December 19

What were some of the historical Latin names for what are now French cities? The only ones that I know are Lutetia (Paris) and Massilia (Marseille). --75.28.52.27 (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have a selection under List of Latin place names in France. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"As a large portion of the latter were only created during the Middle Ages, often based on scholarly etiology, this is not to be confused with a list of the actual names modern regions and settlements bore during the classical era." --75.28.52.27 (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sentence mainly refers to other countries listed there (such as Finland, for example). So, how about Category:Roman towns and cities in France?. Or do we need to list them all here? ---Sluzzelin talk 01:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can also look at the cities' respective WP articles and see whether they have Latin interwiki links. —Tamfang (talk) 02:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Latin names of about fifty Gallic cities are listed here. They appear to be the genuine classical names, not later antiquarian coinings. EDIT: There's also an attempt at a complete list of Roman place-names at www.roman-empire.net. They definitely rule out modern Latinizations. FURTHER EDIT: And Latin Wikipedia have a list at Index Urbium Franciae. --Antiquary (talk) 12:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval Latin names are also "genuine", since Latin was still a normal everyday (if perhaps not quite natively spoken) language then. I hope you don't discount medieval names entirely. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No indeed, I'm more of a medievalist than a classicist and certainly shouldn't have suggested that medieval Latin names are somehow not real. --Antiquary (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case presents an anomaly because to become president one must have been born in the United States. 97.125.18.157 (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no stipulation for this because the chances of it happening are ridiculously remote. I'm sure no president would appoint 15 immigrants to his cabinet. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Actually, anything past the death of the President is ambiguous. The legality of the Line of Succession has not been tested beyond the Vice President, and even THAT caused a bit of a Constitutional Crisis the first time it was invoked, see John_Tyler#.22His_Accidency.22. The hypothetical case you present is so unusual as to likely be impossible. I am not sure there has ever been more than one or two people in the line of succession who were inelligible to be President. There is no way to answer your hypothetical because no one has ever considered the possibility of needing to answer it. --Jayron32 02:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of trivia, and not to dispute Jayron's main point, there are at least two people currently alive whose office was fourth in line but who themselves were ineligible to be president: Henry Kissinger (born in Germany) and Madeline Albright (born in Czechoslovakia). --- OtherDave (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least it might lead Americans to question why they ever had such a law. Does anyone really know why? HiLo48 (talk) 03:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Have I piqued your interest? --Jayron32 03:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The founders of the US wanted the President to be someone born in America, to avoid a situation Britain once had with a German on the throne who spoke only limited English , George I of Great Britain. Edison (talk) 04:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the early days of America, many natural-born Americans didn't speak a huge amount of English. One of our presidents, Martin Van Buren, was a natural-born American but spoke English as a second language; his native language was Dutch. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) One theory I've heard is that the revolutionaries were worried that monarchists might someday come to power, and invite some European royal to be president, and that would be the beginning of a monarchist restoration. --Trovatore (talk) 03:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little more complex than that. In Europe, the place where having an elective head-of-state went disasterously was Poland, where for many years the elected Kings of Poland were basically puppets of foreign states who used Poland as a dumping ground for lesser sons; or as a place to hold proxy wars over competing candidates for the throne. Kings of Poland were rarely Polish after the election of Henry of Valois to be King, and foreign powers frequently used influence in the Sejm to put one candidate or another onto the Throne. The framers of the U.S. Constitution were well aware of these problems. The framers didn't want foreign powers to buy influence in the electoral college and thus end up getting their candidates elected presidency, turning the U.S. into a puppet of whatever foreign state had the power to do so. The requirement that the U.S. president be "Natural Born" of the United States (the ONLY place in U.S. law where such a requirement or stipulation is in force) makes certain that, baring some Manchurian Candidate sort of weirdness, the President would ALWAYS be unambiguously American. (this of course ignores the fact that, we're not even sure what "natural born" even means; especially around the edges). --Jayron32 04:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. As a non-American, I've often wondered at the contrast of this policy with "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, etc" But I guess the immigrants could be aspirational for their kids. HiLo48 (talk) 04:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, this provision, whatever justification it might have had at the time, is by now a blot on the Constitution, and ought to be removed. However the bar to removal is very high — you need a 2/3 majority in both Houses, and then a 3/4 majority of the several states. I think it's a given that for the foreseeable future there will always be at least 13 states against the change.

I don't say "unfortunately" the bar to removal is high, because I think it's a good thing that the Constitution is hard to amend. I would like to see the end of the ban on naturalized citizens becoming president, but it's not a big enough deal that I'd be willing to see the Constitution easily amended. --Trovatore (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the by, before anyone starts calling my analysis OR, the reference is Federalist No. 19, see this for text. "If more direct examples were wanting, Poland, as a government over local sovereigns, might not improperly be taken notice of. Nor could any proof more striking be given of the calamities flowing from such institutions. Equally unfit for self-government and self-defense, it has long been at the mercy of its powerful neighbors; who have lately had the mercy to disburden it of one third of its people and territories." That is but one example; negative references to Poland are littered throughout the Papers (#14, #39) and universally used as a "bad example" of a Republic done "wrong". --Jayron32 04:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be born in America to be US president, you have to be native-born American. The problem with Henry Kissinger (born in Germany) and Madeline Albright (born in Czechoslovakia) is not where they were born, but that they naturalized American. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.1.122.74 (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is something that has never been tested in court, because a situation has never arisen where a person born out of the USA has been elected president. It's what Jayron was alluding referring to with "not even sure what "natural born" even means; especially around the edges". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 16:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose Jayron meant that "natural born" can be "born in American soil" or "born from American parents abroad". The doubt lies here. Kissinger and Albright are by both definitions non-native born.212.169.190.189 (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. General opinion seems to be towards the "born from American parents" interpretation - or at least "born of parents at least one of whom is an American citizen" (which means the child could be born abroad, without damaging their chance of becoming president). The "natural born" requirement isn't generally thought to be as restrictive as meaning the person must be born on US soil. That would exclude John McEnroe, for example; but he's OK - phew! - because although born in West Germany, his parents were American citizens, hence so is he. I mean, the very idea that my long-held dreams for a President McEnroe might be dashed constitutionally - you cannot be serious!  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone. See here for the actual Constitutional wording on the requirements to serve as US President. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

McCain was not elected President, but I'll bet if he had been, there'd have been attempts to have him declared ineligible. Just as there's that racist campaign to get rid of Obama on the spurious grounds that he was "born in Kenya". It's been proven beyond doubt that he was born in Hawaii, but even if he had been born in Kenya, he was still an American citizen at birth through one of his parents, so he's OK anyway. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2008#Eligibility. Corvus cornix_talk 21:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They would go down the list until they got to someone who both was not dead (or otherwise incapable of executing the office) and was not Constitutionally ineligible to serve as US President. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for a detailed stock market database of a select few stocks (say S&P500) over a period greater than six months. I had found one that provided daily information for a period of a year for S&P500, but I would like something with a few more data points for each day. Does anyone know of such a thing (hopefully for free)? 24.125.65.172 (talk) 06:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One you could use is: http://finance.yahoo.com/ Hope that helps! Gabbe (talk) 07:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo Finance has open/high/low/close on a daily basis, e.g. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=^GSPC+Historical+Prices There is a "Download to Spreadsheet" link at the bottom of the page. I'm guessing you're not going to find a free historical quotes service with hourly data. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 07:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These databases exist, but you probably won't find tick-by-tick prices for free online. If you are a college student, your library might have a Bloomberg Terminal, where you might be able to access such data. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be able to decode the JavaScript data in interactive charts with hourly historical data, but that's quite a programming project. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 06:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was drafted, and everywhere I went are talked to about letting bygones be bygones for the deserters, it seem common knowledge that some where subsidize up to $10,000 to relocate. I never saw andthing on the common myths of Vietnam about. I still think it happend — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastexas (talk • contribs) 07:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely sure what your question is, but ca. 1977 Gerald Ford amnestied some Vietnam draft evaders, and then a little later Jimmy Carter pardoned all of them... AnonMoos (talk) 08:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of anybody paying draft dodgers to return to the U.S. Why would they? Clarityfiend (talk) 14:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the OP was saying the opposite - that people were paid to move out of the US. The only thing reasonably close to this (and I know completely nothing about it, it's something I heard sometime, somewhere and could be completely wrong) is that people get subsidies to move to Alaska. TomorrowTime (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of subsidies to move to Alaska. What might have given you that impression is that in many years, Alaska's vast oil revenues have allowed it to pay residents a dividend, or a kind of negative tax. I've been following news and politics in the United States since the time of Presidents Ford and Carter, and while I remember the amnesties, I am certain no bonus offered to draft resisters who returned to the United States. Such a thing would have caused (and I think would still cause) a political outrage. Marco polo (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, you've never seen anything discussing this phenomenon, yet you believe it happened? Why? o.O — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One correction to your question: You called them "deserters". Those are people who were actually inducted into the military and then went AWOL. This is considered a far more serious crime than being a "draft dodger", meaning they left the nation before they could be inducted. And, in the case of people who left the US and renounced their citizenship before being drafted, there may never have been any crime at all.

As for why such people would be given amnesty, I can think of two reasons:

1) Unjust war: Public opinion turned against the Vietnam War as being based on lies, largely from on the Pentagon Papers, which showed long-term intentional deception on the part of the US government. For example, the argument was frequently made that the US was "protecting democracy", while the South Vietnamese actually had puppet dictatorships set up by the US. Many people felt that civil disobedience and other actions against such an out-of-control government were the right thing to do.

2) Relevance: Shortly after a war ends, it no longer seems important enough to justify long prison terms for draft dodgers. This applies to all wars, and people guilty of minor crimes associated with them are often pardoned after they end. The moral ? Always commit minor crimes just before a war ends. :-) StuRat (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the USA discontinued the draft in 1973 (see Conscription in the United States) so after that date forcing people to obey the draft would be less of a priority, even if there was still a desire to uphold the law and perhaps punish those who opposed the Vietnam War.

Regarding payments, at various times Canada (and similar former British colonies such as Australia) provided financial assistance to people wishing to emigrate there, but nothing like $10,000, generally more on the level of a free boat ticket or some land in the middle of nowhere. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How far and how fast can a horse travel? (while carrying a human)

I have been trying to find out about this by searching on the net, also here on wikipedia, using searchwords such as 'horse', 'travel' and even 'transport' and followed relevant links as I have come across them, and I have also tried to look into the history of horse and travel since travelling is more relevant to earlier history. But I have met with little success so far.

What i need to know is how far a horse can travel over relatively short time, such as over 1 day... AND EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY how far a horse can travel each day/in total over several weeks, riding everyday.

Horse-travel was very important in medieval europe, and I know europeans who went on the crusades or pilgrimages to the holy land spent a very long time, travelling, just to mention an example of long journeys on horse. Poor those who undertook this journey without horse :O

If someone knows of somewhere i can find some info on this, I would appreciate if you'd be willing to link me to the site(s) so I can do some self-educating. Or if someone personally possesses some knowledge on the subject, please enlighten me :D

thnx

Krikkert7 (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This link suggests up to sixty miles plus, but twenty to thirty more realistic - http://www.wwwestra.com/horses/history_travel.htm. Exxolon (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you need this for a story? In that case, one bit of info that might be important is, what kind of lands is the traveler riding through? I imagine a horse rider can move much faster through lands that are predominantly flatland steppes than through lands that are hilly or forested. There are also many different types of horses, some fast and quick to deplete in energy (those would do well for the how far in a day challenge), others not so fast but able to go on day after day (more preferable for long travel). And one last thing - you seem to think that horses were practically ubiquitous in Medieval Europe, but that's far from the truth, and I think most travel (no matter how long) was in fact actually done on foot. The vast majority of people who weren't nobility could not afford horses and when these people went somewhere, it was on foot. Likewise, most armies were largely infantry - this goes for the Crusades as well, since you mention them. (BTW, it's easier to add new sections by using the "new section" button on the top of the page - you seem to be editing the whole page or the last message to do it.) TomorrowTime (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow Time is quite right that horseback travel was a luxury. No horse can travel 60 miles a day for more than one day at a time, and I think few horses could manage 60 miles in a day while carrying any kind of a burden. Typically when nobles traveled on horseback, they were accompanied by attendants or footsoldiers traveling on foot. There would not be much point in their traveling ahead, because if a horse is carrying a rider day after day, it will not be able to travel much farther each day than a person walking on foot, that is, 20-30 miles (usually closer to 20 on terrain that is not flat and easy, perhaps only 12 miles in steep, mountainous terrain). Marco polo (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quarter horse with rider, when pushed to the limit, can travel 200 miles in a 24 hour period, but it might not be in very good shape after that. On a decent road or well trodden paths with abundant water and grass in summer, 50 miles per day is a reasonable sustained pace on horseback for even an unconditioned pleasure breed. That only amounts to a fast walk for 12 hours per day. If you know the terrain and it's flat, well maintained, with water, grass, and good weather during the spring or fall, and no lengthy steep inclines, 80 miles per day is a possibility for at least several days on a healthy pack horse, but you had better know how to ride a trot, because otherwise your butt and the horse's back will be sore. For the crusades you need to figure the foot soldiers, so I agree don't expect more than 20 miles per day. On unfamiliar terrain, finding fresh water is usually the most difficult problem, and might send you several miles out of your way at a time. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 10:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This question came up on the Miscellaneous desk a couple of months ago, and got a pretty extensive response; see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 September 29#Travel by horse. A search of the archive will also lead to several earlier discussions of the question. Looie496 (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly aware that it was not just anyone that owned a horse. That was usually a luxury of the higher social classes. I'm not sure why you think I believe otherwise, but I appreciate your answers :) I will have a look at the links you have given me and see what I can get out of them. :) I did once hear from somewhere that 20-30 miles is about right and now several of you say that too, so having failed on my own to find a reliable source my idea was exactly this, to get a general idea from listening to several people's opinion on the matter. So your answers are very helpful.

Krikkert7 (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Poul Anderson's On Thud and Blunder, which discusses, among other things, the air speed velocity durability and speed of equestrian travel. Corvus cornix_talk 21:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In high medieval europe, peasants would harvest his crops in... I don't know, september, or maybe even October ? depending on the climate of the region of course.

But then, what would they be doing during winter? Surely they would not sit and do nothing... they might have had livestock and such that meant they would still have their hands full, but I have always thought of them as simple farmers, unsure what they would be doing outside of season.

But maybe I'm wrong to think them only farmers...

Krikkert7 (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this guy wrote a grammar book called "Articae horulae succisivae" meaning (if I'm not mistaken) "The Long Winter Hours", intending people to spend the winters to learn to read and write. Other than that, people just spent winter working on non-season-related crafts and products. TomorrowTime (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is always work to be done on a farm. There is a lot to farming beyond simply planting, tending and harvesting crops. Equipment and structures like fences, sheds and what not need repairs which might go untended to during the busy harvest season. It is also pretty cold in most of Europe during the winter and keeping warm is a big job for a subsistence farmer, I imagine a lot of time would be spent collecting wood, peat or coal for fires. In general though I would imagine that the overall activity level would decrease a bit depending on the location. Modern society is pretty focused on constant activity (or at least the simulation of activity through media), but I don't think this is always the case. I once saw a documentary about the Kombai hunter gather people. When they didn't have anything to do like building houses or getting food, they just sat around and did nothing, much to the consternation of the Westerners who came to live with them. I wouldn't be shocked if a medieval peasant spent a fair amount of time winter time just sitting around trying to stay warm. --Leivick (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Daniel. I have read that tribal peoples in far eastern Siberia (east of Manchuria) spent almost half of their working hours in a typical year cutting and otherwise preparing wood to burn through the winter. Of course, the climate of most of Europe is warmer than that of far eastern Siberia, but still, especially north of the Alps and Pyrenees, heating is a serious necessity, and throughout the continent fuel is needed for cooking year-round. Therefore, a major winter activity was felling trees (by hand, of course), sawing trunks and limbs, and splitting cut wood with axes. Cut wood would also have to be hauled from the forest to the village. Along coasts and rivers, fishing could be an important winter activity. Women would have been busy with their usual household chores, so much more time consuming in an age without appliances or fossil fuels. In the time that they saved from not having to do their outdoor growing-season work, women would have knit and perhaps woven cloth and sewn clothing. In some parts of Europe during the high Middle Ages, such as Flanders and parts of Italy, cloth production was a major source of income. Women also spent time on food-processing crafts, such as brewing, or salting or smoking meat from slaughtered animals. Marco polo (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minor comment - unless you fell dead trees, wood first needs to be dried before it can be used as firewood. You can't just cut down a tree and burn the wood the next day. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that many times on bonfires. Green wood certainly burns, but does not give out as much heat as dried wood. 92.15.13.152 (talk) 11:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that but left that detail out. Wood was actually cut for use the following winter. The wood being burned had been cut the previous winter. Marco polo (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes during non-harvest seasons they were away on military campaigns. The majority of people in a medieval army weren't professional soldiers, and when they felt like they had been away from home long enough, or campaigning had carried over into planting or harvesting seasons, they sometimes just quit and went back to their farms. (The people I am thinking of may not be literal "peasants", though, probably more like free landholders who had to oversee their farms and their own peasants.) But, as always, the question depends on where and when. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weren't there very few winter campaigns in medieval warfare?--Wetman (talk) 13:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's more of a summer thing, before the harvest. But it happened sometimes. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tell each other a folktale or even folktales, weave cloth, do crafts, drink beer, make babies. They probably made all their own clothes, furniture etc unlike nowadays so were kept busy. 92.15.26.152 (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, as days are short in winter and candles may have not been particularly cheap for an average peasant family, many peasants probably just went to bed early. — Kpalion^(talk) 10:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rushlights were used in Britain. It must have been really difficult to stay warm, even in bed, since the only fabrics available were expensive wool or linen. The winter nights of northern europe are far longer than those of the US I think. 92.15.13.152 (talk) 11:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading a translated diary written by a literate well-to-do German peasant - cannot remember his name. The must be other mediaeval literature that could tell you of their lifestyle - Chaucer or Grimm's Fairy Tales perhaps. Medieval People by Eileen Power is freely downloadable here http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/13144 but the literature concerning that time underepresents the common peasant. 92.15.13.152 (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, I'm reading King Lear and I had a question. When Regan and Goneril forbid their subordinates to help Lear after he storms out into the templates when they do not permit him to keep his 100 knights, Gloster helps him anyway. But why did they punish Gloster by plucking out his eyes? That seems a bit extreme. Perhaps I interpreted it wrong, but it seems to me that Regan and Goneril do not hate their father, but are exasperated by his senile excesses, and wanted to teach him a lesson through "tough love". I would think a lesser punishment would be more suitable; am I misinterpreting anything. 24.92.70.160 (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have figured out the answer yourself. The real question is why you don't want to accept it. Looie496 (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that the blinding of Gloster is not done so much to punish him for his concern for Lear, but for treason. Edmund steals the incriminating letter from France from his father's closet and gives it to Cornwall - Cornwall, already angry with Gloster for supporting Lear and intent on reprisals ("I will have my revenge ere I depart this house"), falls into a rage, sends to alert Albany of the French invasion and brands Gloster a traitor. Regan and Goneril's charming suggestions of hanging and blinding are made in response to this outburst. Karenjc 20:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

King Lear revisited

OK, me again. I think I misunderstood the characters of Goneril and Regan, probably due to cultural differences between Shakespeare's time and ours (and due to me reading the play rather than watching it; I'll see it later this month). I was on their side until the end when they competed for Edmund's love and plotted to kill people, because their arguments that Lear is old and senile and should not hold too much power lest he use it rashly seemed perfectly correct in the beginning considering his actions. I also thought they were correct in saying he did not need 100 knights and servants always following him around. During the storm Lear chooses to go, he is not forced out, because he is not allowed his 100 knights. My question is, how would this have been perceived in Shakespeare's time, and what aspects of the play might I not be getting? Thanks. 24.92.70.160 (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried reading the Wikipedia article on King Lear? It is pretty comprehensive and has some of the more common interpretations and analyses. --Jayron32 19:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One aspect that might be confusing is that it was formerly thought that the parent should always be obeyed, and children should never question them. Consider the 5th Commandment, "Honor Thy Father and Mother". Note that there's no exception listed for if your parents are evil or senile. Also, the fact that it's listed as a Commandment, and thus more important than other things which weren't listed, like not committing rape, shows that people back then had a very different concept of the relative weights of those two crimes. While King Lear was written much closer to our time than the Bible, those "old-fashioned Biblical values" were still widely held in Shakespeare's time. StuRat (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the past years there were several news stories about young criminals being taken on expensive holidays (="vacations" in US english) at taxpayers expense in far flung exotic locations with luxury accommodation.

Is there any evidence that these holidays have actually turned the young criminals into responsible members of society or not? Thanks 92.29.120.249 (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link to one of these stories? It is hard to answer without some sort of reference point to go by. --Jayron32 19:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen such stories. I have seen stories of taking inner city children who had never had a holiday, and who also were at risk of dropping out of education, on holidays to farms, and that these had a very positive effect. Also of young offenders institutes that used to take their children on holidays to farms, again to give them some contact with that natural world and achievable chores with visible effects, but they had to cancel them because idiot journalists spun them as 'luxury holidays for criminals', and idiot readers moaned that children weren't being punished enough for their deprived childhoods. 86.163.0.221 (talk) 21:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen stories of kids dying of cancer taken on expensive holidays. Given that the kids die soon after, is that a waste of money? HiLo48 (talk) 23:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Make a Wish foundation would certainly say it's not (a waste). The Masked Booby (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nor would I. HiLo48 (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The juvenile justice system where I live sends delinquent city and suburban kids to a farm maintained by the county for that purpose. It's very effective at cutting recidivism, according to the stats they keep on it. It has cows, pigs, chickens, rabbits, sheep, several kinds of crops, horses, ploughs, and all sorts of special safety harvesting equipment. Oh, and a giant marijuana plantation on neighboring public land the authorities found a few years ago. lol. It was very popular with the delinquents, and a popular return destination for reformed weekend "volunteers" too, until they found the pot plantation. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 10:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These exotic foriegn holidays tended to be reported by the tabloid press in sensational terms, so its difficult to think up the appropriate words to find them again, and they did take place in the 70s, 80s or 90s. The deliquent would be taken on holiday with a social worker or two going with them. They were not merely to farms but to exotic foriegn locations far away. 92.15.13.152 (talk) 11:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't argue for this practice, but believe the theory behind it is that kids living in a bad area tend to view that as their whole world, and don't think there's any other way to act. When exposed to the wider world, the theory states, they develop a wider world view, and see that they have other options besides selling drugs at the corner. In the US, we tend to use a variation on this called "boot camps", where the kids are taken out, as a group, to the country, but are then forced to work hard. Look at this section of our article for some of the reasoning behind them and alternatives: Boot_camp_(correctional)#Alternatives. StuRat (talk) 22:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why can the government do the former, but apparantly has to do the latter? If its something to do with contract law, then doesnt the government have an implied (or for civil servants perhaps even an actual) contract with people currently in their 30s, 40s, 50s etc that they will retire (if they want) at the previously established set ages? Not a request for legal advice as I'm not planning on suing Her Majesty's Government.

Second question - how much money would abolishing council tenant rent subsidies save compared with increasing retirement ages? Thanks. 92.29.120.249 (talk) 19:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean "How much money could you save if you created a massive homeless population, which you would then have do deal with the increased crime this would cause?" At some level, the justification for rent subsidies is that it pays for itself in terms of costing less in other parts of society. It's all interconnected, and there's no guarantee that, on the balance, abolishing all rent subsidies would actually save society as a whole any money. --Jayron32 19:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only effect of ending the rent subsidy would be for those who can afford it paying the market rent. Those who cannot afford it would have it paid for them by benefits as currently. 92.15.26.152 (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent it's relevant, the "minimum retirement age" doesn't actually mean the time you can retire from, but rather the time from which you can start drawing your state pension (and in many cases private pensions). I can't find a source that says the UK government can't end rent subsidies, just a lot of discussion about whether it should. If you can find some, perhaps they will suggest why this might be the case. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 19:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe its not being done because it is thought it would lose votes. 92.15.26.152 (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I want to know is what can possibly be in it for the Liberal Democrats to keep up this coalition which is being so much crueler to their ideals than Labour was. The logical solution is to institute a banker's tax and more steeply progressive taxes on the very rich, but that's not viable for the Tories. So why aren't the Lib Dems pulling out and handing it all back to Labour? I don't understand that dynamic at all. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 11:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When the rent subsidy was discussed here in the past I was shocked to learn that it was 50%, which is a hell of a lot of money to take from the taxpayer's pocket. The proposed figure of 30% is a whoppingly high number and 100% too much. Treating council house renters like normal people would evaporate a lot of the problems of the estates. 92.15.13.152 (talk) 12:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the government nor private companies can change the contractual retirement age relating to pension contributions that have already been paid, though both can change the retirement age for future contributions. The state retirement pension is not contractual because no specific part of National Insurance contributions is earmarked for pensions, so it can be changed by any government, and most governments world-wide (who pay it) are likely to increase the age as life expectancy increases. The Lib-Dems have been able to wield considerable influence to make tax and benefit changes more progressive than they would otherwise have been. Unfortunately, there are not enough "very rich" people to solve the tax/deficit problem, and even if there were, many would emigrate rather than pay the 95% tax that was imposed in the 1960s. Some of Labour's tax changes, such as the doubling of the 10% starting rate, were far from progressive. Dbfirs 18:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How would one go about finding out what the laws are as to whether and outdoor furnace is legal in his municipality? Please note I am not looking for the legal advice itself, rather a way that I can find out. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably this is covered by the same office in your local municipality where you get building permits to do stuff like add a carport to the side of your house or build a shed. Whatever this body or office is called (zoning board maybe?) would be the place to contact. --Jayron32 19:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you call City Hall, or perhaps just show up at City Hall, they should at least be able to tell you who to contact in your local area if they can't answer the question right there. APL (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. In the past, I've had questions about who to contact about various things in my town. Usually a call to the town/city hall will get you answers fairly quickly. You might be forwarded to one department or another a couple times before you land in the right office but it shouldn't take more than 5-10 minutes. It may be the zoning board, or it may be some sort of fire official. It just depends on how things are set up in your town. Dismas|^(talk) 01:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a commonly used scale for classifying friendships into different degrees of "closeness"? If so, what are the different degrees of friendship and their associated criteria? Thanks. --173.49.12.76 (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does the article Social network give you a start to research your question? --Jayron32 02:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is so subjective that there is not any recognized scale, but you might these days see kids with a singular "best friend," or multiple "best friends forever" (BFFs), then multiple best friends, good friends, friends and then acquaintances, for example; but again these terms don't have particular agreed-upon meanings other than decided by those using the terms. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 11:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ladder theory Royor (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there now or has there ever been a school of thought known as Christian Nihilism? If so, what are its basic tenets, and who have been some of its most notable adherents? If not, what are the most likely reasons why not?--99.251.211.17 (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did a google search and found a number of uses of the phrase, but most of them seem to be derogatory, used by some Christians to criticize people they think are not good Christians. I am not finding anyone using that term to describe themselves, as yet. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Google seems to find plenty of links... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google gives some links...for example at American thinker it states:

Christian Nihilism is the Christian principle of non-judgment erased of all laws of God. It harms through injustice and terror. And even worse, it is used to enhance political power or to achieve the nihilist goal of destruction of our entire political system. Like a hostage held by the Symbionese Liberation Army, Christian Nihilism dictates that our culture be raped, beaten, stigmatized, intimidated, robbed, terrorized, marginalized, and silenced so that something better can be created.

While humanism would sit well with Christianity, as it was created by devout christians in the form of Christian humanism, nihilism is an extension of the the notion that God is dead which counters the main notion of Christianity in that Jesus (or some representation of him) lives on somewhere. There is sufficient material to create an article on Christian nihilism if anyone wants (or maybe I will).Smallman12q (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course there's Kierkegaard, who is even mentioned in the Nihilism article. Looie496 (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but not as an adherent. He was arguing against it. Kierkegaard is often considered a sort of existentialist, in the sense that he sustained a sort of radical freedom, not so much freedom from oppression as freedom of the will, I think. And sometimes existentialism and nihilism merge a little along the borderline. But Kierkegaard himself was not anywhere near the border. --Trovatore (talk) 06:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many people might say that the Nietzsche-influenced Nazis were nominally Christian but acted as the predominant nihilists of their time. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 11:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to look into some of the radical theologians of the 1960s, such as Thomas J. J. Altizer, Gabriel Vahanian and William Hamilton. I don't think they ever used the term "Christian Nihilism" but their thought comes pretty close to the idea. Altizer is probably the most famous of the group. There's a pretty good interview with him on the "Point of Inquiry" website. You can download it from this page. His basic idea was that, from Nietzsche, "God is dead" but unlike Nietzsche he means this literally (as in, God died, as Jesus, on the cross and is no longer with us). Quoting from the New Gospel of Christian Atheism he writes "We must recognize that the proclamation of the death of God is a Christian confession of faith, and of a uniquely Christian faith in the ultimacy of the Crucifixion. For to know the God who has truly and actually died is to know the God who died in Jesus Christ, and ultimate and absolute death that the Christian knows as the one source of redemption, a redemption that is finally apocalypse itself." I hope this helps. ThemFromSpace 11:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to understand it, it'd be best to read up on Nietzsche's thoughts on religion. See:Murphy, Tim (2001-10). Nietzsche, metaphor, religion. SUNY Press. ISBN 9780791450871. Retrieved 20 December 2010. ((cite book)): Check date values in: |date= (help). Hope this helps.Smallman12q (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]