Humanities desk
< May 11	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 13 >

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.

May 12

Maastricht Pact

This article in The Baltimore Sun makes a reference to the "Maastricht Pact". Since there is no article by that title, I have concluded that it either refers to the Maastricht Treaty or the Stability and Growth Pact (or both). I know nothing about EU politics so I don't really know exactly what that term means and was hoping for clarification. –Dream out loud (talk) 01:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure the reviewer means the Maastricht Treaty: the article is from 1993, while the Stupidity Pact was adopted in 1997. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 09:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greek word for doorstep poem

This word is on the tip of my tongue, but I can't seem to find the right combination of keywords to get it to turn up in a search. It starts with "peri-" or "para-", and it means a particular genre of poem in which the speaker is waiting interminably outside his love's door and trying to win her over with his persistence or serenading (but hasn't been allowed to enter yet). —Keenan Pepper 02:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paraklausithyron. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the concept of the "soul"

Basically I'm confused about this thing called the "soul". It seems to be a pretty common idea people have that there is this theoretical object called a soul that has a number of properties. What I'm confused about is why there are such differing interpretations of what properties this "soul" thing is supposed to have, and specifically what the reasoning (if any) is behind some of these interpretations.

Just to make clear: I don't believe in souls, in any form. I am, however, curious about the concept.

As I understand it there are three main ways of describing this object:

1) It is the thing that makes living things living, rather than dead or not alive. A single-celled organism, plant, and animal all have souls. A rock does not, and a dead single-celled organism, plant or animal does not.

This definition makes the most sense to me, and is something I find very easy to understand even if I don't personally believe it. The difference between non-life and life is monumental, so it makes sense to invoke a hypothetical object to explain it.

2) It is the thing that creates consciousness. A conscious human being is the only thing that has a soul. All other things do not have a soul. An animal does not have a soul. A human fetus does not (yet) have a soul. A human corpse does not have a soul. A human with certain kinds of brain injuries or other disorders does not have a soul (e.g., Terri Schiavo).

This definition is much more problematic. Why would someone be content with a mechanistic explanation for the vast difference between non-life and life, but not be content with a mechanistic explanation for the still significant but much smaller gap between consciousness and non-consciousness? The difference between me and a rock seems huge. The difference between a bacterium and a rock seems just as large. But the only real difference between me and, say, a chimpanzee is that I have a different way of thinking. Why do we need to invent a theoretical object to explain that, but not one to explain life itself?

3) It is the thing that makes humans human. All humans have it, including fetuses and victims of brain injuries and other disorders that are not conscious. All other living and non-living things do not have it.

This definition is completely nonsensical to me. If we ignore consciousness, then there is nothing significant at all that separates us from other living things. This idea of the soul doesn't explain anything meaningful or interesting.

What is odd to me is how widespread the second two ideas of the soul are, especially the third one. Why is this? What are the justifications people come up with for believing in them?

I know that the third definition is probably so popular because it's a belief of widespread religions such as Christianity and Islam, but how did these religions arrive at these definitions in the first place? If part of what religions do is explaining the questions people have about the world around them, why did they care so much about answering the irrelevant human vs. non-human question while ignoring the much bigger question of life vs. non-life that earlier religious systems (Animism) explained very well? Did this obvious gap in their philosophy not trouble Christian and Muslim thinkers in the past? How did they explain the difference between life and non-life, especially in the pre-modern period before understanding of how biological systems function?

Hope this makes sense, and that someone here can answer these questions satisfactorily. --Laryaghat (talk) 10:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Soul article has a lot of information. And let me give it to you as I understand it: The soul, or more accurately the immortal soul, is a central feature of most religions. It's the concept, or belief, or faith, or hope, that there's something more than just this life. If there's no belief in an afterlife, religion pretty much has no meaning. As far as whether non-humans have immortal souls (assuming humans do), that's subject to conjecture, as for example the Bible doesn't have much to say about it, perhaps considered to be unimportant. I know people who think everything has a soul, ranging to those who think the concept is hogwash. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From a Jewish perspective, Bugs is right on target by equating the concept of a soul with the premise of a religion. Because non-humans don't practice or observe religion, in what sense would they have a soul? The soul, as proposed by Judaism and copied by Christianity and Islam, is the essence within the vessel known as the body, and it both predates and outlives the body, so your references to fetuses and corpses is somewhat off from a religious perspective, and since it would be largely agreed upon that religion has a monopoly on souls, that's really the only perspective there is, other than a negative or apathetic one. Because souls are spiritual, they cannot be fathomed completely by the physical mind, and so much of religious literature that discusses the concept speak in allegories and metaphors, much like they do about God himself, any proposed afterlife, etc. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Athiests have no souls? Rebele | Talk ^{The only way to win the game is to not play the game.} 10:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that. It's just that atheists in general don't believe in the concept of an immortal soul, while religionists generally do. An atheist would consider the "soul" to exist only while the person is alive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To address just the first question, "why there are such differing interpretations of what properties this "soul" thing is supposed to have," the simple answer is a comprehensive lack of data. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's some actual data? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there are several kinds of souls. That thing that resides behind your eyes that goes away when you die may be another kind of soul. That thing that makes certain artists great may be another kind. Rebele | Talk ^{The only way to win the game is to not play the game.} 10:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the intangible spark that inspires geniuses such as Michaelangelo and Bach, and spiritual giants of the human race such as Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Helen Keller.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the concept of Astral projection, in which the soul leaves the physical body and travels to the astral plane--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

"He lay relaxed, eyes still closed, for a few mments and let his soul snuggle back into his body." quoted from By His Bootstraps ny R. A. Heinlein.

The difference between life and non-life is not so "monumental." Life distinguishes itself from non-life in the simplest organisms in unimpressive ways. Bus stop (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When a persson or thing dies, the physical body ceases to exist; that in itself is a monumental difference. Energy, however, does not die, it is tranformed. That in itself means that death is not final, whether we believe in a soul or not.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The body does not cease to exist. It is transformed into worm food. Rebele | Talk ^{The only way to win the game is to not play the game.} 17:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not if it's embalmed or cremated.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it the soul, the life principal, of all human beings is unique. This is something I found myself explaining to a Doctor/Consultant who wished his son to follow him into Medicine and not go down the road of being a Journalist. Even though his son may have an aptitude for Medicine he is unique and has an independant spirit to his father. This unique spirit is what is often referred to as the soul. Saint Thomas Aquinas referred to it as such. Most Philosophers agree and took great steps to guard the free-thinking spirit from all inteference. C.G. Jung I would identify here. I cannot think of a Philosopher who denied the existance of the human spirit. MacOfJesus (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

question about "Ford T model" being an essential item in US citizen life

Hello ! I have been recently so kindly listened to , & profusely answered to, that I dare "put a new question on the rug" . A question keeps "trotting around my head" (as we say here in France) : where did I read that "most US babies were" (at that time) "conceived in a Ford T model", a car which had become such a symbol of community that "anybody could use & carry away a pair of pliers if it were found in a Ford T" (sorry for the approximate quote) . At night I wake up & think that it might be in Babbit : ?? .

Thanks a lot beforehand ( & once more I hope to be able to find my way back to your learned areop...). BTW : If the kind colleague who answered here some days ago my question "what is a snake fence ? " (& displayed somewhere a photo of a bleached "snake fence") falls upon those lines, may he know that I was unable to locate the image (I wanted to use it in Arthur Fremantle, § "Gettisburg" : Gal Longstreet was sitting on a snake fence)...Sorry I'm such a "broken-arm"... T.y. Arapaima (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Model T Ford was certainly a liberating product, as most anyone with a decent job could afford one. As to whether "most US babies were conceived in Model T Ford", I don't see how anyone would be in a position to know that with any reasonable degree of certainty. It sounds kind of facetious. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Steinbeck, Cannery Row (page 65). East of Borschov (talk) 11:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. OK, the OP needs to know that's a fictional work, and I would guess Steinbeck was just being funny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course he was funny, he himself could afford something better (16 cylinders?! perhaps it was his employer's roundabout?). East of Borschov (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean "runabout"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes. Freudian slip. East of Borschov (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In a roundabout way. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OP may be interested in E. B. White's classic essay, Farewell, My Lovely. Appearing in The New Yorker in 1936, this piece is White's love letter to the Model T, for which "the great days have faded, and the end is in sight." --- OtherDave (talk) 22:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot folks !!. Actually, the question came to my mind while I was writing about our little Citroën car, the "2CV" , on the DP of the "word of the day : couple-close" , in Wiktionary. Indeed it does not reach EB White's lyricism , but for those who want to know what was the french equivalent of the Ford T model...T.y. Arapaima (talk) 04:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drusus Julius Caesar, son of Tiberius

It says in the Tiberius article that Drusus Julius Caesar was the only child of Tiberius and Vipsania Agrippina. However in the information box for Tiberius it says that Drusus Julius Caesar as a miscarriage. Perhaps someone can fix this as this can not be correct. Could it be said that Drusus Julius Caesar was the bitter step-brother of Germanicus because the latter was forced by Augustus to be adopted by Tiberius?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drusus Julius Caesar was the only child to survive. The miscarried child was a different pregnancy. Note that the two are separated by a semi-colon in the infobox. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 13:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

does every voice type sing the same?

If someone is of one voice type, say Tenor, and can easily "hear" (i.e. in his 'mind's ear') a Soprano, say, transposed into his own register as she sings, is it as well for this person to listen to this transposed production for technique, as opposed to the production of a genuine Tenor singing a genuine Tenor part, in consequence of the fact that the vocal production of each ought to be exactly the same, with the only difference being in frequency; or, on the contrary, should one voice type under no circumstances attempt to sing the transposed voice part of another in imitation of the other's technique, the means of vocal production in the two being entirely incomparable? Thank you kindly. 84.153.231.138 (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I question whether your premise

"the vocal production of each ought to be exactly the same, with the only difference being in frequency"

is correct. For a start, tenors are usually male and sopranos female, and the two sexes surely have somewhat differently configured and proportioned vocal tracts, suggesting that neither their vocal spectra nor the physical techniques they need to use are necessarily congruent. I would also expect there to be different fashions in male and female voice production. However, I Am Not A Singer (let alone a vocal coach), so we must both await more informed input. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

87.81 is correct. Male and female vocal tracts are sufficiently different that there will be a difference in tonality, such that someone who is used to hearing tonality difference would easily know the difference. But this is also true just between individual voices, even within the same voice type. That said, I see no reason why this should exclude a tenor from singing a transposed soprano tune, and vice versa. The result will be quite different; that is certain. However, a well-trained tenor will be able to put an equally viable interpretation to the music. Steewi (talk) 01:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OP may also want to read up on timbre, which is the quality of musical sound which is distinct from the note itself. Pure sine-wave notes are very harsh on the ear, all music is produced by placing perterbations into the basic frequency. Its these perterbations that are called "timbre" which is what makes every instrument unique; which is why you can distinguish the exact same note as played on a flute from a violin from an electric guitar. Two different singers, even two sopranos, singing the exact same note, will likely sound distinguishable from each other. --Jayron32 02:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

monarchy form of government

Is there a political jurisdiction within the United States, such as a town or county, whose government is based on a monarchy form of government either officially or unofficially? 71.100.0.29 (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there were, then it would be in violation of the U.S. constitution. According to Article IV, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

clever sideways answer: Machias Seal Island -- according to the US, it's American, but in reality it's controlled by the Canadians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.32.83 (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does "a monarchy form of government" mean to you?

Does it mean that a single person is effectively in charge much of the time? There are places with very strong executive branches and very limited legislative branches (sometimes called citizen legislatures).

Does it mean that you are appointed for life? There are places (usually very small towns) in which re-election is effectively guaranteed (because nobody else in town is ever willing to run for the office, or because the vast majority of voters like the incumbent). However, unlike a monarch, they still have to run for office periodically, and it is possible for them to lose future elections.

Does it mean that you inherit the office from a parent? Voters might freely choose to elect a child to an office that his or her parent previously held. However, there are no hereditary offices: Merely being born to an elected official never entitles anyone to hold any office. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Inherited" office". That is, an office where have the knowledge of how one got there is 95% of the battle. I know campaign managers who were completely forgotten at the moment the wife or son or other family member decided to seize the opportunity presented by an upcoming mandatory vacancy for themselves, even though policy wise everyone would have been better off had the campaign manager been supported. 71.100.0.29 (talk) 05:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly cities and probably counties in the U.S. where in a political dynasty some powerful person exercised strong rule, and whose son and grandson had every expectation of ruling after them. They were considered economic and political bosses rather than Kings as such. In Chicago, Boss Richard Daley I ruled as Mayor and Political Boss from 1955-1976, considered a "kingmaker" regarding the 1960 election of John Kennedy(see also for another old political dynasty), and the most powerful machine politician in the U.S. followed by an interregnum (Bilandic, Sawyer,Washington, Byrne), then his son Richard Daley II rules (1989-present). That is 41 years out of the last 55. Richard II has a fine son, Patrick, who enlisted in the U.S. Army in 2004, and who has not announced any political aspirations to date. Richard I has 20 living grandchildren, many involved in public service or businesses related to the city. Edison (talk) 03:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard it said the "Daley Dynasty" is a front for the Catholic church rather than being a true dynasty unto itself and that it was only through the Catholic Church by way of the Chicago Catholic Church Mafia that either Kennedy or Obama got elected. What I'm looking for, however, is a town or county that has stayed in the same family for more than three generations or 50 years. 71.100.0.29 (talk) 05:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States political families and its 25 subarticles might help.John Z (talk) 06:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think people are confusing monarchy with dynasty. The Daleys, Kennedys, Rockefellers, Roosevelts were political dynasties, not royal dynasties.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you characterize the difference other than perhaps by the number of generations? 71.100.0.29 (talk) 07:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchs are not elected. Richie Daley first ran in 1983 and was defeated. Monarchies are taken out by the sword, not by the voting public. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As described in dictionaries, a monarchy is characterised by the single rule of a king, queen or emperor. This precludes any of the above families from being classified as monarchs.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is the etymology of the word, but the key characteristic is that it is hereditary. Plenty of people have been considered monarchs while not having even de jure absolute power. However, all the dynasties mentioned are certainly not monarchies since the child inheriting is far from guaranteed, they just have a big advantage. Some fairly big businesses could be considered monarchies - it is common for the founder to be president for life and then pass that on to their children for several generations. --Tango (talk) 11:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the control of big corporations usually remain in the same family for generations, one couldn't for example say members of the Agnelli family have replaced the House of Savoy as monarchs in Italy!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I posted the Daley comment above, this crossed my mind: Is it possible, or even legal, for some future king (say King Charles or King William of the UK) to decide to end the monarchy and/or to convert it to an elective office? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the monarch can only abdicate but he or she does not have the power to turn the United Kingdom into a republic. Remember the UK is not an absolute monarchy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The UK monarch cannot abdicate, not in the sense of "I'm sick of all this crap. I'm outta here" and just leave without notice. The monarch can, through the Prime Minister, ask the parliament to pass a law that deems them to have abdicated, and all 15 other Commonwealth realms have to concur; it's only happened once, and they all agreed, but theoretically the parliaments could decline, in which case the monarch stays put. In a very real sense, constitutionally speaking, the monarch is born into the role and is a prisoner of it from the moment of their accession, for the rest of their life. They have less say about their lives than any of their subjects have about theirs. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By "say about" you obviously mean in terms of career choice but certainly not in terms of vacation or travel or other advantages of wealth. 71.100.0.29 (talk) 01:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be too sure about some of those. The monarch couldn't, for example, decide to go on a private tour around continental Europe, the way you or I could, because the diplomatic and security ramifications would be enormous. They cannot decide to just not be available for official duties for whole months or weeks at a time while they write their memoirs or just chill out, because the machinery of government would grind to a halt. They get a few small blocs of time for private holidays, that's all. Sure, they have access to colossal wealth, but the chances of spending it are limited, and they can't pop down to their favourite gift shop or library or museum and browse unmolested the way you or I would take for granted. They can't say "Oh, that new Cate Blanchett movie looks good; I think I'll go to the cinema this arvo, then have a cappuccino in the coffee shop next door while I do my sudoku and cryptic crossword before catching the bus back home". They can never go to the pub and just have a few quiet cold ales. No, in many ways they have no life at all, poor things. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All very true; Diana Spencer and Sarah Ferguson didn't realise the score until they were already part of the Firm.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about Emperor Norton? :) Gabbe (talk) 11:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was Emperor of the United States in the same sense that Garfield Goose was King of the United States. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyril of Alexandria image

Want to upload this medieval-like image of Cyril of Alexandria, but am uncertain of its origin. Maybe somebody knows? Brandmeister[t] 18:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked TinEye, which said the only other copy of this image on the Web is this web page, which doesn't point to a source. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is one of the paintings from the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe as can be seen at the photographer's website here, you will have to get his permission to use it here, possibly easier to get a local to photograph it instead. Oh and the wider image shows that it is Cyril of Jerusalem. meltBanana 22:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to ask about that - he's got the coat of arms of the Kingdom of Jerusalem on his hat, that's kind of weird. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite, Adam, as the charges appear to be Azure rather than Or as for Jerusalem. Could be an artistic error, or a change of pigment colour over time (unlikely, as the painting looks otherwise well preserved), or maybe Alexandria's arms (which I've not been able to corroborate elsewhere yet) were modelled on and differenced by tincture from Jerusalem's. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but I thought the specific arrangement of the crosses was a crusader invention...maybe not though. Maybe they are the arms for the Roman Catholic archdiocese of Alexandria, which was founded during the crusades. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That could also be true with no contradiction, Adam. Remember that the Crusades started in the 1090s, but European Heraldry only seems to have emerged around half a century later, primarily as a means of identification on the battlefield (or mock battlefield, i.e. tournament). The (civic) Arms of Jerusalem, Alexandria and everywhere else would therefore have been devised in a short period in the context of a pan-European militaristic 'establishment' represented and/or maintained in the Eastern Mediterranean regions by the crusading armies, and it seems to me quite natural that Alexandria's arms would be designed to 'pay homage' to the 'holiest city's'. It would be nice to turn up definitive evidence, of course. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capital gains tax, UK

What is the coalition government intending to do regarding CGT? Higher CGT tax rates will put people off from investing in buy-to-let, and result in a shortage of rented accommodation and increased homelessness. 89.242.232.220 (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are planning on increasing CGT rates. We'll have to wait and see what happens in the housing market - there are a lot of different factors to consider. --Tango (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you just wait and see, then it will be too late. 89.242.232.220 (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's already too late - we've had the election now. --Tango (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the full text of the coalition deal, CGT gets two mentions but there isn't much substance yet. Nanonic (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"We further agree to seek a detailed agreement on taxing non-business capital gains at rates similar or close to those applied to income, with generous exemptions for entrepreneurial business activities. " - Isn't buy to let a business activity? Kittybrewster ☎ 22:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, it's more of an investment activity. --Tango (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depends. It's a business activity for the property services company that does the letting. Or the property investment company that does buying and letting for its investors. And buy-to-let isn't the only business activity subject to CGT. Also, are you sure they're going to increase the CGT rates? My understanding is that CGT rates are typically higher than income tax rates so according to Kittybrewster's quote, one would expect the CGT rates to decline. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read and heard that the CGT rate for non-business activities (ie on second homes, share deals and the like) will rise from the current year's 18% flat rate to 40% (some are even guessing 50%). I can't find a reference to give you yet, but it appears to be a LibDem policy that the Conservatives have accepted as part of the coalition deal. If true, this will have an interesting effect on private investors in the UK, who are currently encouraged to take income from activities like share trading and property development by the relatively generous CGT regime. It could have an effect on future purchases of buy-to-let properties, but only if the buyer is planning to sell the property again and realise gains in the not-too-distant future; it won't have an effect in terms of any rental income, which is unaffected by CGT. Before 2008 CGT rates were variable, with bands of 10, 20 and 40% depending on the individual's other income and gains. Should the CGT rate rise above the lower income tax rate of 20%, some investors may concentrate on maximising dividends, which are taxed as income, rather than capital gains. It may also make it more attractive to concentrate exclusively on property development and share dealing. At present, someone who supports themselves through capital gains with little or no other income may be deemed a trader by HMRC, and their gains reclassified as income and taxed accordingly, so it pays to have a "regular job" too. If CGT concessions are to be given to entrepreneurs, it may be in their interests to declare themselves as full-time traders, property developers or whatever. We'll have to wait and see what they come up with, and trust that it will not be retrospective. Ka renjc 12:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If CGT on BTL does increase, then you are bound to have increased homelessness. Its bad enough already. 78.147.140.229 (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bylaws

When a bylaw is consolidated what does this mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.229.13.106 (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the context. Could you tell us the complete sentence, and where you read it? "Bylaw" might mean a local ordinance, or a regulation of a homeowner's association, or a rule that a corporation uses to run itself. "Consolidated" normally means "joined together into a single whole". Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Laws and by-laws are made, then amendments are made, then more amendments etc etc. Prior to consolidation, those interested in the particular law have to work with the original version and apply all the relevant amendments separately, to work out what the law is currently saying. At some point in time, it becomes desirable for the government to publish the most up-to-date version of the law, with all the amendments incorporated and the law annotated to show what parts of it were amended when. Then more amendments are made and the consolidation process is repeated when necessary. If only laws worked on a Wiki principle: they'd all be online, ordinary people could just edit them at will, and they'd stay that way till anyone objected and changed them again. That would truly be the people's justice. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you apply a three revert rule? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There'd have to be special rules, such as a limit of one edit a day/week to any law, to give people a fighting chance of breaking the current law and the police a fighting chance of refocusssing their attention on people whose actions were quite legal yesterday but have suddenly become illegal. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Correct Usage of a title

What is the correct usage for a persons title.

We would like it to read - President & Chief Executive Officer. Is this correct usage of a person's title —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.233.24 (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Giving us a little more context would be nice — what is the situation? If you're starting a company and deciding what to call the person in charge, yes, you could do this, and it would be understood. "President" and "Chief Executive Officer" are two separate positions in large corporations, and if it matters, small companies normally wouldn't do this. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In simple terms, the President would often be someone who is (either nominally, or in reality) responsible for the overall functioning of an organisation, such as chairing ("presiding" over) a governing board - whereas the Chief Executive would be the person in charge of how its day-to-day operations are carried out ("executed"), including such things as staffing, and in many cases would report to the President. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That may be one usage, but it does not seem to agree with Wikipedia's article on CEOs. Ghmyrtle's description of the CEO sounds to me more like the COO: Chief Operating Officer. The combined title "President and CEO", as mentioned by the original poster, is quite common in North America, even though Wikipedia neither mentions it in the CEO article nor gives it an article of its own. --Anonymous, 04:16 UTC, May 13, 2010.

Fair point. I'm in the UK, so there may be slightly differnt usages. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think your usage was correct for most countries that use those terms. President is chair of the board and CEO is the day-to-day head of the company's management. In large companies, they will be different people. In smaller companies, they are sometimes merged, although you might use a title like "managing director" rather than "president and CEO". --Tango (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So the President is really the chairman, and the CEO is really the managing director, they've just decided to give themselves grand-sounding titles. DuncanHill (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The chairman is the chairman of the board of directors, which theoretically is in charge of the company but in reality only meets every month or two, or even less. The CEO is the top boss. "President" in most U.S. corporations seems to be a title given either to the CEO or another high-ranking executive, perhaps the second-in-command. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "president" and CEO may be the same but "chairman (of the board)" is different. --Anon, 05:02 UTC, May 14, 2010.

So the president is the managing director, or one of his assistants. DuncanHill (talk) 10:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

safety mirrors

I would like to install a convex safety mirror outside a property in order that those exiting the property vehicularly are able to avoid, by means of viewing other traffic in said mirror, any attempt at occupation the same part of the space-time continuum by those two vehicles.

This mirror would be on the opposite side of a public road from the property, in front of a hedgerow and farmer's field. It would be an extremely minor infringement on the general countryside but would be seen within the context of the road and its furniture.

This is in England, and so in doing this, do I need planning permission to establish such an erection?

ta very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.32.83 (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't overlink: most of the links in the question were not necessary. -ColinFine (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Going on information from the Suffolk council website, most probably. See the last section on that page. Nanonic (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same result from Bucks and Somerset county councils. Nanonic (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And yet such mirrors do exist and stay put for years. There's been one across the road from the shop in my sister's village for as long as she's lived there. Talk to the highways department at your local council.Astronaut (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they were in place before the regulations came into force, they would not necessarily be removed. I agree that the questioner should speak to their council officers, but it's likely that it would only be approved if there were clear road safety benefits, and no risk of causing a distraction. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stationary safety mirrors (as opposed to those mounted on the car, like your rear-view) are typically not suited for use with vehicles - they exist for the safety of pedestrians. Trying to interpret a curved reflection while moving is a losing proposition - the driver will have to stop to see it properly and if he's doing that, he might as well check the roadway manually - the way he's supposed to. Matt Deres (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For coming out of a drive (which is done at very low speed) they are extremely useful, you can see cars coming from both directions at once. The mirror isn't for the cars on the road, it's for cars coming onto the road. DuncanHill (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; DuncanH is correct. The exit is blind; one simply cannot see around a corner when exiting, and it's a 60mph limit, but the road is fast enough that some will be doing 80. The vehicle using the mirror would be stationery, waiting to exit the drive. If the driver sees anything in the mirror he shouldn't pull out until it passes and there is further traffic, so judging the distance of traffic is irrelevant; you don't want to be trying to judge pulling out in front of fast moving traffic. that would defeat the object. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.11.151 (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Musica notturna delle strade di Madrid, movements

Hello, dear Wikipedians. I am an avid fan of this fantastic piece by Boccherini. Please consult http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RjKmTVFJSo for a quick listen to this delightful music; note, if you will, that this is the youtube link provided in the article.

My question is as follows: How are the movements separated? According to the article, the piece is approximately 13 minutes long, whereas this youtube link is 9:24. I will refer to it when I say where I assume the movements are divided: Le campane starts at 0:00; il Tamburo dei Soldati 0:30; Minuetto 1:41; Il Rosario ?:?? - Passa Calle 4:40, Il Tamburo 6:39, La Ritirata: 6:50-end. Am I right in this so far? The drums blended in very well, and I didn't know if honestly they were just a few seconds long, and if that qualified as a movement at all... Obviously I am having problems finding Il Rosari's beginning. Any help would be greatly appreciated! 88.90.16.185 (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found a track listing, with samples, from an approximately 13-minute-long version here. It sounds like Le campane is not part of the Youtube clip. Thus Il tamburo dei soldati starts at 0:00, the Minuetto at 0:30, Il Rosario at 1:41, and the rest as you have it. It seems that the Youtube version abridges the Rosario to half of the length of the 13-minute version. --Cam (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After poking around some more I think Passa calle starts earlier, around 4:14.--Cam (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Cam! This was most helpful =) 88.90.16.114 (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Choice of musical genre

Which companies offer a telephone keypad choice of music genre to callers who are put on hold? -- Wavelength (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]