Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 January 22

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.

January 22

Baseball Rule Question

It is my understanding that if a runner knocks over the catcher and he (the catcher) drops the ball, then the runner is safe at Home Plate.

However, it is also my understanding if the same situation were to happen at third, second or first base, the runner would be out.

Is there a reason for the special exemption at home plate? Or is there some lacking in my understanding?74.104.99.206 (talk) 04:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Famous photo of Ty Cobb sliding hard into third and spilling Yankees third baseman Jimmy Austin

Sliding into a fielder while attempting to reach a base is typically not a rules violation. In fact, typically on a double play situation, the runner coming from first to second will slide hard into the base, hoping to throw the pivot man's timing off or even causing him to tumble. Sliding out of the base path for that purpose, though, is against the rules. Reaching out and slapping at the ball (as A-Rod did in the 2004 ALCS) is against the rules, and the batter/runner will be called out for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You might be thinking of interference. If a runner prevents a fielder from fielding a batted ball, he is called out, unless he is legally occupying a base and the interference was unintentional, in the umpire's judgment. (Rule 7.08(b)) The photo of Cobb was on a thrown ball from the catcher as he was trying to nail Cobb stealing third. If it were on a batted ball, Cobb might have been called out; or if he interfered with the third baseman's attempt to throw the ball elsewhere, he would have been called out. If you think about it, a play at the plate is typically always on a throw. Then it becomes like the Cobb situation except it's at home. If the batter hits a Baltimore chop and the runner from third comes barreling in on the catcher while he's trying to field the ball, the runner would be called out for interference. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Add: if the catcher or other fielder blocks the runner from reaching base, and it is judged to be unnecessary for the fielder / catcher to complete the play (catch the ball or tag the runner), the fielder / catcher may violate the rules, resulting in the runner being awarded the base. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. That's obstruction. One way to put it is, if a fielder gets in the way of a batter/runner and doesn't have the ball, the batter/runner can be awarded the next base, or maybe more, depending the umpire's assessment of the situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, Bugs has been lurking this board for about 3 years now just waiting for this question :) Shadowjams (talk) 10:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Or ANY baseball question. Bring it on! :) Although sports questions usually turn up in the entertainment ref desk, but that's a minor point. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

A-Rod also interfered with a play against the Blue Jays last year or the year before, he was running behind the shortstop and yelled something, so the shortstop missed the ball. But that's not specifically against the rules, so nothing happened. Jerk. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that technically it would be. When I say "will be called", I'm optimistically assuming the ump will see it and do his job. That doesn't mean he necessarily will. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Umpire Bill Klem famously said "It ain't nothin' till I call it" when asked about his interpretation of baseball's rules. Some people find this aspect of baseball part of its charm, others find it somewhat arbitrary and infuriating. --Jayron32 05:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This one's for you, Baseball Bugs: What's wrong with a left fielder throwing his hat at a fly ball, so as to stop it from going over the wall for a home run? DOR (HK) (talk) 05:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

fourth auction by Jay Leno

By any chance, is Jay Leno going to auction another Harley-Davidson motorcycle with the proceeds going to the Haiti relief efforts?24.90.204.234 (talk) 07:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

As with just about every thing you can imagine, there is, indeed, some chance that might happen. All we need is evidence. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Where can the evidence be found?24.90.204.234 (talk) 02:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"modern" technological differences in everyday life at any time before, say, 1600 (back to, say, 450 BC)

I've read a lot about Shakespeare's England and Jesus's/Paul's Judea/Roman Empire, and recently it occurred to me that there were few if any differences between the two in terms of technological advances affecting everyday life (note: I am NOT referring to politics or social systems, economics, racism, sexism, imperialism, etc., except as they are indirectly related to technology and everyday life of average common people). Researching inventions on Wikipedia, it seemed to me that only armaments and printing changed much; the only other things I could find or think of were clocks and (in the 1700s) stoves. (Oh, yeah -- and stirrups.)

So: What technological differences were there between, say, 1600 and the previous 2000 years, anywhere, that made daily life "more modern" than it had been since, say, the dawn of the Greeks?

I think most people would be surprised to discover that the answer is "not many." Wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.17.45.118 (talk) 11:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The timeline of historic inventions may be of use here. Glassblowing was devised in the first century BC, porcelain was widely produced in East Asia by 1600 but was still rare and expensive in Europe. Pencils, wheelbarrows and horseshoes were all everyday items either invented in this time period or very rare in the Roman Empire. Warofdreams talk 11:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting question. You say "everyday life", I would be surprised if many 'ordinary' people in England had access to a clock in Shakespeares' England. In many ways the Romans appear to have been more advanced that the English of those days. The Dark Ages have a lot to answer for. Much technology was lost. I imagine that mathematics, once Arabic numerals were introduced would have quiclky become far more advanced than Roman days. (again not in 'everyday' life) 220.101.28.25 (talk) 12:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I also think the OP doesn't perhaps appreciate how significant the development of the Gutenberg printing press was Nil Einne (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually most people in Shakespeare's England would have had access to a clock. Not one of their own, of course, but they would have been able to see the one on their church tower, which would be a big technological improvement over Roman times. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Nil Einne. I do appreciate the printing press, which was mentioned above. But most people were illiterate. Granted, the vulgar Bible was tremendously influential. As for the rest of printing, I'm not sure it affected everyday common urban life very much till the late 18th century in the west, with the prolifgeration of newspapers. Sometimes I think Ben Franklin was the great avatar of the age! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.17.48.145 (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

How about the chimney, the hourglass (for sailors), Clocks (maybe not in everyone's home, but certainly in some towns), horseshoes as well as other items mentioned above? Googlemeister (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Widespread use of steel and pretty universal use of iron. Much increased use of wind- and waterpower. Ocean-going sailing ships with advanced rigging and stern rudders. Magnetic compass. --15:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Steel wasn't in widespread use until well after 1600. Iron was already commonplace in the Roman era. Windmills were new, but water-power was already widespread under the Romans. Warofdreams talk 15:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

What about indoor plumbing? it seems more common in Rome than in Shakespeare's England. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I expect changes in agricultural methods such as the three-field system and the mouldboard plough would have a big impact on the type and amount of food people ate, and the population that could be supported. Sheep were a big industry around Shakespeares time, with exports of wool. Ship design changed, with a different type of sail, alllowing more trade and longer fishing trips, including exploration. What were big technological developments at the time seem mundane to us now. There were also developments in military methods that would have affected who was in power: the longbow, the use of gunpowder in the West, cannon and guns. The development of castles, armour for knights, chain mail, and probably many others. 84.13.39.208 (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that. The bible was of course important. The bible was of course important. However more importantly, even if you are literate, it doesn't mean the availability of printed material would be of no benefit to you. If you are seeking help from someone who is literate for example. And printing of course freed up scribes to do other things. I know that you're excluding social etc changes but my view is that printing likely did have some very major effects on the lives of everyday people given the widespread changes it caused. Nil Einne (talk) 06:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

related question to the above: in what decades did the modern technological era reach a "tipping point" for the daily lives of numerous common people?

Given that the answer up to 1600 is "not much," approximately what later decades mark the tipping point toward great changes in everyday life (at least in the west) due to technology (and, again, excluding politics, social systems, etc., except as related to everyday common techology)? My guess is 1790-1810 or thereabouts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.17.45.118 (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel it is unlikely you could point to a 'tipping point', especially to a period of 20  years.(I could certainly be wrong!) Your previous question mentioned printing, and that, when applied to the spread of knowledge, would have had a major effect on progress. The re-invention of good sanitation ie. toilets and sewerage systems would have had a major impact, though likely came much later than 1810. 220.101.28.25 (talk) 12:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll go with the 1950s. After the last major conflict the world has ever known, scientists and engineers got down to brass taxes and designed cars, TVs, fridges, ovens, telephones, and central heating for the everyman. Throw in microwaves, CD players, personal computers, the internet, digital cable, and HDTV from the 80s to now, and we've got mostly everything. And lets not forget about bulk travel with the 747 (1969) and its kin. Or video games becoming increasingly mainstream from 1985 to 2005. Vranak (talk) 12:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"Brass taxes" is an amusing eggcorn with a folk etymology, but the usual expression is "brass tacks" :-). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Amusing indeed! Thanks! Vranak (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Vranak. Refrigerators are a 1920s thing. Also, I agree with you that any recent decade is unbelievable relative to the past, but I'm asking: when did that START happening, technologically, in everyday life? It wasn't true for Shakespeare, but: Lincoln did not have lightbulbs ... but he DID have trains, and that's a big deal. I'd have to put the answer as pre-Lincoln, but then, it's not fair to answer my own question! I'm confident that the answer must lie in the early industrial revolution (Lincoln probably felt very, very modern getting telegraphs), but I'm not sure when. The "factory"-related advances of the second half of the 18th century were extremely influential in regard to what I'm asking, and the steam engine and cotton gin were huge. So I think the answer must lie between 1750-1850. Sorry if I'm closed-minded to later-dated answers; I'd love to hear other opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.17.48.145 (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Commercial fridge and freezer units, which go by many other names, were in use for almost 40 years prior to the common home models. They used toxic gas systems, which occasionally leaked, making them unsafe for home use. Practical household refrigerators were introduced in 1915 and gained wider acceptance in the United States in the 1930s as prices fell and non-toxic, non-flammable synthetic refrigerants such as Freon or R-12 were introduced. It is notable that while 60% of households in the US owned a refrigerator by the 1930s, it was not until 40 years later, in the 1970s, that the refrigerator achieved a similar level of penetration in the United Kingdom. Vranak (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"Home electric refrigerators, of which there were [in the USA] only 27,000 in 1923, increased to 755,000 in just five years." --"America and the Jazz Age" by F.W. Boardman, Henry Z. Walck Inc., 1968, p. 58. That's an increase of 2700% from 1923-28 -- sounds like a tipping point to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.17.48.145 (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

But remember that electric refrigerators didn't introduce a novel amenity, they were merely a technological improvement over the older and widely used Icebox. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd say 75% saturation has shown that a technology has reached full maturity. So the tipping point would be when, let's say, 50% of families above the poverty line own a computer, or a cell phone, or a fridge. Vranak (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Another way to put my question (and having written this, it occurs to me that I am necessarily talking about urban life, mostly):

Supose you were a lazy novelist, who researched an era's/place's politics/economics, but didn't want to worry about common everyday life so much. What is the earliest decade in which you could set a novel that (except for clocks, pencils, printing, stirrups, glassblowing) would be basically the same as any other era for the previous 2000 (or even 2500) years? See what I'm saying? Everyday life was pretty much the same in terms of "conveniences" and modernizations for roughly 2000 years, I think ... When did that rapidly change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.17.48.145 (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the question is totally subjective and any "answer" is of questionable significance. Bus stop (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, then, I'll make it more objective: The human race came into existence sometime in the past 150,000 years. Civilization, as usually defined, began in about 4000 BCE. The industrial revolution, as usually defined, began sometime in the past 250 years. Question: At what point did the industrial revolution begin to so significantly effect everyday life for common urban people in the west that their daily lives were substantially different from the daily lives of their predecessors? Yes, I know that "substantially different" is qualitative, but, for example, in regard to technology, as mentioned above, there was little difference between, say, Shakespeare's daily life in 1599 and Saint Paul's life in 50 CE. So the answer to the question DOES in fact lie sometime afterwards, even if defined only in terms of a decades-long scope. And, anyway, why worry about the "significance" of the answer? Relative to WHAT? Your answer to THAT is probably totally subjective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.17.48.145 (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I can answer a much simpler question -- namely, the decade when proclaimed labor-saving gadgets really started saving significant labor for middle-class women in the United States of America was basically the 1920's. In Victorian times, just doing the laundry in a middle-class family's household was pretty much an all-day task that had to be done once a week, and which could not realistically be done by one woman unless she was uncorseted, work-hardened, and had quite muscular arms (something which was the antithesis of the ideal of a middle-class Victorian lady). For that and other reasons, the middle-class lifestyle required hiring lower-class servants in Victorian times. However, by the end of the 1920s, in households in the U.S. which had electricity and could afford to buy a washing machine, a refrigerator, and a few other items, the housework could often realistically be done by one woman in a manner which was more or less consistent with 1920s ideas of middle-class womanhood (which had changed from Victorian ideas of middle-class womanhood, of course). That's part of why hiring servants was then starting to become more of an upper-class thing than an ordinary middle-class thing... AnonMoos (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

There was a 1980s TV series called Connections that talked about the evolution of technology. It's really hard to say that one particular time was more significant than another, because new technology opens the door to more new technology. But aside from sanitation and indoor plumbing, which were obviously very important to improvement of lifestyle, there are two basic areas I can think of that were truly revolutionary: mobility and communication. The development of engines made steamships, trains, automobiles and airplanes possible. The development of electronics made the telegraph, telephone, radio, and television possible. The Model T Ford, for example, made it possible for people to go places and do things they hadn't been able to do before. But that was driven by rising incomes and falling prices. All of that came out of the Industrial Revolution. It occurs to me that if cars and phones and radios were available 2,000 years ago, we would probably all be speaking Latin today (in a way, we are, with the proliferation of English). The industrial revolution was certainly a tipping point. The 1950s (also a time of prosperity - note that this is not a coincidence) was when labor-saving devices got a lot of emphasis. But you could make the case that the 1920s, with most everyone having a car and a radio, were the most obvious "tipping point". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The TV series was James Burke's Connections. I'd recommend anyone interested in this thread to watch it or probably easier) read the book, alongside Jacob Bronowski's The Ascent of Man and Kenneth Clark's Civilisation. DuncanHill (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't that depend where they were invented and how they spread? If they were invented in say China or India and become widely popular there before spreading out, I'm not so sure we would be speaking Latin. Nil Einne (talk) 05:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

There's an interesting theory linking Kondratiev waves with technological innovation and adoption (see under Kondratiev wave#Tentative explanations of the cycle). If the theory holds, then you just need to find the wave which you think represents a significant change, and the "tipping point" where the innovations become part of the daily lives of most people in the advanced capitalist countries will be near the end of the wave. Warofdreams talk 15:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

In the late 19th century, the promise of technological revolution was there, but I don't think one could say it was really upon people. The interwar period (1917-1933) is probably a good place to locate when the promise really played out in spades, not just for a few guys at the top, but for a lot of other people as well. Of course, the end of this was marred by the Great Depression, which certainly cut down the individual influences a lot—which is why the 1950s look appealing as a second candidate, because things get really started up again in that direction, and even more so, after World War II. I would say there isn't one tipping point, but a series of decades, stretching from maybe the 1860s through 1950, where the Western world transforms rather radically in its relationship to technology. (As for the rest of the world, that's a different question, and more difficult.) --Mr.98 (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a tendency to lump together vastly different models of some device or differences usages of some technology, which to the users back in the day would have seemed very different. Technological advances did not start with the 19th century or with the industrial revolution. The soldier, sailor, metallurgist, farmer, carpenter, brewer, clothier, cook, or smith of 450 BC would be amazed by the technological advances of 1600 AD. The peasant scratching out a meager existence in a stone hut in some remote area might have some similarities, but many people enjoyed very different circumstances from the earlier period. Lamps in 1600 were better than lamps in 450 BC, even though both burned fuel. Fireplaces in 1600 were better than the earlier ones. Saddles and wagons were better.Shoes and boots were better. Sailing ships were better. Kitchens had better cooking arrangements. Farm implements were better. Writing media were better, not to mention printing. Do not discount the commonality of literacy and the circulation of printed materials among the common people in the 1600's. Books were better than scrolls. Libraries were more common. The dyeing of fabric was better. The extraction of metals was better. More was known of chemistry and medicine. Weapons were vastly more deadly. The 1632 series series of alternative history novels and the collaborative research "tech manuals" document how good the technology was in the early 1600's in Europe. Edison (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That was a major point of Connections, that technological progress is a continuum. The Roman innovations of roads and aquaducts and such probably made Roman life much better than it had been 500 years earlier. But you're right, the growth of literacy probably had a great deal to do with the growth in technology. But that growth in literacy was also driven by need. Everything interconnects. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's true that technological advance is continuous, but there is a strong argument that in the last 150 years, the changes have been both more rapid and have had more impact on most people's lives than ever before. The average human being did roughly the same sorts of things in the same sorts of ways for many centuries—a common worker in the 18th century would have been able to make sense of what a common worker in the 17th and 16th century did, even if some aspects of it had improved in many ways, and vice versa. I do not think the same can be said for someone in the 20th century, and the 18th, or even much of the 19th. Our lives have become more defined by technology over time, and our economies, morales, systems of government, and so forth have reflected that. To say that improvement has been a continuum misses a great deal of subtlety. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The rate of technological development seems to follow a roughly exponential curve. Exponential curves don't really have tipping points. If you plot them it looks like there is a fairly sudden change between an almost flat line and an almost vertical line not far from the end. However, if you then plot just the first half of the curve and adjust the scales so they have they take up the same space you will, again, see a fairly sudden change not far from the end - but that's right in the middle of the previous plot. What that means is that the tipping point will always seem to be a short while ago, regardless of when you ask the question. Judging by the above discussion, people in 2010 think the tipping point was around 60 years ago. People in 1610 would have probably thought much the same thing. --Tango (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This is an interesting thread, and I don't have much to add, except to observe that the rapid change we saw in the United States in the 1920s (widespread adoption of private cars and labor-saving household appliances by most households) didn't really come for most households in Europe until the 1950s. Obviously, there are many parts of the world today where most households still don't have a car or big electric labor-saving appliances. Marco polo (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That was mostly due to the economy of the UK for example being smashed-up and exhausted by World Wars I and II. 92.29.130.174 (talk) 12:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

What's the place the inquirer has in mind? Not China, Buenos Aires, Tahiti, I'll imagine. But Poland? Paris? Idaho? What class of people are "ordinary" to the inquirer? Is a woman with a college education "ordinary"? She is in my world. How "modern" is a rural house without electricity? Without a telephone? Without a car to get around in? How do you recognize "modernity" anyway?--Wetman (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point about the exponential curve, but I don't think people in 1610 would have thought anything about how much more advanced they were than 60 years ago, because I don't think they had a concept of technological progress. If you look at art from around 1610 that shows scenes from the past it is full of anachronisms (biblical characters appear in modern dress, for instance). I don't think we progressed as far as awareness that progress was happening to us until the industrial revolution. This awareness is one possible thing to seize on as a tipping point - the point where progress has crossed the rubicon of being noticable. 81.131.52.170 (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I have the answer: 1899. In that year, Charles H. Duell, Commissioner of the U.S. Office of Patents, apocryphally recommended to his boss, President William McKinley that the Office of Patents be abolished, since "Everything that can be invented has been invented". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

1920s: electric lighting installed in homes, aircraft becoming common, radio, the Talkies. All magical things. Cars were somewhat earlier. 92.29.130.174 (talk) 12:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

There is clearly a geographic element to this. Rich people in Italy: 200 BC? Rich people in England: 1700s? Common people in the US: 1920s? Common people in Norway: 1950s? Common people in Botswana: 1980s? Common people in Mali: 2000s? (note that the exact locations and years are only here to illustrate a point). In general, different inventions are associated with this in different places and times. With the 1930s I'd associate the car, with the 2000s the cellphone. But if I had to pick one invention (which is more a discovery) in the history of mankind, it might be hygiene. Jørgen (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

“Numerous” common people? Ah, well, that opens up the question to any possible answer. I’m going to put my money on the 1970s. The main reason is that the Green Revolution was finally delivering results, and roughly a billion people were on the way out of poverty. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"At what point did the industrial revolution begin to so significantly effect everyday life for common urban people in the west that their daily lives were substantially different from the daily lives of their predecessors? "

I think the answer can be found by looking for the first stirrings of opposition to technology, which would be the Arts and Crafts Movement and the luddites. Somewhere in the 19th c., then. 81.131.52.170 (talk) 12:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Who was the British Romantic poet who committed "metaphysical suicide" by reading Kant?

Who was the British Romantic poet who committed "metaphysical suicide" by reading Kant? I heard one of the BR poets, suffered from deep depression and turned to the works of the German idealists, which cured his depression, but caused his poetry to suffer. Does anyone know who this poet was, or the story behind it? --Gary123 (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Some of what you say works for Coleridge, who wrote that Kant "took possession of me as with a giant's hand" (Biographia 1: 153). It's possible that your "metaphysical suicide" memory is a conflation with a memory of another poet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.17.51.238 (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Randal Keynes

I heard an interview on National Public Radio this morning with Randal Keynes concerning the upcoming movie, Creation, based on Keynes's book about his great-great-grandfather, Charles Darwin. In the interview, the book is referred to as Creation: Darwin, His Daughter, and Human Evolution, but in our article, the book is referred to as Annie's Box, subtitled Darwin, His Daughter, and Human Evolution. Does the book have different titles in the UK and the US? 67.51.38.51 (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears to have been retitled. Amazon.co.uk shows "Darwin, His Daughter and Human Evolution" (with and without the "Annie's Box") from 2001/2, and "Creation: Darwin, His Daughter & Human Evolution" from November 2009. It also shows "Creation: The True Story of Charles Darwin" from September 2009, which is presumably a different book. --ColinFine (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WHAAOE: List of works with different titles in the UK and US. --Sean 19:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

When a book is adapted into a film, they frequently rebrand the book to match; I think ColinFine's results are evidence of this, in this case. Incidentally I've seen the film: it's exceedingly sad. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

18th century diplomacy, envoys, royal letters

Dear wikipedians, I am searching for some information. Specifically, I am looking for wording and phrasing of letters of diplomatic content, sent in the period of 17th-18th century. Preferably something along the lines of discussing war and political conflict. If there are any good examples of this (that are perhaps translated, or easily readable! My German/Spanish/French/etc is not so good... :)

I'd dismiss letters from/to America, as I've read a few of these. They do not often bother with families and bloodlines, as European ones might. I am specifically searching for diplomats and/or letters from members of royal families, sent across borders. Thank you very much for any help. 77.18.0.9 (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's two starting points. (1) The London Gazette, which has a searchable online archive, will have war dispatches and similar letters, though I have no idea if royals wrote such things. (2) If you search Google Books for "royal letters" you'll find a lot of public domain stuff, though you would have to wade through and sort domestic from international. It's possible that this is the kind of search that would do best in a national archive rather than online? Best luck, WikiJedits (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear WikiJedits, thank you! These will likely suffice. What a dreadful (written) tongue they had in the 18th century in England... 77.18.70.237 (talk) 12:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Child support. How about elderly parent support?

Most of us have an idea what child support is. Here's the Wikipedia article on it (Child support). However, I understand that, at least in Ontario, elderly parents in need can sue their children--at least if the children have the money--for support. Is this true? I tried Google search and got nothing, nor does Category:Family law or Category:Parenting seem to have anything. Thanks for your help.206.130.173.55 (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you can do that. Where did you hear that? Adam Bishop (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I also very much doubt that. What is vaguely related is that in assessing whether the government should pay for long-term care of an elderly person, the spouse's savings are taken into account. This has resulting in a healthy wife being forced to deplete her savings to pay for her husband's care, leaving her with minimal income when her husband eventually died. This came to light because the wife's solution was to legally divorce her husband, removing the state's ability to include her savings in their assessment. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

...for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health... unless it actually comes to me having to make sacrifices to help you, in which case I'll bugger off..... Isn't marriage wonderful? DuncanHill (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually in that case the husband's standard of care wasn't affected - the only thing was whether the wife was forced to pay for it. And the husband agreed with the divorce. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

According to Global Action on Aging:

For decades, India, Israel and Taiwan have had laws to enforce the obligation to support one's parents. The United Kingdom had such a law from 1601 to 1967. A dozen American states, among them California and Illinois, have some sort of civil law provision for parents and grandparents to sue descendants for support.

This 2002 page on their site, entitled "Children legally obliged to support elderly parents", mentions that a bill was then under discussion in Singapore. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This suggests [1] there are actual legal requirements in some US states, but they are poorly enforced. (Edit see BrainyBabe already mentioned that, missed it.) In fact this [2] suggests 30 states have some sort of law. 21 allow civil action, 12 have criminal penalties and 3 allow both (I presume these are includes in the earlier two since 21+12+3=36 which makes no sense, but 21+12-3=30 which does). Obviously in those that only have criminal penalties, if they are poorly enforced there's little point to the parent. Of course if a parent does require support and there's no legal aide provided and no one is willing to work pro-bono, then suing the child is liable to be difficult anyway. You may also want to search for 'filial responsibility' which appears to be one name for these sort of laws/requirements Nil Einne (talk) 06:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork and Christianity

Why is there no Christian restriction on the consumption of pork when the shared Judeo-Christian literature condemns it? Italy for example is, or has been, a strongly Catholic country and it is well known for salami. Similar examples can be found with Germany, Spain, Poland and so on, all of whom are known for their pork sausage-making traditions.--FinFitFin (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

One of the few Christian churches to impose such a restriction is the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Others probably think it is something specifically Jewish that ended with the Old Testament. Rimush (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Most Christians follow the decision of the Council of Jerusalem (reported in the Bible in Acts) in rejecting most old testament Jewish law. See Biblical law in Christianity. Algebraist 19:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think one of the apostles had a revelation or a vision of God displaying "unclean" animals as defined by kosher laws, and informing him that He had cleansed them. That could have been only symbolism, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It was a symbol, meaning that He had cleansed Gentiles so they could receive the message of the Gospel as well. Rimush (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Even so, did that vision influence the decision of Christianity to abandon kosher laws? Or was that just to further separate themselves from Judaism? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it did. Not only did Peter immediately after that vision baptize Gentiles into the Christian faith, but also ate with them (which would have been prohibited under dietary laws). There are many references later in Acts, and in Paul's letters to Christians not needing to follow the Jewish laws. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This is rapidly running into contentious waters, but according to the late Hyam Maccoby (whose academic speciality embraces precisely this milieu, and whose The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity (1986) I've just re-read), the "Jerusalem Church" (centered on the Pharisee rabbi Jesus's actual disciples and relatives, see also Council of Jerusalem) never ceased to regard itself as a movement within Judaism and disagreed with the abandonment by Saul/Paul (a Greek convert to Judaism, despite what he claimed) of Jewish dietary and other laws, preferring that Gentile "Christians" (a usage not then coined) fully convert.

Peter - allegedly persuaded by the symbolism of the described vision that unconverted Gentiles should be admitted to the movement (utilising the Jewish ceremony of baptism) provided they did not compromise Jewish members' following the laws - took meals with some of Paul's Gentile recruits because Paul had assured the Jerusalem Church that they did follow kosher rules (such "mixed" meals were permissable provided kosher laws were observed at them), but ceased (see the Incident at Antioch) when he realised this might not be true, exposing him to the risk of breaking them himself.

Ultimately Paul's non-Judaistic innovations led to a permanent split between the Jewish-centred Jerusalem Church and his Gentile-oriented faction which due to historical developments became dominant while the other dwindled (becoming the Ebionites). This division's existence was minimised (and the entire nature of the Pharisees misrepresented) by the distortions successively introduced in Paul's own letters, the Acts written by his close associate, and the four canonical Gospels written in a post-Pauline milieu.

Note that this is a very abbreviated and incomplete account of Maccaby's full theses, which I present from a position of personal disinterest, being a Wiccan. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Peter had the vision. It is described in the Book of Acts. Even after the vision, some converted jews stuck with the old ways and were accepted as part of the church, so I don't know that it was just a separation issue. Wrad (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not just pork, though, that the Jews are forbidden to eat. There's also shellfish and pigeons, of all things. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The full Jewish dietary laws are about much more than 'forbidden foods' and the full Jewish law is about much more than diet. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly suspect it's one of the things Paul sacrificed to make Christianity more agreeable to the gentiles. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Assuming even a vague amount of historical accuracy of the book of Acts, Peter's vision predates Paul's ministry. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a lot to assume... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The common thread among dietary laws, or at least the smidgen I know about them, is that the "unclean" animals are "bottom feeders": hogs, shellfish, catfish, pigeons, all eat scraps. I would guess that crows would also be considered "unclean", as they will almost literally eat anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Chickens eat scraps - they'll eat anything a pig does, if it's in small enough pieces. DuncanHill (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Then there's no figuring it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Our article kashrut states: "Some Jewish scholars have held that these dietary laws should simply be categorized with a group of laws that are considered irrational in that there is no particular explanation for their existence. The reason for this is that it is believed that there are some of God's regulations for mankind that the human mind is not necessarily capable of understanding. Related to this is the idea that the dietary laws were given as a demonstration of God's authority and that man should obey without asking for a reason. This last view has been rejected by most classical and modern Jewish authorities.: DJ Clayworth (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

And of course, there are a lot of Jews who don't follow all of the dietary laws either. Buddy431 (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

---

[Responding to original poster:] "FinFitFin" -- One answer which has traditionally been given is that Christianity follows the ethical or moral laws and prohibitions of the Old Testament more thoroughly than the ritual or ceremonial laws and prohibitions (and makes no claim to comprehensively obey the latter). So unless the ban on consumption of pork is for ethical or moral reasons (rather than for ritual purity reasons), then Christians can't necessarily be accused of being inconsistent to their principles when they eat pork. AnonMoos (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

More responses to the OP, from the bible itself: 1 Corinthians 8:8-13 makes it clear that blind adherance to dietary restrictions is NOT what it is about for Christians. One should consider the answer to Paul's question "Does what I do cause my brother to fall?" That is, if eating pork among a certain company would interfere with your message as a Christian, then don't do it. If it doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter, so go ahead and eat the pork. It's about considering not only your actions, but the context of your actions. Elsewhere in 1 Corinthians, from verse 6:12 ""Everything is permissible for me"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"—but I will not be mastered by anything." In other words, one has perfect freedom, but that freedom must be considered thoughtfully. Merely being allowed to do something does not mean one should do it. Again, focus on internal, thoughtful consideration of ones actions, their context, and their likely consequences, in the face of absolute freedom. Elsewhere, see also Romans 14:13-21, where Paul says the same thing in even more details; that is in Paul's personal opinion he finds no food unclean, however, he also finds no fault in people who do hold to dietary laws, and that other Christians should consider their company before deciding what to eat or drink. If the people you are with are likely to be offended if you eat pork or drink alcohol, then don't, but not because there is anything in Christianity that forbids it outright, but because one should take care not to offend one's company lest it create a barrier to being a good Witness. Or if Paul's words aren't enough, consider Jesus' words on the matter, see Mark 7:1-23, where Jesus clearly states that "Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean." and later in that passage "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'?... What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery..." etc etc. Its all there in the text, several places, and from several important figures (Peter, as mentioned above, and Paul and Jesus as mentioned here). --Jayron32 04:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Blimey Jayron that sounds like the Wiccan Rede - "An it harm none, do what thou wilt"! --TammyMoet (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly; it's "think about whether it will harm anybody before doing it." Paul's writings make it clear that, because faith in Jesus absolves you from sin, that you have absolute freedom; however, one should not act upon that freedom unmindfully. As a Christian, one goal should be to make more Christians (The Great Commission). In the course of providing one's Christian witness to others, one must carefully consider whether ones actions WILL do harm to one's testimony. That's what Paul is saying. He doesn't say "One must never eat pork" and he doesn't say "Eating pork is always good" What he says is "Look at your environment, and if eating pork will offend those around you, don't eat the pork". He also makes clear that there are things one should never do, like sexual immorality, which is ostensibly a "victimless" sin. Paul makes clear that having the absolute freedom is actually a burden more than a blessing; in that he knows the price paid by Christ to grant that freedom to his believers. The Christian mindset here runs counter to the Jewish one, as noted above, not because it makes things "allowable" that the Jews determine are "forbidden", rather it changes the emphasis from blind adherance to written law (You sin if you eat pork because it is written that you do) to mindful consideration of the results of your actions, and internal processes that lead to those actions (you sin because you lead others to sin, and you sin because your thoughts lead you to sin). So TammyMoet has it 180 degrees backwards, what Paul is saying here si not "If it does no harm, do it." What he is saying is "Before you decide to do it, consider carefully what harm it may have." --Jayron32 06:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually don't think I do. Any responsible Wiccan would consider carefully whether a proposed action would harm anyone or anything before doing it, and then if they wanted to abide by the Rede, not do it. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I also think there is a difference between different shades of meaning in the word "harm". Paul is speaking almost exlusively in these passages on "harm to one's Witness", that is if your goal is to encourage others to convert to Christianity, then you shouldn't do things that will interfere with that goal. He speaks a lot about this in his writings, about not being a hypocrite, about mindfully considering the culture in which you are a guest, about always judging your actions against the template of "will this harm my Witness to others" or "will this cause my brother to fall". For example, Paul would have no problem with people having a drink or two. He would have a problem with people having a drink or two with someone they known to be an alcoholic, especially if drinking in front of said alcoholic will tend to make that alcoholic then go out and commit sins that he would not otherwise commit if he had never drunk. So, if I drink and commit no sin, then its not a big deal. If I drink with my buddy, who then goes out and drives and kills someone, that is a big deal, even for me, even if I didn't drink and drive myself. Likewise, if I am among a group of people who disapprove of drinking, I shouldn't drink, not because drinking is wrong in God's eyes, but because drinking may cause those people to think badly of me, and THAT would mean they would think badly of Christians, and THAT would be wrong in God's eyes. Lots of people think of "harm" as immediate harm, or direct harm, and Paul is asking us to consider the deeper consequences of our actions. --Jayron32 18:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

how US Census does calculations

is this possilbe Census claculations can make a fat error, since this only does things in per centile. The way they calculate for white-asian have less than 2.33:1 ratio, the acceptable caluation will have 3.04:1 ratio, isteve.com have 3.08:1 ratio. First do they weight the numbers in millions when they use numbers in millions then how they change to per centiles. Alot of them would take too long to explain or this site just first calculate the same race, then weight the leftovers. I don't know how census do it, but add/subtract/multiply/divide whon;t only do it. It is too complicate. For ABC/EFG do they only count the ABC/EFG only without counting the ABC/ABC, also the curveball they have is divorce and widows.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that the people who run the census know more about statistics than either you or me, and are unlikely to have made such errors. Marnanel (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

And I suspect that any clerical errors would have zero significance to peoples' lives. Vranak (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not true—census data is used for a lot of things in the government, including redistricting, funding, etc. Screwed up census data can have major political effects. It is not done just out of curiosity. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Disputes over the 2000 census between the states of Utah and North Carolina, where the disputed difference held the fate of a House of Representatives seat in the balance, dragged on in the courts for years. After the 2000 census, Utah lost a seat and NC gained one, but Utah claimed the census undercounted their eligible citizens because of the large numbers of Mormons who were out of the state on mission trips, but still legal residents. See Utah v. Evans and this link to the original case decision for more details. --Jayron32 04:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

A small clarification: Utah didn't lose a congressional seat after the 2000 census. It had 3 representatives before, and it has 3 now. I'm confident that Jayron32 meant that Utah missed out on a chance to add a fourth seat. (Also, I served a mission for the LDS Church, and I'm not sure I'd call it a "trip." <Wink>) Kingsfold (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Small clerical errors, I should hasten to add. Like getting the population of Filipino Americans off by 2%. I shouldn't think anyone will starve to death on that account. Vranak (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Missing 80,000 people would hardly qualify as a small error, especially if you missed all 80,000 people from the same state. Such a number could very easily result in shifting congressional allocation, and thus cause some localities to be underrepresented in Congress. There's lots of levels of "serious problem" besides "starving to death". --Jayron32 16:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The citation in the original post is to work by JJ Huang and CN Le, not work by the US Census Bureau. Having said that, you may want to ask this question at the Mathematics Desk. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)