Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 May 12

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

How might an undefended Asante town in 1701 deal with a British landing?

Hi

First a little background. I play a historical play-by-email game. I play the Asante Union. Now please note that this is a game, and whilst based in history (and adhering to historical concept) there is room for manoeuvre.

Now then. I have received a report that a British fleet has docked at Accra and has unloaded British forces. I do not know how many, how big the fleet is, or what their intentions are.

I have a large force in Kumasi which I am sending to Accra. In the meantime I can only assume that the British are there for hostile intent.

Could anybody advise me of historical scenarios where an undefended town has been able to hold off, or deal with a foreign army (once the foreign army is inside the town)? Alternatively, any suggestions or comments would be welcome. For example, I have considered ordering the townspeople to escape north toward Kumasi, or to rise up against the British.

Thanks

Joseph (Osei Tutu) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.246.78.50 (talk) 08:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Guerrilla warfare might give you some ideas. Basically try to determine what the attitude of the local population would have been and then imagine them taking/ or not taking action with local resources available to them. I assume there would be an Assante equivalent to "toadstool casserole". It may not come out in a role playing game, but troops can not operate in a vacuum. Particularly not that far from home. That offers many points of attack. If, however the local population used to be subjected to strict rule, or includes many different sub-groups, it is a lot less likely they'd act. (One oppressor's as bad as another.) Lisa4edit (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Is there a barrier (like a wall or a hedge of thorns) around the town? If so, the inhabitants could keep the gates closed & refuse entry to these newcomers, even if they had no soldiers to help them. While the British commander could force his way in, he might lose a lot of men & lose time when his intent is to march towards that army in Kumasi. (ISTR a number of stories of walled cities holding out against an enemy army, defended by only a half-dozen soldiers or only a group of determined women, children & elderly men -- but they kept the gates closed & the enemy had no siege equipment.) But if the enemy has entered the town -- or there are no defensive works, the best thing to do is grab what they can & flee to the bush. (Which is what the inhabitants of Massawa did in 1522, when the Portuguese arrived with a diplomatic mission to the Emperor of Ethiopia. Massawa had no defensive works) -- llywrch (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips thus far - what is meant by "toadstool casserole"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.246.78.50 (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn’t Tarzan have a beard?

What was the reason for the writers of Tarzan not to portray him with a beard. I mean he lives in the forest so how could he shave? And he thinks that he is monkey and monkeys don’t shave so there for how does he not have a hairy face? Mr Beans Backside (talk) 10:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Because it's a work of fiction and the writers didn't want to deal with writing around it or they didn't even think about it. Dismas|^(talk) 10:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? Mr Beans Backside (talk) 10:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no. But it seems the simplest solution and with the help of Occam's Razor, seems the best. Writers do it all the time though. Many movies, books, etc never mention many bodily functions such as eating or going to the bathroom. Or hygiene, such as taking showers. It doesn't move the story along any, it's not important to the plot, and it can easily be done away with by just never bringing any attention to it at all. Dismas|^(talk) 10:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Read the book. It has been a while since I read it, but as I recall, he found his parent's cabin— untouched since the great ape killed his father and the female ape carried him off. He found his father's knife and picture books for a child. He learned to read and write using the books. From the pictures, he decided that men do not have facial hair and and learned to shave using the knife. Burroughs wrote some fantastic stuff, but he paid attention to detail. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 10:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

...But it seems the simplest solution and with the help of Occam's Razor, ha ha ha..... this just had me in hysterics!

I have a weird sense of humour! I read it as a sort of pun, Tarzan trying to shave with Occam's razor. This gave me the mental picture of Tarzan swinging in through the window of William of Ockham's priory on a vine and swinging out again with a razor, shaving brush and soap. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad I could entertain. And I took "portray" to be in the visual sense and thus was referring to the films and such that show Tarzan. Dismas|^(talk) 12:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Tarzan was a British lord at the turn of the 20th century. Beards were not in style at the time. Corvus cornix_talk 23:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

And I think it could be argued that it is fairly important to the Tarzan story that he is a clean-shaven white guy jumping around in the trees as a "savage". If he was hairy or non-white he'd be much less interesting to a white audience, he wouldn't be the "white guy in a non-white situation", and he might even appear fearsome to an audience in the 1910s-50s. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ironically a beard would be a good way to distinguish a white guy from a "savage", in some regions. Do men of the relevant area have facial hair? —Tamfang (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Beards not in style? The King had one. —Tamfang (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppression

What is the true nature of oppression ? Various theories go on and on about oppression of workers, oppression of minorities, oppression of women, oppression of power, and so forth. 69.157.246.246 (talk) 10:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ecological feminism is an area of study that attempts to find patterns in the oppression of various groups.--droptone (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Michel Foucault's theories address the question of oppression in general. He is a difficult writer, particularly when translated into English, but there are some books on his thought for beginners. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's some recommended reading, quite accessible in English translation; you might consider these lively descriptions of historical (and current) situations reflecting the realities of many people's lives, rather than "theories that go on and on":

• The Colonizer and the Colonized by Albert Memmi
• Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire

-- Deborahjay (talk) 09:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The Ottoman Empire in the 16th century

What held it together? Such a big question and so little time to answer it.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.166.181 (talk) 10:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It had a strong ruler in Suleiman the Magnificent who reigned for 46 years. He could draw on a strong military & a relatively efficient administration to support his rule, although there was at least one revolt against him -- which he was able to put down. Then Suleiman died, & the Empire started to fall apart. If you want further details, find the time to read the relevant Wikipedia articles, & the books & articles these articles refer to. -- llywrch (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

And see Ottoman Empire - Expansion and apogee (1453-1566) Strawless (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Cybernetic mind control

How many cases have gone to court claiming the government or military have been subjecting civilians to remote mind control technology, and have any been won? Mr Beans Backside (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• What do you mean by "have gone to court"? Why don't you ask the courts? Please specify. Mieciu K (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• I find it extremely unlikely that any court anywhere has ever ruled that a government or military is guilty of subjecting civilians to remote and/or cybernetic mind control. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Most mind control technology (education / religion / advertising / media / et al) is remote. Remote in the sense that no wires are poked into your cortex or no funnel is stuck into your brain.
• As a result, there have been numerous court cases where schools, sectarian movements, cigarette companies, public media and the like have been accused of manipulating the opinions or the behaviour of "civilians".
• In the proper definition of communication / control / feedback between complex systems, these are cybernetic processes as sensory perception, individuals, society, language, technology, commerce, industry and political systems interact.
• --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• I very much doubt the original poster meant anything other than that of actually directly or semi-directly controlling the behavior of people. Obviously, there are a thousand ways of manipulating and influencing people, but that's not what "cybernetic mind control" would be reasonably expected to refer to. YMMV, of course. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The original questioner didn't ask how many courts have ever ruled on the subject. The question is, how many cases have gone to court? Corvus cornix_talk 23:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't help with cybernetic mind control, but there have been several cases about mind control. For instance, in a Federal Court case in Canada the civil liberties lawyer Joseph Rauh won compensation for about two hundred victims of brainwashing experiments by Ewan Cameron, a Scottish doctor working for the CIA's Project MKULTRA in the 1950s and 1960s. He carried out mind-control experiments using electric shocks, LSD and other drugs, using techniques like those portrayed in the book The Manchurian Candidate, attempting to brainwash and reprogramme people. A distinguished fellow, Cameron became President of the World Psychiatric Association. Xn4 00:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Belgian Power

I have always felt that Belgium was a rather inappropriate country to lead the European Union, especially at a time of crisis. The country has some huge internal political problems of its own, and yet it still claims to be a leader in European unification.

To what extent does Belgian culture influence the culture of the EU ? If it splits, as it seems to be doing now, what message would that send to candidate members and allies who have internal separation problems of their own ?

Belgium also has some significant sociological issues to deal with, such as one of the lowest marriage rates, low birth rates, high euthanasia/suicide/abortion rates, large Morrocan and Turkish immigration, a very large bureaucracy and other cultural difficulties.

More than a model for the EU, is Belgium supposed to be a model for the whole world ? If it is, I guess it's a very belgian world we live in. 69.157.246.246 (talk) 13:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

In what sense does Belgium lead the EU? The Presidency of the Council of the European Union is currently held by Slovenia and the President of the European Commission is Portuguese, while France and Germany are often (in the UK at least) seen as the leading powers. What does Belgium do other than host a few institutions? Algebraist 14:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There are two main ways in which Belgium influences the European Union beyond its capacity as a member. Both follow from its role as principal host for EU institutions.

• A disproportional amount EU civil servants are Belgian.
• A disproportional amount of EU interest group members are Belgian (for example, political party membership, particularly active members, of EU-wide parties).

User:Krator (t c) 15:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

To move the headquarters in a physical manner would, one can safely assume, lead to the same problems arising in any new country that hosted the headquarters (here pointing to what Krator says). Is this a solution so long as the new host country meet your criteria for what seems acceptable - id est to have no public debate regarding ethnical groups gaining independence and their own state? The sociological issues you, 69.157, state, are not unique to Belgium. All countries have domestic problems in one sense or another. Would France be any better? Or England? I can immediately think of arguments akin to yours against both of these, but I can't honestly say I think they matter. What Krator mentions, and specifies, are perhaps true "problems" - but unavoidable so. Scaller (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

A civilization which can inspire Hercule Poirot can't be all bad. Xn4 23:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Hercule Poirot was fictitious, with a large comedic element. The Belgian Congo, alas, was the unpleasant reality. Civilisation? --Major Bonkers (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

British Naval power in the eighteenth century

Why was the navy neglected in the first half of the eighteenth century? What were the factors, financial and political, leading to its recovery? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.194.89 (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Was it neglected? In 1713 Queen Anne handed control of the navy to a parliament eager to develop naval dominiation. But even before 1713 the navy was practically controlled by the cabinet and, in particular, Sidney Godolphin, 1st Earl of Godolphin and John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough. Between 1691-1715 159 ships of the line and 113 cruisers were built despite financial problems. The War of the Spanish Succession solidified British naval power in the Mediterranean and created a Blue-water navy, with victory at Battle of Vigo Bay and the destruction of the French fleet at Toulon. After Anne's death in 1714 the navy developed considerably under the house of Hanover. By 1755 the navy had 200 ships in commission (88 of the line) and personnel of 40,000 men. In 1759 it had 300 ships and 80,000 personnel.

Think of Pope's lines in 'Windsor Forest' 1713:

'While by our Oaks the precious Loads are born,

And Realm commanded which those Trees adorn.' Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky Books

What would be considered Noam Chomsky's 4-5 most important books in the area of Politics? --Ckdavis (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It will largely depend on which areas of politics you consider important. For a starting point, here are links to some of Chomsky's books (in chronological order) which have their own Wikipedia articles - The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967), American Power and the New Mandarins (1969), The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians (1983), Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988), Necessary Illusions (1989), Deterring Democracy (1992), Class Warfare (1996), Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance (2003), Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship (2003), Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy (2006) Xn4 18:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably the most influential and discussed of these are Manufacturing Consent and Hegemony or Survival. Marco polo (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Why was I born to my parents in my town at a specific time?

(Hello, I was told to move this question here. Is this where the philosophy questions go? If so, I'll stop posting thiese kinds of questions on the science board. Anyways, here it is, in progress,)-

What I'm trying to ask is why was I born in this exact situation? It seems strange to me that fate (or whatever) chose to begin my life exactly where, when, and with who it did. Is there a scientific reason for this? Now I'm not religious, but it seems to me that we came from somewhere. I dont think we were just thrown into existence from nothing ,otherwise we'd be inanimate and wouldn't be able to articulate this question. --Sam Science (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That's more the realms of philosophy than science. I'm not sure if it really answers you question, but you might be interested in the anthropic principle. --Tango (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The only 'scientific' reason for you being born in your exact situation is that your parents chose to have sex at a certain time and as a result you were directly conceived. You were then given birth to 9 months later. Any 'fate' involved is in the realms of philosophy or religion. Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 18:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well if you think you're not inaminate then I agree you have a problem. Much easier to discount the possibility. Not just easier - more interesting. Try and think of how you could 'articulate this question' while being inanimate. --90.203.189.22 (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that you seem to exist, then either you had an origin or you did not. Based on human experiences every one nowadays is born. You had to be born somewhere at sometime. Ask your mother why, it was mother's day yesterday! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that you may get an interesting variety of answers on the Humanities reference desk. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't this relate to the origin of life? Since you could ask the same question of your parents, their parents, their parents' parents, etc. until you reach microorganisms. See also determinism. --Mark PEA (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If you weren't born to your parents in your town at a specific time then you wouldn't be you. Since you are you, then the rest follows. Vranak (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Because when a mommy cat and a daddy cat love each other very much they ... --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Providing a definite answer to this is quite impossible. If you want to read some good food for thought on the subject, you may want to read Leibniz, Discourse on Metaphysics, I, 1-6. [1] The guy is very religious but this text is a good starting point for any philosophical inquiry into this subject. User:Krator (t c)

And karma would be another good article to read. 64.228.89.230 (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the error -- or perhaps the conceit -- in this question is in the underlying assumption (which, in my experience, is very common, and of which people are commonly unaware) that their present circumstances or existence are somehow exceptional -- that isn't it amazing that you happened to turn out to be just this person, in just this situation, instead of any other? But that's a terribly solipsistic view to take, because the only thing that's exceptional about you is that you happen to be you -- but that's just because it's the only experience you have. The exceptional thing isn't that you happened to turn out just like that, or that you happen to be thinking this, but that you alone can experience this particular life. They only thing that's strange or unusual is that you happen to be there to think about it, and even that is a purely subjective thing -- we just think that we're terribly unique, because we don't and can't know any better, so to speak.

Of course, that's particularly true if you're a bit of a nihilist. Or even just a harsh realist, really. But there are other ways to look at this -- you may be someone who prefers to make things meaningful to them by their own actions, not by the circumstances they happened to come to this world in or the circumstances they find themselves now, for example. If we conclude that there's no intrinsic meaning in our lives or existences, that doesn't mean that we can't decide to have some anyway. It might be argued that it's more useful and important to find that meaning ourselves than wait for someone else to hand it to us from on high.

The less you mind getting a little sentimental and optimistic, the truer that probably is going to be for you. A pretty classic example of that is Alan Moore's Watchmen, which contains a scene in which Dr. Manhattan, a godlike being who has lost interest in humanity, human emotions and human fates is talking with his girlfriend, who considers her life to be a complete and meaningless waste. However, to her surprise, the previously immovable Dr. Manhattan suddenly disagrees, and goes on to explain: "Thermodynamic miracles... events with odds against so astronomical that they are effectively impossible, like oxygen spontaneously becoming gold. I long to observe such a thing. And yet, in each human coupling, a thousand million sperm vie for a single egg. Multiply those odds by countless generations, against the odds of your ancestors being alive; meeting; siring this precise son; that exact daughter until your mother loves a man she has every reason to hate, and of that union, of the thousand million children competing for fertilization, it was you, only you, that emerged. To distill so specific a form from that chaos of improbability, like turning air to gold, that is the crowning unlikelihood. The thermodynamic miracle. [...] But the world is so full of people, crowded with these miracles that they become commonplace, and we forget... I forget. We gaze continually at the world and it grows dull in our perceptions. Yet seen from another's vantage point, as if new, it may still take the breath away. Come... dry your eyes, for you are life, rarer than a quark and unpredictable beyond the dreams of Heisenberg; the clay in which the forces that shape all things leave their fingerprints most clearly."

Or you can just conclude that God, or some equivalent force/entity, really wants you to be just where you are, but I personally have a pretty hard time swallowing that... well, except for causality. I guess I'll buy that. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 23:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Predestination may have something for you. Strawless (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, say I throw a pick a random number from 1 to 1,000. Picking 749 would be very improbable, but it's not remarkable because 749 has no relevance to anything. Now if I was 74 years 9 months old it would be a bit odd, but any random number would be improbable. Ziggy Sawdust 01:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Classics

What is the criteria for a classic? Not a classical book as in written in the classical era but a classic novel, like Chronicles of Narnia. What makes them classics? Mr Beans Backside (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

One definition is that it is a book that is part of the canon, something that has been read and written about and has influenced people in a significant way until knowing it is useful for a literate person who wants to understand history or the arts. Another definition is that it is a book that is so well written, with such depth and complexity, that the reader's understanding is richer with every re-reading, and that generations will be able to write about it and discuss it without running out of things to say. "Hamlet" is such a work; we've been writing about it, talking about it, and re-interpreting it for 400 years, and still there is more to say about it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Short answer: the test of time. A classic work is one whose popularity has outlasted fads; whose power to move or entertain people is not limited to the time in which, and the generation for whom, it was created. —Tamfang (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Division Bell in Parliament

Does anyone know if there is a sound file on the web where I can listen to the Division Bell which is rung in Parliament. I tried searching but all I get are sound files from the album by Pink Floyd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackdegus (talk • contribs) 18:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really what you're looking for but there's this BBC Radio program where you can hear the Westminster division bell in the background (link). Thuresson (talk) 04:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Mind you, there's more than one parliament in the world, and there's no reason to assume all their bells (that's those that use a bell system) sound the same. -- JackofOz (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Christianity and kosher foods

Are there any modern Christians who still adhere to the Biblical food laws presented in Leviticus? If so, do any Christian sects require this, or is it more of a personal matter? 207.233.87.203 (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Our article on Messianic Judaism might be of interest to you. It indicates that many Messianic Jews follow kosher dietary laws. However, the article also mentions that there is some dispute as to whether this group in considered a part of Christianity. GreatManTheory (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(EC) In Acts 10, Peter has a dream which is interpreted as meaning that there are no restrictions on clean and unclean food for Christians (thus that the kosher laws no longer hold for Christians). However there are two kinds of modification on the "anything goes" food message. One is that Christians should not knowingly eat food offered to idols (1 Corinthians 8), and the other is that they should refrain from eating blood (Acts 15). But Christians still eat bloody steak and black pudding (blood sausage). Go figure. SaundersW (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The Ethiopian Church are the largest group of Christians who observe these dietary laws. (The Wikipedia article needs a lot of work. I only wish I had the time to do it in.) These practices are enforced not only by their priests, but by the cultural beliefs of the members. Obviously some Ethiopian Christians may not be as devout as others, but this matter is taken seriously. Some experts believe this unusual practice is because there was a large Jewish community in Ethiopian before their conversion circa 350, who introduced the practice. Personally, I wonder if these customs weren't introduced by early missionaries, most of whom came from the pre-Islamic Near East where there were survivals of many old Christian traditions. -- llywrch (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the Noahide laws, particularly the one pertaining to eating, and then check out which Christians abide by this.-- Deborahjay (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

UK prime minister

How much freedom does the UK prime minister have to do as he pleases with regard to his function? ----Seans Potato Business 20:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you read Prime Minister of the United Kingdom? It goes into much more detail than my quick answer will. The Prime Minister really has little statutory authority in their own right, but are required to "form a government". They have power of appointment, so choose people to take the various important roles, (like the members of cabinet, which are generally from the elected members of his political party), and will often wield a lot of influence with them. The PM and cabinet still need the support of the House of Commons and, to a much lesser extent, the House of Lords. And, the media are always quick to condemn the PM, so he/she can't do whatever they please! Gwinva (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Far be it from me to point out the appearance of sexism in your question, Seans Potato Business! See Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Xn4 23:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Some key accountability mechanisms limiting the Prime Minister's powers include: the confidence of his or her own party, both the parliamentary party (as in the MPs in the PM's own party) as well as the rank-and-file party "out there"; a possibly hostile House of Lords; public scrutiny through the media and the Opposition, which will dilligently report anything that can possibly damage the government's standing; the electoral process, since unpopular policies would damage the party's electoral chances in the next election; the judiciary, which can strike down legislation; and finally the Monarch's reserve powers. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The Prime Minister article only briefly mentions the Royal Prerogative; which is actually quite significant in the United Kingdom, as among those powers, it gives the PM authority to declare a state of emergency and to declare war, without consulting Parliament, or, in theory, consulting the monarch or the cabinet. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. It should be noted that the Royal Prerogative has been effectively deferred to the Prime Minister over the last twenty years, but the Queen still holds the powers de jure. PeterSymonds | talk 11:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The PM is essentially an Elective dictatorship, the formal checks on his or her power are few and far between. I suppose though, a Westminster-fan would argue that the best elements of our system are the informal elements, and that it is these that keep the whole system functional. Ninebucks (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Roadside Park

In Canada and the United States the idea of a roadside park is quite popular. How popular is it in Europe and is it a worldwide phenomenon? --Doug ^talk 21:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

In France, the Netherlands and Germany, rest places on the major highways are common. Not all of them are parks though: something called an Autohof or Reststatte in German is just a big parking lot with some snackbar and a total lack of trees or anything park-like. It usually does have picnic tables though. User:Krator (t c) 22:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

In Australia there are frequent roadside parks. Government campaigns for people to take a break while long distance driving, sometimes have stops where there is free tea on offer called "Stop, revive, survive" or something like that, around holiday times. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"Ghost Account" phenomenon

Websites which provide social content and some form of community interaction (MySpace, FaceBook, Yahoo, Wikipedia...) are relatively new. However, as time pass by, first-generation users will inevitably die, leaving Terrabytes of personal information, photos, conversations filling server space in abandoned accounts. Will companies adopt some unethical policies in order to deal with this problem? Will the internet world face a "Ghost Account" phenomenon? Just curious about your ideas and thoughts :-) Eklipse (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe most social networking sites have policies governing the death of the owner. Facebook converts these pages to a “memorial account” for a short time before ultimately deleting the information. That’s what I’ve heard at least. --S.dedalus (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

A friend of mine, who owned a Yahoogroups group, died recently, (RIP). I am a co-owner of the group. I asked Yahoo what needs to be done to replace her ownership, and they said that they require a copy of the death certificate. That, to me, was a burdensome requirement, although I do understand their need for verification of some sort. So, the group will remain unowned for the known future. Corvus cornix_talk 23:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Empty accounts aren't always because of death. Usually, the active users of a website is (number of accounts / 50). People will create several accounts and only use one, people will leave, and people will create accounts, hang around for a day, and leave. Plus, sometimes people will do DDoS or spam-attacks and create dozens of useless accounts. Ziggy Sawdust 01:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)