Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 August 9

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.

August 9

riots in Camden, Notting Hill and Ealing

Camden, Notting Hill and Ealing in London are good boroughs? The first two sound as more refined, but I don't know anything about the third. Quest09 (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

In much of London, poverty and wealth are in close proximity - sometimes only streets away. This isn't new either: see the research of Charles Booth (philanthropist). AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

yes, as far as I understood, the riots where not in the same boroughs where the rioters lived. They simply went to different places of the city. Specially for looting, it makes lots of sense to go there were non-poor live. 193.153.125.105 (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

There are no boroughs devoid of poor people, because councils have the obligation to provide council housing or social housing of one sort or another, even in Kensington and Chelsea. It is true that there are boroughs where not many wealthy people choose to live, because the free market has not chosen to build millionaires' houses there. But inner London is well-known for cheek-by-jowl wealth and poverty. Take for example Islington: not just streets of gentrified Georgian architecture and organic hummous purveyors, but some of the most deprived wards in the country: unemployment, free school meals, teenage pregnancy, illiteracy, etc. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

London riots

Why British people are so uncivilized? If someone is wrongly killed by police, why are they rioting instead of approaching judiciary? --World Watcher 000 (talk) 01:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

People rioting in Britain have been members of socially excluded groups for years if not generations. In particular, since the late 1970s, Britain has restricted access by the poorest workers to political representation and common wealth. When people in industrial societies lack a sense of access to political voice, are impoverished, excluded, but have strong social networks; they often rely on direct action through their social networks. One way to look at this is by examining E. P. Thompson's Making of the English Working Class where he discusses the relationship between Radical liberals and the London Mobility or Mob in the late 18th and early 19th century. The Mob could get their candidates elected through riot in London, as voting was a very public action. Intimidating the few rich individuals who could vote, was a way in which the London poor gained political voice. In the late 20th and early 21st century where Parliament and Council's claims to represent all people is effective propaganda, hegemonic in the terms of Antonio Gramsci, the poorest workers who know through life experience that they have no political power, take actions like rioting. I think rioting because you're excluded from democratic social power is a rather sensible and civilised thing. Your opinions on the radically democratic Boston and London mobs of the 18th century may differ from mine; and, similarly, your opinion on whether real democracy constitutes an element of civilised society may also differ. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"Since the late 1970s, Britain has restricted access by the poorest workers to political representation and common wealth." I think you mean the 1380s ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

In propaganda I'd go back and kick it old school with Wat Tyler. But there's a reasonable debate to be had as to whether revolt prior to the 1790s constitutes "workers'" revolt or not. Also, I think it is disingenious to deny that between 1945 and the late 1970s that both the representative power, and real living standards in relation to rights to common wealth, rose for most workers—even including Black British, Irish, Catholics, Afro-carribeans, women and youth. If we compare the Winter of Discontent to the Anti-Poll Tax Unions, we can see a fall in the power of political representation considered distinctly from political power for workers in general. The hysteria in liberal (Guardian sense) media in the UK in the 1970s about the living standards of poor Britons was quite tangible—they started more sociologist's courses at Universities. In comparison Shameless is a horrific joke for the white collar workers and stipendiary professionals whose interests within Capitalism are represented by Labour, the Liberals and the Tories; and Shameless is arguably the Shame of Labour both new and old. (Its also a telling reminder on the pathetic ineffectiveness and white-collar (at best) background of British "revolutionary" organisations in general.) But enough bile at the failures of the workers' movement in general. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

...and I thought I was the Grump around here. What is this, an old Trots' reunion? ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm closer to Solidarity (UK). I believe the Socialist Register described them (paraphrase): Their mascot is a hedgehog, small and spikey. Of course, I've also heard that in Industrial struggle Solidarity was pretty much lovely to deal with. Their Australian admirers were apparently lovely in industrial struggle too. Why be sectarian, when I can blame everybody :). Fifelfoo (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

IMHO most riots are the same nearly everywhere and there is nothing diffrent compared to recent riots in China, Paris/France, USA/Los Angeles etc. The poor youth are bored, frustated and lack hope. Something creates a spark and suddenly the youth goes wild. In this particular case the rioters don't know of or give a damm about the guy who was shot (and no one is sure if this was lawful police shooting or not). IMHO they aren't excluded from democratic social power.

The rioters seem to be poor, lacking parental supervision, uneducated, unemployed, frustated and without hope of a better future. They seem to be poor thugs who have caught the police by surprise. So they throw stones, loot shops and burn the shops, cars and other peoples' homes to the ground (and the rioters don't give a FUC* if you're still inside the house or not). They are, for the lack of a better word, SCUM and should be ashamed of themselves. They should be punished according to harshest degree of the law. Flamarande (talk) 02:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"recent riots in China..." What? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Rural workers rioting against enclosure [here, in the Guardian]. There are also regular workers riots due to the lack of union and bargaining rights within Chinese capitalism. (Also because local Party figures regularly send violent police in to smash industrial protest by workers). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

China was never spared from urban unrest or riots. Go to Template:21st century unrest in the People's Republic of China and read the respective articles. Flamarande (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup, the Chinese workers should seize the means of production, and declare a state of irony. ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, if it happened in '56 in Hungary and '68 in Czechoslovakia and '89 in bits of China's old industries why not in '11 :).

(ec x 2) It may suit the purpose of Wikipedia editors and newspapers to label the incidents listed in that template as "riots", but I must say most of them are merely violently put down, peaceful protests. For example, the 2011 Shanghai riot is nothing like the London riots. For one thing, the protests target the government, not shoe stores.

That said, I asked the question because I was wondering what exactly Flamarande was referring to, and now I understand. Thanks! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, there are riots, "riots", and there are revolts and revolutions. Some riots are "justified to a certain degree" because of the circumstances. Others are simple orgies of violence, looting, burning, rape and destruction. Was there widespread looting by the mob in the 3 examples you chose? I honestly don't think so (but I may be mistaken). Granted, many "riots" in China are something else. Flamarande (talk) 03:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The British are not alone to do this, see 2005 civil unrest in France , 2007 civil unrest in Villiers-le-Bel , 1992 Los Angeles riots and 2008 Greek riots. I am sure there are hundreds more. Don't imagine it is a British problem only. --08:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

From my perspective, I'd look at it like this. Every day, everyone passes opportunities to commit crime. Much of it, petty enough, would never be found. I could become that bit richer if I started defrauding the system. Instead, I, and almost everyone else, follow the rules because of some 'greater good'. If you're hopeless, unemployed, etc., then the 'greater good' is going to look like a pipe dream. So you kick out. Same the world over. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It's refreshing to see the British riot over something other than a soccer game. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

How dare you??!! The British never riot about soccer. It's Football we riot about ;)--Jac16888 ^Talk 13:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Geez, I don't like the New England Patriots either but I don't riot when they win. Googlemeister (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Rioting in the sub-zeros of early February has little appeal. Riots usually happen in good weather. Although Vikings fans have rioted every time their team won the Super Bowl. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

As a Packers fan, that comment gives me great glee. (For the uninformed, the Packers and the Vikings are rivals, and the Vikings are 0 for 4 in their Superbowl appearances). Googlemeister (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

As to the OP's question "why?", it would appear as if at least two of the rioters subscribe to this rationale. Gabbe (talk) 13:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

What we seem to be seeing is a range of different activities being captured under the media term of "riot". The first night there was escalation from a straightforward law enforcement operation where one violent criminal ended up being shot. There is reporting that the escalation on the first night was a gang response, exacerbated by opportunistic criminality.

On the second night there is reporting of a co-ordinated copycat response from a number of other gangs in London.

Media reporting indicates that the expansion is more related to criminality than any kid of coherent political reaction. Policing has been seen to have been challenged by the scale of the action and there is an opportunity to steal some "free stuff, innit". The identification that regional forces will have been depleted in support of London creates opportunity that has been exploited.

Inevitably there are political answers from all quarters attempting to explain this as some indicator of whatever the commentators persuasion might revert to; disenfranchised and disillusioned, feral youth etc. That doesn't appear to be supported by the available information.

ALR (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This ceased to be about the killing of Mark Duggan by a police marksman after the family's vigil on Saturday afternoon. Instead, it became the latest manifestation of the "getting away with it" mentality in British society: after the bankers who destroyed the world's economy, and the UK MPs who pushed the boundaries of legitimate expenses, now we have people who think that if they can break into shops and steal stuff and get away with it, they will do it. Of course there are underlying problems, not the least of which is that the social programmes which have kept the lid on the anger felt by poor people over the last 15 years have been cut in the name of austerity. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Facebook, Yahoo Mail, YouTube - Profit

• How does Facebook generate profit? It is a free service.
• Why do online companies like Yahoo or Google offer free email service? They have to bear the cost for providing free email service, but what they gain in return? Providing free email service is loss-making, but still they provide it, definitely they gain something. What is that gain? How does that affect their overall business model and profit generation?
• YouTube is a free video-sharing website. Then how does Google generate profit through YouTube? --Reference Desker (talk) 05:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Advertising, advertising, and advertising, respectively. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 06:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Not just advertising, very targeted advertising. Google can serve you emails based on the what you've been emailing about. Facebook can do essentially the same thing with the stuff you post on Facebook. That kind of very targeted advertising is worth a lot more than regular advertising.

By the way, Google also sells gMail service to businesses, so you could consider that the free service also acts as advertisement for the paid service. APL (talk) 08:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

But why do the advertisers bother buying ad space? Most people use some sort of ad blocker in their browser, and those who don't, never actually click the ads, do they? Pais (talk) 11:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

They don't need for everyone to click the ads, only a sufficient number to sell something. It's just like the junk mail you receive. You might not buy, but someone else will. It's the "carpet bombing" approach to marketing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

But they need someone to click the ads, right? Have you ever actually clicked one, Bugs? Has anyone else reading this thread? I just can't believe the number of clicks they receive is non-zero. Pais (talk) 12:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

People click the ads. Also, if you think, say of TV advertising, you don't have to buy it now. It'll just affect your decisions when you're in the shops, you probably won't notice. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I rarely see TV ads; I always either change the channel or put the TV on mute and read a book until the ads are over. (Sometimes I just shout "Stop trying to sell me shit I don't need!" at the set.) And at the store, I always buy the cheapest no-name brands that don't advertise anyway. But I guess other people pay more attention to ads than I do. Pais (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Advertisers don't care if they get you to buy their stuff, only that they get somebody to buy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

What utterly mystifies me is why these sites (e.g. a Google search) don't crack down hard on advertisers who make up phony targeted ads. I mean, if you search for a left handed monkey wrench in Podunk, there will be a site advertising a left handed monkey wrench in Podunk ... be the first to rate this product and list suppliers! Sure, I understand that such scammers pay the same as anyone else, but the problem is, the customers try clicking one or two featured links and decide it's a waste of time, and the ads become worth much less than otherwise. Wnt (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It's worth noting that there's some debate as to whether YouTube actually is profitable.[1][2] As a subsidiary of Google, part of its value is in enticing people to use other more profitable Google services. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

As for people who "think" they are impervious to advertising, no one actually believes they are being manipulated. Unless you work in advertising, or you have studied the psychology of influence and persuasion, (and therefore make up a tiny insignificant part of the population) what makes you think you are smarter then everyone else? (apart from the fact that you trawl the wiki ref desks? lol). I like to think advertising doesn't work on me either but I wouldn't be so certain as to proclaim it in a public forum. Vespine (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hawaii and Britain

What was happening in the British Empire from 1893 to 1900 which would explain why the British didn't step in to prevent America from annexing Hawaii or even voice a non-physical opposition/objection? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

From the history given in the Hawaii article, it appears that Hawaii was not a part of the British Empire. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Never said Hawaii was part of the British Empire. What was happening with the British at this time that would explain why they didn't intefere in the situation in Hawaii at the time? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Why would they be expected to? Maybe they didn't interfere for the same reason the French, the Germans, the Japanese, and the Russians didn't, namely that they didn't care. Pais (talk) 12:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

British interests in the Pacific, Britain's ties to Hawaii, and the fact that Britain was mighty enough to have a say in such an issue during those days. All reasons and many more given by British ambassadors in Hawaii. The Kingdom of Hawaii allowed the British and Americans to dock merchant and military vessels in their ports. With Hawaii under American control the British lost a lot of access and control in the Pacific which as a naval power it would benefict from; "Cut in half" according to James H. Wodehouse since they still had some colonies in the Southern Pacific. I've been guessing the British were starting to fear America's growing power so they stay silent, but that's probably not it since America had a terrible army at the time and there navy wasn't that great until after all this and the Spanish-American War.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"Britain's ties to Hawaii..." such as the natives killing Captain Cook? Maybe the Brits had had enough of the place. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Ties=the flag, foreign relations between both countries, the fact that four Hawaiian royals met Queen Victoria, invites to the Golden Jubilee, and even the Diamond Jubilee as the Republic of Hawaii. I've never heard of any hostility between the British and Hawaiians because of Captain Cook's death, twenty years after the death of Captain Cook, George Vancouver came along and he was too eager to make peace and allies with the people that killed Cook. Vancouver even gave Kamehameha I a modern naval ship, lifestocks and other stuff. And then Britain was the first nation to recognize Hawaiian independence and even returned sovereignty back to it rulers after a British naval officer decided to go ahead take over the island in the name of Britain in 1843.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it true that America forced Hawaii to become part of the US, when they would have preferred to be connected with the Britain Empire instead? Hence the flag. 92.28.254.151 (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hawaii preferred to be an independent sovereign country, but was forceably annexed by the US. All it required was the marines from one ship marching in. They only had to kill one Hawiian policeman in the conquest. Then the put Sanford Dole (American) and his cronies in charge of the country. The pretense was that the Hawiians were about to do harm to Americans, just like when the US invaded Granada in 1983. The invasion of Hawaii was described as imperialism in its most blatant form by many writers of the time. European countries like Britain had done the same thing many times: see a country then just send in the troops and announce it belongs to them. When Hitler and Japan started doing the same thing in the 1930's the US and Europe did not view it as the same process at all. Edison (talk) 12:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Just some corrections the ones who overthrew the monarch were Hawaiian citizens of American and European descent with the help US marines who didn't fire a shot but were probably prepare to if the Hawaiian government resisted. The policeman was wounded not killed trying to stop a cart of ammunitions to get to the revolutionists. Sanford B. Dole wasn't install by the American government. The things is the Americans in Hawaii wanted to annex Hawaii to the US while President Cleveland didn't want to and wanted to restore the Queen, so the Americans in Hawaii decided to declare a republic until a US president comes along that support annexation. Which was McKinley.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

This was the height of the imperialist period, when European countries were busy carving out colonial empires in Africa and elsewhere and extracting concessions in China. The U.S. annexion of Hawaii was exactly the same type of action, and the islands were closer to the U.S. sphere of influence than anyone else's. And why wage a war over a few small islands when there were still much larger and significant chunks of territory to be parcelled out, such as the crumbling Ottoman Empire and all of Central Asia ? --Xuxl (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Also see Treaty of Paris (1898). During this time the U.S. also acquired Guam, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines (actually bought it). The latter sparked the bloody Philippine–American War. It was all pretty dastardly, in my (admittedly biased) opinion. :P -- Obsidi♠n Soul 14:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The Reciprocity Treaty of 1875 clearly put Hawaii within the U.S. sphere of influence. If the British were going to object, 1875 would have been the time to do it, since the treaty allowed the United States to set up a naval base at Pearl Harbor. Since there was otherwise no prospect of conflict with the United States, and since Hawaii was on the other side of the world from Great Britain, far from its main shipping lanes, it wasn't worth provoking a conflict with the United States, whose economy was now larger than that of the United Kingdom, over such a distant group of islands. During the 1870s, the UK was preoccupied with securing territory in what are now Pakistan and Egypt, protecting its empire in India and its communication links with that empire, including the Suez Canal and the Red Sea. During the 1890s, the UK was preoccupied with expanding its empire in Africa. Also, during the 1870s, the UK was much more concerned about the rise of nearby Germany and its defeat of France, which had upset the balance of power in Europe, than it could possibly have been with US expansion on the other side of the world. During the 1890s, French and German seizures of territory in Africa, Indochina, and New Guinea posed a much more direct threat to major British colonies than US imperialism in Hawaii. Marco polo (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It was already apparent in 1874 that in Hawaii the US had a leading rôle relative to the UK. The event was the quelling of a riot where the US with 2 warships provided 150 troops compared to the British with one ship and 70-80 troops. America's involvement in the riot led to the establishment of the United States Navy base at Pearl Harbour, see above. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

C3, you're such a stickler for spelling and pronunciation. Please recognize that there is no such place as Pearl Harbour. --Trovatore (talk) 22:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor is indeed the US spelling while the British who are the subject of the OP's question adhere to the spelling Pearl Harbour which is also a valid Wikilink. Learn how to spell my name properly. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "British spelling" of an American proper name. It's a US location so the US spelling is correct by definition, and any other is wrong. --Trovatore (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Not really. It wasn't until 1887 that Pearl Harbor was under US semi-control and even then other nations' wawrships were allow to dock at Pearl Harbor which I don't know why. Japan, Britain and America each had one ship in Pearl Harbor at the time of overthrow. The British still had HMS Champion and the Japanese Naniwa docked in Pearl Harbor; the Japanese offered to assist Liliuokalani militarily or take her to Japan to start a government in exile, but she declined the offers.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking at Google's News Archive, it seems an objection was raised in the House of Commons but Lord Curzon didn't seem to care that much. The Pall Mall Gazette said it was better for Hawaii to be in American hands than under any (other) rival. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

An interesting comparison to the Hawaiian situation was the Samoan Crisis of the late 1870s, which was ultimately resolved with the Tripartite Convention of 1899 — the UK, the USA, and Germany were disputing control of another group of Pacific islands; unlike the situation in Hawaii, Samoa almost led to warfare between the disputing powers, although war was averted by a tropical cyclone that wrecked almost all of the disputing powers' ships. Nyttend (talk) 03:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

How could Dan Brown make such a mistake?

Hello to so many people. Please excuse my uneasy English, indeed I'm a froggy. My wife has just finished "The Lost Symbol" (in the original text) and from time to time while she was reading she explained me many interesting things that we trusted 100% because page 15 FACT: says ..."All rituals, science, artwork, and monuments in this novel are real". So for us it meant that this novel is more trustworthy than "The Da Vinci Code" was.

BUT a trifle puzzles me: page 472, lignes 1 to 6 is explained the etymology of the words sincere and sincerely referring to the latin "sine cera" meaning without wax. "Sincere" coming from the French word "sincère" we checked in 2 good dictionnaries of French etymology. No reference to wax. I did the same on the Internet for French etymology, nothing.

But doing the same for English etymology, I found this http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=sincere&searchmode=none which shows that apparently Dan Brown was wrong.

So may be now you understand my question: is Dan Brown a liar or an ignorant?

Thank you very much for the time you took to read my question. Joël Deshaies-Rheims-France---80.236.117.41 (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Evidently, Dan Brown made a similar claim for The Da Vinci Code - see Dan_Brown#Criticism. Of note is his response to the criticism, which I interpret as saying "just enjoy the book and don't think too much about the details." Personally, I prefer authors who are less intellectually dishonest. (Also, your English is just fine, much better than my French). --LarryMac | Talk 15:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

My guess would be that he made a mistake, perhaps by trusting an online source. (Since you obviously care about words, let me point out that in English, "ignorant" is not a noun. The correct wording is, "is Dan Brown a liar or is he ignorant?") Looie496 (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

See Sincerity#Controversy. (WP:WHAAOE) --Tango (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

One thing to remember is that works of fiction are made up. That literally means that every word between the front cover and the back cover exists for the sole purpose of advancing the plot in entertaining ways. Some works of fiction incorporate random actual historical facts, because it serves the purpose of the author, but that should not be taken to mean that other facts in the book are true even if the author tells you they are. The actual statement declaring that some aspect of the book is "honest to god, we swear this is true" is itself a dramatic device; it is being used by the author to elicit a reaction in you, since he primed you that some part of the book is true, you are more likely to accept it, and that may lead to your liking the book more. That, however, doesn't mean that it is actually true, just that the author is telling you it is true to advance the plot. There are lots of works of fiction which use these disclaimers, and which are blatantly false. Communion by Whitley Strieber declares itself to be a true story; but if you believe that I have a sweet land deal you should buy into. The film Fargo is completely made up, despite the disclaimer at the front that tells you "THIS IS A TRUE STORY". Fargo_(film)#Fact_vs._fiction discusses this. The fact remains, you should enjoy Dan Brown's book for what it is, but don't even take his disclaimer about the veracity of any aspect of it at face value. Yes, there may be historical facts in it, but that doesn't mean that any specific fact is in itself trustworthy in that book. Check actual histories and find out for yourself. Don't take the author's word for it, and don't treat his fictional work as a work of scholarship. --Jayron32 17:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Dramatic license knows no bounds. Case in point: Plan 9 from Outer Space was "based on sworn testimony". We know that's true because Criswell tells us so, and also reminds us that we can't prove it didn't happen. Criswell would have been an interesting wikipedia contributor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I have no idea at all why Dan Brown's books are so overrated. I mean, Da Vinci Code was quite similar (but inferior) to a rather modest film Revelation (2001),^[3] which certainly didn't get that much attention; the ideas presented are also familiar to readers of The Illuminatus Trilogy. His writing didn't seem all that compelling to me, though the Da Vinci film was very nicely filmed and scored. How did that book become so famous? Wnt (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

While dramatic license may know no bounds, fans of the hard sci-fi genre fondly recall afterwords from some of the better authors explaining the factual basis for their tales. Wnt (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For hard science fiction, the principle I explained above has been coded into law, specifically Clarke's third law. Most hard science fiction runs smack-dab into the wall of relativity when it tries to deal with the problem of the speed of light. Every author deals with it differently, and some produce some pseudoscientific "explanation" about why their solution to the problem is "elegant", but that just means that it's well written pseudoscientific babble. The fact remains that, as yet, the problem of rapid interstellar travel and communication, as it relates to the speed of light limit, is entirely unresolved, and anything that any science fiction author comes up with to deal with it is, by necessity, entirely made up. --Jayron32 19:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

True, but not all hard sci-fi assumes FTL, and even where they do, this can merely set the stage without trammeling the plot (e.g. Dragon's Egg). The important parts of the action can be rooted in fact. Of course, a little "magic" may be involved in any fiction - details are always omitted somewhere - but to deny the validity of hard sci-fi as a genre is an unjustified overreaction. The attempt to building the fiction using real scientific ideas and not just random jargon is very much worthwhile, and is much akin to the planning of real-world enterprises, except at some point the author stops working out the details because the resources are unavailable or the technologies aren't fully mature. Wnt (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I've never denied the validity of hard sci-fi as a genre, I read such books all the time. I find them quite entertaining. I just don't treat anything written in them as reliable sources of real science, in the same way I might, say, for the journal Nature... --Jayron32 19:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

A lot of the core plot of the Davinci Code was ripped off of the book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. Dan Brown may have thought everything presented as facts in that book was in fact real (if we are to take his disclaimer literally), we can't really know. However if he did, then it certainly does speak volumes about his gullibility, as well as being a warning not to take everything written in books as the literal truth. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah. That article tells us about Dossiers Secrets d'Henri Lobineau (1967). I suppose this probably inspired the mentions of these details in both The Illuminatus Trilogy and the BBC series leading up to the Holy Blood book. Wnt (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Etymology is not a ritual, science, artwork or monument.
Sleigh (talk) 03:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Our article Etymology is in Category:Etymology, which is in Category:Lexicology, which is in Category:Linguistics, which is in Category:Social sciences, which is in Category:Scientific disciplines, which is in Category:Science. So etymology is a science. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope that's tongue-in-cheek? I'm not ruling out etymology as a science, but inferring that from Wikipedia's category structure, especially with such a long transitive chain, is evidence so terribly weak as hardly to be evidence at all. --Trovatore (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to underline that science in a broader sense encompasses not only natural sciences, but also social sciences with all their subdivisions – including etymology. — Kpalion^(talk) 19:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

outside ancient Rome

There is plenty of information around about the various government officials in ancient Rome itself, but I am wondering if anyone can tell me anything about the sorts of officials that might have been appointed or elected to govern say a small town somewhere in one of the provinces. Would they have had anyone in such a capacity, how might they be chosen, what would they do and what were they called?

79.66.103.116 (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Much of what we know about provincial administration in the Roman Empire comes from the Notitia Dignitatum. The governors of the provinces themselves were called Proconsuls. Smaller subdivisions were called dioceses, and their administrators were called Vicarius, or Vicars. Other local officials had titles which later morphed into titles of nobility in Western Europe. Comes (Count) was one, though some Comes were officials or advisors in the Emperor's household, others were local governors. Dux (Duke) were military governors, the position also changed and morphed with time and place; some Dux were more like Generals than Governors, while others had roles similar to Marcher Lords in later English history. There were also civilian officials, like Corrector and Praeses. --Jayron32 19:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Also see our articles Prefect, Municipium, and Civitas, which have additional information on Roman local government. Marco polo (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is a notable example of someone who held such office: Pliny the Younger --Dweller (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

self sufficient nation

If there was some kind of situation where all countries closed all their borders today to all trade and allowed no one in or out (think really nasty disease), which country would most likely be able to maintain the best standard of living for the next 20 years or so (assuming the borders remained closed and that the populations remained where they are now)? I realize there is probably no one answer to this question, but reasonable guidance in the matter as much as possible would be enough for me. Googlemeister (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Canada. It has all of the energy it needs, plenty of cropland, and abundant other resources. In addition, it has a tradition of good governance and a well-educated population. The latter two qualities are missing, for example, in Russia. Marco polo (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You would have to look at which countries have (a) enough agricultural capacity to feed their entire population; (b) enough domestic sources of energy to maintain their standard of living; (3) supplies of raw materials required to produce basic goods; and (4) the skills to create new areas of production to replace what was once supplied from abroad. A complicating factor is that all national economies are now woven into the world economy. No country would be able to maintain its standard of living if cut off from trade; the question is whether any country could adjust quickly enough to avoid mass penury and starvation. Some speculation on how certain countries would do: the USA is hampered by its dependence on foreign energy sources, which would be hard to replace; China would need to reorient its export-based economy inward, which is not too difficult (it was existing largely outside the world economy until three decades or so ago); Russia would need to finally get its act together on agricultural production, but it's not lacking in any skills or natural resources; Most European countries are energy-poor and would have difficulty adjusting - they also have a lot fewer resources than the USA; Japan would struggle to produce enough food and has almost no resources; most emerging countries lack the skills to produce domestically what is presently imported, even though they often have the raw materials and sources of energy required. --Xuxl (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, Canada does seem to be a very good choice. They have plenty of oil, gas, timber and food production, as well as minerals and fresh water resources and a smallish population. Googlemeister (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Norway: small population, large energy reserves, perfect long coastline for smuggling. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I suppose the OP means a hypothetical situation where nothing is crossing the borders, whether people nor things. 193.153.125.105 (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

As Cuddlyable hints at, you've got the issue of maintaining the border; in the US/Canada case that's going to be impossible. Is it under consideration? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I am assuming anyone who tries to cross a border or coast to magically get pushed back. Smugglers would complicate things. Googlemeister (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Rolls eyes at the word "magically". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

There are too some magic countries. My realm, for starters. Surely we have Category:Magic countries. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Pay no attention to the man behind the redlink. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Canada has a lot of natural resources but there's no way it or any modern country could maintain its standard of living without trade. Canada's economy is very closely tied to exports to the US. If the border were to close, it would cause a massive depression. Like the U.S., Canada is reliant on imports for its consumer goods. There's no way it could easily go back to making TVs, dishwashers, toys, clothing, etc. Those factories that do exist in Canada depend quite a bit on parts from the U.S. and elsewhere. Many medications are not made in Canada. And what would all the Tim Hortons do without access to coffee? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

In general, the larger a common market the better, allowing better division of labor. The limitation on resources in places like the US is artificially self-imposed, America has all the oil, etc., it needs. The determining factors in relative success between the big nations would be political--how great their regulatory and tax burdens. μηδείς (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Australia also has lots of good farmland and fisheries, lots of coal and uranium, and lots of minerals. Its economy at present is heavily dependent on export, and its population might be too small to support all the industries needed for a modern techological society, but in terms of raw resources it is well-off.

In practice, though, there's no real way of answering this question: modern living requires production of a huge variety of things such as electronic components which are at present only produced in a small number of countries, all of which (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, China) are heavily dependent on imports of energy and food; and it would be very hard to set up a complete electronics industry. For anywhere without such sources of semiconductors, the change would be immense. Add the likelihood of domestic unrest, violence, lawlessness, etc, as virtually everybody sees their standard of living plummet and vast numbers lose their jobs. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that a trade cutoff would lead to something close to an economic collapse in almost every country that currently has a high standard of living, Canada included. It's just that I think, of these countries, Canada would stand the best chance of reorganizing and being able to support a reduced, but still high standard of living after reorganization. While there are a number of manufactured goods Canada doesn't produce, it retains a sizable manufacturing base in Ontario and Quebec, and it has the technical know-how to set up production of components currently imported. I'm not sure what Medeis means when he says that the United States has all of the oil that it needs. Our article oil reserves in the United States says that the country has 134 billion barrels, even if areas currently excluded from production are included. The United States now consumes more than 7 billion barrels per year. First, it would take several years to ramp up production in currently excluded areas, many of which are offshore and/or in remote areas. Next, this production could only be expected to meet current US demand during a peak production period lasting 10 years at most before production started to decline. So, even harnessing these reserves, the United States would not meet Googlemeister's 20-year criterion. As for China, China's energy demand also now exceeds its supply. China might be able to survive without trade, but it would come at the price of a substantial drop in the standard of living. It is in a similar position to the United States, except that the United States would have the additional challenge of restarting production of goods it no longer makes. (There are few manufactured goods not made in China, apart from the most sophisticated precision tools and instruments now made in Japan or Germany.)

Oddly, the countries best positioned for a trade cutoff would be the countries least dependent on trade, but that are net exporters of petroleum and that are more or less self-sufficient in food. These countries are mainly in Africa, including Congo, Gabon, Cameroon, and Nigeria. These countries all have relatively low standards of living and could maintain them if their elites adjust to doing without the imported goodies that oil exports finance without further impoverishing the rest of the population. Another interesting country from this perspective is Malaysia, which is self-sufficient in oil and food and which has a large, though export-oriented, manufacturing sector. Malaysia has a moderately high standard of living and could conceivably retool its industry to meet domestic demand. Marco polo (talk) 13:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

How is Malaysia in terms of domestic food production? Arguably, that is a more important consideration then oil. Googlemeister (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Malaysai imports rice from Thailand. They are not producing enough to feed themselves at the moment. --Lgriot (talk) 10:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Lgriot is correct that Malaysia imports rice and other food products. However, according to the chart on page 6 of this document, they produce 90% of their rice consumption. Furthermore, most food imports are foods that are foods of affluence and not part of a traditional Malaysian diet. By far Malaysia's main agricultural product is palm oil. Rubber is also an important product. This is because large areas of Malaysia's cropland are planted with oil palm and rubber tree plantations producing cash crops for export. If this land were converted to food crop production, Malaysia could easily be self-sufficient in food. Marco polo (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

self-stifled nation

In response to Marco polo who asks what I meant by saying the US has all the oil reserves it needs when he implies that our 134B bbl reserve would not last at a 7B bbl over 20 years, the point is that the market adjusts. Knowing that oil would run out, the price would increase, and seeing the possibility of profits, exploration and innovation of alternatives (hemp oil fuel, nuclear for electricity) would increase. If the government were not to interfere in the process with regulations and bail outs the market would quickly correct itself--look at the 1970's oil crisis as opposed to the Reagan boom. That turn around was accomplished in under two years--less time than Obama has been in office.

The ultimate limitation on physical resources are energy and chemical substances. Our limits on energy production are self-imposed. Nuclear could easily be cheap safe and abundant if not for political opposition. Chemical substances are virtually unlimited, and in the off case that some rare element should be at low supply there is always some other alternative. Again, if, say, it were discovered that platinum were necessary to fusion reactors but the domestic supply were very limited, the price would go up, people would dig deeper and look in the oceans to find it, people would gladly sell their jewelry for dozens of times the price at which they bought it, and scientists would look for more efficient ways of using or bypassing platinum in fusion reactors. All without the need for a green czar or an auto industry bailout. Free market pricing does this automatically. The fallacy is to take the political status quo and current knowledge and reserves as givens. If we choose a stifling status quo that is voluntary stupidity, not an insuperable fact of nature. Socialism is a behavioral, not a physical disorder.

As for economic collapse, in a large free market country an immediate cut of of imports would cause a drastic economic contraction. But it would not be anything near the sort of disaster you get from civil war, hyperinflation (a purely political disaster) or and EMP strike, or even as long term as the current political malaise. In the US electronics and cars would suddenly become expensive--leading to a rebirth of those highly in-demand industries. Food prices, however, although they might spike in an immediate panic, should remain stable or fall because we are a net exporter and we even pay farmers not to farm. (WE PAY FARMERS NOT TO FARM!) Gasahol might actually become economically viable, given the short term boom in gas prices until domestic production caught up.

The lesson is, the problems are largely political, disaster is predicated on not liberalizing the economy or reacting with any common sense to market pressures. Indeed, given the choice between current policy and an irrational policy of isolationism with the proviso of a full return to laissez faire I am tempted to say that the second would be by far the preferable state of affairs. The funny thing is we don't even need the isolation to go back to the laissez faire. μηδείς (talk) 02:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

British police

When did British police start commonly carrying firearms? I was under the impression that for the most part, only their SWAT equivalent commonly used firearms. Googlemeister (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

See List of police firearms in the United Kingdom. UK police are not commonly armed. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec)What makes you think that things have changed? I'm not sure that it's common for them to be armed. Mikenorton (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

As a resident, I have seen armed police only once. (On any interesting side-note, the UK owns only 6 water cannon, all in Northern Ireland.) If you're referring to the death of Mark Duggan, it was a special firearms team that shot him. (Probably.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression from the reporting on the riots in London that a lot of the cops int he UK did carry handguns. Googlemeister (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

If the police have information that they are dealing with someone who is armed, then there will be firearm officers called in. Apart from that, and away from anti-terrorist officers at airport etc. they average British 'bobby' remains armed with nothing more than a baton. Mikenorton (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't they have a pepper spray? It's difficult to understand why they wouldn't issue at least that, provided the chances of being attacked with a knife.193.153.125.105 (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they do. Uniforms_and_equipment_of_the_British_police#Incapacitant_spray --Tango (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Tasers are also increasingly common, as that article says. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Our normal British police officers on normal police duties do not carry firearms. There are specific sections of the force who carry them: some airport police; protection duty officers, etc. And, of course there are specific duties on which specially trained 'firearms officers' will carry them. In fact there are quite a lot of police duties on which officers carry firearms, but the normal 'bobby' on the beat, or in his patrol car, does not. Gurumaister (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Our article on the death of Mark Duggan says that he was shot by a member of the Specialist Firearms Command unit. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Just think about the difference in culture between the US and the UK indicated by the fact that one man shot by the police causes riots in the street... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

A guy who got shot by police in Oakland a year or two ago also caused rioting, so I don't know what you are getting at. Googlemeister (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's be careful not to blame the victims here. It wasn't the shot guy who caused any rioting. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's see some facts: 'In the year 2007-08, there were 6,780 Authorised Firearms Officers, 21,181 police operations in which firearms were authorised throughout England and Wales and 7 incidents where conventional firearms were used', 'According to an October 2005 article in The Independent, in the preceding 12 years, 30 people had been shot dead by police.' Police use of firearms in the United Kingdom. (for reference As of September 2001 there were 127,231 police officers in England and Wales - can't find a more up to date one quickly) This is probably for England and Wales; whilst I do not expect Scotland to differ much, Northern Ireland, per capita, is likely to have considerably more deaths (depending on the timeframe). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Great answer. So only around 5% of British cops commonly carry firearms as part of their job (at least in England and Wales). Googlemeister (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

No, about 5% have the training and authorisation to carry firearms, but only a small percentage of those will commonly carry them (as part of one of the aforementioned small forces, or a specialist team). Most will only use them on the uncommon occasions where they are part of one of the operations in which firearms are authorised. Warofdreams talk 13:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

In Scotland as of 2006/7 (here, p. 5) firearms officers were said to be 3.7% of strength. As for police use of firearms, in the ten years to 2006/7 "there have been three instances (all of which were non-fatal) where conventional firearms have been discharged at a person" (p. 5). There doesn't seem to be a directly comparable figure to the 21,181 for E&W given in the report I linked to. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

What is this Art movement called?

This video shows a series of artworks. Do they belong to a named art movement? 89.82.190.163 (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I see several different movements. Some of it looks like modern forms of surrealism, others look like Dada (especially the cut-out-letters bit), others like Cubism. The vast majority of the images I would describe as Fantasy art, however. --Jayron32 20:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know but I know what I like and I like it. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I see several as well. If you're interested in names of artists, I'd say there were influences of Salvador Dali, H. R. Giger, M. C. Escher, and whoever did the album covers for Boston (band). Dismas|^(talk) 00:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

According to Boston (album), that would be someone named "Roger Huyssen", at least for the debut album. --Jayron32 00:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Fantasy art is not a bad way to name it. Strictly speaking I don't know if Fantasy art would be an art movement. I would guess that most of the images are not particularly well-known. The images seen in the video, in my opinion, display the sensibilities of Lowbrow art. Consider an artist mentioned in the Lowbrow (art movement) article—Robert Williams (artist). Click on some of these images. (Click "Enter" and then "Gallery".) Bus stop (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you could probably classify fantasy art as a movement; there's a definite uniformity of style and theme that runs through it. Just because it isn't a popular movement with the art collectors and the practitionars aren't all famous doesn't make it less of a movement. There are lots of cohesive music genres which aren't well regarded or popular, but it doesn't make them less of a genre... --Jayron32 01:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

"Genre" is slightly different than "art movement". An art movement is a commonality in visual art that enjoys the support of art criticism. "Commonality" may not even make sense because a common thread may be elusive concerning art movements. Consider Color field painting or Abstract expressionism. Art movements are created or at least defined by art critics. Art critics bring their own assumptions to art criticism, giving rise to what they perceive—correctly or not—as art movements. Their pronouncements are dependent on the acceptance of others—especially other well-respected art critics. Art critics give voice to their own assumptions in the interpretations that they provide for works of art. Their own assumptions have to bear some relationship to the prevailing zeitgeist of an age. I don't think art movements are ever understood to exist detached from the zeitgeist of a period of time in which they are said to exist. This is original research and designed to be as incomprehensible as possible. Bus stop (talk) 03:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Heh... I think you're all barking up the wrong tree. Most if not all of them, are actually digital art. i.e. created in non-traditional media (speed painting, concept art, and matte paintings especially). Their actual genres can range from Pop Art, Surrealism, Cubism, Street art etc. to genres-but-not-art-movements like Cyberpunk, Steampunk, Anime, Goth, etc.

They share on thing distinguishing them from other forms of art though: they're done almost entirely on a computer. Using photomanipulation, tablets, high poly 3d modeling, 3d rendering techniques, etc. They usually feature strong influences from games, science fiction, comics, graffiti, anime, and youth culture in general. You can see a lot of examples of this (some of them quite stunning) in sites like DeviantArt. You can also routinely see this kind of artwork in game development and movie CGI. Speed painting and concept art both evolved from there after all.

Sadly, trad art 'snobs' don't really consider them art. As unlike traditional media, they are far more forgiving on mistakes.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 06:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Art snobs are irrelevant. The original question inquired about art movements. Thank you for bringing Speed painting and Matte painting to my attention, as I was not aware of those entities. There are no "traditional media" and there are no "non-traditional media" (in my opinion). Art uses "materials", is often created using techniques, and these materials and techniques are refreshed periodically. Plastic for instance was not a material used in making art a few hundred years ago, but has been used in the twentieth century. The use of the computer in making art would be a "technique", I think. Pop art, Surrealism, and Cubism are art movements; they are not Genres. Neither untraditional media nor traditional media are "more forgiving on mistakes". What is a "mistake", anyway? The artworks of Jean Dubuffet seem forgiving of mistakes, but I certainly could be mistaken about that. Bus stop (talk) 10:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

For the genre/art movement thing, my bad, got confused, heh. But yeah, as a 3d artist (though with no pretensions of being an artist artist, LOL, I tend to consider myself more like a draughtsman than anything else), I respectfully disagree. People do differentiate the two. Especially since digital art is still very much in its infancy and is still usually considered Commercial art rather than Fine art.

By mistakes, I mean literal mistakes. If you accidentally mix the wrong colors and end up ruining a watercolor (or if it got drenched in the rain or something), there is usually no way to salvage it. If you were in Photoshop however, you can simply undo, cut and paste, heal, or do a dozen other things to fix it without starting all over again. Not to mention the fact that you can make perfect copies of digital art by simple copy-paste, while traditional art can usually never be perfectly duplicated. Some techniques can also be automated in digital art. You can see why some trad artists will resent it. In the view of some traditional artists (and previously mentioned theoretical snobs, heh), this is cheating. Hence probably why you don't see exhibits of digital art in galleries and museums.

Our own article Digital painting discusses the difference. Some other online stuff that talk about the two :

• Art: Traditional vs. Digital
• What is Fine Art—Traditional Art Only, or Digital Art Too?
• And more results from Google on the topic.

I'm fully aware how absurd it all is though, so I agree really. Art is art, the medium is simply the vehicle, not the purpose. But still, the OP asked about the common link between all of them. It's safe to say he wasn't asking about the art movement (since they belong to several). I don't know what you'd call digital art, but it's definitely not technique though, sorry. The number of ways you can create visual art digitally is just as varied as in real life.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

@Obsidian Soul, it can make a thread confusing when you change[4] [5] [6] your own words after others have read them. It is better clearer if you put < strike > < /strike > around the word(s) you replace, as I did here to the word "better". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Er no... they were consecutive edits, with little time elapsed between them, and done before any other replies. In other words: normal copyediting/clarification. Hence the 'ce' edit summary. Other editors do that frequently don't they? I only strike lines when someone else has already replied before I made the edit. Also, I know my html tags thank you, please don't treat me like a noob... T_T LOL-- Obsidi♠n Soul 14:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible that art including beautiful sculptures have been lying around since the Big Bang, and represent no "Art Movement" at all, just (re)discovery? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I doubt you can paint the Mona Lisa with fractals, heh. If you think mandelboxes are beautiful. Check out Mandelbulbs (google it too)-- Obsidi♠n Soul 14:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

See Fractal compression that can be applied to images including the Mona Lisa. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

If the central bank interests is lower than the gov. bond interest...

...couldn't certain financial players borrow money from the government and lend it back to it? 193.153.125.105 (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. But central bank loans generally have a much shorter term than most government bonds, so the strategy entails risks. Looie496 (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

But can you buy a gov bond on the secondary market, to match the maturity of the bond your are getting from the gov? In this case, would it be free money? 193.153.125.105 (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Typically, when a bank borrows from the Fed, the bank goes on the Fed's records as being a risky bank worthy of future scrutiny. Borrowing from the Fed is not something banks like to do if they can avoid it. Wikiant (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's true. There is a big difference between the central bank bailing out banks as they've had to do recently and the routine overnight loans that are just a normal part of banking operations (if one bank happens to have more withdrawals than deposits one day, it will need some cash, so it borrows it from either another high street bank or the central bank until the next day rather than having to liquidate its investment assets). --Tango (talk) 10:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Banks in effect control the Federal Reserve System. Banks own the regional Federal Reserve Banks that make up the system and that elect 5 of the 12 system board members. While the other 7 are appointed by the US president and confirmed by the US Senate, in practice the desire for campaign contributions from the finance sector insures that these 7 appointees are agreeable to the banking community. As such, a top priority of the Federal Reserve system is to pursue policies that benefit banks. Many commentators have pointed out that keeping the discount rate below market rates for other kinds of loans is a subsidy to banks. See, for example, this blog, or this one. The St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank itself admits that low interest rates are designed to help banks. Marco polo (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for that US-centric response, which explains the situation in the United States. After checking the questioner's IP address, I see that he or she is probably in Spain. The European Central Bank (ECB) and the Bank of England, unlike the Federal Reserve System, are in effect owned by their respective governments. (In the case of the ECB, the bank is owned by the member central banks, each of which is in turn owned by its government.) These central banks are generally managed by technocrats with an academic background in economics. This background has apparently led them to the same conclusion as the Federal Reserve board members, namely that banks need this kind of support. Marco polo (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)