Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 September 26

< September 25	<< Aug \| Sep \| Oct >>	September 27 >

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.

Total amount of females on Earth

what is the total number of females in the world —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.237.157 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 26 September 2006

Since the world population is slightly less than 6.5 billion people, the total amount of females is slightly less than 3.25 billion. Picaroon9288 01:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Females are not an 'amount'. They are a number--Light current 01:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a number! I am a Free Man!

Quiet please Patrick, Im not talking to you! 8-)--Light current 06:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know his/her name is Patrick and why is he/she confused about his/her sex? DirkvdM 10:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What was the name of the eponymous character in The Prisoner? I can't remember if the programme ever revealed it. --Dweller 11:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't, though some believe that The Prisoner is none other than John Drake. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Played by Patrick McGoohan--Light current 21:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the ratio of females slightly ove 50%? Then again, this differnce will probably be smaller than the incertainty of that 6,5 billion figure. That'll probably be an addition of partly out of date data that are often mere estimates. And even a decent census will have inaccuracies. Funny, the world population article states that "According to estimates published by the United States Census Bureau, the Earth's population reached 6.5 billion on Saturday, 25 February 2006." In the light of what I just said, that has to be a load of bull, unworthy of an encyclopedia. Any objections to me deleting it? DirkvdM 10:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's cited, and only says that this is what the source says, I'd leave it. I remember the newspapers made a big thing about it when it came out; it seems to be noteworthy. Skittle 16:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's one heck of a lot of "female" animals. Do you want to include or exclude them? --Dweller 11:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC) I think I heard somewhere that it's 51%. Яussiaп F 12:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but I hope it's high.UberCryxic 19:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the Islamic equivalent

I have a question about Islam. It's my understanding that Muslims who are about to commit suicide on behalf of Islam, or wage jihad, are absolved of any sins that they commit before dying. For example, it is my understanding that most of the 9/11 hijacker received this absolution (for lack of a better term) and that at least some or them spent much of their remaining days with women, drinking and gambling and so on.

My specific question is this: What is the specific Islamic term for this absolution or forgiveness of sins (that are apparently going to be committed in the future). And, assuming that my understanding about this forgiveness being given or granted to some or all of the 9/11 hijackers is correct, who has the authority to grant such forgiveness?

Thank you.

I am not aware of the term of which you seek, but I do believe that that is just something the Islamic extremist leaders tell their jelly-brained pawns in order to do their bidding. A similar tactic has been used amongst Christians as well (the speech Pope Urban II gave to incite the First Crusade). By the way, I am a bit more neutral when editing articles ;) - R_Lee_E

(talk, contribs) 02:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a plenary indulgence for crusaders (although maybe not for the First Crusade). Maybe that is also used for Islam, if there isn't a specific Arabic term for it. Adam Bishop 06:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The phrasing of the question, and the notion that a suicide terrorist would flagrantly violate Sharia law in the days before their "sacrifice", may be flawed in that it's assumed that the Islamic concept of absolution is identical or even similar to that of Catholicism. If you read the article Sin, it states that "Islam does not accept any human sacrifice for sin. The Islamic understanding of forgiveness is that it is made on the basis of divine grace and repentance. According to Islam, no sacrifice can add to divine grace nor replace the necessity of repentance." See also Repentance in Islam. The closest word to what you are after may be the Arabic "Tawbah" meaning 'to return to God'). --Canley 07:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Tawbah is the right word. It's also used by Arab christians to refer to the Sacrament of Penance. CG 15:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide has allegedly been considering a great sin in Christianity. (You place yourself above God and the time he has planned you to die, or something...) I wouldn't be surprised if Islam had similar ideas... 惑乱分からん 11:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; see Religious views of suicide#Islam. --Lambiam ^Talk 17:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting away with murder

Quintinshill rail crash#The trial notes that in order to be charged with murder under English law, the death has to occur on English soil, while to be charged under Scottish law, the act leading to death needs to occur on Scottish soil, and as the actions had taken place in Scotland, with the deaths taking place in England, the defendants could be charged in both jurisdictions.

So I'm wondering: if you're standing in England, and shoot someone in Scotland, could you be charged with anything other than perhaps "unlawful discharge of a firearm"? --Carnildo 05:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would apply nowadays. If I recall a tv documentary correctly, the explosion aboard Pan Am Flight 103 occurred while it was (just) on the English side of the border, but momentum and altitude meant that it didn't reach the ground until Lockerbie. That didn't stop the accused being tried, and one convicted, under Scottish law. -- Arwel (talk) 11:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Off course: Islam is against suicide Please do visit www.irf.net and correct the misconception of islam

family name of japanese emperor

Do the Japanese Emperors have a family name?

"no-miya"? 惑乱分からん 11:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of the families capable of ascending to the throne have names ending in no-miya, but the specific surname of the current emperor (and his family) is actually 秋篠宮 (Akishino-no-miya). freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 05:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But did all the emperors of the current family line have the family name 秋篠宮 (Akishino-no-miya)? (Since Japanese name order is reverted "family" and "personal" fits better than "sur-" and "first", just a thought...) 惑乱分からん 11:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is correct. Akishino-no-miya is the current emperor's second son, and it just means Prince Akishino. The present emperor (Akihito) was Tsugu-no-miya (Prince Tsugu) as a child, and the crown prince was Hiro-no-miya (Prince Hiro). I don't think they have surnames as such. --172.202.75.52 20:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snakes

What is the longest snake in the world?

See reticulated python. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The anaconda is the largest, but not the longest. — X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)15:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What year?

What year is this year's Jewish new year?

Rosh Hashanah was Sept. 22 so it is now 5767. See also Jewish calendar. Rmhermen 16:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article Hebrew calendar, the year that started with last week's Rosh Hashanah is 2006+3760 = 5766. However, several Jewish websites [1][2][3] make me believe this is wrong; it should be 5767. --Lambiam ^Talk 16:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. It's 5767 (happy new year, btw) and I've amended said article, which looks like it could do with an overhaul at some point. It's not particularly digestible; a bit like holishkes. --Dweller 17:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But according to Bishop Ussher, the world was created on the evening of October 23, 4004 BC (BCE) so next month it will be 4004 + 2006 = 6010 years old, and we will be in the 6011th year. The Jewish chronology would imply a creation in 3761 BCE. Who calculated the shorter Jewish Old Testament chronology? The Samaritan Pentateuch comes closer than the Hebrew, but does not seem to yield the stated date.Edison 04:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's 7515 according to the Aetos Kosmou. Adam Bishop 06:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see from our article that Ussher lived in the 16th century. Even in his day, the Jewish numbering system was ancient. I believe it dates from a second century rabbi, Jose ben Halafta. You'll find an interesting article that attempts to reinterpret this system as dating from Adam's exit from Eden ([4] towards the foot of this page). --Dweller 10:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few difficult questions

http://img147.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1pv1.jpg

Who is this man?

Is it Paul Wolfowitz? The picture in the article looks similar. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and here's the actual pic on another web site: [5]. StuRat 16:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://img137.imageshack.us/my.php?image=5yc6.jpg

Whis religious festival is depicted in this painting.

The first one is Livingstone and Stanley, isn't it? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup cheers

The second one looks like when God created baldness. — X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)15:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i`d appreciate no taking the piss

For Americans, he means "please don't abuse me", he didn't mean anything to do with a golden shower. StuRat 17:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the dove (representing the holy spirit) and the tongues of flame (also representing the holy spirit), I would say it depicts Pentecost. The article has a similar painting in it. Skittle 15:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is the painting A Szentlélek eljövetele (The coming of the Holy Ghost, i.e. Pentecost) by Dorffmaister István. --Lambiam ^Talk 16:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talking Dogs

Where is more information, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, on a series of short comic films, probably from the 1930's, where dogs wear clothes, talk, walk on their hind legs, drive cars, appear in court, etc.? 66.213.33.2 18:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a series of live action films? 惑乱分からん 20:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. Dogs that could do all those things tended to be too pricey for 1930's movie budgets. :-) StuRat 22:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mail order brides

Do you need to be a rich man in order to procure a mail order bride? I've been looking at a site filled with gorgeous Ukranian women and it's tempted me (been feeling lonely for a long time now) to find out more. I don't have a job, a car or much money at the moment and I live in rented accomodation - is there even any point to me bothering? --84.71.141.133 22:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say you have to be rich, but I would think you'd at least need a job, yes. StuRat 22:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dread to think of the poor mail order bride, being sold to an unemployed man who can barely support himself... @_@ 惑乱分からん 23:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When they mail the bride, where do they put the stamps ? StuRat 22:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there's plenty of room. Have you never seen a woman? There's enough space there for hundreds of stamps... 惑乱分からん 23:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he's worried about the room. He's just fantasising about licking the stamps and sticking them on. -- Chris Q 09:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strahng, like bool.Edison 04:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember seeing a TV show about this some years ago. From what I understand of the process, the women have the right to say no to you if they don't feel an attraction or if they feel that you won't be able to support them. So basically, I'd agree with the others and say that it would be best if you concentrated on getting employment before you start thinking about how much a mail order bride will run you. Dismas|^(talk) 09:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given your current situation, you might be able to get yourself your own little Ukranian princess (though I don't think the process is cheap) - but there's nothing to say that she won't bugger off and leave you for someone with more cash and a Porsche once her citizenship has come through. I dunno - maybe she won't. You pays your money, you takes your chances. --Kurt Shaped Box 11:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cuban visitation restrictions

Is it true that a natural born U S citizen can have his citizenship revoked if he visits Cuba without specific permission from the government?

No, of course not. White Guard 23:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A US citizen would not lose his or her citizenship, but according to this State Department site "Travelers who fail to comply with Department of Treasury regulations will face civil penalties and criminal prosecution upon return to the United States." Department of Treasury regulations include an outright prohibition on travel for purposes of tourism or without a license to conduct research, educational, or humanitarian activities. It is possible to travel to Cuba through a third country and escape detection by concealing the trip to Cuba from US immigration authorities, but this is also a prosecutable offense if citizens are caught. 141.154.113.131 02:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Cuban authorities know of this restrictions and, if you ask, will issue the "entered Cuba" and "left Cuba" stamps on a separate piece of paper rather than your passport, so that no record of your visit is kept in your passport. — QuantumEleven 07:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amazed the US government can do that. Isn't it a violation of some right or other?--Shantavira 07:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compare this to Cuban restrictions on the movement of their own people, who aren't generally allowed to go to the US or many other countries. StuRat 13:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're amazed the US government does as it pleases, ignoring human (and assorted other) rights? What planet are you from? :) DirkvdM 07:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't even have to ask. I didn't and I got that separate piece of paper. I suppose it's standard procedure. Which annoyed me somewhat - I want to have a stamp of all the countries I visited in my passports. A little warning. Make sure you cary it wiht you. The lady at the fist casa particular I stayed at in Havana told me it would be safer to leave it there while I was travelling. I stupidly agreed (like most Cubans she came across as very trustworthy) and when I had to prolong my visa I had a problem. It took me several days to arrange it being delivered to where I was. Mail isn't as trustworthy they told me so I had it delivered by a busdriver. The amount of private enterprise in Cuba is quite striking. :) DirkvdM 08:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering, how's the situation like in Cuba now, I'd guess people could be nervous by Castro's possible death, what will happen after him, likely(?) scenario of american intervention to kick-start the country into capitalism, etc.? 惑乱分からん 11:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I'm wondering, and I know this may be uncharacteristic of me: With the fall of the Soviet Union, and the communist threat gone, why does the American government continue to bother imposing such severe sanctions on what is now, (unlike during the cold war!) a rather harmless communist dictatorship, relative to all the other dictatorships that aren't punished by such sanctions. I realize that Castro pissed off the Americans by "nationalizing" (read: stealing) all American owned property in Cuba. Is that what's actually motivating the whole thing? In fact, it all seems rather counter-productive. If only the US would deal with Cuba in as friendly a manner as it deals with "Red" China, chances are the whole communist thing would just eventually wither away, especially after Fidel dies. I don't see the sense in it. Is American policy regarding Cuba actually based on an old, now irrelevant grudge? The American government tends to be far more practical than that. With the cold war over, I just don't understand why the Americans treat the "communist" dictatorship of Cuba any differently than they treat the "non-communist" dictatorship of Haiti. Loomis 21:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Miami and put your questions there. White Guard 22:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been to Miami many times. In fact the last time I was there, I spent a considerable amount of time in Little Havana. Yet I still don't get your point. Of course the Cuban expats there can't stand Fidel, who can blame them. Similarly, the vast Haitian expat population up here in Montreal are disgusted with all that's gone on in their homeland, what with brutal dictators such as Papa Doc Duvalier, Baby Doc Duvalier, the whole Jean-Bertrand Aristide fiasco etc. But of course they have relatives back in Haiti, and hope that their country of origin will one day finally settle down into stable free democracy such as what they've experienced up here in Canada. I would only imagine the Cuban expats in Miami would have the same wish. They don't hate Cuba, they hate Castro! And if the US has some sort of counterproductive policy that would only tend to perpetuate Castro's vision of Cuba even after the old prick finally dies, I don't see why they'd be for it. That's where I'm confused. Loomis 22:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand, and I agree that the whole policy has probably done more to prop up Castro over the years; but the American-Cuban lobby is very powerful, and their hatred of Castro goes beyond anything Haitians (much less influential) feel about there own government(s). If Castro is a constant, the growing hatred for the man among exiles is also a constant. Moreover, US foreign policy, sadly, is not always determined by rational considerations. White Guard 23:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like you said, the blockade actually helps the socialist government (which doesn't consist solely of Castro, as many people seem to (want to) think, so his death won't make that big a difference). It's actually used internally as an excuse why the economy sucks, so people will hate the US more than their government. And that certainly works to some extent. Of course there is a great deal of truth in this - the blockade does indeed hurt the Cuban economy greatly because it seriously hiinders Cuban interbational trade and foreign investments. M<ybe the US is afraid that if the economy turns out to be successful that will constitute a great boost for the Socialist movement. As to 惑乱分からん's question, how could the US intervene? The Cuban missile crisis ended with the missile project ending in exchange for the US promising never to attack Cuba again. Of course there is no guarantee the US will keep its word... If any change is going to happen through trade (which will depend more on the lifting of the blockade than the seath of Castro) then the most likely countries to have iunfluence are the ones that deal with Cuba now, such as Spain and Canada (Canada probably just to piss off the US :) ). And several other European countries, such as the Netherlands. DirkvdM 07:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For an idea of the size of the issue, consider that there are 11 million Cubans in Cuba and 1.5 million Cuban Americans in the U.S. That's about 1 out of 10. Half of these Cuban Americans were born in Cuba. If the blockade ever goes down, the influence will be large, even if most of the Cuban Americans don't go back. Rmhermen 14:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Communists/Socialists needed no help from the US to destroy their economy; they did so from the outset, presided over by the ghastly and incompetent Che Guevara. I can assure you that the demise of El Comandante will make all the difference, a man who has done his best to stifle ever free-enterprise initiative by the Cuban people. Socialism? As for that the most common remark to be heard on the streets of Havana is Socialism or death? I prefer death. White Guard 22:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for 1/10 of 'Cubans' living in the US, note that that is largely caused by the Cuban population having remained atypically the same since the revolution. Quite a feat for a country that loves sex. :) As for half the Cuban USians having been born in the US, those will largely be later economic refugees, not the ones who had their properties nationalised, because those would be about as old as Castro or older - in other words, largely dead.

As for the Cuban goverment making stupid mistakes, that was mostly in the very beginning (of which ElChe was indeed briefly part). Like Castro said, they had to learn to run a country just as they had to learn to fight a guerrilla. At the beginning of the insurgence they made some near fatal mistakes (I've read Che's diary) but survived. Likewise, the socialist experiment resulted in some major cockups, but they learned from those too. Like I said, the greatest problem for the Cuban economy is the lack of foreign trade due to the US blockade. Given that they managed to survive despite that they must be doing something right. :) This is an excuse often used by the Cuban government, but there's no denying the truth of it. DirkvdM 07:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that JFK made that "promise" to never invade Cuba, but I'm always surprised at how many people take that one seriously. After all, all it was was a pretty lame face-saving device given to Khrushchev to allow him to not look like a total loser back home. In any case, whether the "promise" is taken seriously or not by the US today, it was clearly only a "promise" not to invade Cuba militarily. Now on the other hand, if the US would only lift the embargo, (why do you guys keep on calling it a "blockade"? "Embargo" seems like the more accurate term ... in any case ...,) the resulting tourist invasion with all those Americans flocking in with pockets full of cash and new ideas that would only tend to force the Cubans to realize how backward life is under Castro would likely be far more effective than any military invasion could possibly be in destroying Catro's vision of Cuba and endearing the Cubans to the American way of life. Loomis 12:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]