Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 September 26

How do I buy stocks? I may want to buy stocks in the future because I want be an investor (a shareholder). Jet (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following should not be thought of as financial advice. You should do your own research and go with what you feel comfortable with. The following is just my thoughts on the matter: It would probably be best for you to go to a real life stock broker if you have no experience with this such as Edward Jones Investments. The brokers at the company can answer questions for you and have experience to draw from. You could also go through an online broker such as E-Trade but you'll have to do all your own research and the only people to ask questions of are other investors. Dismas|^(talk) 00:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what was the name of the Chinese Minister who Perform over 3000 cermonies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.172.216.68 (talk) 02:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, could you be thinking of Sun Myung Moon, known for his mass "weddings" (actually, Blessing Ceremonies)? He's actually Korean, though. - Eron ^Talk 03:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why shakespeare is popular, because of what reason he become the greatest? tell the thing that you got yourself.Flakture 03:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) His plays stand out versus most of his contemporaries as being much better, including complex symbolism and subtle plays on words which they lacked.

2) I also feel that being old has something to do with it. His plays are old enough that the language sounds exotic, yet not so old as to be completely incomprehensible (Old English). I think something similar happened with the Bible, where most people prefer the King James Version, or equivalent, precisely because of the archaic language used ("Thou shalt..."). StuRat 04:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if #2 holds water. What about other plays from that time? They're just as exotic, but nowhere near as popular. Clarityfiend 04:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's where #1 comes into play. StuRat 04:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

#2 is a bit backwards. The reason that type of language (Shakespearean and KJV) is understandable to us is because of its popularity, not the other way around. Those works have shaped the English language as we know it today. If they hadn't been popular, they wouldn't have shaped the language. A lot of scholars have said that he was popular because, to be blunt, a group of guys got together in the 18th century and decided he should be. One major contributor to his influence would be Samuel Johnson, who made the first attempt at what has become the Oxford English Dictionary, as well as prescribing grammar rules to the English language. He was a Shakespeare fan, and added many of Shakespeare's words to the dictionary, giving him credit for them. Johnson's writings have influenced the English language immensely. For example, he is the reason that English, unlike almost all other languages, discourages double negatives. Wrad 05:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While that may have had an effect, I'd say the primary reason that Shakespeare's language is understandable by us is that many of those words are still in modern usage (although often with different spellings). Thus, the few words that aren't modern can be figured out from the context. This isn't true with Old English, where there are too few words in common with modern English to figure it out. StuRat 16:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Shakespeare's language is still in modern usage because it's famous. Not the other way around (i.e. Shakespeare is famous because his words are in modern usage). You bring up a good point, though. Old English is not understandable by us because the French took over England in 1066 and drastically changed the English language over a period of time. Shakespeare would probably not be famous if a similar invasion of the language and people of England had occurred between the time he wrote and the present day. Wrad 16:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me give an example. Here's the opening paragraph from A Midsummer Night's Dream:

Now, fair Hippolyta, our nuptial hour
Draws on apace; four happy days bring in
Another moon: but, O, methinks, how slow
This old moon wanes! she lingers my desires,
Like to a step-dame or a dowager
Long withering out a young man's revenue.

Now, I find only about 3 words in that paragraph which I would say are not modern, shown in bold, and they are easily figured out from the context. Most words, like "now", "our", "hour", "draws", "on", "four", "happy", "days", "bring", "in", "another", "but", "how", "slow", "this", "old", "she", "my", "desires", "like", "to", "a", "or", "long", "withering", "out", "young", and "man" would be in modern English whether or not Shakespeare had ever existed or was currently popular. StuRat 16:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

revenue seems to have a forgotten sense here. —Tamfang 19:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and "moon" nowadays doesn't carry any reference to Diana, the goddess of virginity, as it would have done to Shakespeare's audience. AndyJones 19:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't quite certain how some of those words were being used (did "revenue" mean income, as today ?), so didn't include them in either list. "Moon" seems to be used to mean month, which is somewhat old-fashioned, but not completely archaic. Still, far more of those words (mainly the small words) are exactly the same as the modern usage, than are not. StuRat 15:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - the image is taken from what we would now call trust law - his sexual desires are unused and useless, pending the consummation (at the next full moon) in the same way that a young man's capital is unused and useless pending the death of the dowager life tenant. AndyJones 19:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although the life tenant would usually be entitled to the income (revenue) and the remainderman to the capital; but anyway... "moon", to me, also suggests an allusion to the menstrual cycle. And Diana was herself a female warrior - an Amazon, like Hippolyta.-- !! ?? 19:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed: "moon" meaning "month" isn't even a metaphor. Moon usually carries an allusion to the menstrual cycle for me, too, although it's hard to know whether that's always Shakespeare's intention. The word moon appears many times in MND. It's certainly the intended meaning of Olivia's "...not that time of moon with me to make one in so skipping a dialogue..." line in Twelfth Night. AndyJones 12:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another good point, he wrote for the masses, so he get as cryptic as he could have if he's catered completely to the educated. Wrad 16:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've always felt that the KJV connection was meaningful: when I first came to Shakespeare the language wasn't alien to me because of the similarity with things I'd heard in church. That's just anecdotal, though, so I cannot source it. Since no-one else has done so, can I direct the original questioner to William Shakespeare#Critical reputation, Shakespeare's reputation, and Timeline of Shakespeare criticism. AndyJones 19:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and we could consider the argument that Shakespeare really does have some merit. The answers you've got so far are a bit like discussions of the merits of Cassius Clay that fail to mention that the guy was a decent boxer. AndyJones 19:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of his contemporaries remain popular, Christopher Marlowe and Ben Jonson for example. Purely a personal opinion, but I found The Alchemist and Volpone laugh-out-loud funny, which I could not say for any Shakespeare comedy. No accounting for taste. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know, Flakture, there are sometimes rare moments in time and history, times of upheaval and transition, times of renewal; times that are given particular shape and meaning by the happy coincidence that they fall within the lifetime of an individual of rare genius. The century in which Shakespeare was born was one of profound change; of reformation in religion and reshaping of manners. It was a time when the old Medieval certainties were giving way to new ways of thinking; to a whole range of new attitudes about people and their place both in this world and in the world beyond. Shakespeare was born on the cusp of history, when the focus of history was moving away from the ancient centres of civilization, towards a the new world of the Atlantic seaboard. It was in Shakespeare that the old and the new were combined. He was born at just the right time, when the Gothic world of Medieval Christianity had not quite given way, and when the the modern world had not fully taken shape. It was given to Shakespeare to create that world; to create its consciousness and to create its language.

Think about the nature of drama before Shakespeare. We are dealing, in the main, with character 'types', representing not so much the complexity of human action, but an attitude, either of virtue or of vice; of perfection or corruption; of salvation or damnation. But Shakespeare humanises and combines these attributes in the single individual; in a unique personality, expressed in both in forms of exterior action, and in moods of interior thought. He gives shape to new and more complex forms of human psychology; in weakness and in strength. His greatest contribution is to shape charcters, like that of Hamlet, whose tragedy is one of indecision; or Othello, whose tragedy is one of manipulation; or King Lear, whose tragedy is one of blind pride. They, and so many others of his creations, are 'prefectly inperfect', not bound by time of space, characters who are able to offer someting new, from generation to generation. His 'natural' qualty may not have appealed to the mannered tastes in drama that gained favour after his death; but he was almost bound to speak anew to those who came after; to the Romantic sensibility which emerged in the eighteenth century, when notions of the human begin to acquire their definitive form. If I were to try to define the true greatness of Shakespeare it would be in this: it was he who invented what it means to be mortal, and to stand alone in that mortality.

Shakespeare's time was also that in which the English language, as we understnd it today, is beginning to acquire its final shape and structure. In translating the Bible into English William Tyndale began this process by introducing a whole new range of words and phrases. But Shakespeare surpassed Tyndale as a miner of our language. His vocabulary is simply huge; the words he draws out, the combinations he makes astonishing in their range and power. There are people today, people who have never read Shakespeare, or seen a peformance of one of his plays, who quite unconsciously use words and phrases invented by the Bard. He coined so many new words that it is difficult for me to know where to begin. Did you know, taking just a few at random, that 'into thin air', 'time-honoured', 'be-all and end all', 'breathed his last', 'crack of doom', 'dead as a doornail', 'good riddance' and so many other like expressions, some which people have come to accept as 'proverbial', were all created or first used by Shakespeare? So, too, were words like 'addiction', 'cold-blooded', 'critic', 'denote', 'bedazzled', 'birthplace', 'belongings', 'eventful', 'full-grown', and 'zany', yes, zany. There are too many others to mention here.

Finally, and from a purely English point of view, he might be said to have created a popular sense of patriotism and love of country; a love that goes beyond mere loyalty to the monarch. I am thinking specifically here of John of Gaunt's This England speech from Richard II. The one that moves me most, though, is the speech given by Henry V on the eve of Agincourt, the one I have come to think of as the 'Band of Brothers' speech;

This day is called the feast of Crispian:

He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,

Will stand a tip-toe when the day is named,

And rouse him at the name of Crispian.

He that shall live this day, and see old age,

Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,

And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian:'

Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars.

And say 'These wounds I had on Crispin's day.'

Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,

But he'll remember with advantages

What feats he did that day: then shall our names.

Familiar in his mouth as household words

Harry the king, Bedford and Exeter,

Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,

Be in their flowing cups freshly remember'd.

This story shall the good man teach his son;

And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,

From this day to the ending of the world,

But we in it shall be remember'd;

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;

For he to-day that sheds his blood with me

Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,

This day shall gentle his condition:

And gentlemen in England now a-bed

Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,

And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks

That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

Great speech, great writer, great man. Supreme. Clio the Muse 00:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, he was a good boxer, I mean writer :). I guess a good way to sum up the above is to say that he was intimately aware of the change of his day, and thus was the first to write about what would become commonplace in the future. Wrad 00:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that the themes that occur in Shakespeare's work are the sort of thing that are universal - particularly those on the failings of the human nature. Think of how many of his plays have been adapted into a more modern setting, and how little the plot (and sometimes even the language) gets changed. Confusing Manifestation 03:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikipedians, Currently I am reading "Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World" by Avi Shlaim. One question which has been lingering on in my mind is : How did so many Jews from all over the world migrate and settle in Palestine (pre 1948 period) ? As mentioned in his book, Avi has pointed that the Jews were spread all over the world , in different countries, living in sort of 'ghettos' after holocaust. But nowhere has he mentioned how so many Jews from so many countries migrated to Palestine, and how they turned the population ratio in favour of Jews? Could anyone please help.

Thanks & Regards, Nikhil. Illogical Programmer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.5.136.234 (talk) 03:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand the question. Are you asking what means of transport they used (ships, trains, etc.), how they could afford it, or why they choose to move ? You might want to check out Zionism for some of their motivations. As for money, many Jews in America financed the formation or the embryonic modern Israel, including immigration. I would expect that most arrived by ship. StuRat 03:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My question deals with : "how they arrived?", and "how they managed to do it?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.5.136.234 (talk) 05:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sailing from Mediterranean ports, by and large. Read the rather sketchy pages on Berihah and Aliyah Bet. Considerable organizing went on in the DP camps filled with stateless Jews or repatriants (e.g. from the USSR to Poland), many unwilling to return to their countries of origin due to prevaling conditions; I suspect more prospective emigres were in these camps rather than in what the OP calls "sort of 'ghettos'" — read about them in Sh'erit ha-Pletah, the Hebrew name for the Jewish Holocaust survivor community in Europe. -- Deborahjay 07:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should read Exodus by Leon Uris. Although fictionalized, it goes into the arrival of the Jewish immigrants and how they got to Palestine. Corvus cornix 17:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Long Way Home", winner of the 1998 Academy Award for Documentary Feature, presents this topic, focusing on the years 1945 - 1948 (post-Holocaust, pre-State). -- Deborahjay 09:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is not entirely the same question, David Hirst's The Gun and the Olive Branch has an amusing jingle sung by Iraqi Jewish immigrants to Israel after 1948 - perhaps including a younger Professor Avi S. As they were a very rich community dissatisfied by their displacement and their poverty and treatment in Israel, in it they curse Ben-Gurion as well as the donkey they rode to Israel on, wishing it had never arrived. So, metaphorically at least, Shlaim himself arrived on a speeding donkey. More seriously, you might want to look at I. F. Stone's Underground to Palestine (And Reflections Thirty Years Later) describing his travels with Jewish immigrants on ships to Palestine. However, it was the Jewish immigration in the next few years after 1948 and the Palestinian exodus that really turned the population ration in favor of the Jews. By the time of the Partition Plan in November 1947, Jews were 1/3 of all Palestine's population and a bit more than half of that of the proposed Jewish state of the plan. General histories of the Mandate like Christopher Sykes' Crossroads to Israel explain how the refugees ships before 1948 became a political football. Of course this immigration had to be largely underground because of the restrictions imposed by the 1939 White Paper.John Z 06:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are some of the most important works of twentieth century theatre? Thanks! --S.dedalus 06:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few suggestions, see very sketchy list below. No doubt I'll forget some I'd have included if I'd spent longer on this. It's also worth saying that a lot of good 20th century drama was written for the screen and not the theatre. Xn4 08:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Anton Chekhov: The Cherry Orchard, Three Sisters

• W. B. Yeats: Cathleen Ní Houlihan

• T. S. Eliot: Murder in the Cathedral, The Cocktail Party

• Eugene O'Neill: Long Day's Journey Into Night, Beyond the Horizon

• Arthur Miller: Death of a Salesman

• Christopher Fry: The Lady's Not for Burning

• Edward Albee: Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, Three Tall Women

• Bertolt Brecht: The Threepenny Opera , Rise and Fall of the City of Mahagonny, The Seven Deadly Sins, The Caucasian Chalk Circle, The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui

• Thornton Wilder: Our Town, The Skin of Our Teeth

• J. M. Synge: The Playboy of the Western World

• Joe Orton: Entertaining Mr Sloane

• Tennessee Williams: A Streetcar Named Desire, The Glass Menagerie

• Friedrich Dürrenmatt: The Visit

• Harold Pinter: The Caretaker, The Homecoming, Betrayal

• Samuel Beckett: Waiting for Godot, Endgame

• Tom Stoppard: Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead, Jumpers, The Coast of Utopia

• Jean-Paul Sartre: No Exit, Les Mains Sales

• Jean Anouilh: Antigone

• Eugène Ionesco: Rhinoceros

• Paul Zindel: The Effect of Gamma Rays on Man-in-the-Moon Marigolds

• Peter Shaffer: Equus, The Royal Hunt of the Sun, Amadeus

Afterthoughts: here are a few more... Xn4 20:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Friedrich Dürrenmatt: Romulus the Great

• Luigi Pirandello: Six Characters in Search of an Author

• Dario Fo: Accidental Death of an Anarchist

• Michael Frayn: Copenhagen

• Elfriede Jelinek: Ein Sportstück

He's a little out of fashion now, but George Bernard Shaw was also regarded as a giant among playwrights in his day. Man and Superman, Pygmalion and Saint Joan all date from the 20th century. 80.254.147.52 10:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the great list. That will keep me reading for some time! --S.dedalus 04:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your page on Edward VI of England tells me little about him as a person. He died young, I know, but do we have any indication from his attitudes, outlook or conduct what kind of king he might have made? I look forward to your replies. 81.151.6.223 07:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Words used to describe Edward include priggish, precocious, and fanatical. Some people imagine that he'd have been a variation on his half-sister Mary, the Calvinist King Josiah. I've never been entirely convinced by these comments. Edward still had growing up to do, and who can say how he would have turned out at 21, let alone at 30 or 40. His father is a case in point: Henry at 21 had little in common with Henry at 40. Edward seems in many respects to have been perfectly normal, with a great liking for sports, and precocity is to be expected from child-rulers. No doubt he'd have done things differently to Mary and Elizabeth. As a king, rather than a queen, and without an unpopular Spanish husband or the threat of Mary of Scotland to worry him, he'd have had many advantages that his half-sisters did not. And when he felt then need, he'd have had the useful opportunity to dispose of any advisors he didn't care for, and to gain popular acclaim for doing so. It's hard to see John Dudley prospering in the long run under any ruler but Queen Jane. One major difference, if Edward managed to produce children (who would he marry?), is that Union of the Crowns would not happen. In this H-net review of Richard Rex's The Tudors, we read that

In a refreshing change from the usual reanimations of Mary Tudor that sometimes appear in accounts of the English Reformation, Rex goes on to speculate counter-factually that if Edward VI had lived into his fifties like his father and grandfather, England would have become a staunchly Protestant nation of the Scottish variety. This Protestant England might even have brought about the complete triumph of Protestantism north of the Alps and the Pyrenees.

Might be worth a look. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward's Journal is highly instructive; a guide, in many ways, to the kind of man that he was likely to become; priggish, yes, but he shows a good understanding of the realities of politics; forms of understanding that would not have been out of place in his father. There is, for example, a strong indication that he could have saved his uncle and guardian Edward Seymour from execution, if he had so wished. He did not. Somerset had ruled like a monarch, ignoring and neglecting Edward. For the young king this was the unpardonable offence. It is after the fall of Somerset that Edward begins to develop even greater maturity and political understanding, evidenced by the ever more detailed observations he makes in the Journal. His new guardian, John Dudley, Earl of Warwick, later Duke of Northumberland, was obviously aware that the young king could not be entirely disregarded. He adopted none of Somerset's pretensions, and appointed a council that was consistent with Edward's views on religion, with none of 'the Catholic sort.' The Imperial ambassador himself was to note that the king was being granted ever greater freedom. In 1552 he made his first proper showing as an active monarch in a progress through the south of England. Matters were going so well, and Edward showing such aptitude, that the Council agreed that he should assume complete responsibility for government of the kingdom in October 1553, his sixteenth birthday.

So, Edward had the understanding and ability, and many of the other qualities associated with his father, including imperiousness, fully demonstrated in his handling of his elder sister, Mary. Would he have made a good monarch? On the basis of the evidence we have the answer has to be yes, he may very well have. Better, I think, than one sister, though not, perhaps quite as great as the other. Clio the Muse 01:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that health insurance is tied to employment? I'm thinking specifically about the U.S. here, by the way. Why don't employers just drop health insurance and expect everyone to get their own insurance through some independant source? (Assuming of course that companies could get away with just getting rid of insurance as a benefit without pissing a bunch of people off) I can see the correlation between providing a 401k and your employer but not health insurance since it's not really tied directly to your pay check. Dismas|^(talk) 08:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the current U.S. market, people trying to buy health insurance as individuals are pretty much guaranteed to get screwed, so the only way to go is group plans of some kind... AnonMoos 15:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Health insurance is seen as a major benefit by employees. While they may be willing to take a job without it when young and single, once married with kids they will likely quit that job and go for a position with health insurance, if possible. Thus, employers who want to avoid all the problems caused by a high turnover rate must offer health insurance. You might ask why the employers can't just pay more so the employees can obtain insurance on their own. They could, but would likely have to pay twice as much as they are paying for insurance, if paid to employees as salary. This is due to tax implications and the high rates anyone gets quoted when applying for insurance alone. StuRat 15:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

During World War II, the govt instituted wage freezes to get inflation under control, so businesses invented health benefits as a backdoor way to increase wages. Meelar (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And once it became common practice, employer-paid insurance was made tax-exempt, making other insurance uncompetitive on price. That's one of the chief roots of the present muddle. —Tamfang 01:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Group purchasing can often get you cheaper rates than individual purchasing. 20,000 staff buying a scheme V 1 person...Who is the seller going to give preferential rates to? Additionally some businesses will underwrite their own schemes (Nestle used to run its own in-house life insurance I understand), which can reduce costs too. Private health insurance is popular, and the more 'direct' customers there are then the more that it is likely to see cost reductions, but you will plausibly pay for the 'flexibility' that such a plan offers you (less hassle when changing jobs/consistent etc.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ny156uk (talk • contribs) 17:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meelar gives an interesting answer. I don't buy the "buying in a group is cheaper" reason. The whole point of insurance is to share the risk amongst a group of people. Why should it matter if each individual pays to be in that group, or an employer pays on their behalf? They are still in the same pool as far as the insurer is concerned. At any rate there would be a massive outcry against any employer that dropped health benefits, and Insurance companies will screw you in the individual market. Got any kind of pre-existing condition or percieved-risky behaviour and they WILL deny you individual coverage. So for better or worse, employer supplied insurance is the only reasonable option right now, until insurers are forbidden by law to deny coverage (which is how the dutch do it.) I read an interserting article in the Wall Street Journal about the dutch system that said that in the US insurance companies compete to underwrite the healthiest individuals because they can choose their clients on the individual market, in a mandated-insurance environment like in the netherlands they compete to offer the best benefits for the price. Sorry I went on a little tangent there. -- Diletante 15:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many reasons why insurance is more expensive when purchased individually. One is that the sales and advertising process must be aimed at millions of individual people, versus a few companies, increasing costs. Another is that companies which sponsor insurance handle the education aspect, whereas people insured individually must be educated as to what is and isn't covered, at considerable cost to the insurance company.

Then, when claims are made, many corporate customers will do the paperwork in conjunction with their employees, getting it into good shape before it is submitted to the insurance company, while individual customers make all sorts of basic errors while filling our the forms. Finally, corporate insurance customers tend to be more stable, keeping the insurance for years and making payments consistently, while many individual customers do not. StuRat 15:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So Microsoft is rumored to buy 5% of Facebook for $0.5 billion, meaning the whole thing is worth $10 billion. Facebook's profit was $30 million, that makes a p/e of 300. Why is it worth so much? F 10:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Data mining. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 11:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a bit of a stretch to say it is worth $10 billion. Microsoft is just trying to get a way in so they can start data mining and the like. They can't buy the whole thing. So they're paying more than you'd expect for just a little piece of it, which will no doubt come with the data mining rights they want. Extrapolating from that 5% to a total net worth sounds like a leap in logic to me. --24.147.86.187 13:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it is common in the business world to purchase something for what you expect to make off it in three years. Basically, Microsoft expects to make $500 million off Facebook in the next three years. After that investment, it is profit. They are not, in any way, claiming that Facebook could profit in the same way. They are only demonstrating a believe that Microsoft can profit from what they've purchased. -- kainaw™ 15:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well essentially there is a lot of believe that the future worth/earnings of Facebook are high. As a result the price is driven up as there are more buyers (i.e. those wanting to buy/invest in facebook) than sellers (there is but one facebook for sale). As with any estimation of a business' worth it is very much guess-work and future-gazing. Like you say the price-earnings ratio if the figures are correct is ridiculously high, but you'll find that they can quickly come down as the business progresses from being a start-up to being a full corporation intent on squeezing whatever profit they can...(which I hasten to add I don't believe is a bad thing). ny156uk 17:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also remember the Internet bubble. It is not uncommon for errors to be made in high priced deals. Somebody thinks they see a way to profit or synergize by merger, buy-in, downsizing, etc. and convince decision makers. A few years later stakeholders find out they were wrong. Maybe Microsoft paid too much. We should know for sure in a few years, then it will be history, not investing. 8) Lazyquasar 06:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came across a tantalizing reference to some 'gun-boat diplomacy' in South America early last century which seemingly involved the brother and nephew of the English writer Rider Haggard, the author of King Solomon's Mines. I know this is a really vague background but can anyone fill me in here? Bel Carres 11:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bel, try to get a hold of Gunboats, Corruption, and Claims: Foreign Intervention in Venezuela, 1899-1908 by B. S. McBeth. Alternatively,-and for the specific episode you allude to here-there is Crisis in Caracas by Anthony Delano, which you will find in the January 2006 issue of the BBC History Magazine. William Haggard, the elder brother of H Rider Haggard, became the British minister to Venezuela in 1897, where he was joined in Caracas by his nephew Godfrey, the son of a third brother, who took up a position as an unpaid clerk. Soon after his arrival Cipriano Castro became president of Venezuela, a position he was to hold until 1909. As colourful and as controversial in his own way as our own dear Hugo Chavez, Castro defaulted on the country's foreign debts. In 1902, in a rare show of mutual co-opreration, England and Germany sent naval squadrons to Venezuela to bring President Castro to a more 'reasonable' frame of mind, a wonderful example of pre-war gunboat diplomacy. The whole 'rattling yarn' was recorded by Godfrey in his own eye-witness account, parts of which were later incorporated into his unpublished autobiography. Clio the Muse 02:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - the "Venezuela Crisis" of 1902-3 is dealt with in the second and third chapters of Brothers Across the Ocean: British Foreign Policy and the Origins of Anglo-American 'Special Relationship' 1900-1905 by Iestyn Adams, (partially available from Google Books), and "A matter of extreme urgency": Theodore Roosevelt, Wilhelm II, and the Venezuela Crisis of 1902 by Edmund Morris in Naval War College Review, Spring 2002 (available at findarticles).

The incident was not entirely economic: it was preceded by a boundary dispute between Venezuela and British Guiana, on-going border incidents with the British colony of Trinidad, and harassment of British vessesls and people in Venezuela. At the start of 1902, the British were distracted by the Second Boer War, but Venezeula quickly moved toward the top of the list after it ended, and a combined British and German fleet blockaded Venezuela. US public opinion was inflamed by allied vessels shelling the ports of La Guaira and Puerto Cabello. Theodore Roosevelt passed on a request from the Venezuelans for arbitration of the dispute. The British were in favour of arbitration; the Germans were not. The US was also concerned at possible German territorial ambitions in South America (a few years earlier, the Germans had taken a 99-year lease and established a military base at Kiaochow in China). The US invoked the Monroe Doctrine: having already concentrated superior naval forces to the allied fleet, they threatening to drive the German fleet away by force. The Germans accepted arbitration at the last minute, although Roosevelt declined to be the arbiter himself. Other key actors were Lord Lansdowne, the British Foreign Secretary, and the German ambassador to the US, Theodor von Holleben (de:Theodor_von_Holleben), who did not seem to realise until very late in the day that Roosevelt was serious in threatening war. He was recalled to Germany shortly thereafter, and died a few years later.

International attention soon moved elsewehere. Roosevelt was concerned that Latin American countries that got into trouble may try to shelter behind the US shield, and so announced the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine: that the US would intervene where necessary in the economic affairs of countries in the Caribbean and Central America. -- !! ?? 17:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most wars in the ancient Greek and Roman world ended witht he defeated female population being enslaved. My question is how did the experiance vary? The women reduced to slavery included aristocrats, princesses and queens. The status varies from concubine and mistress to essentially legal wife. In some accounts the women were basically concubines and were treated fairly well and bore children. Hector's wife for example eventually ended up Queen. Others like Cassandra for example were raped and reduced to essentially the status of sex slave. So what was the general experiance of female slaves in the classical world? --Jbs073 14:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on Slavery in antiquity and Slavery in ancient Greece... AnonMoos 15:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I ask "what was the universe like before it was created" (simple example) - it has no answer...

What is the name of this type of question? (Specifically one that is not covered by a priori knowledge)87.102.32.155 15:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC) (Also have I used the term 'a priori' correctly here?)87.102.32.155 15:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV - The universe wasn't created. It is infinite in time and space. The Big Bang simplified - First of all there was nothing which suddenly exploded into everything. Lanfear's Bane 15:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No.no.no. It's not a question about the universe - but about the type of question..87.102.32.155 15:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And how exactly is your opinion of how the universe was created a "neutral point of view"?87.102.32.155 18:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, your question is rather unclear. Contradictory question? Rhetorical question? Or are you looking for the trademarked term, Imponderables? By the way I believe the "answer" to the example question is Wú...Also, instead of removing other's answers as not what you're looking for, maybe you could leave them up so people know what you're not looking for; clarifying your original question might help also.38.112.225.84 16:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 'imponderable' is a good discription - I was thinking maybe a ' ... fallacy' but what exactly?87.102.32.155 18:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think people are confused because if this question is about a word for something, you should have asked it on the language desk. Anyway, I would call such a question meaningless, invalid, or even nonsensical (although nonsensical would better describe questions such as What is the difference between a duck?). I don't think a question can be "contradictory", and this is definitely not a "rhetorical question". —Keenan Pepper 17:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there not a philosophical term for this type of question - in relation to logical reasoning?87.102.32.155 18:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something like it being 'tautologically incorrect'?87.102.32.155 18:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think paradoxical might work. At the very least, the article on Paradox might help give you some ideas. ◄Zahakiel► 18:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, Keenan, "a question containing a logical contradiction", better? Or, how about, "a question that is self-contradictory"? And, you can't possibly imagine a scenario whereby the example question would be posed rhetorically? Because, I can. No need to answer any of these. 87.102- Self-refuting? You might be out of luck if your searching for some super specific industry jargon; if I recall, philosopher's are big on coining their own terms and/or redefining existing terms to mean whatever they want. Maybe read all of Wittgenstein and see if you come across it...good luck. 38.112.225.84 19:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the term 'non-question'. Publilius Syrus said "Not every question deserves an answer". The librarian Robert Hauptman quoted this and added: "Not every question has an answer. The unraveling of the non-question seems to be beyond many patrons and librarians." Xn4 19:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe over-complicating this, are you by any chance looking for fallacy of complex question (loaded question). Could work I suppose... 38.112.225.84 20:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, to be honest I was searching for "super specific industry jargon" - trying to recall a phrase - it didn't come up, but that doesn't matter, thanks for all your responses.83.100.254.236 11:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've always liked Jack Vance's handy phrase, "The question is nuncapatory." Lisiate 02:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Vance's phrase is "The question is nuncupatory", from which I believed, until I looked it up last week, that nuncupatory meant something like 'vacuous' or 'superfluous'. (Yes, I know I've linked to 'nuncupative' not 'nuncupatory' - Wiktionary doesn't have the latter). --ColinFine 22:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like the Gestapo in Germany the NKVD kept a close watch on public attitudes in the 1930s. Can I have some examples of what they uncovered? Thanx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.241.224 (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See NKVD. Xn4 01:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Everyday Stalinism-Ordinary Life in Extraordinary Times: Soviet Russia in the 1930s by Shiela Fitzpatrick, especially Chapter 7, headed Conversations and Listeners. It's really quite fascinating. Some of the conversations overheard reveal a deep sense of hostility towards the regime. At the time of the Kirov murder in 1934 a sailor was arrested for saying "I am not sorry for Kirov. Let them kill Stalin. I will not be sorry for him." One nine-yeat old schoolboy said "Down with Soviet power. When I grow up I will kill Stalin." Some of the comments reported about international politics are also highly revealing. If this can be believed-and remember we are dealing here with the NKVD-there was a lot of admiration for Hitler and the Nazis. One student said, "The Fascists are constructing socialism in a peaceful way. Hitler and the Fascists are clever people." In the hungry winter of 1936-7, when there were serious bread shortages, admiration for Hitler increased all the more-"If Hitler takes power, it will be better for Russia. Only Hitler can give life to the people." Anyway, 86.151, you will find all of this and more besides in Fitzpatrick's book. Clio the Muse 02:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I seem to be having some trouble finding information on the human rights violations of Japan while they were controlling Manchuria in the 1930's. I know they used brutal tactics against the people living there to keep control of Manchuria. Does anybody know anymore about this? Thank you!

For your start, see Invasion of Manchuria, Manchukuo, Pacification of Manchukuo, and (closely related) Nanking Massacre. They have links to a mass of other material which will help you. Xn4 01:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Does anybody else know anything about this topic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.200.184 (talk) 03:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the better article in this case is Japanese war crimes. Out of all those articles I think most of it's covered...I can't spot anything that seems really incomplete, other than the rather stubbish War crimes in Manchukuo, but most of the info that would go here is probably already contained in the ones cited above. Another useful article might be Unit 731. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 06:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have the extensive material you have on Jane Addams, her father, and her famous Hull House, along with all her amazing accomplishments. With all her documentation and "surveying" of specific populations and their environments, is it safe to conclude that this amazing woman can be associated with having given "birth" and validation to the Survey? I realize the Philadelphia Survey is thought to be the most famous survey of its time, but, with all Hull House's documented surveys, is it reasonable for me to assume this?

am trying to find the name of the first known person to take a photograph (daguerreotype or otherwise) in the Rocky Mountains or western United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, it was John Mix Stanley. -- kainaw™ 22:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What was the policy of exclusivism? This policy is one in relation to the Arawaks/Ovando administration etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.59.106.147 (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silyum (Silio, Silyensis) is one of the seats of titular bishop ([1]). Hence it should be a real place. Yet I cannot find where is once was. Any help would be appreciated.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find it, but it sounds as if it might have been in Anatolia? Xn4 00:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Patara is in Antalya Province, and was also in Pamphilia, so I wonder if it could be Serik? That article says there was a Pergamene colony called Sillion (in Greek I assume) near the site of the modern city. Seems quite plausible that that would be Italianised as Silio. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This cut-out of a map of Antalya Province shows a historic site Sillyon near Serik. Nearby historic Aspendos and Perge are also titular sees.[2][3]  --Lambiam 04:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Greek -on ending is often correlated to a Latin -um or -us ending for names, and Italian -o, so Silion makes sense as your target. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steewi (talk • contribs) 05:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]