Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 June 5

Humanities desk
< June 4	<< May | June | Jul >>	June 6 >

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 5

Economics question

What is the key differentiating factors between the neo-classical conception of competition and that of the classical approach? I'm trying to research the question but I can't find any good sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Habitual8 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Read neoclassical economics which has a half-decent explanation. In a nutshell, classical economics focused on the intrinsic value of produced goods, while neoclassical economics focused on the perceived value (utility) of goods. It's not a huge shift philosophically (utility is implicit in the concept of demand even back to Adam Smith), but the neoclassical movement is also associated with marginalism, which turned economics from a discursive discipline to a mathematical one. --Ludwigs2 14:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Happiest communist country ever

Whenever you talk to anyone who lived in ex-Yugoslavia, no matter if they are from Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia, Montenegro or FYRM, most of them will tell you that those were the "happy days", as they could travel anywhere without visas, everyone got a free flat, salary was good so you could buy a car and travel when you wanted and so on....

But if you talk to someone from any other former communist country, they will tell you that those times were terrible, that you couldnt travel anywhere, most of them were poor, people got arrested for saying the wrong thing and so on... It is similar with current communist countries like North Korea, Cuba or Vietnam, we all know that they are very poor.

Could it be said that, as far as standard and (general) happines of citizens is concerned, former Yugoslavia was the happiest communist country of all times? And are the former Yugoslav republics only former communist countries that lived better under communism than they live now? --92.244.146.120 (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There are good arguments for Yugoslavia being the happiest of the eastern bloc. Tito did his own thing to a much greater extent than many others,and some of what he did - particularly in areas of devolvement of control - seems quite good. And clearly he kept a lid on what turned, after his death, into a horrible set of wars. Elsewhere, it's possible that Cuba would compete. I'm sure there are some in the states you list who prefer life as it was. Croatians I spoke to recently are adament that they're happier now, and I get the impression that there's a lot of support within these newly independent states, for their independent state. So I don't think you draw your second conclusion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

A 1985 film called When Father Was Away on Business suggests that things were not as jolly in Tito's Yugoslavia as the OP says. This page[1] asserts "His (Tito's) 'genius' rested in his willingness to use raw military and police power, not in his penchant for conciliatory politics." Alansplodge (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

"Happiest of the eastern bloc", no, Yugoslavia was never part of the "eastern bloc". It was never a member of the Warsaw Pact, not part of CMEA, and was not considered on "the other side" by the US in the Cold War. As per above, citizens could travel freely outside the country, which those from most other communist states could not, and tourists from Western countries could travel there without the bureaucracy involved in going to Poland, USSR etc. I seem to remember the dinar was a fully convertible currency unlike the rouble and others. And I believe it was difficult for Czechs, Romanians etc to travel to their neighbouring socialist country Yugoslavia, which was hard for them to understand. Sussexonian (talk) 09:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You might find Ostalgie helpful, which links to Yugo-nostalgia. 86.164.69.239 (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Sussexonian, there's discussion of whether / the extent to which Yugoslavia was part of the Eastern Bloc in that article. Suffice to say your "never" is misleading or just plain wrong. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know which people from that region you've spoken with, but suffice to say it is not a unanimous opinion that life was better under communism. Slavenka Drakulić has written, if I remember correctly, about how there were no quality feminine products and you always had to keep a batch of newspapers around because you'd never know when there would be a sudden shortage of toilet paper. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 08:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hrmph. I was only a wee'un at the time it all fell apart, and I don't profess to have any undeniable knowledge about the times myself, but I still do come from ex-Yugoslavia. First off, (this might, of course, be a matter of historical accuracy) Sussexonian is right - Yugoslavs could fairly freely travel to anywhere in the world - my parents went on shopping trips to the Chech Republic, and they would bring back (to me, used to Yugoslavia's semi-free market at the time) the most unusual thing - shoes with the price tag burned into the sole rubber, and my uncle went to both the US and North Korea in the space of two years, all that of course without having to bother too much about visas. Tagishsimon, the thing is in perception - ever since the Tito–Stalin split in 1948, Yugoslavs didn't really see themselves as part of the Eastern Bloc - in fact, those who still did, got deported to Yugoslavia's very own gulag on Goli otok. Cynicism aside, Yugoslavs were from a fairly early point in Yugoslav history educated that they were not in any one of the blocs - how this proclamation in the West (and what an amateur's simplistic black-and-white notion of history perceives today) is of course a different story. And to the OP: Yugo-nostalgia that someone linked to above is indeed strong here. So is the feeling that in Yugoslavia the peoples of the former Yugoslav lands had something big, something important that is now gone. Tito's cult of personality was not entirely forced here - people embraced it, so unlike when Ceausescu died, people actually in all sincerity cried and the country ground to a stand-still for the day. Is that a good thing or not? You be the judge, but people here seem to not have thunk so. Of course, on the other hand, in the Eighties there were years when gasoline was only available with a special coupon which gave you the right to buy a certain amount of gas on odd or even days, or there were times when the only toilet paper available was the coarsest approximation, or when the only available chocolate was the disgusting Eurocrem ersatz-chocolate. It's really difficult to measure by today's standard, but most people don't care about today's standard, they care about how it was when they were young, shoved by the Western world into the "East Hemisphere", and unbeknownst to the "Imeprialistic bastards" enjoying a lot of the freedoms other Eastern bloc countries didn't - seriously, don't underestimate this factor of non-Eastern-bloc pride. But most of all, how great it was when they were young. Everybody's Free (To Wear Sunscreen) TomorrowTime (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

when to take meds discreetly?

Resolved

first of all, if you don't understand the point of managing others' impressions of you, pleaes skip this question.

as for the rest of you... so I was quite sick for a long time, which caused hell for my family, however I'm quite well - the only remnant is some medicine I'll take daily for the rest of my life. Thankfully the condition itself is perfectly cured and in every other way I'm healthy. I would not like my family constantly to be reminded of my ill status, since given that there is no other effect on my life, why should they. Does anyone have any tips for the best way to take medicine daily in a discreet way? I suppose this is not so specific to medicine, but really anythign anyone does daily that they don't particularly identify with or want to be particularly public about, even within their own family - however I haven't been able to google discussion on specifically this. Thanks so much for any thoughts. p.s. if you don't understand why anyone would care, it's okay, I understand, as a few years ago I myself wouldn't have. If you are ever in the situation I'm in, however, you would quickly understand - therefore my question is directed to those who for some reason already do understand. 92.229.12.33 (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand your position, just not your confusion. How do you do it discreetly? Erm—discreetly! In the bathroom early morning, say? Surely you are physically alone at least once a day? (Like when you use the toilet.) ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 13:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to keep it in the medicine cabinet, because I don't want the sight of it whenever others open the medicine cabinet, for cleaning or their own purposes or whatever. And what object would I have occasion to bring with me to the bathroom every day? If it stays in the bathroom, they will open it when cleaning/rearranging/whatever and if it comes with me... well, what should it be? Should I just have pants on when I visit the bathroom, and put it in my pocket? And I am physically alone once per day, sure. But I don't know where to put this stuff. The best would be if there were some object I would have good plausable reason to keep with me, whether on business or casual situations, wherever I am, and in that object I have my medicine. I suppose others who use a personal hygiene bag could keep it in there - should I start using one then? Other alternatives are to have it with other, specific things like mosquito repellant or whatever. The point is, psychologically, for me and for others, it should be pretty much like mosquito repellant. If you see it in that context you don't think twice abuot it. 92.229.12.33 (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

also I should add that this is by no means a secret - I just don't want it front and center, the way I would, say, a cologne from a nice brand, which for better or for worse would leave others with a good association of me. 92.229.12.33 (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

How about keeping it in your sock drawer and taking it when you get dressed in the morning? --Tango (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

So stick it in the medicine cabinet, but put it behind the aspirin and/or other routine meds. At some point, your statement that "this is by no means a secret" conflicts with your apparent desire to keep it entirely secret. Just stick it somewhere non-obtrusive, and if others poke around and rediscover something (that's not a secret), so be it. If that is still problematic, either for you or for them, then it might be time to talk with your doctor about why it feels so -- to my very amateur mind (but one who's well acquainted with daily meds for formerly serious health conditions), the concern over this is quite out of proportion. — Lomn 14:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Buy a small, opaque plastic container (or if you think it's necessary, a small box with some type of key arrangement), and put your pills in that, throwing out the original pill bottle. you can leave that in the medicine chest. There is no way to hide anything from other family members, not for a protracted period of time; the trick is to present an innocuous facade that does not look like medicine and so doesn't remind them. --Ludwigs2 14:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly advise against ever storing pills in anything other than the container they came in. It makes it more difficult to identify them, so people may take them thinking they are something else (of course, one should never take pills that they aren't 100% sure are what they think they are, but plenty of people do). It also means they aren't stored with the dosage and safety information that is on the label. Finally, the container will have been chosen based on the storage requirements of the pills. A different container may not do the job as well, shortening the lifetime of the pills. (The only exception is those containers with the days of the week written on that people taking multiple drugs sort their pills into each week - since they are only used for short-term storage, it is less of an issue and the added convenience is worth the risk.) --Tango (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, all. Tango's advice is the one I'll be following, as it really addresses my question perfectly - he proposes something really really boring for anyone except the person who's socks they are, who however uses them daily. Socks also come when you travel, and in every other situation, unlike a medicien cabinet. Thank you, all other respondents but this question is now closed. 92.229.12.33 (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad I could help! --Tango (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I know this is resolved, but something else for you to consider. My first husband was an insulin-dependent diabetic, and he used to keep his insulin and needles in an old spectacles case. Perfectly mundane: many people keep them about their person or in a drawer: big enough to hold a hypodermic syringe without any questions being asked. _{However, he blew his cover somewhat by injecting in the middle of a crowded pub in Edinburgh - not the best idea!} --TammyMoet (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Gah, I wish I'd checked this page over the weekend. I STRONGLY recommend against hiding this from your family. If you're ever in a medical emergency, it's important to know what medications the patient is taking. And if you can't verbalize it, your family may be asked to let the ER nurses know what you're taking, to make sure they're giving the appropriate medication. You can't rely on the ER getting your medication list from your primary doctor on time. If nothing else, at least keep a list of your full medications in your wallet and make sure the family knows to get it from there. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Drugs in athletics

I recently watched a programme discussing drug enhancement in athletics. If an athlete who won a medal in a major games is caught using drugs a number of years later in an athletics meeting, can their medal be taking away from them? I believe Ben Johnson had his world record rescinded after he was caught cheating, but would an athlete have all their previous medals taken from them? Jack forbes (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe only medals and records that there is strong reason to believe were gained while the athlete was benefiting from the drugs are taken away. If they won medals before they started using performance enhancing drugs, they would keep them. --Tango (talk) 14:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I know that they are always playing catch up in identifying the new drugs that can be masked. Therefore, cheating athletes may have been using them long before they were caught. Jack forbes (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

They might, but I don't think they take away medals without some significant evidence. --Tango (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

However they may hold samples and test them again years later with new methods. According to [2] it's up to 8 years for the IOC. Nil Einne (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Marion Jones surrendered the 3 gold medals and 2 bronzes she won at the 2000 Summer Olympics when she confessed in 2007 to using THG in the relevant period, and her relay team-mates were formally stripped of their medals. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll point out for Tango that a confession probably counts as significant evidence Nil Einne (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Consumer rights in the EU

Supposing the developer of some software released an "update" that broke some of the features of the product (although fixed some previous bugs and added some features). Would they be required to fix them? What laws are relevant to such a scenario? And no this isn't a request for legal advice, it's a request for legal knowledge. Various websites on the subject only mention actualy physical goods such as chairs TVs etc.--92.251.158.49 (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

One piece of advice that can be given is that the license agreement for the software should be your first port of call when considering an issue like this. Specifically many license agreements do say that features of the software may change without notice. (and that you agree to it to proceed).87.102.43.94 (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Those license agreements may be considered unconscionable and not enforced in court, though. You can't really know if a particular contract is valid until it has been tested in court. --Tango (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed I was just getting to that - in the EU the "Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts" is the relevant legislation [3]. We don't seem to have an article on it. If you are in the UK then Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 is relevant, if not then you need to find how your goverment has implemented this directive. 87.102.43.94 (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know examples of specific cases which may set a precedent in this matter - it would depend on what EU country you are in to an extent.87.102.43.94 (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Beyond that I think more specificity would be required for a fuller answer - ie what country, what sort of agreement if any was entered into etc etc...87.102.43.94 (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

comment we definately can't tell you if they would be required to fix a broken feature - possibly someone could give you examples of legal cases that have occured that cover this issue (if they exist) - but the hypothetical answer cannot be given without speculation.87.102.43.94 (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

A general issue is Microsoft's practice of formally ending support of the Windows software it sells. At what point in buying a Windows Operating system did the buyer acquiesce in the software becoming obselete?

This is a more specific case. HP sold a printer/scanner/fax machine with own software to install under Windows OS. The software included the option to rotate the scan of a document in small increments of a degree or two, which is useful when one scans a book that is difficult to position exactly on the scanner. On the arrival of Vista the scanner software is no longer useable nor supported. There is instead a new driver in Paint for importing an image from the scanner. However Paint cannot rotate an image in small increments, only in 90 degree steps. Thus a function has been substantially reduced. HP support admit this and say in effect Go get some 3rd party software if you want that function back. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Bourbon Dauphiné

The Dauphiné was only ruled by the Dauphin, who was either the heir apparent of France or the King of France, if there were no heir apparent at the time. It was technically part of the Holy Roman Empire and could never be united to France. These seems the case throughout the House of Valois. But after Louis XIII of France becomes king, the succession boxes doesn't mention the King of France being Dauphin of Viennois afterwareds. Louis XIII should have remain Dauphin of Viennois until his son's birth in 1638, and after Louis XIII there is no more mention of the title; it only mentions Dauphins of France. Did something' happen between those time that made the Dauphiné of Viennois lose it's seperate status?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article Dauphiné is quite explicit. The autonomy of the Dauphiné was ended in 1457, because of Louis' opposition to his father, Charles VII of France forced him from the Dauphiné. The King took back the control of the province and forced the Estates to pledge allegiance in 1457, putting an end to the autonomy of Dauphiné.--Wetman (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

What about the Dauphine being removed from the Holy Roman Empire ? --192.147.55.3 (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The Dauphin was originally simply a garden-variety count; specifically the Count of Veinne. The title became that of the heir-apparent much in the manner that the "Prince of Wales" did for England; after all Wales isn't part of England. The title became that of the heir apparent when the last independent Dauphin sold the title, and the lands with it, back to the crown of France. The Viennois has a close relationship as well with Auvergne, which had its own "Dauphin" title as well. Remember that, prior to the late 15th century, France itself was organized more like the HRE than a unified kingdom, most of the counts and dukes operated essentially independently from their nominal Seignur. Also, the HRE and France were not completely mutually exclusive; they did "bleed together" at the edges, consider the two Burgundies (Duchy of Burgundy and County of Burgundy), the Charolais, which was a personal fief of the Habsburg family within France, the County of Provence was nominally part of the HRE for a long time, as was the city of Lyon, when it was a part of Savoy. --Jayron32 03:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Liberty leading the people help

In this painting, why are the woman's (liberty's) breasts showing? Does that represent something? And why is the dead man at the bottom left not wearing any pants?--92.251.146.25 (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

At the time of the French Revolution, Lady Liberty was usually displayed with her breasts exposed. I'm not sure why that convention arose, though it might be a reference to Joan of Arc, and it was certainly in line with French sensibilities of the time (the French Revolution had an early and strong women's liberation element). In fact, I believe the Statue of Liberty that France gifted to the US was originally designed with the robes draped differently to expose one breast, but that might just be a myth. As to why the guy on the left has no pants (and only one sock...), this site suggests it represents a man dragged from his bed and murdered by royalist soldiers, then dragged through the street (possibly by the dead soldier at the right). This is a very famous painting, though, and I'm sure you can google up a full analysis if you try. --Ludwigs2 21:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I tried googling I found something about democratic states being represented as suckling at the breasts of liberty, couldn't find anything about the man.--92.251.146.25 (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This site suggests that "the corpse without trousers on the left, with arms outstretched and tunic turned up, is another mythical reference, derived from a classical nude model known as Hector — a personification of the Homeric hero." Of course, we have an article on the painting. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah also read the article before comign here it doesn't say anything about that stuff.--92.251.146.25 (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I wondered if it might be a misinterpretation of the term Sans-culottes. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 02:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The French are not so prudish as some others are. Prior to the Euro taking over everything, a version of this painting appeared on the French 100 franc bill, of all things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It was the last-but-one 100 franc note, issued around 1980. Very nice banknote, though French paper money always struck me as being printed on considerably thinner paper than the British, Belgian, German, and Swiss notes I also used at that time! -- Arwel Parry (talk) 09:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You might want to read the article on the painter, Eugène Delacroix.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

My amateur hypothesis is that Delacroix is hinting at the maternal nature of Liberty. The infant French Republic is suckling at Liberty's metaphoric teat. I can't believe no one's yet linked to the painting's article: Liberty Leading the People. It doesn't answer your question, but some of the refs might. —D. Monack ^talk 02:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

No, likely not. Its just probably more likely a lack of prudishness regarding breasts. Breasts are not universally viewed as sexual appendages, and many cultures do not hold them as taboo, I find it much more likely that the exposed breasted woman is an homage to Greek and Roman style art, where exposed breasts were common (c.f. Venus de Milo). The late-18th and early-19th century were part of a neo-classical revival in the artistic traditions, (see Neoclassical architecture and Greek Revival architecture and Federal style). Consider this famous statue of George Washington from around the same time as the painting cited above. So, given that the painting was part of the neo-classical tradition, and the ancient greeks apparently had little problems putting exposed female breasts in art, it seems to be more the case than any intentional symbolism on the breast as nutritive... --Jayron32 03:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Popular fashions for wealthy Frenchwomen in the early 19th century were white, transparent Grecian-style gowns that practically bared the breasts. Some of the ladies even went around without underwear. See Thérésa Tallien.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

magnets

help meh, fuckin' magnets, how do dey work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.41.12 (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably the same way as anything that fucks - see sexual intercourse. You might also want to check out magnet. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

hmmm... I'm trying to choose between an old-timey AC/DC innuendo and a futuristic field theory one. what do you guys think? --Ludwigs2 21:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Or a childish internet meme: [4]. Buddy431 (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

We also just had this question: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2010_May_5#Fucking_Magnets.21. It's incredible how much heated scientific discussion was generated. Suffice to say, magnetism is not an intuitive concept. Buddy431 (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It's nice to see that the first response to both copies of the question was someone making the same intentional misinterpretation! At least we're consistent at some things! --Tango (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Presuming the question is for real:

1./ When ferrus metal is exposed to an electral field and the ferrus molucles are aligned, (this effect can also be produced by hammerig / beating the metal, particularly while still hot), then a magnet is produced; i.e. a ferrus metal attracting / repelling another.

2./ The only proof of magnitism is repulsion, as often static electricity will cause objects to attract.

'Hope this helps.

MacOfJesus (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

We seem to lack an article on sexual magnetism. DuncanHill (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Here it is ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Amory, I think you may have discovered a sexual magnetic monopole, there. I don't know whether to feel impressed, or sad. --Ludwigs2 04:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"The only proof of magnetism is repulsion, as often static electricity will cause objects to attract" That's ridiculous. Aside from the obvious fact that objects with similar net charges can also repel, there are many things that can differentiate Magnetic fields from Electric fields (though they are of course closely related). If you seriously want to know about magnets, you can read Magnet, Magnetism, Electromagnetism, and Magnetic field. There are a myriad of sub-articles on the topic as well. Additionally, to really understand magnets, it's probably good to understand Electricity, Electric charge and Electric Fields. Maybe throw in some of Maxwell's equations just for fun. I know that this question was asked in jest, but the sentiment expressed is valid; magnets are complicated and non-intuitive. It took people a long time (~2000 years) to go from seeing that certain rocks were attracted to each other to forming a good understanding of why they do. See History of electromagnetism for more on that. Buddy431 (talk) 03:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

No, this question was not asked in jest. My study of Hermeneutics tells me so. I was answering the question to someone who wanted a basic knowledge of the subject not an indepth, post-graduate, understanding of the subjects. As a hand rule for checking for magnetism, repulsion is the first "port-of-call". MacOfJesus (talk) 11:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"Woman is the most powerful magnet in the universe, and all [straight] men are cheap metal." -- Larry Miller. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Mac, you got trolled. Whatever the hell Hermeneutics is, it failed you. The "fucking magnets" is meme, taken from an Insane Clown Posse song. I can't link to YouTubewhile at work, but you can easily find it there. Also, someone linked Know Your Meme above already. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)