Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 December 31

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 31

Truth or myth about reading ability

I heard that, after you pass a certain age range (approximately between kindergarten and grade 5), it's very hard (some sources said even impossible) to obtain a high level of essential reading skills like recognizing an article, prose or book's main idea, recognizing author's purpose, tone, approach, and point of view, drawing conclusions, and so on because it has something to do with the development of the human mind. Is this a truth or myth?

Also, I wasn't taught any of these skills in K-12 and I never read a book annually on my own when I was K-12 (excluding the books required by school classes). So most of the time, I can't state the main idea of what I read. If the above is a myth, then what is the best way of obtaining these skills as a college student? Will it be the same advice as for kids in K-5, which is to just read a lot? I've recently started making it a habit to read some books daily to eventually gain these abilities, but this seems to be useless, because no one is standing by my side to go over what the main idea, author's purpose, etc. are and I can't figure those out by myself without any guide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ysk1 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Our article Reading skills acquisition may be of use. What you suggest seems unlikely to me, the ability to read and dissect what the 'point' of a book/text is is something that can be improved and is (in my experience) developed in your teenage years and just takes work. In terms of yourself you may want to check out Reading comprehension and the links therein. I'm not sure how helpful it'll be but it's a skill you'll acquire through reviewing what you've read and thinking about what the author is trying to say. Reading up on things like Symbolism and Metaphors etc may help too. Critical thinking is perhaps a useful link too. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Taking the content of a movie as gospel is always risky, but one point made in the recent film about Michael Oher is that he was deprived of proper teaching during that window of opportunity the OP is talking about, yet once he had the opportunity (with a tutor) he was able to succeed in high school and then in college. For studying literature, something like Cliff's Notes might be helpful. I have the same problem sometimes, of trying to figure out what an author is getting at, especially in fictional works. But there's usually someone else who has worked it out, and why re-invent the wheel? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not strictly utilitarian, but spotting underlying themes and metaphors while you're actually watching or reading a work usually adds to your enjoyment and appreciation of it. Despite being a voracious reader of fiction for pleasure over the last 47 years, I often get so caught up in the superficial story that I miss such deeper levels, and have 'D'oh!' moments when a subsequent comment by another reader or critic reveals what, in retrospect, seems both obvious and interesting to me also. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 13:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

After I wrote what I wrote about Cliff Notes, it occurred to me that the OP should read something and simply try to answer some of those basic questions. Even a whiz-bang is not going to think of everything. The guys who write Cliff Notes put a great deal of time and research into these things. And when a teacher seems to know a lot of stuff about a novel - of course they do, they've taught it dozens of times. I would just see what I could do with it, and then read the Cliff Notes to see how much I got right - and learn from that, as to their approach to these things. Learning is a layering process. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You might want to have a look at reading comprehension sheets aimed at children, like these. You'll either find that you actually are better at this than you thought, or you'll find them useful practice at this sort of thinking. If it's the second, remember that you can ask for guidance here if you're stuck (more likely on the poetry ones than the ones based on press-releases about pizza). Other than that, lots of reading should help.

Remember that the internet is your friend: there are plenty of online book groups if you can't find a real one near you. There are forums dedicated to discussing all sorts of books, so if you find a genre you particularly enjoy it should be easy to find people to discuss the books with. 86.176.48.114 (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

While some things are easier to learn at certain ages, I would be very surprised if you can't learn to read better at any age. I think reading a lot (and reading varied things - novels, short stories, newspaper articles, magazine articles, popular science books, etc., etc., etc.) is the best way forward. You might like to join a book club - that would involve reading a book each week or fortnight and then meeting up with other people that have just read that book and discussing it. That discussion would help you understand the book better and you will probably find that you contribute more and more to that discussion as the weeks go on and you get better at interpreting the books. One thing to remember is that there often isn't a "right answer" to these kind of things - good authors often write very thought provoking books where it isn't at all clear which characters were morally right, etc.. --Tango (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have worked with a lot of college students trying to teach this very skill. It is certainly teachable. It is a skill and a habit of mind, not some sort of fundamental neurological activity. It is something you can get better at over time. I see no reason to suspect it is something limited to a certain age range. Some people are going to be better at it than others, to be sure, but the idea that your brain turns off the ability to synthesize written material seems highly unlikely to me, assuming you weren't raised as a feral child or some other sort of extreme situation. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Is the article on hyperlexia relavant? ~AH1^(TCU) 19:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Which Eutropius is this?

That one.

I assume this bust (Ephesos, dated to around 450 AD) depicts Eutropius (historian), but possibly it is Eutropius (Byzantine official) or another Eutropius. Can anybody help me identify this guy? Thanks,  Sandstein  09:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking at Google Images, and this is the first one I found.[1] How's your German? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This one looks like Portugese:[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! The museum website says that the bust was accompanied by an inscription naming him the sponsor of the city's road paving, and that the style is typical of that of representations of higher officials. So I assume that we are dealing with the official here, not the historian.  Sandstein  11:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Pleasant-looking chap, eh? Reminds me of my mother-in-law. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There's an odd modern-looking feel to that bust, almost as if it were created in the 20th century or later. Woogee (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Some clarification for the wikipedia article on Christmas.

The article in question says "The Restoration of King Charles II in 1660 ended the [Christmas] ban, but many clergymen still disapproved of Christmas celebration. In Scotland, the Presbyterian Church of Scotland also discouraged observance of Christmas. James VI commanded its celebration in 1618, however attendance at church was scant." How is it possible for James VI to commend the celebration of Christmas without lifting the ban on it? Thanks in advance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.31.180 (talk) 11:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The ban was in the 1640s and 1650s, during the English Civil War, while James VI (of Scotland) and I (of England) died in 1625... AnonMoos (talk) 12:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, right, thanks! I read the article wrong. --86.159.31.180 (talk) 12:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyright exceptions

In Swedish copyright law, there is an exception stating that you may copy music, videos, images et cetera for your own personal use, but also to give away to friends and relatives. The copyright infringement does not occur until you spread the copyrighted material for public use. Is there anything like this in other countries? I am mostly interested in United States copyright law, but also others. Caspian Rehbinder (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In US copyright law, certain actions are permitted under Fair use. I do not believe that copying for friends and relatives is something that's permitted under fair use. If you're asking for any reason more than curiosity, consult a lawyer. -- Coneslayer (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Under US law, the applicable law that defines fair use is, you'll notice, incredibly vague, so unfortunately it takes knowledge of many court decisions to shape an opinion on whether a particular act of copying is "fair use" or not. Our Fair use article is pretty good about US law in this area. Giving copies away to friends and relatives isn't, I think, fair use in the US — but this has probably not been tested in court; a copyright owner is unlikely to launch a court action against anyone for this, because the $ damages are so tiny. And without a court action having happened, we can all opine over whether it's fair use or not, but it's all opinion. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it would be fair use in the U.S. at all. It's true that you need a court case to pound out the finer details, but there's no reason to think that simply making copies and distributing them would fall under fair use. It took rather fine argumentation to even make it clear that you could make copies of media for personal use. Later rulings have gone pretty far against the idea of file sharing as non-infringing use. Nowhere has there ever been a distinction about "friends and family," though. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Norwegian copyright laws are similar to what you describe, it is (so far) permitted to share files with friends and relatives, provided that you have acquired the files legally. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 00:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Geography Question

I am looking out for the place

1. Named after its founder who is an European with false claim to royal lineage 2. where a war Prisoner camp was built 3. It is related to one of the major wars world war I or II I have extensively searched Wiki and else where but with no luck. would appreciate any help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.111.75 (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any clues about whether the prisoner camp was World War I, World War II, etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 达伟 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you first specify the source of this question? Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have been unable to identify the place, but perhaps you might make some headway using the list at Pretender#False pretenders or those people in Category:Impostor pretenders. My first thought for the dubious lineage was Pierre Plantard, but I can't find a POW camp in a place named Plantard or Saint-Clair or anything similar. Karenjc 16:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Karl Wilhelm Naundorff and Schwarzheide (which has a district named Naundorf, a factory which "used Sachsenhausen concentration camp forced labor", and a "hydrotower build in 1943/44 by french prisoners of war")... AnonMoos (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I believeOz fits the bill...hotclaws 23:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Obama asks moms to return to school

Having seen a plethora of "Obama asks moms to return to school" advertisements, I just saw "Obama asks dads to return to school..." Does all of this have any origin in US federal policy, and/or has the government made any response or encouragement? --达伟 (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, all of the ads for that (and all of the Google hits for it) are pretty much the same company trying to get people to enter a contest for a "scholarship". What they get out of it, I don't know—my totally unfounded hunch is that they will start spamming people who enter with student loan offers. (Student loans are a huge business in the U.S.—they have a number of exploitive loopholes in them that other types of loans don't have. Once you have an audience of people who are looking for $10K to go back to school, you have a pretty good shot of finding people who would be willing to take out a $10K student loan.) They don't seem to correlate at all to anything other than generic federal student loan policies, and they don't seem to have anything to do with the Obama administration in particular. I suspect it is just a scam trying to capitalize on low-income people who are thinking about getting advanced education. (Which is not to say that all student loans are bad... but I wouldn't trust an organization that advertised in a misleading way over the internet. Student loans are trouble enough even when they are from legit organizations.) Be aware that much of this reply is speculative and I could be totally off the mark.--Mr.98 (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Exchange Rates in Germany 1930

What was the average exchange rate between Pounds Stirling and the German Mark in 1930? --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 20:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This link may be of use to you. I hope this helps. JW..[ T..C ] 22:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! That's EXACTLY what I wanted! --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 13:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Why isnt the European Union regarded as a country?

We do have a European parliament, European laws, and people can go and live and work in any part of the EU they choose, so why isnt it regarded as a country yet? Surely its not that otherwise it would put the USA in 2nd place in a league table of GDPs? 89.243.151.121 (talk) 22:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, if a person were asked "Which country are you from?", and answered "I'm from Europe", they'd then be asked "Yes, but which country?". Europe is seen as a single administrative unit but not as a single country. There may well come a time when answers like "I'm from Europe" will be accepted without further question. Or maybe not. Look at the UK. After over 200 years, people are still likely to answer "England", "Scotland", "Wales" or "Northern Ireland" as much as "the United Kingdom", in answer to "Which country are you from?". And all those answers are correct. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

People may identify themselves as English, Scottish, or Welsh, but the UK is still a country. 89.243.151.121 (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but only in certain contexts. At the United Nations and the Oscars and in diplomatic and legal senses, the UK is certainly a country. QE2 is Queen of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". At the Commonwealth Games, however, the UK is not recognised (all the home countries field separate teams). At the Olympic Games, it's not recognised (the team there is "Great Britain", a geographical term that excludes Northern Ireland, but the team includes people from Northern Ireland). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It is rare for people to make a distinction betweeen Great Britasin and the United Kingdom as you have done, but the same reasoning applies to GB as to the UK. 78.146.210.81 (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Rare? Not sure what you mean by that. Does anyone ever answer the question "What country are you from?" with "Great Britain"? I certainly hope not. It would be like claiming to be from the country of California. So, people regularly make the distinction. "Britain", on the other hand, is a common name for the United Kingdom. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I think most people within GB would answer "British" rather than Scottish, Welsh or English. We put British on out passports for example rather than Welsh, English, or Scottish. 92.24.69.222 (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a different issue. We're talking about which country they say they're from, not what they say their nationality is. But if WP is any guide, it's far less common than is generally supposed that people from there regard themselves as British first and foremost, and their individual nationality second. The reverse is very often the case. Category:English novelists has 1,024 entries, but Category:British novelists has only 414 (Category:Scottish novelists has 152, Category:Welsh novelists has 83). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You are making distinctions to suit your arguement. 92.24.69.222 (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

He's not. Terminology of the British Isles is a whole world of people complaining that other people are using the wrong word, for various different reasons. See the article linked further down this section. English people are much more likely than Scottish or Welsh people to say they are British, but they're still pretty likely to consider themselves English followed by British. 86.177.121.171 (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, I've lived in Britain all my rather long life, but of course people who are living on the other side of the world and who may never have actually visited Britain must know far more about being British than I do. 78.146.22.20 (talk) 12:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, you must be the only Briton in this whole encyclopedia. Oh wait, you're not. If you want to know how broad chunks of the population feel about something, try reading some of the tabloids. Or read some of Kate Fox's anthropological work on the English. Or get to know some people who have considerably lower educational attainment/expectations than you. Either way, you will find that "English people are much more likely than Scottish or Welsh people to say they are British, but they're still pretty likely to consider themselves English followed by British." 86.177.121.171 (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This has become tedious, but I regard mysellf as British first and English second, and I would expect most people except Scottish nationalists or many people in Northern Ireland to have the same view. You are greatly mistaken to try to gauge public opinion from British newspapers as they often describe things like this in hysterical terms to generate controversies to keep their readers entertained and fill the pages - I recall when personal computers started to appear that according to newspapers these were very bad things that would put people out of work. Never heard of Kate Fox. Anyway you are forgetting that Parliament covers all of Great Britain. See this http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2007/08/22/cartoon-how-the-internet-brings-us-together/ 78.146.54.230 (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and not just all of Great Britain, but all of the United Kingdom. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as the individual nations retain their individual character and language, people will still tend to be identified by their country. The question can be revised, though, to (1) where are you from? and (2) where do you live? Speaking from the American side, there's a richness about the diversity in Europe that would be sad to have disappear. (As long as its persistence doesn't lead to more wars.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This is actually a very interesting question. From 1648 until recently, the Western World usually operated according to something called the Westphalian system. The world was divided into puzzle pieces called "states" and everyone belonged to a single state. You were Belgian or Dutch or French or American or whatever. You might live in a province with its own legislature, but sovereignty clearly belonged to the nation-state. Federalism made things a bit more complicated within states, but between states there were clear borders; you were either in Austria or Yugoslavia and that was that. Then the EU came along and threw political scientists for a loop because no one can quite describe what it is exactly. It's clearly more than an international organization because it has so many powers and such an impact on the everyday life of its citizens. Yet it has not quite reduced its member states into mere provinces -- they retain their own militaries, diplomats and in some cases their own currencies.

A common definition of a "state" is an entity that claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. If we're going to use that definition, the EU member states are clearly still the sovereigns because not only do they have their own militaries and police but they are the ones who decide when how and when force may be used in the course of state authority (through criminal law, e.g.). And if push came to shove, a member state could always (in theory) withdraw from the EU and use its national military to ensure its independence. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

See also, Terminology of the British Isles The Ministry (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

(Note: I'm not the OP) I don't think the original question has been answered. You all seem to be going on and on about the UK but have not mentioned the EU. Mwalcoff seems to have given the question a shot but still there isn't an answer. So, could some political science major please answer this? I agree with Mwalcoff, it's an interesting question and I'd like to see an answer. Dismas|^(talk) 00:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The simple, and not very helpful answer is that it is not a country because it doesn't claim to be one. If (somehow) the EU managed to pass a declaration through the EU parliament that EU considers itself a country (i.e. a sovereign state), that would put it most of the way to being a country. But that is very unlikely. There are far too many political and social divisions for that to happen. IMHO, it's more likely that countries will become smaller units rather than combine (no evidence, though). Were the EU parliament to pass such a bill, what it would require to be a country would be international recognition - i.e. that other countries recognise it as a country - and political relations with other countries - i.e. treaties, embassies, etc. Sovereign state lists the currently accepted requirements for being considered a country, as per the Montevideo Convention. Steewi (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional: State (polity) is also very relevant, here. Steewi (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't there the requirement of issuing your own currency for official country status (UN, possibly)? Of course, we do have the euro, but that's a rather large way off being an EU-currency, for a number of important reasons (not to mention the fact that quite a chunk of the EU hasn't even adopted it yet). - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not a requirement. The independent nations of San Marino and the Vatican City do not have their own unique currency, but use the Italian lira. Nauru is an independent nation but uses the Australian dollar. The Tuvaluan dollar and Kiribati dollar are used in those places alongside the Australian dollar, but they are not independent currencies, are fully interchangeable with the $A, and exist mainly for purposes of national pride, I guess. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No they don't - even Italy hasn't used the Italian lira for about ten years now :) (San Marino and Vatican did, of course, follow Italy into using the Euro, likewise Monaco when the French Franc ceased to exist) --Saalstin (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite right. Tks for the correction, Saalstin. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is Russia still so heavily involved in space despite a comparatively low GDP?

Russia, according to the tables given on Wikipedia, has somewhere between the sixth and ninth highest GDP in the world, yet despite the Cold War ending it still seems to spend a lot of resources on activities in space. Understandable when the cold war was active for military purposes, but now that has ended it seems like a luxury or a very expensive way of getting prestige. 89.243.151.121 (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You're making a false assumption that space actiivities are primarily for national prestige. While there was a strong element of that during the cold war - and still is for countries developing their space industries - there are many more important reasons for it, and once a nation has established a presence in space these become more important. Given that Russia already has the fundamentals of a space industry in place, these other reasons (scientific research, technological advancement, and the like) are an impetus for keeping an active presence beyond the Earth. Grutness...wha? 00:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not "making a false assumption" thanks - note the use of the colloquial phrase "seems like" rather than "is". De-whaffled, you're saying that space is a sunk cost for Russia. 89.243.151.121 (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)89.243.151.121 (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised to find that the space industry was turning a profit for Russia. A lot of the launches they do are paid for by other countries, or by private corporations. --Carnildo (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my understanding is that much of the Russian space effort today involves putting things in orbit for others for cash. Our article on the Russian Federal Space Agency seems to support this view: The 1990s saw serious financial problems because of the decreased cash flow, which encouraged Roskosmos to improvise and seek other ways to keep space programs running. This resulted in Roskosmos' leading role in commercial satellite launches and space tourism. While scientific missions, such as interplanetary probes or astronomy missions during these years played a very small role, Roskosmos managed to operate the space station Mir well past its planned lifespan, contribute to the International Space Station, and continue to fly additional Soyuz and Progress missions. So they used it primarily to put up satellites for others, some space tourism, and do a little bit of science on the side. It's not the worst model for a space program. The article continues to say that the Duma used some of their copious oil/gas profits to fund it even more—probably a mix of interest in future profits, national prestige, and probably national defense (Russia has been long working on rockets that would subvert any U.S. missile shield in the region). --Mr.98 (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it is an instance of punching above their weight, like Spain, France, Turkey or Great Britain still pretending to be a major world power. Edison (talk) 05:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Until very recently Britain had the 4th. highest GDP in the world, so I don't see why it shouldnt be a world power. In GDP terms it has far more right than Russia. 78.146.210.81 (talk) 11:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the GDP can show a nation is an economic world power, but a nation's leaders might have nostalgia for the days when it was a military superpower. Edison (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

List of countries by military expenditures says the UK spends the 4th most amount on its military. It may not be a military superpower, but it is a military world power. Only the US spends significantly more (France and China spend slightly more). The UK is also a permanent member of the UN security council, a nuclear power and has one of the biggest financial centres in the world (London). The UK isn't pretending anything - it really is a major world power. --Tango (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yer! Wave that flag! 92.24.69.222 (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The misconception is that a space program is expensive. The US spends more than 100 times the amount on Social Security and Medicare that it spends on NASA's budget. NASA's budget is around two-tenths of one-percent of US GDP. Wikiant (talk) 14:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Er, it's still expensive. The social programs you cite are, in turn, super-expensive. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Poorer countries such as India have a well-developed space program, so I can't see why Russia wouldn't, even after its economy nearly collapsed in the early 1990's. Russia's space program is developed enough for it to propose knocking asteroid 99942 Apophis out of orbit, even as NASA has assured that it poses very little risk (and knocking it out of its orbit would probably make it worse).[3] ~AH1^(TCU) 19:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It does make sense to practice on a Apophis so we know what we're doing if there really is a risk. Hopefully they'll double check their maths and make sure they push it in the right direction so as not to increase the risk rather than decrease it! --Tango (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)