peri_renna

Recently, I discovered the existence of the Wollaston Medal for achievement in geology, awarded for exceptional achievement by the Geological Society of London. On reviewing the Wikipedia page, I discovered that this medal was awarded to Charles Darwin in 1859 - the same year that his famous "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" was published.

"On the Origin of Species" was published on November 24th, according to Wikipedia. When was the award given?

As an atheist, I am well aware that many vocal Christians would consider me an abomination unto the Lord (or something like that - I don't know the jargon), and I know there's quotes in the Bible that support that interpretation, but I was wondering how strong the basis for this was in modern Christian theology. Would anyone care to describe their opinion and its basis in scripture, tradition, &c.?

I was reading about the recent furor regarding the "Helix" Speculative Fiction Quarterly, and the word "pantiwadulous" came up. What does it mean? I haven't seen it used, nor can I find a definition.

There seems to be a persistent story on the Internet that the song "Shiny Happy People" by R.E.M. (featuring Kate Pierson on vocals) is a reference to a propaganda poster in China which could roughly be translated to say ... well, "shiny happy people" (possibly "holding hands"). It is also commonly said that the song is a reaction to the 1989 "June Fourth Incident" at Tiananmen Square in Beijing - sometimes also saying that the poster was about this incident.

To what extent is this account true? Or better: to what extent is this account corroborated in books, interviews, or statements about, of, or by the band or members thereof?

I don't know if this is a bad idea, but many times when I see someone ask a homework question, I'll not tell them the real answer - I'll just tell them a method. For example, if someone asked how to solve, say, 3x^2-7x+4=0, I would tell them that it was a quadratic equation and give them the quadratic formula

x = (-b +/- sqrt(b^2-4*a*c))/(2*a)

rather than tell them the values 1 and 4/3.

Is this appropriate? As a tutor, I imagine it would be more informative (teach a man to fish and all that), but on Y!A, ten people will hop in with the numbers while I'm typing up the answer - kinda defeats the purpose. Should I keep doing this, answer with the values plus method instead, or just skip it?

We all know the kind of question and questioner I'm thinking of - the person who asks a blatantly leading question, one where it is clear they are insensitive to any contrary opinion than their own. In fact, they usually just wait for someone to agree with them and select it as "Best Answer". Should we answer these questions? Is it worth our time to make a thoughtful response?

As a lifelong atheist, I am just about knowledgeable enough to tell if theology (a) makes logical sense and (b) agrees with what I already believe, but I imagine that a Christian, Muslim, Jew, or other religious individual would have something more than that for distinguishing good theology and bad. How is it done, then?

Both as a U.S. Boy Scouter and simply an individual concerned about proper hydration, I've often found myself carrying water bottles and/or mess kits in situations where they might be easily confused with similar bottles/kits owned by others. However, given that both of these items are regularly soaked, and often scrubbed, I have thus far found no more satisfactory means of labeling my own items save by scratching my initials into the material.

Has anyone figured out a reliable sort of labeling material and adhesive to use on regularly-washed items of aluminum, Lexan, or other commonly-used plastics?

In Chapter 3 part 2 of "Rogue Moon", a character makes reference to a play. Another character recognizes it; he says he read it in an English Lit course, and says:

- Merlin the Magician has made an invincible suit of armour. He intended it for Sir Galahad, but as he was making it, the needs of the magic formula forced him to fit it to Lancelot's proportions. And even though Lancelot has been betraying King Arthur, Merlin can't let the armour just go unused. So he calls Lancelot into his workshop, and the first thing Lancelot says when he comes in and sees the magic armour is: "What's this - new artifices, Mage?"

The play continues:

+ Aye. Armourings.

* Armouring? Sooth, Philosopher, you've come to crafting in your tremblant years? You've put gnarled fingers to the metal-beater's block, and hammered on Damascus plate to mime the armiger's employe?

--

The question: What play is this? Or did Budrys make it up?

A lot of the questions I answer go to voting - a lot of questions do - and I got to thinking about voting on those questions.

I mean, the purpose of the Yahoo! Answers system is to give correct information. Both voting and getting the best answer are mechanisms for rewarding this. But when you are voting on a question you answered, both these mechanisms work against you, encouraging you to simply vote for yourself. And given how many up-for-voting questions are decided by a single vote, I have to ask: does voting on your own questions contribute to the quality of Yahoo! Answers?

(Yes, the question has been asked a thousand times before - and that the system has already tried banning it and decided to restore it. Take pity on the poor question-asker. ;)

A friend of mine was playing pool at the university student union, and they had recently installed new red chalk for the pool-cues. The chalk ended up coating my friend's hands, and it didn't seem to wash off with soap and water. Is there a recommended method? He believes the brand-name to be Master Pool Chalk.

In Chapter 3 part 2 of "Rogue Moon", a character makes reference to a play. Another character recognizes it; he says he read it in an English Lit course, and says:

- Merlin the Magician has made an invincible suit of armour. He intended it for Sir Galahad, but as he was making it, the needs of the magic formula forced him to fit it to Lancelot's proportions. And even though Lancelot has been betraying King Arthur, Merlin can't let the armour just go unused. So he calls Lancelot into his workshop, and the first thing Lancelot says when he comes in and sees the magic armour is: "What's this - new artifices, Mage?"

The play continues:

+ Aye. Armourings.

* Armouring? Sooth, Philosopher, you've come to crafting in your tremblant years? You've put gnarled fingers to the metal-beater's block, and hammered on Damascus plate to mime the armiger's employe?

--

The question: What play is this? Or did Budrys make it up?