Humanities desk
< October 17	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 19 >

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.

October 18

How long since the Chicago Tribune endorsed a Democratic nominee for President?

The Chicago Tribune just endorsed Barack Obama for President. This is a very unusual move for what many consider to be the conservative newspaper of record in the United States. How long has it been since the Chicago Tribune endorsed a Democratic nominee for President? --Halcatalyst (talk) 02:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm embarrassed. The answer is in the editorial itself: "This endorsement makes some history for the Chicago Tribune. This is the first time the newspaper has endorsed the Democratic Party's nominee for president." --Halcatalyst (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And your link to Chicago Tribune also says it with the same source. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am totally gobsmacked . For many, many elections the Chicago Tribune editorial board has criticized Republicans, then seemingly the publisher came down from Olympus each election and dictated that they would endorse the Republican regardless. Apparently new owner Sam Zell departs from the rightwing legacy of previous owner "Col."Robert McCormick , who claimed that Franklin D. Roosevelt was a Communist, and who created a 47 star flag because he did not like Rhode Island. Edison (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Obama the first Illinois native to run as a Democrat, though? It's a bit less surprising since it's his home state (but still surprising). Wrad (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was actually born in Hawaii. --Halcatalyst (talk) 13:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adlai Stevenson ran twice. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though Stevenson was born in Los Angeles. --Halcatalyst (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But was a Senator from Illinois. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 01:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question is about "home state", not about nativity, sorry. So I'm assuming Stevenson wasn't endorsed by the Tribune even though he was from Illinois? Wrad (talk) 05:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he lost Illinois to Eisenhower both times despite being an Illinois governor. Wrad (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If The Wall Street Journal ever endorses a Democrat for president, it will be a chilly day in Hell indeed. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Library Records

Alright, I distinctly remember a scene from the film "Seven" where Morgan Freeman mentions that the government red flags certain books in public libraries, so that the reading habits of suspicious people can be recorded. For example, I check out ten books on making bombs, and my name gets redlisted, and my list of books checked out is observed.

Is this actually a system like this in effect anywhere in America? It seems like a gross invasion of privacy to me, but I'm not even sure if it's plausible or a film bending the truth. Wikipedia: be my mythbusters. Kenjibeast (talk) 03:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I don't mean to sound rude, but have you been under a rock for the past 7 years?~~ I don't even live in the US and I've heard of this lots, primarily in relation to the Patriot Act. (I never really checked out the details until now since it wasn't of great interest) As I understand it, particularly with the Patriot Act the answer is they can check out what you've been reading [1] [2] and they can also check out who's been reading a certain book but it's not some sort of automatic database and many librarians have given the minumum cooperation level required. This is also partially mentioned in USA PATRIOT Act BTW. As to the case when Seven was around (since it came out long before the PATRIOT Act), I'm not sure but I would think they could check out what you've been reading if they could get a search warrant to that effect. Nil Einne (talk) 07:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. Apologies I may have misunderstood do you actually live in the US? Nil Einne (talk) 07:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The American Library Association has claimed that the USA PATRIOT Act does allow for this kind of snooping and has lobbied vigorously against the law. (This law was passed years after Seven was released.) PATRIOT Act advocates say the ALA is engaging in fear-mongering. Librarians traditionally have guarded the privacy of their patrons and its unlikely they would provide the Feds with patron information without a warrant. Reading "dangerous" books is not a crime in itself, so obtaining a warrant would be difficult. In short, the tracking system you describe is probably illegal and definitely impractical. One can't rule out a some gov't agency secretly attempting this, but it is impossible without the quiet compliance of thousands of librarians across the country. —D. Monack ^talk 07:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, it isn't that the BOOKS are red-flagged so that if you check them out they look at you, so much as if YOU are red-flagged then they look at your library records among other things. But this sort of indiscriminate tracking is the sort of thing of conspiracy theory lore. There are certainly things you can do that are totally legal but draw attention to yourself (like filing too many FOIA requests on too many sensitive subjects—see the article on this guy). But I doubt just checking out books from the library will do it unless the librarian who checks them out to you feels fit to report that you checked out Pothole Blasting for Wildlife and then remarked joyously at what a BLAST you were going to have with the book. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some U.S. libraries have checkout systems which erase any records once you return (or pay off the late fees) on your books so this tracking wouldn't even be possible in some places. Rmhermen (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I work at a library and our checkout system, Horizon 7.3, does not save a record of the books our library patrons have read. Library staff can only see books that you have checked out, requested, or have a fine for. Saving a list of books would not be useful for the purpose of the library and would take up server space. All libraries use different systems so there is no way the government can have a tracking system on such a large scale. ToyChristopher (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is this a reference to?

I'm reading a very interesting novel, Earth Abides by George R. Stewart. There's a passage in the book that it took me a long time to make heads or tails of—I read it four or five times and the best I could get was that the author was possibly alluding to the character worried that her lover will care if he knows she has African ancestry. Later in the novel this is confirmed. Here's an excerpt from the passage:

"You're just a nice boy," [she said]. "You looked at my hands and said they were nice. You never even noticed the blue in the half-moons." He felt the shock, and he knew that she felt the shock in him. Now everything came together in his mind—brunette complexion, dark liquid eyes, full lips, white teeth, rich voice, accepting temperament.

I thought it was interesting that while right after this passage the author has this not matter to the character at all, the part about "accepting temperament" still betrays to my mind some institutionalized racism on the author's part (the novel came out in 1949). I digress. My question is, what is this about "the blue in the half-moons." If it's an allusion to something that is supposed to tip us about African ancestry, it's over my head.--68.237.2.254 (talk) 04:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fingernails. See The Bluish Tinge in the Halfmoon; or, Fingernails as a Racial Sign. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing it's a reference to sickle-cell anemia. This is a hereditary disease caused by a fault in the gene related to the production of hemoglobin in the body. People with one copy of the faulty gene are said to have the sickle-cell trait, which improves their resistance to malaria, a disease prevalent in parts of Africa. So they are more likely to have children and therefore the faulty gene continues to exist in the population of Africa, or those parts of it. But people with homozygous two copies of the gene get sickle-cell anemia. I'm thinking that the "half moons" referred to are the bases of the fingernails, which can look bluish in the presence of circulatory problems -- such as sickle-cell anemia. (But I am not a doctor, or a geneticist for that matter, and don't know if this is really a symptom of this particular condition.) --Anonymous, 07:22 UTC, October 18, 2008.

I've read that novel before (wonderful book, by the way, with a *very* devastating or uplifting ending, depending on how you look at it), and I always felt that passage was subtly betraying racism--even, as is clear, the thorough opposite is intended (it's 1949, so "miscegenation" isn't exactly acceptable... but then it's written by a Berkeley professor, so maybe it wasn't such a leap for some). But I never recognized the fingernail thing. Incidentally, I feel that the bland-white-young guy with the black-woman-as-love-interest is very common in post-apocalyptic stories, though the only examples I can think of right now are The Omega Man (with Charlton Heston) and 28 Days Later. zafiroblue05 | Talk 07:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks everyone. Very interesting. I suspected that this would not have an uplifting great ending (and thanks for not describing it in detail, Zafiroblue05!). I read the linked text, Jpgordon, phew; it's amazing to think people were obsessing over this crap at one time. So I guess the allusion is something that a lot of people would have recognized in 1949, that most people would say "huh?" to today. Going a little afield here, but it seems to me that Stephen King's The Stand owes a debt of gratitude to this novel (note that in there, there is no comparable mixed racial couple theme). Regarding the Omega Man, which is based on Richard Matheson's wonderful I Am Legend (recently made into a movie), I am trying to dredge my memory to remember whether the mixed race theme is present but coming up blank. Read that novella, its far better than either film. By the way, Richard Matheson wrote one of the most startling very short, short stories I've ever read: Born of Man and Woman; give it a read if you come across it.--68.237.2.254 (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There were three films of I am Legend. Don't forget the original, 1964 The Last Man on Earth starring Vincent Price. Rmhermen (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is VERY interesting! Is there an article relating to this on the wiki? Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 08:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, Stephen King has overtly indicated that this book was a huge influence on The Stand.

collect data on India's current account balance, capital account balance and forex reserves for the period 2001-2006 and list the major features

"Economic reforms have an adverse effect on food security." comment —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karanamlakshmi (talk • contribs) 05:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want data on india's currrent account balance for period 2001-2006  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karanamlakshmi (talk • contribs) 05:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the answer was never posted on in.answers.yahoo.com after October 6th? --W. B. Wilson (talk) 07:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.adb.org/Documents/Books/Key_Indicators/2007/xls/IND.xls see lines 340-359. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First photograph

View from the Window at Le Gras is the first photograph, wikipedia says. And yet I can barely understand what's going on in that photo! Has there ever been a "modern" photograph taken from the the same place to compare? zafiroblue05 | Talk 07:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the only one I can find. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 08:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive... it should be added to the wikipedia article --PMajer (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Do you have a link to the web page containing the image? Astronaut (talk) 07:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US demographics by state

Hello all. Is there an article or category on Wikipedia that displays racial demographics of each state in the US, to allow a comparison of the racial makeup of each state? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.242.80 (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find one. Maybe something linked from Racial and ethnic demographics of the United States has the information. Rmhermen (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) There's Racial and ethnic demographics of the United States, but it doesn't seem to break it down by state. You'll need to go through each state one by one, I think - they should all have the information in the article on that state, eg. California#Demographics. --Tango (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someday someone will have to create such an article (me?). Thanks for all your help, though :) --24.211.242.80 (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Kerouac - "On the road" - looking for a quotation

It was something like that: "We have to to go". "Where?" "I don't know, but we have to go" Can I have the exact qoutation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.158.196.100 (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found it on Wikiquote here.

"Sal, we gotta go and never stop going till we get there."

"Where we going, man?"

"I don't know but we gotta go." --Masamage ♫ 18:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foreclosed land

Where do I find free lists of foreclosed/seized acreage ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.221.224.43 (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In what country? --Tango (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline of science fiction?

I have this feeling that science fiction is dying or at least in decline. My theory is that the sense of wonder is no longer its semi-exclusive property, what with the rapid pace of technological innovation we're experiencing. Is there anything to back this up, e.g. lower book sales, or other commentators, or am I just turning cranky in my decrepitude? Clarityfiend (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that the combined popularity of Harry Potter and the Lord of the Rings film series has expanded that market and caused producers and book publishers to focus on it more. Wrad (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the question was about science fiction, not science fiction and fantasy. --Anonymous, 18:13 UTC, October 18, 2008.

I'm well aware of that, but it's obvious that Science fiction and fantasy have fought each other for attention for quite awhile. Fantasy is winning the battle right now. That's what I'm saying. Wrad (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I took "that market" to mean fantasy and SF taken together, but you meant fantasy alone. Clear now. --Anonymous, 00:03 UTC, October 19, 2008.

I think the opposite is true; it's gone mainstream, and it's gone sad. TV series like Lost, Heroes, and Pushing Daisies are among the most successful and popular in the US; The Road and Kavalier and Clay won Pulitzer prizes; some of the most successful recent movies have been superhero flicks (Iron Man, Dark Knight). Now maybe these don't _feel_ like "proper" science fiction, and they're a lot more about fear and darkness and conspiracy than about the white heat of technological revolution, but bulletproof cheerleaders and mystical islands are sf nevertheless. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider List of highest-grossing films; of those 50 by my count 21 are science fiction. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By my count, it's closer to 12. I think you have a very broad definition of sci-fi, more so than is standard. --Tango (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And as I look through it, nearly all of the scifi hits are from the 90s, not recently. Almost all of the recent hits have strong fantasy elements. Wrad (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of the top movies of 2007, the first, third, and six are SF. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, in the past, you would find almost no fantasy films in the top five, while scifi films were everywhere. Now the scales are starting to tip, with three of the top 5 in 2007 being fantasy. Scifi isn't dead by any means, but it has lost a lot of ground to fantasy in recent years. Wrad (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call Lost sci-fi, it's closer to fantasy. --Tango (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the only one of those that I would completely agree is sci-fi is Heroes. Wrad (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Space opera, of the Star Wars variety tends to drive out science fiction, as does fantasy of the Harry Potter variety. Both offr the reader/viewer escape from the dreary every-day real world. Edison (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarityfiend, I think you're right. I think technology progresses so fast that nothing surprises us anymore, making sci-fi a lot less exciting. Even the SciFi channels hit Battlestar Gallactica series has fantasy elements. Wrad (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, wasn't earlier sci-fi also ground-breaking in terms of the social situations and questions it explored ? One example of this that comes to mind is the Kirk / Uhura kiss scene in ST. If that aspect of sci-fi today has dropped out, I think the genre will be much poorer for it. --91.32.95.166 (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the problem is that SF itself - or what people see as SF - has developed and changed along with technological developments, so the boundaries between this particular type of "genre fiction" and "mainstream literature" have got blurred. Back in the early- to mid-20th century the emphasis was on science, the wonders of progress and the lure of futuristic technology; as technological change accelerated, the science bit became the setting rather than the subject of the story, and the characters and themes took over as central instead. For example, Neuromancer is always cited as a milestone in SF and the herald of a new sub-genre, but really it's a great story about people, set in a technological setting, rather than a story about technology.

I'm not sure it's a bad thing that the boundaries are blurring. Some so-called "genre" fiction, including some SF, is the equal of anything "mainstream". Ka renjc 20:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the line between "hard" and "soft" sci-fi has been blurred for many years. Hardly anyone would deny that Isaac Asimov is as pure a sci-fi author as there is; but one could argue that his books were more about the people than the technology. The Elijah Bailey stories are really just good detective fiction; the original Foundation trilogy stands with Atlas Shrugged and Animal Farm as work of dystopianism. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised by the description of the Foundation stories as dystopian. I've read pretty much all of Asimov's fiction and very little of it strikes me as fitting in that category. But this is a side point, of course. --Anonymous, 00:06, October 19, 2008.

Science fiction certainly isn't dying in any way, as someone mentioned, Lost gets millions of viewers every week (and Lost is definitely science fiction) and just recently Neal Stephenson published Anathem which got a throng of internet-people in a real tizzy (personally, thought it was just average). Not to mention The Dark Knight and other movies that are grossing a gazillion dollars.

I will agree though that science fiction is changing. The mid-20th century was really a golden age for a kind of literary tradition which is mostly gone nowadays. Science fiction served both as hard-hitting social commentary (1984 being the obvious example, but there are many others) and a way to explore existential and philosophical issues (Philip K Dick being the obvious example, but again, there are many others). Of course, there was a lot of crap too, but there's no doubt that there was a lot of great literature produced in the sci-fi genre during this time. This literary tradition has declined considerably in the 21st century. Today, almost all relevant sci-fi comes from television or movies, and it there that the evolution is happening. And in many ways, it isn't as interesting as great art (with a few exceptions, like Battlestar Galactica), even if it is very entertaining. There's very few Philip K Dicks and Ursula K LeGuin's around today. Belisarius (talk) 07:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dare I suggest that if you think Battlestar Galactica is "great art" that it might be a sign of declining standards? ;-) I mean, I found it (usually) entertaining, but it was really just OK television (certainly couldn't compare in terms of writing with some of the really top-notch shows of the last few years, like Deadwood or The Wire). Certainly doesn't hold a candle to real writing like Dick and LeGuin. I thought Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go was pretty good modern sci-fi, though he's not a genre writer. But anyway, most of any genre at any given time is crap. For every Dashiell Hammett there were thousand horrible pulp writers. And sensibilities do change: writing in a Hammett mode today is unbearable, in my opinion—done to death, very cheesy. In pulp detective stuff, only the innovators are worth reading (James Ellroy, Elmore Leonard, etc.), and if they are successful then even they will be passé at some point. As for whether, in the case of sci fi, different social expectations of technology contribute to things... maybe. But that seems like a pretty simplistic explanation. There is a lot more to sci fi than being wowed by technology. And it's also possible that our relationship to technology has changed—it's no longer so much the 50s-60s dream of big spaceships going between galaxies, it's more about smaller, more subtle technological interactions that have inflected our lives on a very micro scale. The fears are not about alien races taking us over so much as they are about our insurance companies failing to cover us if our genes are wrong. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously disagree with you on Battlestar Galactica. It's certainly have had it's rough patches, but overall I do think it absolutely measures up with Deadwood and The Wire. It's an enormously potent allegory of modern society and delves into deeply philosophical areas, and it does it (almost) as well as the great sci-fi writers of the 20th century.

As for most stuff being crap, that's absolutely true. That's why I linked to Sturgeon's law, in any genre or medium, the vast majority of published content will be terrible.

As for Hammett, I'm so glad you brought him up :) I absolutely adore Dashiell Hammett, I think he's one of the great ones. The reason why most of Film Noir and Hardboiled language today sounds ridiculous is not that his style of writing has gone out of fashion, it's because virtually no-one can write like he does. The stereotype of hardboiled language today is nothing like he wrote it. He didn't use long-flowering metaphors ("Her eyes where as deep as lakes and her hair like a volcano", you know, that stuff), he was incredibly direct and almost violent in his writing. If three words could contain as much content as five, he'd use three (or even two). As for it not working today, look at the movie Brick. It's a fantastic movie, and the language isn't ridiculous at all. Belisarius (talk) 01:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the proliferation of high technology has made it more difficult to write mainstream science fiction. We have space tourists, GPS, wireless everything, and are working on a cloaking device. Fifty years ago, a story that had anything like those in it would be mainstream sci-fi, but obviously not any more. In order to get that same sense of "wow", an author has to somehow get to the next level of technology or get into a more fantasy-type setting. Sure, you could go to another planet and meet some aliens, but it's been done to death and many aliens (not all) are more about fantasy than anything science based anyway. We've passed a point where technology doesn't really give us a sense of awe any more. Matt Deres (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing I like about Battlestar Gallactica is the theme in it that the line between messing with technology and messing with humanity is becoming more and more blurred. Wrad (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy is currently winning. Things that you would not even really think of as fantasy, such as alternate world stories such as Harry Turtledove's Timeline-191 mega-series, or S. M. Stirling's Nantucket/Emberverse series, (which is a "what if the modern day island of Nantucket was mysteriously transported into the Iron Age?"), or Eric Flint, et. al.'s 1632 series (which is a "what if a modern West Virginia town was mysteriously transported into the middle of the Thirty Years' War?") Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For genres there's Hard science fiction,soft science fiction, social science fiction and science fantasy, though some look to need work. Julia Rossi (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a proliferation of technology, I think it's the opposite. Forty years ago there was a sense that technological advancements were going somewhere. The Apollo landing was the first step; next there would be a moon base, then a Mars base, then we'd head off in spaceships to the stars. Instead, no one's left Earth orbit since the end of the Apollo program. Same with the early developments in AI. People thought that programs like Eliza and SHRDLU were the first step, and soon we'd have computers as smart as people. Forty years later, SHRDLU is still about the best we can do. GPS and cellular phones are all well and good, but they're creature comforts. They don't point the way to a future society the way the moon program seemed to. -- BenRG (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is science fiction? I've never really known, and I'm genuinely surprised by what people have identified as science fiction in this thread. Lost is science fiction? I'm only familiar with the first season or so, but I can't think of a single element of it that seemed remotely scientific. The Dark Knight is science fiction? In what way? Star Wars is not science fiction? I can't think of anything in Star Wars that makes it less scientific than, say, Star Trek (though perhaps that's because I can't see much that's scientific in either one). Our article on science fiction is not very helpful. It says, "Science fiction differs from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature." But that can't be right. Elves and orcs and unicorns are all unquestionably allowed by known laws of nature. It's warp drives and transporters and time machines that seem to be forbidden. Sword-and-sorcery fantasy has magic along with the broadswords, but I don't know how to distinguish magic from sufficiently advanced technology. Fantasy as a whole certainly isn't struggling, and I'm not convinced this alleged subgenre called science fiction even exists. In some sense every talented author defines a (sub)genre that dies when they do, and I don't think that's a bad thing. It's almost tautological—an author who's easy to imitate probably doesn't deserve to be called great. -- BenRG (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you believe in the "they're all dead" hypothesis, Lost is science fiction. If you've only watched the first season, you saw a lot of the mysteries but missed the scientific explanations of what's going on. The last episode of last season even involved time travel. As for Star Wars, I thought lasers traveled at the speed of light! 206.66.66.1 (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this discussuon - enjoyed it a lot - I've often thought in recent years that sf writing is on the decline - at its best, sf writing is the literature of ideas, whereas in cinema, sf is generally just an excuse to have bigger cooler guns. Adambrowne666 (talk) 06:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How much money does a porno website make?

Does anyone know how much money does a porno website make per month and per year generally? What is the online processing service charge fee? Thanks. 72.136.111.205 (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try some of these links. -hydnjo talk 23:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]