U.S. can call it a hopeless bureacracy while Venezuela issues statements of praise, and the next year the opposite can happen. Over the whole history of the UN, I believe Indonesia is the only country that has ever voluntarily withdrawn (and they were back a year later.) If it was really faltering, we'd already have a rival organization in Caracas or Khartoum. As for the missions it undertakes, they are generally successful, in my opinion. The failures (eg, Srebrenica) get all the news, while the thousands (if not millions) of lives and several nations saved aren't boisterously trumpeted as successes. Although many Americans hate it, I, at least, actually see it as reasonably successful and still viable (and much better at resolving conflict, than, say the Arab League or the Non-Aligned Movement.) After all, Seoul, Monrovia, and so on might not exist without it, and maybe neither would the U.S. and (former) U.S.S.R. Picaroon9288 02:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The UN is a damn site better than the League of Nations and kicked ass in the Korean War. The veto power given to the World War II victors is getting kind of stale, like if the 13 original US states of 220 years ago could veto any legislation at the federal level or any Supreme Court rulings. The US has right wingers who have wanted us out of the UN for 50 years. They fear One World government, where Cuba or Somalia has the same vote as the U.S. and a majority of itty bitty dictatorships or puppet states could vote to take away our wealth and give it to third world countries. The world economic system is currently accomplishing that, as witness how much of the U.S debt is held by China, and how many jobs in the U.S are held by Mexicans or Indians (via telecommuting). The U.N is still presently the best alternative to naked aggression and might makes right, via collective security. Edison 04:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You guys seem to think the UN is only about military intervention. That would be the US, not the UN. :) The UN is about loads of things, mostly creating international cooperation with (among other things) the goal of preventing armed conflicts from starting in the first place.

About all members having the same voting right, that indeed makes no sense for an actual government (such as in the UK with its counties and the US with its states), but this is not (yet!) a government. It's a cooperation between indxependent nations. If the US want more voting right they should split up into separate countries (a move I would truly applaud for its improved democracy among other things). DirkvdM 19:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to imply that it was only about military intervention; UNICEF (apparently) works pretty well also. Then again, how many UNICEF missions would you estimate have gone to their warzones/faminezones without weapons? Zero, methinks! (Oh, and I second that thing about breaking my country up. I'd applaud it too.) Picaroon9288 20:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

As the greatest empire, regarding international impact, ever known to mankind, history teaches us that the country quite possibly will break up by itself sooner or later... All great empires before it has collapsed... 惑乱 分からん 00:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The worst part about the UN is how it refuses to act until it's too late, as in the Rwanda genocide. In the case of the Iraq Oil for Food program, the UN seemed mainly interested in enriching it's officials (like Kofi Annan's son) by violating the agreement. StuRat 01:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Rwanda is probably UN's biggest failure in modern time. The appearance of the Bosnian camps also was a failure... 惑乱 分からん 10:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Calling Rwanda a UN "failure" is one hell of an understatement, considering its magnitude (800,000 dead) and relative preventability of it, in comparison to certain other far less bloody, far more complex and far less clear-cut instances of the failure of a third-party to prevent a tragedy from occuring, where some of the figures involved were indeed charged by some to be war criminals. Some would go so far as to charge Kofi Anan as a war criminal for his deliberate inaction, if only the political sensibilities of the powers-that-be were any different. Loomis 12:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I once heard someone call the Israeli-Palestinian issue the "UN's baby". It's one of the first things they were involved in, and they have passed many resolutions on it. Rwanda, Congo, Darfur are more neglected children.

I think (but who am I :)) the main problem is that the UN not only needs to decide on doing something, it needs people to execute an order, and therefore a country sending troops. I think many politicians see a UN mission in a dangerous region like a game you can only lose. Ask a random Belgian about the Rwanda genocide. The first thing he might say is "10 Belgians soldiers got killed there?", ask him how many Rwandans died and he probably won't know. So (but again that's what I think) that that is why many nations either send no troops, or troops with a pretty worthless mandate. Evilbu 14:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, they would have had to take offensive action, and perhaps kill a few thousand people to save the lives of hundreds of thousands. This is not something the UN seems ever willing to do. StuRat 19:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

That is changing in the Congo, though, where the guy in charge of the UN forces (a Dutchman - forgot his name) has decided to not wait for orders and go head to head with any destructive forces, at the same time giving them an option of amnesty (a stick without a carrot, but not too spiky a stick either). The UN aren't too happy about it, but they're not stopping him either. Probably to see if his approach will be more successfull. Like I said so many times before, the UN is a worldwide social experiment. How can you expect it to work instantly? And in historical terms a century is pretty instant for such a major change to take place. Those who think peace through worldwide cooperation could work (maybe even in our lifetimes!?) might be dreamers, but those who are not willing to try it are cowards who don't care about their offspring. DirkvdM 06:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

So just how many centuries (and Rwandas and Darfurs) should we give the UN before we give up on them and put our trust in something like NATO, which has actually shown the ability to act, as in the former Yugoslavia ? StuRat 00:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Shhhh, Stu! NATO's operation in the former Yugoslavia was against international law! It was WRONG! And Slobidan should still be in power, albeit under the most strenuous of UN sanctions. What better way to let a dictator stall for eternity while his people suffer?

Ok, here's a compromise: How about we let the UN last until WWIII, the same way we let the League of Nations last until WWII. Seems fair. No? Loomis 02:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The idea of the UN is that it is neutral. Several languages. They've got their own stamp. Their (I can't believe I just wrote that:( )headquarters is technically not in the USA.... NATO was established to counter the USSR. It doesn't even try to appear neutral. And are you all that happy about NATO bombing Serbia? Milosevic was a dictator and he was ousted after the war. If you are saying NATO helped doing that, then that can only be interpreted as saying their "collective punishment" was a good strategy. Leskovac might prove that.Evilbu 21:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Being neutral on genocide is not a good thing. Since the UN is unable and unwilling to do anything to prevent genocide (except pass resolutions and weak sanctions), an organization that will do what it takes is needed. And yes, war can be called "collective punishment". When the citizens of a country decide that conquering their neighbors and engaging in genocide is a good plan, then nothing short of the collective punishment of war will likely convince them otherwise. If you think UN sanctions would have stopped Serbia, or the Rwandan genocide, or the Cambodian genocide of Pol Pot, you are utterly wrong. StuRat 00:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

NATO is the old way. That has been tried for centuries (milennia, millions of years?). It obviously doesn't work to stop wars, because they are still being waged. If we have any desire to stop wars, then complete international cooperation has to be the only way (a world dictatorship would not last long enough). And the UN is the only working example of that at the moment. Given the milennia (or whatever) that the old way has had its chance, half a century is a bit short to call this off, isn't it? And the Congo example shows the UN is flexible enough to learn from its mistakes. DirkvdM 06:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"[NATO] obviously doesn't work to stop wars, because they are still being waged". You're forgetting that NATO is only a regional alliance. NATO is great example of effective international cooperation, for, unlike the UN, to my knowledge there has never been any war between NATO members. A conflict in say, Darfur or Rwanda is way outside of NATO's self-proclaimed mandate, but well within the UN's. Loomis 09:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point, because NATO is smaller and more regional, as you say, they are more efficient, but less "fair" and therefore less accepted as a neutral power that can intervene. By the way, while NATO members don't go to war with each other... Imia/Kirdak was pretty close.Evilbu 11:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What's that ? StuRat 03:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

name of a music

what is the name of a music that in the music video of this music, there is bow wow, and another boy and that call lingerie womans to dance, and they see they dancing.

I will certainly watch for it.Edison 04:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to the rapper "Bow Wow"? 惑乱 分からん 07:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

yes, they are going to school and after they leave the car of their mom, they go to many places of the city (but not to school) to have fun, so when they see lingerie store, they think about writing on papers, to lingirie girls to come to a studio to see they see the girls dancing in lingerie. I think that the music is remix of another music.

Actually, I prefer Bow Wow Wow... ;) 惑乱 分からん 00:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually Ido know which you mean but I don't think it was Bow Wow but a remake of an old song. the song+artists are:

Max Graham Vs. Yes - Owner of a lonely heart. Graendal 17:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks (PS: you are right that didnt is bow wow??? I have to see this music movie again again.) yes its bow wow, i saw the video again.

Musical Coincidence?

Is it just me or does the song When A Man Loves A Woman by Percy Sledge have a uncanny similarity with A Whiter Shade of Pale by Procol Harum? The bass in When... kind of matches up with the piano in Whiter... RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck

It's not just you. Both songs are in D major and are played at the same tempo, so they sound similar. Your sig is waaaay too long, btw - try to keep it to one line. See WP:SIG. Natgoo 10:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The similarity in chord progression is noted here. Unless you wrote that line, there's someone else out there who too noticed this.  --Lambiam^Talk 13:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Knife Law in California

Hello,

I am 17 years old and I live in Sunnyvale, California. My friend (18) gave me a CRKT folding knife with a 3.5" blade. It is not a switchblade - I'm pretty sure those are illegal anywhere in CA.

The knife has a belt clip. My friend told me that the knife is not considered a concealed weapon as long as the clip is hanging out of my pocket (i.e. looking at my pocket, you can only see the belt clip of the knife — the knife itself is concealed).

As much as I'd like to carry the blade for self-defense, I would like to know: a) is it really considered unconcealed if the belt clip is showing? b) is it legal for me to carry the knife as a minor?

I would appreciate any responses. Thanks, K. --24.6.242.154 05:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not give legal advice. That said, you could contact the local police and ask them - what weapons are legally carryable, and by whom, are a topic of considerable interest to them and it's consequently an area of law on which they're likely to be expert.

Beyond that, might I gently suggest to you that whatever the legality of carrying your knife, it's a very bad idea. Even ignoring my personal belief that the general carriage of weapons makes a community more prone to violence, knives are not particularly useful self-defence weapons. From what I've read, pepper spray is a much more effective self-defence weapon. It may not be quite as manly as carrying around that big knife, but if your purpose is really self-defence rather than intimidation or impressing your buddies, I'd go with the spray, not least for the reason that because it's not likely to kill or maim your attacker you're not likely to hesitate when using it. --Robert Merkel 07:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Also see karate.--Shantavira 08:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

In California, there are a wide range of places where it is illegal to carry a blade longer than 2.5". All schools at every level, for example. Government buildings of various sorts. Don't bother with a knife for self defense unless you've been trained at using it. There's the no rules in a knife fight scenario, too (see Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid for a practical demonstration.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Using a knife as selfdefense can make the situation unnecessarily escalete. If you are worried about your security try avoiding dangerous places or other forms of preventive measures. In many states, if you kill someone despise of having the chance to run, you can end up some years in prison.

And if a person gets killed or seriously wounded in the process, and you get caught (because of witnesses, surveillance, DNA or whatever) I think you'd have to prove that the measures were necessary for your own safety. (I.e. you were at risk to be murdered, raped or something to that extent.) I think that would be hard to prove in court, generally. 惑乱 分からん 17:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore: is Sunnyvale so a dangerous place? Have you ever thought of other selfdefense methods? (spray, special shoes, carry-on alarm)

If it's a typo for Sunnydale, California, you'd better carry a stake. ;) 惑乱 分からん 20:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

As a professional chef and an escrima student, I'll tell you right now that the idea of self-defense with a knife, in untrained hands, is moot from the get go. Ask any chef apprentice or house wife how many times they have cut themselves in the kitchen before 'knife awareness' starts to develop. It took me about 3 months of cutting 10 litre buckets of chicken stock veg, and 25 pounds of frozen squid tubes, 6 days a week, before the various scars on my hand healed up fully. Relating this to my escrima training, I can't count the many times I have fell on, or struck myself, my own rattan stick, which is representation for an actual machete or knife. Under the best of circumstances and controlled environment, such as a kitchen, you're going to cut yourself. Placed in a chaotic situation such as a knife fight on the street, and you're as likely to have your own knife stick into your gut. Take Robert Merkel advice and either use pepper spray, or don't place yourself into those situations in the first place.--Ctdahl 13:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of all the above, be sure and show your knife to your friends, and let them handle it. Having an extra set of fingerprints or two on it will be useful.

Just make sure you don't hand it to them sharp-end first.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  03:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Indigenous people of the Aleutians Islands

Is there a conflict concering fishing rights in the Bering Straits by indigenous (Inuit?) people who do not recogonize this international border that is causing friction throught a U.S. and Republic of Russia treaty?

I'm not sure about friction or a treaty, but the indigenous people of the Aleutian Islands are the Aleuts. Marco polo 15:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The biggest city in the Aleutian Islands is Unalaska, so that article might mention fishing rights. StuRat 01:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

actually the indigenous people there indeed do not recognise the borders but they are according to the common international fishing treaty's (almost exactly like the EU's one) they have their own fishing right to completely self-supply and have some surplus for trading. the area inbetween the two countries after their Economic Exclusive Zone and Territorial Waters are free to be used by any country.

Beastie Boy's music

The beastie boys are my favorite group ever but, alas, they have a finite amount of songs. If I like the Beastie boys, what other groups do you think i should try out?

Which of their songs are your favorites? 惑乱 分からん 09:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

well, I can suggest trying www.pandora.com for some intel about their exact style and some similar groups and the songs. its a pretty useful thingy and best of all its free.Graendal 09:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Another useful site is this one. Type "beastie boys" into the box and you get a bunch of similar artists. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I second Wakuran's question above, depending on which songs you like, i might recommend anything from Galliano over Red Snapper (band) to Motörhead. You might like to check out early Red Hot Chilli Peppers (and maybe also early Faith No More) stuff, they sometimes come pretty close to the Beastie Boy's blend of Rap, funk sounds and heavy guitars. Oh, and for a quick laugh, have a look at Lords of the Rhymes - they do a pretty good job of sounding like the Beastie Boys, and their lyrics are hilarious -- Ferkelparade π 09:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I highly recommend Rip Slyme. I'm a huge BBoys fan too, and although I'll be the first to admit that in general Japanese music is lacking a lot (mainly originality), Rip Slyme is great. They're a little bit too much like the BBoys at times, but they're fun, the music is really well written, and they actually write themselves, something that is way too rare over here. Their best of album Good Job! (グッジョブ！, gudjobu) is a good place to start.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  11:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

What is it about the Beastie Boys that you enjoy? If you can explain what sort of style it is that you enjoy then more bands/artists may be applicable.--droptone 22:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Try Live plasma. Much more cooler site than the one given above. CG 04:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the fact that it puts Neil Young as the closest match for the Beastie Boys makes it a lot less cooler than the ones given above. They're just trying to get people to link through to amazon.com.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  03:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you may be right, but I like the design. CG 08:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Poem by W B Yeats

The subject of the poem is or are Yeats' critics. He compared them to fleas on a dog.

See Wikiquote: To A Poet, Who Would Have Me Praise Certain Bad Poets, Imitators Of His And Mine

You say, as I have often given tongue

In praise of what another's said or sung,

'Twere politic to do the like by these;

But was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

This it? ---Sluzzelin 11:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Which one is Sima Zhao

I found this picture. Obviously it's an illustration from a Qing Dynasty edition of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Can somebody tell which one of the two depicted persons are Sima Zhao, and which the other guy might be? Thanks, Sarazyn • TALK • DE 15:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sima Zhao is the guy sitting and pointing to the young boy. He was known as an usurper of imperial power. The boy is probably Cao Mao, or possibly Cao Huan, two emperors of the Wei dynasty. Both emperors reigned as boys or teenagers, and both were puppets of the Sima family. See the Sima Zhao article. Yeu Ninje 10:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sanitation and hygiene throughout history

Lets just narrow this down to Europe for simplicity's sake.

When did people start regularly showering? Brushing their teeth? Wearing something like deoderants? I think a read some where that in the Middle Ages only the elite did these things regularly (though I don't know whether it was daily like today) but the commoners could go weeks or months without a shower. When did it all become common for everyone? The 18th century would be my totally random guess.

Also, what about the toilet? The most I now is that in the 19th or 18th centuries people went to an outhouse to their business. I wonder where they got rid of their rubbish? In a river, I bet. I think I read once that people threw their crap (literally) out the window and the people below could get in on the head if they weren't careful. I don't know whether there's any truth to that. Pyro19 17:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a large topic. I wrote a doctoral dissertation on a small part of this topic (the introduction of modern water supply and sewerage systems). I know less about other parts of this topic, but I will give it a shot.

On personal cleanliness, some of your questions will be answered by [[1]], which also discusses the development of toilets.

Going back in history, medieval Europeans typically did not bathe much. As you say, they often went weeks or months without bathing. When Europeans were exploring the world in the 16th century, other peoples often found them filthy and stinky.

Incidentally, this was not true of people in other parts of the world, nor was it true of ancient Romans and Greeks. See Public bathing. My understanding is that public baths developed a reputation for sexual vice in the late Middle Ages at a time when bourgeois standards of propriety—which encompassed sexual continence but not yet personal cleanliness—began dominate European urban culture. The result was the shutting down of public baths. The necessity of hauling water by hand from wells and then heating it with expensive firewood in order to produce a warm bath made bathing a luxury that few could afford to indulge often. Since it was not socially expected, few did.

This began to change in the mid-1800s among the bourgeoisie. Much of the rise in hygiene can be tied to the rapid and substantial growth in urban population, which led to an increase in overflowing outhouses, chamber pots being tossed into the gutters or ditches that ran along streets and served as open sewers, except that they only “flowed” in a heavy rainstorm. When rainstorms washed the gutters, they washed them into rivers, except where solid waste caused blockages to form, behind which pools of sewage would form. The result was the spread of cholera. Under the prevailing miasma theory of disease (or under our own germ theory, for that matter) the city’s stinking gutters and fecal pools demanded a response.

Educated people reacted to the spread of disease in part by bathing more often, which they thought would help to prevent contagion by reducing miasmas. Urban water supply systems were built both to supply homes and to wash out miasma-producing gutters. However blockages continued to plague open gutters, which collected trash as well as sewage.

One response was to build sewers. Sewers had been built in Roman times, but they came into widespread use in Europe only after the mid-1800s. Another response was to push for the use of toilets connected to sewers, and bathtubs connected to the new municipal water supplies. A third response was to introduce municipal garbage collection, which kept streets clear of obstacles blocking the way to the new storm sewers.

Showers are an even more recent development. The first modern showers were installed in Prussian army barracks in 1879. They began a slow spread into private houses, but did not really replace baths until the 1900s. In fact, in the United Kingdom, showers remained somewhat unusual until the 1970s or 1980s. Before this, people took baths to clean themselves.

Before the spread of toilets, outhouses, sometimes placed over pit latrines, were a common place for relief, although chamber pots might be used indoors and tossed out windows into gutters. In rural areas, the contents of chamber pots or latrine pots might be tossed onto dungheaps, which were allowed to compost and used as fertilizer.

As for household waste, there wasn’t much of it until the 1900s. Food wastes were generally collected by farmers and butchers and composted, fed to pigs or chickens, or rendered into soap, tallow, glue, or other useful products. Rags were used and reused for quilting, patching, and cleaning. What was left might be collected by rag and bone men.

Marco polo 19:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

After edit conflict:

I don't see the connection between hygiene and deodorants. Showering probably started with the invention of the waterfall. :) When people moved to cities that was lost and it was only recently reinvented. However, if you mean bathing, then it started with the invention of the river (and living next to it) but that was lost again wit the rise of cities leading to a lack of clean rivers. People probably still bathed, though less frequently and in bathtubs. Aas the article says, the Romans were fanatic bathers and I believe it was something for all (even the only place where people were 'the same'), but I'm not sure about that. Teeth brushing became really necessary when people started eating refined sugar and that was only a few centuries ago and even then only for the rich. But the rotten teeth that resulted from that were an indication of wealth, so it became fashionable to blacken one's teeth (sort of like having a white skin or ling fingernails were an indication of wealth - until the poor started working in factories and the rich started going on holiday in southern Europe, which turned that around). That said, people have always and everywhere chewed sticks to clean their teeth. The right kinds of sticks then formed brushes at the end. DirkvdM 19:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

So when dignitaries met at the Palace of Versailles in the 17th century can we assume it smelled pretty bad? Or did people wash themselves for such functions? - Pyro19 19:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Rank had it priviledge, and the priviledged were truly rank under the perfume.Edison 21:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

If you like excrement being thrown out of windows or defecated directly out of the window, I can only recommend Jabberwocky (film) by Monty Python. About Versailles, I heard that even the king barely washed himself. They used lots of perfumes to cover that up. I've also heard stories about the wigs being meant only to cover up the horrible mess that was their real hair, and "comfort stops" behind a staircase :| ...Evilbu 23:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I heard that Versailles had no washrooms. Gross. - Pyro19 23:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

To be picky, I must remark that Jabberwocky was no Monty Python film, although Pythonians Terry Gilliam and Michael Palin were involved in it. 惑乱 分からん 00:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, even today in France and Germany a daily shower is not necessarily the norm. These are densely populated countries with limited water resources, so when I was there the American custom of daily showering was considered wasteful. Durova 02:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Really? I'm originally from Israel and everyone showers daily there even though the country is very small and lacks much water. Hmm, maybe the difference in climate is the reason. - Pyro19 03:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's different in Israel due to close cultural ties to the U.S.? The feedback I got from French and German people was that it was considered an inappropriate waste of water. I spoke fluent German so language wasn't an issue. It was actually rather embarrassing for both of us when my German hostess complained after I showered four days in a row. Durova 06:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Could also have been the length of the shower. A one minute washdown is quite enough if yo do it every day. And water temperature also matters. Having a ten minute shower every day with really hot water is indeed extrremely wasteful. Some people even shower twice per day. A morning shower makes no sense unless it is a quicky with cold water to wake you up or if you've had some sort of exercise in bed ... :) DirkvdM 07:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Showering daily is only a very recent North American tradition as well. But not having a full bath every day doesn't mean not washing; it's been a long tradition to wash the bits that get dirty more quickly with a soapy washcloth. Anchoress 07:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

To Pyro19: I am German and I do shower every day as probably do most Germans. However, if someone is not the kind of guy who sweats a lot, I doubt that one would notice or even smell if he showered only every other day. Remember that our climate here in Northern Europe is much colder than you have it down in Israel. As far as I'm concerned, I only sweat at all when doing sports, on very few midsummer days or when on summer vacation in the South. Simon A. 21:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Analyzing Piano Pieces

Hi everyone,

My first question: I'm wondering if anyone knows where to find some compositions that are harmonical and/or structural analyzed, eg: the first three notes are part of the I chord, the right hand plays a broken F Major chord, etc.

Some website/book/resource that has the above would be very helpful.

Specifically, I'm looking for some analysis of the following pieces:

Bach's Prelude and Fugue No. 9 in E Major, book 1

Beethoven Pathetique Sonata, 1st and 2nd movement

Chopin Nocturne in E minor, Op. 72 No. 1

Debussy's Clair de Lune

Bartok's Roumanian Folk Dance Suite

My second question: Does anyone know of any books/references that help with harmonic and structural analysis? Such as those for an piano theory analysis exam.

Thanks in advance! Alex Ng 23:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

there is a seemingly endless number of books analysing pieces of music. look on amazon, or better, use musicroom.com (it's a Uk company i think but then once you've found good books you can buy them somewhere else) or sheetmusicplus.com --81.111.18.84 20:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)