Random Questions Thread

It would make more sense if they added "other" between "or" and "part". You'd think the country that invented the English language would be better at it...

Also, seeing as it specified "penis or part of body", it does beggar the question about "penetration" by things that are "not part of body". You know... like a stop sign.

edited 13th Mar '13 11:04:10 AM by peasant

It's not English, it's Legalese.

Obviously they are using the inclusive or.

The Revolution Will Not Be Tropeable

Peasent - don't worry, things that are neither penises (?Peni?) or part of body are also covered under a separate section.

The problem may be amendments. I recently processed paperwork where a prisoner had been found guilty under section 40d of the 1952 act. He had secreted a mobile phone... and found guilty under a law that dated from 1952...

The clue is the 'd' in 40d

Do the job in front of you.

Is it ok for a fictional character to venomously hate a real band? Or will that get me in trouble ?

Why not just drop clues by, for instance, having someone ask the character why they hate that band so much and just hint at the band's identity? Are you using this to establish characterization?

And, yes, you probably will run into problems, legal and Conservation of Detail-wise, by using the band's actual name.

edited 13th Mar '13 7:26:41 PM by CrystalGlacia

"Jack, you have debauched my sloth."

I have only insulting things to say about anyone who takes Conservation of Detail that far, honestly. But the legal point stands.

My work is sorta After the End all the literary and musical references are real. One charicacter is the archivist and distributor of music. I thought it would be interesting if there was one (and only one) band that he considers not worth saving. More than that I considered having him actively trying to erase them from history. It's just a subplot I don't want to get sued or worse not published over it.

edited 14th Mar '13 3:42:51 AM by HistoryMaker

There's no reason for you to get in legal trouble for using a real band's name in a work of fiction as you describe it. Especially if it's not the only real band or author or work name you reference.

edited 13th Mar '13 9:05:47 PM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

History: You probably won't, but if you want to be sure, make sure to go for a slightly older band, and not a current one. Also the idea seems really amusing to me.

Read my stories!

Does anybody know how far you can get on horseback in one day? How often do you have to rest the horses? How often are horses fed and what is the standard fare?

Complicated - because simple is simply too simple.

HEYO

Read my stories!

Thanks!

Complicated - because simple is simply too simple.

Are there any rules against referring to yourself, especially in the first person, in academic type papers in MLA format?

My understanding is that it's discouraged, but the assignment requirements specially say not to just include research, have solid ideas based on that research. I have plenty of research and I feel that illustrates the points I'm trying to make in the paper. But I can also prove some points from my personal experience?

It'd be very minor, I'd probably only reference myself as part of the introduction and somewhere in the conclusion.

I'm not familiar with MLA by itself, but I did a course in academic writing last semester. Based on what they told us there, and what I have seen in actual academic papers, it should be fine to refer to yourself in the introduction, if you do it right, as it is often used to present a personal investment in the subject matter. I wouldn't reference yourself in the conclusion, though.

In the end, it also strongly depends on the subject you're writing on and what exactly you're using yourself as an example of.

Complicated - because simple is simply too simple.

The various forms of insanity comic artists experience and the reasons for it. I'm a comic artist myself, I've had some minor breakdowns for some of the reasons I'm using.

In that case, I don't recommend using it at all. Referencing yourself in relation to such an emotionally charged subject might make it look like your objectivity is compromised. Obviously, scientific objectivity in social sciences is just an illusion, but it's an illusion the community is very fond of enforcing.

Complicated - because simple is simply too simple.

Makes sense, makes sense.

@History Maker (7008): Not really what you were asking, but I thought I'd point out that making choices about what to save based on personal preference is completely and totally against archival ethics. Not that it never happens or can't happen, but it's something you might want to keep in mind—if he's the sort to take his responsibilities seriously, it's unlikely that he'd actually not save them.

re: horses and mobility: keep in mind that 20 to 30 miles a day is a fast pace, but sustainable over good terrain by well-conditioned men on foot. Horses are notoriously delicate creatures; without stabling and feed, they may not be able to sustain that pace for a week (with well-established stables and roads, it's a very different story). There's a rule of thumb I vaguely recall: on the American frontier, without roads or stables, it was reckoned that cavalry could outpace infantry for a week; above that time period, infantry could generally outmarch cavalry, since cavalry needed more rest after that week of hard riding, while infantry could sustain 20-30 miles a day almost indefinitely.

This is, of course, with European horses and European reckoning. Mongol horses and Mongol cavalry were entirely different.

Charlie Stross's cheerful, optimistic predictions for 2017, part one of three.

That's very interesting to know, thanks. I'll probably read up on Mongolian cavalry, too, then.

edited 14th Mar '13 10:17:26 AM by montmorencey

Complicated - because simple is simply too simple.

History Maker: Do NOT quote any (real) lyrics. The music industry is very strict, and publishing a work of fiction quoting lyrics will cost about £100 per word (or local equivalent).

Do the job in front of you.

One thing I remember about Mongols was they had a practice of a single rider using three or four horses and switching between them over the course of a long trip. When the empire was flourishing, they maintained a pony express system that kept way stations with fresh horses, which allowed couriers to move quickly indeed. I don't think anyone used that system to move troops, though.

www.kingdomsofevil.com http://bensen-daniel.deviantart.com/ https://twitter.com/bensen_m

Well, they would have had to be pretty darned big waystations to have enough spare horses for moving troops, so you're probably right .

I was thinking on using a system of waystations like that for my country, it'll be interesting to see what I can find out about how exactly it worked and what sort of problems there were with it.

Complicated - because simple is simply too simple.

What enabled the Mongols to work the way they did was that they had an entire society structured around the saddle. If I remember, even the poorest Mongol horsemen owned more than one horse. Additionally, horses require a lot of pastureland relative to agriculture; medieval Europe—which was populated much more densely than the Asian steppe—could only support enough horses to support a relatively small number of knights, lords, and gens d'armes. For that reason most of the European peasant armies were footsloggers, while the Mongolian armies were predominantly horse-based.

That's another factor as well: armies travel at the speed of their slowest element. European knights can range out in front of their peasant armies, but were never quite numerous enough to operate entirely independently of the footborne cannon fodder. Mongol armies, in contrast, were the Soviet armored offensives of their day: lots of them, and everyone is fast and mobile.note

Mongol logistics were kept to a minimum by the sheer toughness of their combatants: warriors were required to sustain themselves on mare's milk or on the blood of their horses if needed; this option was unthinkable by your typical Medieval lord and his retinue. Again, it's a societal thing; you have to be practically born and raised in the saddle to reach that level.

Charlie Stross's cheerful, optimistic predictions for 2017, part one of three.