February 28

Kip Siegel died of a stroke while testifying before a U.S. Congressional committee. Has anybody else died while testifying before Congress? How common is it? I would guess it would not be too uncommon since it must be very stressful, but I hadn't heard of it before reading about Siegel. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK—I found another by Googling "'died while testifying' congress". Randolph E. Paul apparently died while testifying to Congress in 1956. I've found a few lists of people who died in court, but that's not what I'm interested in. Any others? --98.217.18.109 (talk) 02:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not witnesses, but U.S. Representatives Edward Eslick and Morris Edelstein died while addressing the House of Representatives. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edelstein's article says he died in the Congress building, not in the House of Reps per se; he finished his speech, walked out, and collapsed in the cloak room and died a short time later. Another case I know of, in a different House of Reps, was the first Speaker of the Australian House of Representatives, Sir Frederick Holder, who collapsed and died while speaking from the chair. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Quincy Adams died in the Speaker's Room of the Capitol, having had a seizure while about to make a speech. Corvus cornix_talk 19:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I wouldn't be wrong then in thinking this is fairly rare, to die while a witness before Congress? (I'm interested in Siegel in particular, so it's relevant to me that he's one of the few few people who died in this manner; it did, incidentally, get a brief spot on the front page of the Washington Post at the time). --98.217.18.109 (talk) 03:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I am interested in understanding how conscription was justified during the Vietnam war in the United States. The draft law at the time said that mandatory conscription was only allowed during times of declared war. BUT, Vietnam "war" was a police action, and Congress never formally declared war! How come nobody brought this up when the draft was enacted??????????????--Goon Noot (talk) 06:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United States v. O'Brien states that a ban on burning draft cards was okay--let alone the draft itself.--71.105.244.219 (talk) 06:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and on the same day, the Supreme Court refused to consider two cases that argued your point, GoonNoot: Holmes v. United States, 391 U.S. 936, and Hart v. United States, 391 U.S. 956. --71.146.162.148 (talk) 08:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Congress made a formal declaration of war in the case of the Civil War either, but there was definitely conscription in the 1860's... AnonMoos (talk) 08:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I question the accuracy of your statement that "The draft law at the time said that mandatory conscription was only allowed during times of declared war." See Conscription in the United States which says that the draft continued in effect in the US through the 1950's and 1960's even before the Vietnam War. The last draftees reported or duty in 1973. There was no requirement for a declared war. The first peacetime draft was in 1940. Edison (talk) 05:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How long does it take from the time that I contact a recruiter to the time that I can join the Marine Corps on a full-time basis? I need to know this because I want to notify my apartment manager 1 month in advance.--71.105.244.219 (talk) 06:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best to ask the recruiter! AllenHansen (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might also ask `an acquaintance of mine. —Tamfang (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked this on the Entertainment desk also. Does the movie Taare Zameen Par have any relevance with identity and how it is formed? thx. The Updater would like to talk to you! 08:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at our article on Ubuntu (philosophy), I noticed this comment in the talk page. [1] Now I find it hard to imagine what possible philosophical criticism there could be of a philosophy that seems so 'nice', and the user never added anything further to the article or talk page. They left Wikipedia, so I can't ask them what they meant, and I can't find any criticism online (although everything is a bit swamped by Linux). So, does anyone know what philosophical criticisms there are of Ubuntu? I can imagine there might be criticisms of how things work in practice, although I can't find those either, but of the basic philosophy? Skittle (talk) 11:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are those who view life as a grim malthusian struggle between isolated individuals, and that human progress is born of competition more than cooperation. Ubuntu is fundamentally about one's relationship with society; if you believe, like Mrs Thatcher said that (and I appreciate she's somewhat misquoted) "there is no society", then Ubuntu seems like dewey-eyed collectivism. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those who uphold the principle of ubuntu throughout their lives will, in death, achieve a unity with those still living.

I selected that quotation at random from the article, Skittle, and can imagine just how Ludwig Wittgenstein or A J Ayer would have dealt with such woolly-minded nonsense. Philosophy is not about being ‘nice’; it’s about making meaningful statements about the nature of thought and experience. On the other hand maybe it’s all just ‘Pie in the Sky’! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I should have been a little clearer. I can see how you could think things didn't really work like that, but it seemed like the person was saying Ubuntu was a Bad Thing, a bad philosophy to be following. That's sort of where the niceness came in :) I can see now that if you believe that it impedes progress when people act in this manner, you might see it as a Bad Thing. Thanks both of you :) 130.88.140.43 (talk) 09:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC) (This is Skittle on a public computer today 130.88.140.43 (talk) 09:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Philosophy is an ambiguous word, and in the case of ubuntu it doesn't refer to the Western scholarly discipline or even to a comprehensive, coherent, and consistent school of thought, but to an ethical doctrine, a contextual approach toward social interaction, a way of life, maybe even a "school" of thought after all :-). The article on African philosophy doesn't even mention ubuntu (not that that means a lot, and its influence has certainly been explored). Perhaps the lemma "Ubuntu (philosophy)" should be modified, but I'm not certain what it should be.

You'll be more likely to find scholary criticism of ubuntu in the field of social conflict studies. Wim van Binsbergen (Erasmus University)has published several papers and articles on ubuntu, see for example Reconciliation - A major African social technology of shared and recognised humanity (ubuntu). ---Sluzzelin talk 11:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of quite a few bulletproof criticisms. For one: on an absurdist/nihilist existential level or just a cosmic level, human cooperation is pretty meaningless and a pretty dumb thing to have a philosophy about. :D\=< (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but then philosophy is a 'pretty dumb thing to have a philosophy about' from that point of view, and is itself meaningless. Doesn't seem that bulletproof to me. And it wouldn't make Ubuntu bad, just pointless. Thanks Sluzzelin for the link and leads :) 130.88.140.49 (talk) 13:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC) (Skittle)[reply]

This is perhaps a bit of an odd question, but I found nothing conclusive. Does anyone know anything about Queen Elizabeth II's personal preferences in visual art and music? (I mean as a private person, as far as this is possible, not as a patron of the arts).---Sluzzelin talk 12:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can surmise a bit from her taste in decor - the private cabins (one for she, one for Phil) on HMY Britannia are quite sparely decorated, and in more of a Laura Ashley style than being terribly grand. By some accounts she rather thinks of herself as something of a green-wellie Country Life type. She (as her mother and Anne) is nearly obsessed with horses and dogs, so I rather imagine (this is me extrapolating - little of genuine human insight escapes Buck House's event horizon) that George Stubbs and Edwin Henry Landseer will be her thing. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Time article says "When it comes to Queen Elizabeth's tastes in art, the experts are diplomatic. "Despite her many virtues, interest in art is not one of them," ... "The most she ever did was commission a suite of Formica furniture." Deep in the bowels of Windsor Castle, there is said to be a 1950s room made entirely of Formica. The Queen was so displeased with it that she swore off contemporary art altogether. " -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, coming at the answer from a slightly different angle, you should look at how she managed the repairs to Windsor Castle after the fire. I think that the awful Sir Hugh Casson had a hand in the redesign.--Major Bonkers (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your replies, Finlay and Major. Smiles and snorts here, you guys have a marvelous monarch! (Still curious about the music) ---Sluzzelin talk 08:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly off-topic, but there's a brilliant story involved. She doesn't like football.

There's a possibly mythical story about the late magician/comedian Tommy Cooper, who apparently met the Queen at a Royal Variety Performance. He asked her "Your Majesty, do you like football?" She replied that she didn't, really. So he asked "In that case, can I have your Cup Final ticket?"

(For those that don't know, the Queen has, on many occasions, presented the trophy at Wembley Stadium)

I love Tommy Cooper stories. And frankly, that one's so good, I don't care if it's true or not, lol. --Dweller (talk) 10:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dweller! The Independent says it happened, "at the London Palladium for the Royal Variety Show back in 1964, a time when entertainers were expected to defer to royalty." See "Just like that! Tommy Cooper's final days". I didn't even really know Tommy Cooper, and just spent some happy minutes watching some of his antics. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the same show where John Lennon told them to rattle their jewellery instead of applauding? Adam Bishop (talk) 12:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's always been rumoured that the Queen is a very good pianist and enjoys a wide range of music. I seem to remember, but certainly can't source it, that her tastes in live shows ran to Drama and Musical Comedy. Margaret, on the other hand, particularly enjoyed the ballet. Playing Charades has been a family entertainment for a long time and it is said that HM excels at it. With regards to painting, etc, she appears to have a very good knowledge of the Royal collection, which is quite vast.

Amandajm (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How was the setting of Easter established, 1st Sunday after 1st full moon after 21st of March?204.182.224.234 (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Easter, the section Date of Easter. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Easter originally inherited the timing of the Jewish Passover, which follows the Hebrew calendar. The Hebrew calendar is based on both the sun and the moon cycles, and uses intercalary months like the West uses leap days, and therefore fluctuates relative to the western calendar. After Christianity expanded to other countries where the Hebrew calendar was unknown some confusion arose, and new rules were formulated (e.g. at the Council of Nicaea) to make sure that everybody celebrated Easter on the same day. The story is complicated, but you can read about it at Easter#Date_of_Easter. --mglg_(talk) 18:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although in the majority of the years, Easter for the Western Churches occurs at approximately the same date as the Jewish Passover (Pesach), there are some Jewish leap years such as this year, when Pesach will occur about a month after Easter for the Western Churches.Simonschaim (talk) 08:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I heard a song which featured a guy talking about MTV in statements such as "MTV is a __". First he used positive remarks, then started to talk negative about it. All I caught is that it's done by a band called, Noir, but Wikipedia showed no results for it. Can someone tell me about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.132.6.33 (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... Well, I know nothing of the band, but try Google-ing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flaminglawyer (talk • contribs) 22:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Noir" is René Kristensen's nom-de-guerre. The track MTV (now usually titled My MTV) was first released in 2005, see discogs. Ever since, the scene has been swamped with numerous remixes. Chris Lake, for example, or The Dolphins remix of My MTV on Global_Underground_031. Just google or youtooble "My MTV" + "remix" for plenty of results. (Including lyrics). ---Sluzzelin talk 08:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, can you see List of countries by population.... Chinese population has a mistake i don't know what happens... and i cant edit because it has an automatic editor. Thanks. Ahmed987147 (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are better off putting something on Talk:List of countries by population rather than here. I had a look, and it looks OK to me. What do you think is the matter with it? DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The population is given in exponential notation, ie 1.x * 10 power 9. This would seem confusing to those who can not interprete this notation, particularly as it is the sole entry in the list to use it. Maybe somebody can fix it. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Message to Ahmed: Exponential notation means that you have to multiply the figure 1.x by 1 billion (equal to 10 to the 9th power and represented as E+9). This gives 1.x billion inhabitants.

Greetings to Down Under. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the page to align China's formatting with the rest of the table. — Lomn 21:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lomn, and forgive me!, I don't ask at all times!. xD Ahmed987147 (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem; the syntax was quite obtuse in there. — Lomn 17:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but it turns out whether you saw the E-notation in use or not was essentially random: it depended on which server processed the copy of the page that you saw. If interested, see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#formatnum. --Anonymous, 00:02 UTC, March 1, 2008.

I've been able to resolve most of my problems with using Harvard style citations on latex, but one of them persists. I'm not able to get rid of repetition of author name in case I cite multiple consecutive references of the same author. For example, I get (Wainwright 1982, Wainwright 1988) whereas I want (Wainwright 1982, 1988). I've searched the net for hints on what I should do, but haven't found anything so far. It would be great if someone can help me out with it, or point me to a good source. Thanks a ton! deeptrivia (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC) copied from WP:Reference desk/Computing by flaminglawyer^c 22:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am just starting to get familiar with LaTeX, but this page seems to indicate you can do that using the natbib package with \citep{wainwright82, wainwright88}. --Michael White^T·C 21:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]