Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Interesting Wikipedia articles for killing time and expanding your mind!! Interesting Wikipedia articles for killing time and expanding your mind!!

05-24-2011 , 02:16 AM
This thing is pretty weird: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crazy_Horse_Memorial
Interesting Wikipedia articles for killing time and expanding your mind!! Quote
05-24-2011 , 03:52 AM
I was a history major in college, have always read history for fun, and am always amused by what people expect other people to know about history.

If you know the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and that that brought the US into WWII, I consider you pretty much historically up to snuff.

1941? Solid. Dec 7? Solid. Date that will live in infamy? Good stuff. Spoken by FDR? Cousin to Eleanor? Cousin to Teddy? Namesake of Teddy Bear? Rough Rider? Spanish American War postdates the Mexican American War? Bear on the California Flag? California predates Kansas as a state? Bloody Kansas? John Brown killed some dudes before he killed some dudes?

That's all gravy.

Also, as a result of getting distracted while writing this post, here's your historical fact for the day: France had more military deaths in WWI than the US has had in all wars combined (including both sides of the Civil War).
Interesting Wikipedia articles for killing time and expanding your mind!! Quote
05-24-2011 , 04:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyderracing
This is the dumbest ****ing thing I've ever read, and I LOVE dogs. What a moron.
those FSU guys are the most ridiculous chump idiots in Boston history. They even got a show on History Channel's Gangland. It's hilarious and absurd. There was never any prominent skinhead gang in the Boston area that I was ever aware of and I grew up in probably one of the top ten most white neighborhoods in the entire city. In my 20 years in Boston I have never met or seen one racist skinhead.

This whole "we kicked out the skinheads" thing is just a giant fantasy. I'm pretty sure they made it up or embellished it to up their value for the TV show as that appears to be where the wiki article got all it's info.

These kids were the random punk rock nerds in high school and decided that if they teamed up they could start beating people up since they were obviously very timid and afraid when alone. The only factually confirmed stories I've heard anyone have of them committing violent acts generally involved a group of like 12 of them hiding out in an alley, and beating on two or three 17-year olds brown bagging it in the park. This is how they intend to teach the community the perils of using drugs. I know they also jumped a few guys with brass knuckles for sneaking in a flask to a punk rock show and a few of them did time for it because one of the guys they jumped cracked his skull open. Awesome dudes for sure.
Interesting Wikipedia articles for killing time and expanding your mind!! Quote
05-24-2011 , 10:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bisonbison
I was a history major in college, have always read history for fun, and am always amused by what people expect other people to know about history.

If you know the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and that that brought the US into WWII, I consider you pretty much historically up to snuff.

1941? Solid. Dec 7? Solid. Date that will live in infamy? Good stuff. Spoken by FDR? Cousin to Eleanor? Cousin to Teddy? Namesake of Teddy Bear? Rough Rider? Spanish American War postdates the Mexican American War? Bear on the California Flag? California predates Kansas as a state? Bloody Kansas? John Brown killed some dudes before he killed some dudes?

That's all gravy.

Also, as a result of getting distracted while writing this post, here's your historical fact for the day: France had more military deaths in WWI than the US has had in all wars combined (including both sides of the Civil War).
wow had no idea fdr was related to eleanor, that's pretty hilarious

extra wow at the france thing, holy crap
Interesting Wikipedia articles for killing time and expanding your mind!! Quote
05-24-2011 , 10:59 AM
The US lost 116,000 dead in WWI, which is obviously nothing compared to French, Russian, or British losses but still pretty amazing considering we were only in the war for like 16 months.

of course, 27 years later that many people were killed in a single night in the bombing of Tokyo.

Last edited by miajag; 05-24-2011 at 11:05 AM.
Interesting Wikipedia articles for killing time and expanding your mind!! Quote
05-24-2011 , 11:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bisonbison
I was a history major in college, have always read history for fun, and am always amused by what people expect other people to know about history.

If you know the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and that that brought the US into WWII, I consider you pretty much historically up to snuff.

1941? Solid. Dec 7? Solid. Date that will live in infamy? Good stuff. Spoken by FDR? Cousin to Eleanor? Cousin to Teddy? Namesake of Teddy Bear? Rough Rider? Spanish American War postdates the Mexican American War? Bear on the California Flag? California predates Kansas as a state? Bloody Kansas? John Brown killed some dudes before he killed some dudes?

That's all gravy.

Also, as a result of getting distracted while writing this post, here's your historical fact for the day: France had more military deaths in WWI than the US has had in all wars combined (including both sides of the Civil War).
solid post. you should do an ask me in the history forum.
Interesting Wikipedia articles for killing time and expanding your mind!! Quote
05-24-2011 , 11:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bisonbison
I was a history major in college, have always read history for fun, and am always amused by what people expect other people to know about history.
why?

Is it because what the general public knows about a certain subject is hard to determine; or

Is it because, as part of your education, you have learned (or have learned how to determine) the average person's expected knowledge of history?
Interesting Wikipedia articles for killing time and expanding your mind!! Quote
05-24-2011 , 12:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski
why?

Is it because what the general public knows about a certain subject is hard to determine; or

Is it because, as part of your education, you have learned (or have learned how to determine) the average person's expected knowledge of history?
I just think most people don't care about history much, so the stories they retain are very high level.

I mean, I tried out for jeopardy once and watch documentaries for kicks and read about 4th century christian heresies for fun when I can't sleep. It works for me, but my brain loves this ****, and my pursuit of this as an intellectual hobby over the last couple decades mean I can put things in context for myself pretty easily.

Once high school fades for people, that's just not typically the case unless you like that thing. You forget things and confuse things and that's all right, because this **** is legitimately confusing.

Stepping back even as recent as WWI is just baffling. So, Italy and Japan were on our side? And American troops fought in Russia? And Germany sent Lenin to Russia? And the Czar and the Kaiser and the King of England were all cousins? And the German armed forces surrendered on the brink of collapse, convincing a lot of Germans that they could have won if it weren't for the socialists and the jews? And no one learned any lessons about rifles and defensive fortifications from the American Civil War?
Interesting Wikipedia articles for killing time and expanding your mind!! Quote
05-24-2011 , 12:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bisonbison
Stepping back even as recent as WWI is just baffling. So, Italy and Japan were on our side? And American troops fought in Russia? And Germany sent Lenin to Russia? And the Czar and the Kaiser and the King of England were all cousins? And the German armed forces surrendered on the brink of collapse, convincing a lot of Germans that they could have won if it weren't for the socialists and the jews? And no one learned any lessons about rifles and defensive fortifications from the American Civil War?
I literally knew zero of these things
Interesting Wikipedia articles for killing time and expanding your mind!! Quote
05-24-2011 , 12:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnotBoogy
solid post. you should do an ask me in the history forum.
I thought that was a joke then I looked over and saw there's actually a history forum.

French WWI losses would be equivalent to the present-day US losing ~9 million men.
Interesting Wikipedia articles for killing time and expanding your mind!! Quote
05-24-2011 , 01:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bisonbison
I just think most people don't care about history much, so the stories they retain are very high level.

I mean, I tried out for jeopardy once and watch documentaries for kicks and read about 4th century christian heresies for fun when I can't sleep. It works for me, but my brain loves this ****, and my pursuit of this as an intellectual hobby over the last couple decades mean I can put things in context for myself pretty easily.

Once high school fades for people, that's just not typically the case unless you like that thing. You forget things and confuse things and that's all right, because this **** is legitimately confusing.

Stepping back even as recent as WWI is just baffling. So, Italy and Japan were on our side? And American troops fought in Russia? And Germany sent Lenin to Russia? And the Czar and the Kaiser and the King of England were all cousins? And the German armed forces surrendered on the brink of collapse, convincing a lot of Germans that they could have won if it weren't for the socialists and the jews? And no one learned any lessons about rifles and defensive fortifications from the American Civil War?
Yeah, I understand where you are coming from. I suppose its akin to expecting people to hammer out calculus problems years after high school or college. I suppose those who do not keep up on it are going to have a difficult time.
Interesting Wikipedia articles for killing time and expanding your mind!! Quote
05-24-2011 , 01:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhoIam
I thought that was a joke then I looked over and saw there's actually a history forum.

French WWI losses would be equivalent to the present-day US losing ~9 million men.
Yeah, but how much is that in dollars?
Interesting Wikipedia articles for killing time and expanding your mind!! Quote
05-24-2011 , 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnotBoogy
history forum.
Interesting Wikipedia articles for killing time and expanding your mind!! Quote
05-24-2011 , 06:01 PM
05-24-2011 , 08:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Party
i don't want to derail this thread with more tedious walls of text, so i'm looking for a one sentence answer here. who exactly do you think should have the power to 'authorize' expressions of speech and art?
placing commercial advertising on private and public property is not an expression of speech or art, so I'm not sure what relevance your question has.
Interesting Wikipedia articles for killing time and expanding your mind!! Quote
05-24-2011 , 08:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bisonbison
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_sworn_virgins

think you got it reversed, link and naming it

here's a video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6eW6M-WIUY
Interesting Wikipedia articles for killing time and expanding your mind!! Quote
05-24-2011 , 09:01 PM
Here is a silly little thing most of you have probably never heard of:

Carhenge
Interesting Wikipedia articles for killing time and expanding your mind!! Quote
05-24-2011 , 09:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Party
i don't want to derail this thread with more tedious walls of text, so i'm looking for a one sentence answer here. who exactly do you think should have the power to 'authorize' expressions of speech and art?
Do you have trouble reading or something? It goes faster if you don't move your lips.
Interesting Wikipedia articles for killing time and expanding your mind!! Quote
05-25-2011 , 01:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony_P
placing commercial advertising on private and public property is not an expression of speech or art, so I'm not sure what relevance your question has.
so 1) promoting something that could create profit or 2) being placed on private or public property (which i would imagine are the only two kinds of property that exist, but whatever) necessarily precludes an act from being an expression of speech/art?
Interesting Wikipedia articles for killing time and expanding your mind!! Quote
05-25-2011 , 02:41 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Party
i don't want to derail this thread with more tedious walls of text, so i'm looking for a one sentence answer here. who exactly do you think should have the power to 'authorize' expressions of speech and art?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony_P
placing commercial advertising on private and public property is not an expression of speech or art, so I'm not sure what relevance your question has.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Party
so 1) promoting something that could create profit or 2) being placed on private or public property (which i would imagine are the only two kinds of property that exist, but whatever) necessarily precludes an act from being an expression of speech/art?
Its called "Commercial Speech" and such is only provided qualified protection under the First Amendment. There is a reason why discussions on such subjects require more than one line answers.

Quote:

Commercial Speech.--In recent years, the Court's treatment of ``commercial speech'' has undergone a transformation, from total nonprotection under the First Amendment to qualified protection.

While commercial speech is entitled to First Amendment protection, the Court has clearly held that it is not wholly undifferentiable from other forms of expression; it has remarked on the commonsense differences between speech that does no more than propose a commercial transaction and other varieties.17 The Court has developed a four-pronged test to measure the validity of restraints upon commercial expression.

Under the first prong of the test as originally formulated, certain commercial speech is not entitled to protection; the informational function of advertising is the First Amendment concern and if it does not accurately inform the public about lawful activity, it can be suppressed.18

Second, if the speech is protected, the interest of the government in regulating and limiting it must be assessed. The State must assert a substantial interest to be achieved by restrictions on commercial speech.19

Third, the restriction cannot be sustained if it provides only ineffective or remote support for the asserted purpose.20 Instead, the regulation must ``directly advance'' the governmental interest. The Court resolves this issue with reference to aggregate effects, and does not limit its consideration to effects on the challenging litigant.31

Fourth, if the governmental interest could be served as well by a more limited restriction on commercial speech, the excessive restriction cannot survive.21 The Court has rejected the idea that a ``least restrictive means'' test is required. Instead, what is now required is a ``reasonable fit'' between means and ends, with the means ``narrowly tailored to achieve the desired objective

Last edited by Oski; 05-25-2011 at 02:50 AM.
Interesting Wikipedia articles for killing time and expanding your mind!! Quote
05-25-2011 , 03:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony_P
the boston authorities overreacted, but it was still stupid of the marketing company to put unauthorized advertising everywhere
Quote:
Originally Posted by Party
who exactly do you think should have the power to 'authorize' expressions of speech and art?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Party
so 1) promoting something that could create profit or 2) being placed on private or public property (which i would imagine are the only two kinds of property that exist, but whatever) necessarily precludes an act from being an expression of speech/art?
What's your point? Nothing Tony said had anything to do with freedom of expression or "authorizing art", he just meant that advertising some movie on other people's property was dumb.

You can crap in a plastic bag and call it art if you want. Doesn't mean you're allowed to slap it all over the city.
Interesting Wikipedia articles for killing time and expanding your mind!! Quote
05-25-2011 , 03:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Party
so 1) promoting something that could create profit or 2) being placed on private or public property (which i would imagine are the only two kinds of property that exist, but whatever) necessarily precludes an act from being an expression of speech/art?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cables
What's your point? Nothing Tony said had anything to do with freedom of expression or "authorizing art", he just meant that advertising some movie on other people's property was dumb.

You can crap in a plastic bag and call it Party if you want. Doesn't mean you're allowed to slap it all over the city.
.
Interesting Wikipedia articles for killing time and expanding your mind!! Quote
05-25-2011 , 06:55 AM
Please stop arguing in this thread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_particles
Interesting Wikipedia articles for killing time and expanding your mind!! Quote

      
m