Humanities desk
< June 19	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 21 >

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.

June 20[edit]

Disobedience[edit]

What happens to you if you disobey a superior ranking officer in the military whilst enrolled? Of course punishment can be given but in a modern-day military is physical harm done as punishment, or is it more along the lines of running and push-ups? These punishments can also be disobeyed. Will you get kicked out? Dishonorable discharge or something? Thanks, schyler (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Physical punishment is not allowed in the United States military. However, when I served (89-95), physical punishment was used extensively in areas where the intelligence level was just high enough to use a shovel or wrench. I often disobeyed ranking officers. Punishment was usually a good yelling - which I ignored. I would be restricted to the barracks, which was fine with me. I sometimes got a fine docked from my pay. I was once threatened with having my barracks room replaced with a tent in the parking lot. Since I was in a rather necessary position for the unit, none of the terrible punishments were ever acted upon - just threatened. But, I saw a great deal of creativity that avoided physical punishment. -- kainaw ™ 00:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Worse things can defiantly happen to you if you disobey a direct order.[1] I would imagine that even harsher punishment could be justified if solders were under fire. --S.dedalus (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean "...can definitely happen to you if you (defiantly) disobey..." --Anon, 05:50 UTC, June 20/08.

Unfortunately, army punishments can go way too far, as this recent case shows. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 07:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The answer will vary by country, as each will have different laws. In the U.S, military law is covered by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Serious offenses are handled by a court-martial while most are handled by nonjudicial punishment. I'm not familiar with the UK laws, but the incident S.dedalus refers to is probably non-official punishment; it is technically illegal in the U.S. and is considered hazing or abuse. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The US military is a place where the rule of law often isn't followed. They lack many of the safeguards in place for civilian laws that would ensure the rules are followed. For example, any "whistle blower" within the US military who complains about them not following the Uniform Code of Military Justice can look forward to having their military career destroyed (bad evaluations, no promotions, etc.). Therefore, the US military can, and does, in practice, use any level of physical punishment short of those causing permanent injury and death, as that level might get the attention of the press and civilian authorities. StuRat (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a strange story of an example where British and American mores diverge. General Michael Jackson (British) also disobeyed a direct order from General Wesley Clark (American) in Bosnia; similarly, General Mark Clark disobeyed a direct order to trap fleeing German units, and moved out of his area of operations, in order to be the first into Rome (see: Mark Wayne Clark#World War II). Probably the most famous case of disobeying orders is Admiral Nelson's famous 'blind eye' at the Battle of Copenhagen; I think the moral of all this is that you'll get away with it if (a) you win a great victory or turn out to be right (Jackson, Nelson), or (b) you have friends in high places (Clark). --Major Bonkers (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a high enough rank means you can get away with just about anything. An enlisted man or woman who commits a serious crime will likely be imprisoned and/or given a dishonourable discharge, while the high ranking officer who gave the private the order to commit the crime will likely never be charged. At worst, they may be asked to retire (see Ricardo Sanchez) or reduced one rank, but never anything more than a slap on the wrist compared to what happens to the enlisted men. This is part of a "we protect our own" mentality among officers. The only chance the enlisted men and women have is if, to protect the officers involved, the military covers up the crime entirely. StuRat (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama's policies[edit]

Firstly, please excuse me as I'm sure this is a naïve question - I don't know much about politics and US politics is particularly confusing. Has Obama commented on the absolute size of US farming subsidies? From a google search, I see that he mentioned that he's unhappy with the current distribution of the subsidies (which is to be expected). But has he expressed the opinion that they're too large in total? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a senator from Illinois, where farmers' votes are important, Obama is unlikely to have advocated reducing agricultural subsidies. Because he hopes to win votes from other states with significant agriculture, he is unlikely to advocate any reduction as a presidential candidate. There is no significant group of voters in the United States that supports cutting agricultural subsidies. (Professors of economics and development studies do not form a large enough bloc in any state to sway an election, and even they are likely to prioritize other issues.) It would be very surprising to me if any serious presidential candidate advocated cutting agricultural subsidies. Marco polo (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, that makes sense. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal arts education[edit]

What does it means?

The context: "PhDs are definitely more broadly educated in America because the entire concept of liberal arts education absolutely does not exist in any form in Germany." 80.58.205.37 (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a reading of Liberal arts would help? Dismas|^(talk) 14:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, why wouldn't the concept exist in Germany? I suppose that all-around the Western world people would recognize this educational curriculum. GoingOnTracks (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This makes me wonder what "conservative arts" might be. I'm picturing a version of Michelangelo's David wearing boxing shorts. :-) StuRat (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The complement of "liberal arts" is not "conservative arts", but rather vocational training. Liberal is not meant to be a political term. GoingOnTracks (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the complement. :-) StuRat (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that in Germany students specialize more early on in their education than in the US—by the time you get to university level, you are not taking general or breadth courses like one would in a US university. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A link to Education in Germany would be good here. Germany seems to have a better developed (and earlier available) vocational training system but I don't know if their gymnasium or college level curricula are less liberal arts than the U.S.'s. Rmhermen (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technologically behind[edit]

Is Africa generally considered to be "technologically behind"?

also, does technologically behind mean technolgy is not available? or its not affordable?

ty

DancingRobotek9 (talk) dancingrobotek9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by DancingRobotek9 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most African countries have very low incomes and capital stocks compared to other parts of the world, so few Africans or African businesses can afford advanced-technology goods (computers, servers, advanced manufacturing equipment, aircraft, even cars, although cell phones are fairly widely distributed). However, technology is not just a matter of goods, or stuff. Technology is really know-how, and Africa lacks technological know-how partly because its educational system is underdeveloped (again due to a lack of funding), and partly because Africans who learn advanced technologies overseas can make much more money overseas and hence are unlikely to bring that know-how back to their home countries. Marco polo (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The greater problem is that many African countries have corrupt governments and a lack of enforced property rights. This means that there is no incentive for entrepreneurs to create jobs as there is no guarantee that what one creates won't be taken/burned/destroyed at gunpoint. Wikiant (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a valid point. This map of Africa shows GDP per capita by nation: [2]. Note that the two nations with the highest per capita GDP (Botswana and Gabon) also have had very little conflict in recent history. StuRat (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that it's not universal. Some African nations have very high cellphone use, compared with their income, mainly because landlines are highly unreliable. I've also heard of places where a cellphone user can make a pretty good living simply renting the cellphone out to people in their village who want to make a phone call. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South Africa certainly isn't. Africa is a hugely varied continent, with more variety from tip to tail that Europe has from end to end. SGGH ^speak! 20:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perceptions[edit]

Just out of interest, why is it that rail, ship and aviation etc enthusiasts are often perceived as and referred to as "retards" (in modern informal English), obsessive, no life, unemployed etc. In comparison car enthusiasts are often perceived as "cool". Why is this? Thanks. Clover345 (talk) 19:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One possible answer - cars convey, and thus represent the individual/individuals. Whereas trains, ships etc often are used for mass transit and thus are not individualistic (being and 'individual' is cool, right?)

Consider someone who is interested in luxury or high performance yachts - these represent individual desire, and thus are cool. Is this correct?87.102.86.73 (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Car enthusiasts are generally only interested in the really old, really new or really fast. Train and plane enthusiasts on the other hand tend to be interested in almost anything. A petrolhead would probably laugh derisively at a 1987 Ford Fiesta, for example, while a trainspotter might be just as interested in a British Rail Class 142 as they would in the Orient Express, for instance. There's also the "gotta catch'em all" attitude many railfans and planespotters have which makes them seem quite anal - they'll want to get photos of, for example, every single Class 37 or DC-10, while a motor enthusiast would be happy just seeing one Lamborghini Gallardo. Finally, to spot trains or planes, you generally have to go to a railway station or airport, which means making a long trip, probably with some fairly serious camera kit. Car fans on the other prefer to collect, so other than the odd motor show, they'll be happy to stay at home polishing their pride and joy. Laïka 21:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another diff is that most car enthusiasts can afford at least one real car, whereas many train, ship, and plane enthusiasts can only afford models. The real thing is definitely cooler than a model, and some of this "coolness" wears off on the owner. StuRat (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As StuRat points out, most train/aircraft/ship enthusiasts are restricted to models or computer simulations to enjoy their hobby. Thus, they are piled into the geek social category, which is so uncool. Car enthusiasts, on the other hand, can often afford real cars and have to get their hands dirty to maintain/upgrade their machines. It's blue collar work and, thus, cool. Generally (at least in America), blue collar work & hobbies are considered more "manly" and thus cooler than white collar work & hobbies. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The British term is Anorak... -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where would Richard Branson fit in then, he looks a white-collar kind of guy who collects planes and a lot of other things. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see it as a form of peer pressure. For example, in a typical rural community in Australia, a young man who doesn't express interest in the core social building blocks: footy, cars, beer, girls and rock music (not necessarily in that order but they're all non-negotiable), is seen as "different", not really "one of the boys". That's ok if you don't mind being different; but if you do mind, you conform. It's not as if these interests are somehow encoded in our genes (except maybe for the girl thing, for most guys). It's not much different in the capital cities, although there's wider scope for individualism there, and you have more of a chance of being invisible (he he, nice image: the "invisible individualist"), whereas in the country towns differences stand out more readily, and people talk (believe me, they talk). -- JackofOz (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation for Americans: "Footy" = what they call football = soccer. StuRat (talk) 02:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sinn Féin broadcast ban[edit]

I'm looking for information on the broadcast ban of Sinn Féin spokespeople that was in effect in Ireland and Britain in the 80s and early 90s (I think). I can't find any mention in the Sinn Féin article. Stanstaple (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Gerry Adams#Voice ban for some info. Nanonic (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Stanstaple (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cheapest coffee - instant or ground?[edit]

Moved to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#cheapest coffee - instant or ground?. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(thanks, but the reason it was here is that it's a finance question) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.44.57.89 (talk) 01:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here it comes back home, Julia Rossi (talk) 10:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a coffee expert but like caffeine, for me it's just a drug. How can I maximize my caffeine, is really really cheap instant coffee (generic, store brand) a better value per mg of caffeine or is really really cheap ground coffee (generic, store brand) the better value? Not including the price of the coffee maker or water warmer, since that gets amortized over a looooooooooong time and can be picked up used too.
I'm having trouble deciding because I don't know how much of the ground coffee gets "thrown out" and how much gets into the coffee. Per net weight, ground coffee seems much cheaper than the cheapest instant coffee, but this could be misleading for the reason I just mentioned.

This sounds more like a question for the Science Desk than for Humanities. You would likely get a more reasoned argument there than here. If I knew how to move it, I would. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above moved from the Humanities desk. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try comparing the price per serving instead of price per weight. That is, if a jar of instant is $3 and says it makes 60 cups (I'm making up numbers...I can't stand instant!), consider it "5¢/cup" instead of "$3/whatever-net-weight". Likewise for however-many servings are claimed on a #10 can of whatever-store-brand grounds. DMacks (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buy mild roast; it contains more caffeine than dark roast. Even better, look into caffeine pills, which might be cheaper for someone with no taste buds and no interest in flavour whatsoever. At least in Canada, instant coffee is never cheaper - it's almost four times the price per serving of cheap ground coffee - if you can even find it. --NellieBly (talk) 01:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]