November 8

What are some examples of deities who have no, or few, preternatural powers? 58.109.44.185 (talk) 00:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Pharaoh? --Jayron32 01:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Duke of Edinburgh? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Hirohito allegedly. Alansplodge (talk) 13:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wallace Fard Muhammad. Paul B (talk) 13:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial_cult for an overview of divine rulers, which seems like a rich area of deities who have no or few preternatural powers. ZMBrak (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any deities that don't actually exist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Psalm 115:4–8.—Wavelength (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Augustus Caesar, but I see ZMBrak has already mentioned the imperial cult. I am fairly certain the dead emperors were able to make it rain in the provinces; a prophet not being without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. μηδείς (talk) 22:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  The Catholics do not consider their saints to be deities. --Jayron32 01:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I asked whether it counted. Canonization is suspiciously similiar to deification by the Roman Senate or apotheosis, so much so it has ben denied by Benedict XIV. See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm. μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of aspects of Catholicism which echo non-Christian or pagan traditions. That was part of the "sell". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several Roman Emperors tended to be deified after death, although obviously without the aforementioned powers. Uhlan ^talk 23:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haile Selassie I Rmhermen (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha ruled that the practice of legislative vetoes was repugnant to the US Constitution. Since that time, have there been any significant efforts to amend the Constitution to permit them? By "significant", I'm meaning any proposed amendments that get out of committee in either house of Congress. Nyttend (talk) 00:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought than anything "significant" that has managed to get through committee would have at least been listed on

List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution. Almost every proposal dies in committee. It is only rare if one passes through to get to the full House or Senate. And even rarer to have it passed with a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress, and then three-fourths of the states. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Of course, Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha#Later history gives examples of Congress using other processes such as fast-track legislation or the Congressional Review Act that can basically achieve the same effect as a legislative veto. So until the Supreme Court eventually decides to close these loopholes, Congress probably is not currently interested in going through any lengthy amendment process. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why currency exchange spots are allowed to have exchange rates, different from those officially set by the national banks? Isn't it actually a fraud? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.174.25.12 (talk) 08:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is it fraud if they are up front about what rate they are using to do the exchange? And the rate that they use is different because they are providing a service and can charge whatever they like for that service. If their rate is better than that of the guy down the street, they'll make more money (other factors remaining equal). But at the end of the day, they both still have to make money and they do that by raising the rate a bit higher than the national banks who they are going to for their own money exchange. After all, a European money exchanger wouldn't be able to pay their employees if all they had on hand were US dollars.

In other words, you go to a European currency exchange with US dollars and they charge 5% (for instance) but they then need their original currency back. They need to pay their employees in Euros. So they go to a national bank and the national bank charges them 3%. The currency exchange makes the exchange with the national bank for the whole amount of the day's money and they have the 2% left which they charged the customer. That 2% is used to pay the employees, pay the electric bill, and pay for other expenses. Dismas|^(talk) 10:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They could use the exchange rates published by the banks, then charge a fixed fee, or a percentage fee, but the international exchange rate might vaary during the day, or even during a transaction. They usually choose a rate for the day to include their profit and don't change this rate unless something really drastic happens to a currency. Dbfirs 17:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Banks in countries with market economies and

floating exchange rates are allowed to operate a free market in currencies. In these countries, there is no "official" exchange rate. Instead, the price of currencies on the foreign exchange market fluctuates according to supply and demand. If a currency is offered at a given price and there are no bids, then the seller either needs to offer it at a lower price or abandon the exchange. Likewise, if there are multiple bids, the seller is free to accept the highest price bid. On free foreign exchange markets, official prices set by national banks have no bearing. However, it is possible for governments to control the legal prices of their currencies and to remove them from the free foreign exchange market by enacting foreign exchange controls. Even in these cases, if the official value of a currency is too far out of line with its free market value, a black market will almost certainly develop on which the currency is traded at a value closer to its free market value. While transactions on a black market may be illegal, I don't see how they or other market exchanges in which information is not withheld are fraudulent. Marco polo (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Please, if necessary, correct my above "work". Stipulating that though at home, this is hardly work, i.e. homework. As always, thank you for your attention, your long memories, and your participation in whatever form(s) it may or may not take place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.240.77.215 (talk) 12:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reformatetd to remove leading spaces - was causing fixed font and not wrapping correctly. Astronaut (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are asking. Please make your question clearer. --ColinFine (talk) 13:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with Monty Python et al but don't know what you feel needs correcting. And don't see a question to answer. Dismas|^(talk) 14:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm not currently at home I'm afraid I cannot legitimately give you an answer, though I take it that by 'no one' you may be thinking along the lines of these twosomes? In any event no one was smarter than Peter Cook. Blakk and ekka 17:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The user, whose IP geolocates to Louisville Kentucky, has made 26 edits to wikipedia, 19 of them new questions at the ref desk, and six of them follow-ups to those questions. Hopefully our chances are greater than the expected 6/26 we'll get a clarification of this question. μηδείς (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You couldn't have known this, but I find that the older I get the less tolerant I am of almost any use of the word 'hopefully', and particularly where used as a substitute for 'I hope'. Feel free to adjust your phraseology accordingly.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC) [reply]

I've noticed that a time or two. :) What would be a proper use of "hopefully"? Maybe something like "He was waiting hopefully as the train carrying his mail-order bride rolled into the station." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds legitimate. 'Hopefully' seems to be beloved of sport players, as is 'obviously' and 'try'. Such as this exchange: Interviewer: "What's your goal for this match, Brock?" Brock: Obviously I'm hopefully gonna try and win. (Comment: That's not remotely obvious to me. I'd have thought his goal was to win, not to "try and win", and most certainly not "hopefully" anything, particularly not hopefully try and win.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC) [reply]

I've tried to take umbrage at that expression, and find I can't. Hopefully you'll come to accept it as I always have. It is curious whether there are any better alternatives than "it is to be hoped". Let me know if you come acrost any. μηδείς (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptfully, you may adopt any position you wish. Thinkfully, I'll steer clear of it, because umbragefully I still don't like it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Just about everyone can agree on backwards cowgirl. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC) [reply]

This is so much fun for a thread the OP will never read. μηδείς (talk) 03:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully understood. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not by me. What's lrigwoc? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I missed an indention. I was responding to your -fully comment. I don't know from lrigwoc. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's saying that no one expects the Spanish Inquisition, but two or more, putting their heads together, might arrive at possibility of expecting the Spanish Inquisition. And the question, such as it is, is whether his initial statement makes sense or should be worded differently. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was there another inquisition beginning with S? HiLo48 (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None in the Monty Python world that I can recall. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even fewer expect the Swedish Inquisition. Ja. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ole, to prisoner: "Who gave you dat secret lutefisk recipe?" (slap) "Ouch!" "Vhat vas his name?" (slap) "Ouch!" "Tell me or else!" (slap) "Ouch! Stop hitting me vhile I'm trying to interrogate you!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're correct and I also think this got discussed in

Through the Looking Glass somewhere, perhaps when Alice is talking to one of the queens? Matt Deres (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

It's in the conversation with Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking-Glass (no hyphen, no points).

ALICE: I mean, that one ca'n't help growing older.

HUMPTY: One ca'n't, perhaps, but two can. With proper assistance, you might have left off at seven.

Tevildo (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. The OP now has the perfect model for rephrasing his statement. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How did lawyers earn a bad stereotype of being immoral and being liars? To what extent in the law field does this stereotype apply? 140.254.136.169 (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lawyers have to defend their clients, which requires marketing skills, some of which are being weasels and liars to varying degrees. As regards the "immoral" part, what's the source for that? I've seldom heard lawyers accused of being "immoral" unless they were found to be running a brothel or something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The stereotype goes back as least as far as Plato's Protagoras (c. 370 BC), at the very start of the legal profession. Tevildo (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While witnesses in court are required to tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" (or something like that depending on the jurisdiction), lawyers are not. They are required to present only those elements of "the truth" that illuminate their client's case in the best possible light. Even an accused who appears almost certainly guilty of a particularly heinous crime has this right. So what lawyers sometimes present is not "the truth" as most people would see it. HiLo48 (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That works both directions, lest we forget. There's no shortage of prosecutor misconduct out there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, but there's that negative word, "misconduct". In your example the state (or The Crown, or whatever) is the client. Is it really misconduct to present a subset of the truth on their behalf? I think you'll find that the opposite is, in fact, true. If a lawyer did not present his client's case in the best possible light, he would be legally guilty of misconduct. HiLo48 (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really symmetrical. A defense attorney is supposed to represent his client, period (though staying within the established boundaries). The prosecutor represents "the people" (or the crown, for you monarchists), but hopefully it is assumed that neither the people nor the crown actually want to punish defendants just for the sake of it. So the asymmetry is, a defense attorney who becomes convinced his client is guilty is still supposed to seek the best outcome for his client, but a prosecutor who becomes convinced (or even thinks it's reasonably likely) that the defendant is innocent, should drop the case in the interest of justice. --Trovatore (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, at least, the job of the defense attorney is to ensure that his client gets a fair trial. Regardless of the "truth", the prosecution must prove its case. And it is not necessarily the case that the prosecution won't try to railroad an innocent party. If you want a jim-dandy example of prosecutorial misconduct, read about Mike Nifong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Say you're the lawyer of a client who, in your opinion, is almost certainly guilty of murder. You accept a million dollars from this client to claim in court that he's not guilty, to deceive the court by presenting only favorable facts and ignoring the rest. That's certainly a form of lying, and some people might consider it immoral. Of course, even people who claim this is immoral could still believe it's necessary for the legal system. --Bowlhover (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My impression, not based on any real depth of knowledge, is that in theory, a defense lawyer won't do everything - most notably, they refuse to "suborn perjury" by calling a witness to say something if they know it isn't true, can't use their position to pass messages from clients being held incommunicado, and even are supposed to report plans for future crime, so clients who tell their lawyers everything apparently can have nasty surprises. But, like massage therapists, some lawyers offer significant extra services... Wnt (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my extensive experience watching TV legal dramas, my understanding is that a defense lawyer is not allowed to lie in court, with "lie" defined rather narrowly. That is, he can't say anything he knows to be false. But he has quite a bit of leeway to say stuff he doesn't actually believe. No one, obviously, should take this as legal advice. --Trovatore (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that type of deception can be as bad or even worse than outright lies. I'm also reminded of the line from the movie Liar, Liar: "What does my Dad do for a living ? He's a liar." ... "I think you mean lawyer." ... "Isn't it the same thing ?". StuRat (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hence this antique of a joke: Mike is walking through the local cemetery. On one stone it says, "Here lies a lawyer and an honest man." Mike says to himself, "Ay, begorrah, how did they get two lads into one grave?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just leave this here for everyone's edification. Dismas|^(talk) 22:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The theory of a defence lawyer in our adversarial system, was explained to me be a barrister in these terms... Supposing that a defendant were rich and well educated and didn't have to work for a living, then he would be able to spend a lot of time researching the law and finding the best way to present his case in court. Because few people have these advantages, the law allows you to employ somebody to do it for you. Whatever your lawyer thinks about the rights or wrongs of the case, it is his job to present your case in court to the best of his ability, so long as he plays by the rules. Alansplodge (talk) 23:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair statement. The client's attorney has to follow the "presumption of innocence" axiom. It's strictly the state's job to try to prove guilt; the defense need not help the state do its job. If the client is found guilty, though, the attorney then is stuck with taking a "guilty as charged" mode, in arguing the sentencing phase. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Your incompetent lawyer is the reason you lost in court to his cheating, lying legal counsel. μηδείς (talk) 03:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, many conflicts occurred throughout Europe, yet most of them are named today by historical standards; the

I believe there was one in Vietnam in the 1960s, known to the locals as The American War. Perspective is everything. HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) According to this forum, the term "Great War" was used to describe both the Napoleonic Wars and the First World War while they were actually in progress. At least some of the wars that you listed were actually an aggregation of separate regional wars. The need to have an umbrella term for the whole conflict may not have been apparent until much later. Alansplodge (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the book also said that many locals called the whole conflict the Bohemian Rebellion, even after the war spread to northern Germany and France, yet there does not seem to be any definitive answer to the contemporary name. Uhlan ^talk 23:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a quick Google reveals that the term "present war" is a well used expressions for wars that are still happening. I found Termination of the Present War (Definition) Act 1918 (First World War), The Enemy Alien Problem in the Present War (1915), Western territory of the present war (1862, American Civil War), The History of the Present War with Russia (1855, Crimean War), The History of the Present War in Spain and Portugal (1813, Peninsular War). Statements Relating to the Measures Adopted During the Present War, (1801, War of the First Coalition), An Impartial History of the Present War in America (1778, American War of Independence). Once a war was finished, it became "the late war" until somebody thought of a better name for it; for example A Compendious account of the most important battles of the late war (1817, the War of 1812). Alansplodge (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's just the main thing, perhaps I did not make it clear in the original question, that the wars must have had specific names rather than just the present war, as per your answer, as there were many wars happening at the same time with the intensely militaristic society of pre-21st century. Uhlan ^talk 00:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems that they said "the present war in wherever". The examples above include an Act of Parliament and an official British government statement. I couldn't find much else that helps; sorry, it's time for bed now. Alansplodge (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on WW1 has some stuff about contemporary names. Matt Deres (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever cited The term "First World War" was first used in September 1914 by the German philosopher Ernst Haeckel, who claimed that "there is no doubt that the course and character of the feared 'European War' ... will become the first world war in the full sense of the word was misinterpreting what that author said. He wasn't titling the war. He was merely saying it was the first war to date that had a global aspect to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My favorite war name is the War of Jenkins' Ear, though it doesn't seem to have been called that while it occurred... AnonMoos (talk) 07:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the same as the War of the Austrian Succession, as it was part of that conflict. Uhlan ^talk 08:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]