:::::Firstly, your definition is essentially a longer version of what Wrad said. But I still don't understand why you need arguments to be ''created''. If you don't understand any of the arguments in that list, feel free to bring them here individually. [[User:Zain Ebrahim111|Zain Ebrahim]] ([[User talk:Zain Ebrahim111|talk]]) 21:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
:::::Firstly, your definition is essentially a longer version of what Wrad said. But I still don't understand why you need arguments to be ''created''. If you don't understand any of the arguments in that list, feel free to bring them here individually. [[User:Zain Ebrahim111|Zain Ebrahim]] ([[User talk:Zain Ebrahim111|talk]]) 21:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
::::::In terms of what's available on WP, try looking at the articles in [[:Category:Arguments for the existence of God]]. You may find some helpful things there, although some of the articles are a little under developed. [[User:Pastordavid|Pastordavid]] ([[User talk:Pastordavid|talk]]) 21:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
::::::In terms of what's available on WP, try looking at the articles in [[:Category:Arguments for the existence of God]]. You may find some helpful things there, although some of the articles are a little under developed. [[User:Pastordavid|Pastordavid]] ([[User talk:Pastordavid|talk]]) 21:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
::::::Thanks a bunch. :) This is probably the closest thing to what I'm looking for.
Revision as of 21:38, 16 June 2008
Welcome to the humanities section of the Wikipedia reference desk.
The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
There are many biblical quotes that could be applied to this concept. Perhaps you could explain exactly what you want to find, or what you find lacking? WikiJedits (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is the cheapest camera you could use for an independent film?
I think you could use whatever you want. A $200 digital camera with video compatibilities? Or you can make it a sideshow and just use a disposable camera? Paragon12321 (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My camera cost about £60, and I'm sure there are even cheeper versions around, which can at least record pictures as a film. Or if you don't mind tedious work and have a lot of time, they do, or at least did, an offer here where you can buy a camera for I think about £5, then pay some tiny amount of money, I forget exactly how much, to have the film developed, and then afterwards they give you a voucher for a free new camera to take the next few pictures with. Although I expect a very cheep digital camera would still cost less than this, as you can record a few hours of stuff onto a memory card and there's probably a really simple way of showing stuff on it to other people.
And then I doubt you would even need a camera at all, you could draw everything and scan it onto a computer to organise it, or even create the entire film in Paint, one pixel at a time. Which probably breaks a world record for boredom. Money buys you quicker, easier and usually more fun ways of doing things, and often increases the variety of options you have to work with. Except Paint, in which technically you can do anything you could with an expensive camera if you know how. It depends what sorts of things you would need to create all the effects in the film.HS7 (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Senator with missing fingers
Which recently-elected US Senator is missing fingers, or has a serious hand injury. I was convinced it was Jim Webb, but it looks to me like he has all ten, so I must be confused. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.121.46 (talk) 03:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I remember The 70's As being pretty tough financially,and the economy as a whole seemed pretty lousy(Stagflation,energy rationing,etc) but as you read about wealth/service distribution in the U.S. today, the idea you take away is that over-all, economically, things are worse today, is there a way to find out if we are better off now than we were then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.111.85.37 (talk) 03:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simple measures such as comparing GDP and figures of that style will be a good starting point. That will show overall economic increase/decrease. Standard of living is much harder because local-economies/personal circumstances are harder to understand. You could compare a variety of figures and look for an overall-trend - say crime statistics, infant mortality rates, average life spans, average working hours, average free-time per week (as working hours have increased it is perhaps surprising to see that for many even though the hours of work have increased their 'free' time has also increased). A combination of those stats should help. Sorry can't do much research to answer Q at min but i'm certain there is a specific index/series of stats on standard of living just can't remember the name. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the numbers (such as GDP per capita), you will find that the average "standard of living" is higher today than it was during the 1970s. People can and do buy more stuff. They live in bigger houses, have more vehicles, more TVs, computers, and other possessions cluttering their bigger houses. Considered quantitatively, I think that you will find that the "standard of living" even of the least affluent quintile has at worst held steady since the 1970s, while that of the quintile with the highest income has increased dramatically. However, what these numbers fail to capture is quality of life. To afford this standard of living, people are working longer hours, and often a second or third job, dealing with mountains of debt, and sitting for hours in traffic. In the 1970s, many more households had a single earner (typically the husband) supporting an entire family. Today, both spouses have to work. In the 1970s, people had more time for social organizations and voluntary activities that might have given them more of a sense of connection. Today people arrive home exhausted from their long commute and sit, often solitary, in front of a computer or TV. So, while the "standard of living", measured in numbers, is higher today, I'm not sure that the same is true for the quality of life. You might want to look at Standard of living in the United States and this article on standard of living. Marco polo (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another important idea in economics is that people tend to gauge happiness relative to their peer groups, rather than relative to any absolute measures. Also happiness tends to exhibit "Decreasing returns to scale" (the more you have, the less valuable an additional "unit" of it is.)
These ideas combine to suggest:
1) Actual life satisfaction doesn't increase at a very significant rate, as a function of GDP per capita
2) More income disparity (lots of rich people, lots of poor people) means overall happiness would be lower at any given income level than if things were more equitable (lots of middle class people)
I do not agree that the U.S. standard of living is higher today than in the 1970's. Americans feel more economically stressed than they have in decades, however reassuring official government statistics may be. Wages are stagnant, fuel prices are up at a record rate, food prices are up, and home values have plummeted. [1] Several articles in major newsweeklies in the last couple of years have discussed the widespread observation that today a college graduate has less chance of "living the American dream" of getting a good job and a house in the suburbs. Wages for new college graduates have not kept up with inflation. [2] 50% more recent college graduates move back in with their parents than in the 1970s. Fewer get married or find a career appropriate to their education.[3] 42% of U.S. employers are only offering college graduates $30,000, or less which, combined with staggering college loans due to cutbacks in grants and scholarships, makes it impossible for them to achieve the independence they seek, and forces a prolonged adolescence on them.[4] It doesn't get better in the 30's than in the 20's. Americans in their mid 30's are almost three times more likely to live with their parents than in previous generations.[5] The "middle class" is shrinking. Less educated workers are far worse off, due to the widening disparity between the upper and lower socioeconomic strata, the shrinking number of unionized manufacturing jobs, the flight of jobs overseas and the influx of low paid workers from abroad. Edison (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the difficulties in comparing two eras so far apart is the enormous jump in technological innovation (he writes on the Wikipedia page in Hong Kong, which is then able to be read around the world in a matter of seconds.) And, along with innovation, massive deflation. Here's a neat example: in 1980, computing one million instructions per second (MIPS) cost about US$1 million. Today, maybe a penny, maybe less.DOR (HK) (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of gigaflop processors, HDTV and other shiny baubles does not make up for the declines in standard of living cited above. Edison (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking for a quote
I'm looking for a quote from British industrialism..
Two nations between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are ignorant of each other's habits, thoughts and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones or inhabitants of different planets; who are formed by different breeding, are fed by different food, are ordered by different manners, and are not governed by the same laws ... THE RICH AND THE POOR.
when hamlet said go thee to nunnery did he really mean it?
do u feel that it is the most cruel statement in english literature
whether he meant it or not?
remi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.88.252.28 (talk) 07:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Nunnery" was slang for brothel in Elizabethan times, so as well as telling Ophelia to go to be a nun, he could also have been suggesting she become a whore. Yes, it's a cruel statement. AndyJones (talk) 08:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In passing: it's "get thee", not "go thee", and in context, the admonition is clearly to become a nun, not to become a whore, since a whore can be "a breeder of sinners", while a nun would not. Hamlet is telling Ophelia to be celibate, not profligate.- Nunh-huh08:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He might be telling her to stay away from crazy guys like himself. Or maybe he is just pretending to be crazy in that scene because he knows Polonius and Claudius are spying on them. Or maybe he resents his mother's quick re-marriage and he's taking it out on Ophelia (why would he marry Ophelia when women are so fickle?). Or maybe he just really is crazy. The Hamlet and Ophelia articles might help. In any case, I doubt it's the cruelest statement in all of English literature... Adam Bishop (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Presidential pardon
May President Bush pardon senior staff members such as Karl Rove or Vice President Cheney as a preventive measure? May the president pardon someone who has not been indicted or convicted of a crime, but might in fact be indicted after the president leaves office? Jeffynelson (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as our article Pardon explains, the president may pardon any person of misconduct chargeable under Federal law whether or not that person has yet faced charges. When Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon, Nixon had not yet been charged with a crime. Marco polo (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your last question, pardons, as far as I know, are permanent unless for some reason the President says otherwise. Keep in mind, pardoning someone in the middle of a big investigation could be seen as implicating yourself. Paragon12321 (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does the USPS have special discounts for posting books within the US? How is the cost calculated? What is the procedure for it? Links would be very welcome. A Google search yielded no result for book post. Thanks in advance. Kushal (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's called Media Mail now. See United States Postal Service and Media Mail. Depends only on the weight of the package. There's also "Bound Printed Matter" rate, which is sometimes cheaper, as it varies by weight and distance. If sending things BPM, be sure to write "address services requested" on the package, as without this they are disposed of if undeliverable to the listed address, unlike media mail, which is forwarded or returned.John Z (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Modern Christians often speak about having a personal relationship with Jesus. What are the ways in which they would go about trying to develop or maintain such a relationship?
According to this website, it is more a matter of accepting certain assumptions and adopting a certain mental and spiritual attitude than of specific actions. However, according to this website, action, specifically prayer, is necessary for developing a personal relationship. Marco polo (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could I extend the question and ask if anyone has ever claimed to have had carnal relations with Jesus or to be in a somehow spiritual-physical relationship with the saviour? 200.127.59.151 (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any significance to this name, which is found on advertisements and promotional materials for many major credit cards and bank cards? It seems strange to me that several companies (Discover, AmEx, and several bank cards) use the same name, (though I suppose it's not too unlike the 555 area code). Was J L Webb anyone important, or is this perhaps some play on words that eludes me at the moment? Tuckerekcut (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Finding a U.S. Congressional Report
I was wondering if anyone would know where to go to locate a US Congressional issued report. The name is "U.S.S. Iowa tragedy : an investigative failure : report of the Investigations Subcommittee and Defense Policy Panel of the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, One Hundred First Congress, second session, March 5, 1990", if that helps. 129.108.97.112 (talk) 00:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is the punishment in Arizona for disturbing the peace? I went to court & could have just paid a fine but the judge said the he would make it easier for me and send me to screenings for anger management & alcohol abuse (I don't drink). Now, I have to go to classes for 12 weeks for one (2 hours each) and for the other one I have 2 days of classes (8 hours each). The screenings cost me $150.00 and the classes will end up costing me $340.00 by the time I'm through. My fine and court cost were only $240.00...together!
I would like to hear feedback on this because I do not understand how Americans think... I live in the US, and especially in my state, we have a lot of swing voters. In other words, they are republican one election, then republican the next. Are Americans so dumb that they vote based on things other then their beliefs? For example, I just read Obama is trying to get women who supported Hillary to support him. That kinda means that women ONLY wanted Hillary Clinton because she was a female. I know women who told me the only reason they would vote for her was because she was a female. I'm sorry and I don't know if I am allowed to say this, but why are people so stupid?
People want to impeach Bush now, wow what a great idea. Waste more money, it should have happened a long time ago. And you guys really believe he didn't know the planes were gonna hit the WTC? He just let it happen so he can get dumb people to support him for the dumb war we are having. If any of you have taken an American history class, you would have learned that we knew that Pearl Harbor was going to be bombed, the president let it happen so we could join the war. Same thing here, Bush knew we were going to get hit and he let it happen. You can be naive, you can be a fool, or whatever you wish, but he knew it. He just let it happen so he could make himself and his friends richer and steal more money.
One argument I've heard for switching sides at every election (in the UK) is that it "keeps them on their toes". Some people think that when a group of politicians have been in power for too long they start abusing the system and so the best way to conter that tendency is to constantly switch sides. 200.127.59.151 (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The official story is that the original manuscript has been eaten by ants and no longer exists, however, according to this source, there is speculation that it never existed. Marco polo (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we'll ever know. Some reports online claim that "he was said" to have been six feet and six or seven inches tall. Our article on Wallace Sword states: "It has been estimated that to be able to wield the sword Sir William Wallace must have been more than six feet six inches tall." One of the references, swordforum, doesn't actually support this claim, and the blade might have been replaced, and Wallace might not even have owned the sword. ---Sluzzelintalk09:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As Sluzzelin says above, we'll never know (unless someone locates the parts of his quartered body and measures his reassembled skeleton). Deducing a height from the purported sword is a waste of time. Firstly, it's unlikely to be his sword, since it is of a later style. Moreover, the sword has been altered during "restorations" with a replacement hilt, and some suspect it has been shortened. More significantly, there is no direct correlation between a man's height and his sword. While an untrained individual would find the sword hard (or impossible) to wield, a man of average height could fight with a sword of such length if taught how to wield it properly (in the medieval style), as any knight would have been (from memory, I believe that Sword Forum article describes the case well).
We can make some deductions, however. Early sources describe Wallace as a tall man, with the body of a giant. Even making allowances for dramatic hyperbole, we can at least take that to mean he was above average height. A height of over six feet is not impossible; the idea that medieval men were short is a myth which has gained credence from misinterpretation of architecture and antique furniture. Low doorways were an architectural custom, arising from defensive structures (where an attacker is put at a disadvantage by their need to duck in order to enter); in the late Middle Ages it became the custom to sleep sitting up, and beds were generally made shorter. Archeological finds indicate that heights were not so different from our modern heights. A study of a London urban skeletons puts the average at 5'8" for a man, and 5'2" for a woman (ref: John Clark, The Medieval Horse and its Equipment The Boydell Press, 2004, quoting a 1988 study by WJ White; to be fair, the source gives no specific date within the medieval period). A well-nourished, athletic knight such as Wallace would probably exceed the average. In an age when men were admired for their warrior-like attributes and physical prowess, Wallace was seen and presented as a hero, who was harder and tougher than anyone. He probably had the stature to go with it (think of a modern sports hero, if you want a comparison), but to reach some empirical feet-and-inches height is impossible. He might have been 5'10", or 6'10". But he would have been large, muscular, strong and athletic. Gwinva (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a short article on the so-called "Wallace Sword" in the interesting The Wallace Book, edited by Ted Cowan (ISBN 0-85976-652-4 for the paperback). David H. Caldwell wrote the piece, he's Keeper at the National Museums of Scotland. He notes that "no series scholar has in recent times been inclined to give the Wallace Sword any credence as the hero's own". Having said this, he doesn't reject the idea of an association between Wallace and the sword out of hand. The current sword is a 1505 repair job by one Robert Selkirk, and in no way resembles a sword that Wallace - an archer rather than a swordsman if his seal is anything to go by - might have used. However, the blade is welded together from broken shards which may, perhaps, just possibly, have been a C13th single-handed sword. "Does this offer just a very faint ray of hope for those who would believe this to be William Wallace's actual weapon?". Caldwell doesn't answer his own question. As to Wallace's height, nobody can truly know. Angus McLellan(Talk)18:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Economic food chain
Where might I find a diagram of an economic food (income) chain or web such as would show lenders "feeding" on government through loans required under a deficit policy that would include the government "feeding" on taxpayers and taxpayers "feeding" on customers, etc.? --Taxa (talk) 09:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Word comes with some good templates for little graphics like that. You just type in the words. Remember that, in most cases lenders (anyone with wealth saved (even if it's in savings accounts and mutual funds, the overall return on investment is heavily influenced by the availability of a liquid market for government debt)) are also consumers and tax-payers. Most people fit into every category to some degree. 24.68.228.182 (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for an article or a site that already has such diagrams rather than to create one (right now) for myself. Yes, while viewing a drawing or a big fish eating a little fish while that fish was going for a smaller one 'til finally you were looking at chain of organisms from the mouth of the big fish going to something chasing a bacterium up his you know what. --Taxa (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removing A Member from a Limited Liability Corporation (LLC)
I am in a LLC with someone. They want to run their own business now. This is fine. I want to remain an LLC without them. I also want to retain the name of the company as I did give the company it's name.
For the past 5 days I have tried to contact the company who did our paperwork and they have not aswered back. I have also written a letter with this request and the partners wishes, had it notarised, sent it registered with return receipt to that company and the other partner.
Where can I find info on how to dismantle this affair?
Thank you,
Dana —Preceding unsigned comment added by CICity (talk • contribs) 12:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. What do you think the world would be like if 9-11 never happened?
2. Why did the 9-11 hijackers put themselves at risk?
3. Who made up the fact that it was the Jews who did 9-11?
1. We'd all be a day younger; beyond that, your speculation is as good as ours. 2. See suicide attack. 3. The same sorts of people who blame the Jews for many of the world's other problems. --Sean13:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1)Conspiracy theorists would doubtless say that if the 9/11 attacks had not happened (they changed their minds and went home, they all got arrested, whatever), that some other event would have happened shortly thereafter which would have justified the same military moves and increases in military spending, changes in the balance of political power, and changes to individual rights such as the Patriot Act. 2)Suicide bombers and the like inevitably put themselves at risk. Demanding that people crash a plane and then getting off the plane rarely has the desired effect. Edison (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question about Frederick I, Elector of Brandenburg
Quote from article on the Hohenzollerns:
"Frederick entered early into the service of Austria and fought on the side of King Sigismund of Hungary. After he returned he divided the inheritance from his father with his brother John, who received Bayreuth while Frederick kept Ansbach. At first he tried to mediate in the imperial confusion between King Wenceslaus and the party of Rupert of the Palatinate, nevertheless he fought on the side of Rupert in September 1399.
He resumed his rule of Ansbach in 1409 and after heavy feuding entered into the service of King Sigismund. As a representative of Brandenburghe took part on 20 September 1410 in the election of Sigismund as Holy Roman Emperor in Frankfurt. In gratitude, King Sigismund made him Oberster Hauptmann and Verwalter der Marken (1411). With an iron hand Frederick fought against the rebellious nobility of the March of Brandenburg (in particular, the Quitzow family) and, in the end, restored security. Frederick also became a member of the Parakeet Society and of the League of Constance.
At the Council of Constance (30 April 1415) Sigismund granted Frederick the titles of Margrave and Prince-elector of Brandenburg. On 21 October 1415 the Brandenburg states meeting in a Landtag asked him to rule in Berlin. The king awarded him the formal enfeoffment of the margravate on 18 April 1417. As Frederick did not agree with the forcible action of Sigismund against the Hussites, relations between them cooled."
Question: if it was in 1415 that Frederick was granted the titles of Margrave and Prince-elector of Brandenburg, how was he representing Brandenburg at the election in 1410?
Actually, Frederick's brother John was margrave of Bayreuth. It was only a generation or two after Frederick had been granted the margraviate of Brandenburg that the Hohenzollerns' territories around Bayreuth would come to be known as the Principality of Brandenburg-Kulmbach. Our articles on Frederick and on the Hohenzollerns are not entirely accurate in stating that Sigismund allowed Frederick to represent Brandenburg at the imperial election. The throne of Brandenburg was in fact occupied at the time of the election by Jobst of Moravia. However, Sigismund had previously held the throne of Brandenburg and had apparently pawned it to Jobst. Sigismund disputed Jobst's right to the electorate in the election of 1410. According to our article Imperial election, in the election of 1410, Sigismund designated Frederick as his representative for the Brandenburg electorate, although his right to do so was doubtful. (Frederick had by 1410 for some time offered military service to Sigismund.) When the electors voted in September of 1410, three electors (presumably including Frederick) voted for Sigismund. Apparently at least one elector other than Jobst was absent at this election, but Sigismund claimed the throne. However, Jobst took part in a subsequent election in October of 1410, which resulted in Jobst gaining the imperial throne with a majority of four out of the seven prince-electors. When Jobst died a few months later in early 1411, Sigismund regained the throne of Brandenburg and was able to secure his own election as emperor. Sigismund in turn granted the throne of Brandenburg to Frederick in 1411. I will correct the inconsistencies in the relevant articles. Marco polo (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Desiderius Erasmus on kissing in England
I read somewhere that during his visit to England Desiderius Erasmus remarked about how much the English kiss each other. If I remember correctly he also said something cheeky along the lines of "even men and women kiss to greet each other, something I could definitely get used to!". Does anyone know where I can find this again? Thanks in advance! --Cameron (T|C) 14:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Erasmus, writing in summer 1499 to his poet friend Fausto Andrelini, in Italy, says: Here are girls with angels' faces, so kind and obliging that you would prefer them to all your muses. Besides, there is a custom here never to be sufficiently commended. Wherever you come you are received with a kiss by all; you take your leave, you are dismissed with kisses; you return, kisses are repeated. They come to visit you: kisses again; they leave you: you kiss them all round. Should they meet you anywhere, kisses in abundance; in fine, wherever you move there Is nothing but kisses." Erasmus, Epistle 103CWE I:193. --Wetman (talk) 05:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the Balanced Budget article the variables associate with the equations shown for Balanced Budget Multiplier are not indicated. What article names the variables for these equations? Also the article claims that the government does not add money to the economy under a balanced budget, which is false although the government is no longer a source of income for lenders. --Taxa (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are mostly standard economic variables that most normal people would never have heard of. Y is Income/Output (same thing), T is taxes, I is investment, G is government expenditure, delta represents "change in"... I guess that's all I can tell you for sure. I could only guess what the alpha or "c" are meant to represent.
You're right that much of the article is unclear and doesn't represent a full view. In many places it's plain wrong. The only way a government can add to, or subtract from, the money supply is literally printing it, or performing "open market transactions" (the buying and selling of bonds), which the Fed does in the US. I think what he means is that the government doesn't "contribute to aggregate demand" which is a macro concept from Keynesian economics. State and local governments cannot add to the money supply. Nor can businesses or individuals (banks KINDA can, by adjusting reserve ratios, but that isn't creating or destroying money, it's just adjusting the "velocity" of the money)
What the writer is trying to get at, I think, is fiscal policy and I think you'll find more relevant and correct information there.
That's part of why I wanted to check out equations it lists. While I have you on the phone... :-) another thing I am looking for are the equations that relate the variables shown in the chart entitled "Circulation in Macroeconomics" in the Macroeconomics article. --Taxa (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do my best. Alright, labour supply and labour demand are self-explanatory, and determine the 'wage rate'
Anything to do w/ T = taxes, to TH = consumer/household taxes while TC = corporate taxes
TR will be transfer payments which are usually made for equity's sake. So things like federal money that is redistributed to states or provinces (common in canada) which then goes to work in social services that benefit the households and corporations. I always think of transfer payments as being 'net' with taxes, if for no other reason than they are usually provided as income tax credits for ease of distribution. Except for services and goods of course (roads, schools etc.)
S = saving so SH is household savings and SG = gov SC = corporate and SF = foreign. It's the excess wealth that those entities have. They usually 'lend' the wealth out via a financial market, whether it be debt instruments (bonds), equities (stocks) or whatever. They are just ways that people who have excess income can provide that income to someone else who has productive uses for it.
I(nvestment) is the process by which that above savings is converted into "capital". capital is anything that makes labour or land more productive. Tools, machines, factories, even software etc. It usually takes an investment (from savings) to form capital, which in turn increases incomes (and hopefully leads to more investment and more capital and more income and on and on...)
the "commodity market" would be best split into three categories for "Capital", "Factor" and "Goods/Services" markets. Factors are the inputs used to make other things and goods/services are the things that people want. I already mentioned capital (notice there is a big difference between financial capital - money and economic capital - things that improve productivity)
Whoops, you wanted equations. Well some common and important ones are Y (income/output) = C (consumption) + I (Investment) + G (government spending, less taxes) + NX (net exports). This dictates overall income/output.
There are tons of ways the rest could be interpretted. Usually S = I (savings = investment) is important. uhhhh NX = X - IM. ummm these are definitional equations, but there are a lot of these lines that just represent how things flow. There are lots of academic papers and works that try to estimate how one has related to another in the past, but there are no rules. It's just important to know the linkages so if a policy maker makes a change in one area, she'll see how things flow outwards around it. NByz (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's what I am getting at... equations to create a basic online or Excel interactive simulation model for a Circulation in Macroeconomics chart: Circulation in Macroeconomics --Taxa (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you could look at each box and see what flows into or out of them, and just add them up. It would have to be for a set time period, like "1 year" or something.
So for Government you have [government surplus or deficit] = Th + Tc - TRh - TRc - i(D) [interest on debt] - G [government expenditures on goods and services]
For Households you would have [Household Net Savings or Deficit] = Ls*W + i(S) [interest on net savings(or debt)] + TRh - C - Th (edit: Also, in a very real way, government expenditures, G, act as income to households and corporations. Income referring to the flow of services that they get from the goods/services that government provides. Economists like to think of things in terms of goods and services, not money, in contexts like this. Money and financial investments just represent claims on future goods and services)
Labour Markets would be tricky because W = F(Ld) = F(Ls) (wage equals labour demand function of quantity demanded equals labour supply function of quantity supplied) (wage is the point where demand equals supply). Maybe it would be easier to avoid "stock" variables like "wage rate" altogether and stick with time-dependent flow variables like "total wages paid in the period" (sorry if i'm complicating this too much (with all the brackets()and additions and stuff))
It would be hard to find data estimates for the same specific time period for all of these things, but you could do it.
First, thanks for fully explaining the details by fully defining the variables. This makes it far easier and faster to model in Excel which I can eventually restructure to resemble or mimic the Circulation of macroeconomics diagram.
For the Workforce (labor) Market I've so far simply made new variables for the F(Ld) and the F(Ls) functions and conditionally set W to zero until they are equal. That way I can even use a random number generator to see how changes in their values effect the other values.
I assume then that I just follow this add and subtract pattern for Corporation, Financial Market, etc.
If you would rather add these yourself here then please do so since if there are additional complications I need to know them in order to produce a valid model. --Taxa (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also after having now created the model I can see how to setup a debit/credit column for each of the entities and enter each side of a link as in a convention balance sheet. Very interesting. --Taxa (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, since Ls and Ld are not monetary quantities but rather hours, whereas wages are in dollars, it seems that there should be a monetary wage payment link between household and corporation and household and government and household and household or am I missing something? --Taxa (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it would probably be better to use something like "total wage receipts" or something like that. That kind of information (or estimates) might be available from agency that controls income or payroll taxes in the country you're looking at. NByz (talk) 07:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the spreadsheet below all values were set to one and the formulas were replaced by equation results(top row). Some to the cell values have their signs reversed or may be in the wrong column.
The Labor or Workforce Market values and formulas are unfinished since I did not know if showing labor as both hours and dollars was correct for macroeconomics. Obviously a lot more things can be added like debt and interest on debt for government, corporations, household and foreign entities. --Taxa (talk) 05:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spreadsheet Model
=Th+Tc-TRh-TRc-iDg-G
=Ls*W+iSh+TRh-Cx-Th
=Y+TRc-Ld-Tc-Sc
=X-IM-Sf
=Ls+Ld-W
=Sh+Sg+Sc+Sf-I
=I+G+IM+Cx-Y-X
Agents
Markets
symbol
value
Government
Household
Corporation
Foreign
Labor
Financial
Commodity
surplus/deficit
net savings or deficit
net savings or deficit
import/export
surplus/deficit
capital
goods and services
incoming
outgoing
incoming
outgoing
incoming
outgoing
incoming
outgoing
incoming
outgoing
incoming
outgoing
incoming
outgoing
Income
Yield
Y
1.00
1
-1
Transfer Payments
Household Transfer Payments
TRh
1.00
-1
1
Corporate Transfer Payments
TRc
1.00
-1
1
Labor
Labor Supply (hrs)
Ls
1.00
-1
1
Labor Demand (hrs)
Ld
1.00
1
-1
function of labor quantity supplied ($)
F(Ls)
1.00
-1
1
function of labor quantity demanded ($)
F(Ld)
1.00
1
-1
Wage rate
W
1.00
1
-1
Taxes
Household Taxes
Th
1.00
1
-1
Corporate Taxes
Tc
1.00
1
-1
Savings
Household Savings
Sh
1.00
-1
1
Government Savings
Sg
1.00
-1
1
Corporate Savings
Sc
1.00
-1
1
Foreign Savings
Sf
1.00
-1
1
interest on savings
I(S)
1.00
1
1
Debts
interest on debt
i(D)
1.00
-1
1
Spending
Government Spending
G
1.00
-1
1
Investment
I
1.00
-1
1
Imports
IM
1.00
-1
1
Exports
X
1.00
1
-1
Consumption
Cx
1.00
-1
1
Spreadsheet Model Discussion
Wow, thorough! I don't have time to get to fully understand all of this before going to bed, but I noticed a couple of things.
Like you mentioned above, it may be easier to use W="total wage receipts" for this kind of thing. It's called a "flow" variable, and it requires a period of time (there has to be a time-range, not just a single time, which would be a "stock" variable).
Also, I'm not sure if it's the case right now, but everything that is "debited" to one agent's "asset account" has to be credited from another. Like I said, I don't fully understand your model yet, but it's just a good rule. In the case of something like "interest on savings", you have it accruing fully to government. Make sure the model can accept a Savings "% to consumers", "% to government" "% to corporations"
The first thing the spreadsheet exposed was the fact that the links between entities are in fact merely debits and credits or surpluses and deficits or incoming and outgoing values shown as a link on a diagram. Once I realized that this is the way the links should be treated it was down hill from there. The spreadsheet also exposed that savings, debt and their respective interests are unique links between each agent and the financial market so that problem is also solved. --Taxa (talk) 11:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure not to treat the "markets" (financial, commodity and labour [and maybe factor goods and services later if you want]) the same as the "agents (government, household, corporate and foreign) If there is 10 dollars of savings in the economy, it can only be owned by, say, $7 from households, $1 from government and $2 from corporations (no double-counting), but once you get into financial and goods markets, each dollar of value may have circulated through them a dozen times (both because of transactions going back and forth, and value being created through production).
I've regrouped the columns according to markets and agents. I would expect percentage of savings for each agent to be a value calculated from the ratio of each contributor to the total amount. --Taxa (talk) 11:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which brings me to my last point for tonight. I mentioned the thing about not doublecounting savings above. Well it's not exactly true. There is a little thing called the [Money Multiplier] (I don't understand why that doesn't have it's own article... it's pretty important.)
The money multiplier a result of the way banks work. What normally happens is that a person makes a deposit at a bank, then the bank tries to make money by lending those funds to someone else at a higher rate. Which means that a person's money isn't literally sitting in a bank somewhere, it's been lent out. Banks only keep enough of a reserve (the "reserve ratio") to handle the immediate needs of depositors wanting to get at their money. So even though the original depositor still has a claim to that wealth, the actual funds are being used by someone else. The actual amount of money (number of 'bank notes' or M0) never increases, but the 'money supply' (measured by M1, M2, M3, or the claims to money (see [| Money supplies around the world]) has increased. Effectively, there is more money in the system. The best part is, once person who took out the loan gets the money, she will usually deposit it in the bank too, so the effect is quite large.
I'm somewhat familar with the money multiplier effect but I am not sure it this is where the velocity of money applies, in other words if a borrower puts the money right back in the bank and it is lent out again and redeposited and so on and there are numerous claims on it over the week end then if on a Monday when everyone's projects begin if the removal of the money from the bank by the borrowers at high speed to go shopping is what the measure of velocity is. --Taxa (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm the velocity of money is the way that the total amount of money in the economy relates to the total value of transactions in the economy. Let's say that there is a two person economy with $100 in "money supply" and a whole bunch of goods that each person has. If no transactions are made, the velocity of money is zero. If person one buys $50 worth of goods from person two, the velocity is .5 ($50 of transactions / $100 of money supply). If person one sells that $50 of goods back to person one ($100 worth of transactions / $100 money supply), the velocity of money is 1. If they buy and sell another batch of goods ($50 ea way) the velocity is 2 ($200 in transactions / $100 of money supply) If the two of them buy and sell things back and forth over and over, they could get the velocity of money way up there. It's not really the same as the reserve ratio or "multiple deposit expansion" (which is a better term than "money multiplier"), although a higher reserve ratio makes it harder to get a high velocity. NByz (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that makes sense. So in the month of December when Walmart is making too much money to count it is because the velocity of money is higher than in August. 71.100.161.103 (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For some countries, like China, that maintain a currency peg that they have to honour (to the USD), increasing or decreasing the required reserve ratio is the only way that they can influence the economy via monetary policy.
This is another reason why economists like to avoid thinking about money too much when they are looking at flows like this. But you've got the right idea. I'm I've said too much NByz (talk) 07:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Getting back to the original question it looks like there might be an advantage to the Government having a net surplus rather than a deficit and that there might be a high probability that the argument made in the Balanced budget article would no longer apply under the circumstances of a net surplus. --Taxa (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't worry too much about that article... But yeah, a surplus is good. You should read fiscal policy for info on how the government uses deficits and surpluses to stimulate and even-out "aggregate demand" through the business cycle. Also there are a lot of benefits of having a big, liquid pool of federal debt instruments available to both act as a "risk-free" instrument (or as low risk as there can be) for portfolios, and a HUGE benefit for the Fed to be able to buy and sell those instruments to influence interest rates and the money supply. NByz (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People complain about high taxes and high oil prices so one reason for trying to expose the detailed relationships in a spread sheet model is so that people can have a better understanding of things like how transfer payments may be reduced if taxes are lowered, resulting in more pot holes or how low yield (high taxes on windfall profits) may result in lower supply and higher prices.
The whole purpose of an interactive model is to allow everyone from politicians to the ordinary guy in the street to see clearly the overall consequences of taking any action such as lowering taxes or reducing the supply of a commodity like oil. Also a standard model might likewise keep us all on the same page and better able to compare the benefits and risks of what each candidate has to propose. --Taxa (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not against that. However, since I am a person of limited capacity, interested in many subjects to the point that I require minimized and optimized dynamic online polychotomous keys for every subject over and above a degree to assure both depth of knowledge and speed of recall, I now prefer having a key to having a degree in the interest of time. --Taxa (talk) 22:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Holland Marsh Road Act - I cannot find anywhere, does anyone have this?
Greetings,
I live and work in the Holland Marsh and am curious where I can find more information on the referenced Holland Marsh Road Act as referred to in Wikipedia's description of the Holland Marsh. I have "googled" for the said legislation but have come up empty handed. I think it is an important link for Wikipedia to provide, granted that the information is available. If it is not, then this information should be removed from the description so as not to create frustration and confusion. However, I hope you have more on the subject.
It's worth noting that the final paragraph of Holland Marsh is an out & out rant. I'm not sure it qualifies as a reliable source. Meanwhile I've had a good hunt around various Canadian websites and found nothing. Very odd. --Tagishsimon(talk)22:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you call people from Abu Dhabi, Algiers, Amman, Baghdad, Beirut, Cairo, Moroni, Djibouti city, Kuwait City, Khartoum, Manama, Damascus, Nouakchott, Rabat, Tunis, Riyadh, San'a, Doha, Mogadisho and Muscat? In Arabic, I mean like for example Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.208 (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well not all of those cities are Arab or Arabic-speaking, but the ones that are would follow the same pattern as Tikrit: Ammani, al-Jaza'iri (for Algiers), Baghdadi, al-Qahirati (for Cairo), Kuwaiti, Dimashqi (for Damascus), Rabat, Tunisi, Riyadhi, Sanaa'i, Dawhati (for Doha), Muscati. I'm not sure abou Abu Dhabi, it would probably be th same since it ends in a long yaa. (Or would any of these take -iyya endings?) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-iyya is feminine or abstract. The "-i" suffix is known in Arabic grammar as the "nisba" suffix, and in traditional Christian Bible criticism as the "gentilic" suffix... AnonMoos (talk) 05:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Vikings mostly lived in climates that are cool or downright cold for most of the year. Sandals would not have been very sensible and therefore wouldn't have been worn much. Some Vikings were basically merchants, and some of those traded along the Mediterranean or Black Seas in warmer climates. No doubt one of those Vikings wore sandals at some point, but they were probably an exception. Marco polo (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is an interesting article on the net, here, discussing the extent to which the Varangians (Vikings) in Byzantine Empire have switched from their traditional clothes and footwear to the local ones. --Dr Dima (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Child porn conundrum
This issue was raised in my legal ethics class. We were discussing sex and the law and the subject came to child pornography. One of my students asked me if viewing child pornography was illegal. Of course, I said yes. But then he asked how anyone could prove that someone looked at child porn. And I said that a law enforcement expert would have to look at the pictures and verify that it is indeed child porn. But here's the problem... wouldn't that guy technically be breaking the law too? But in order to charge him, someone else would have to verify that he looked at child porn, ad infinitum. How does this work? --Goon Noot (talk) 04:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think generally you need a law that acts against something related, like making it illegal to acquire the pornography rather than looking at it. You could also consider the idea that officers of the law get a certain amount of leeway in performing otherwise illegal acts directly associated with doing their job - after all, if you didn't make these distinctions, you'd have to charge an executioner with serial murder! Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 05:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, don't the officers need to "acquire" (confiscate) the child pornography in order to determine its illegality?
It seems like many of the child pornography laws are based on thoughtcrimes, and because of the huge amount of emotion in the topic, there really isn't any chance of reform, is there?--Goon Noot (talk) 06:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a condundrum if you look into it. There's a false argument in the original query by the student with an "if...then" clause. The person carrying out the law (enforcer) is not acting "above the law" ie, using or acquiring something illegal for personal use and without the law being applied to them, but is carrying out the law: enforcing prohibition and is trained for that job. The latest sting in Australia netted a former Australian Federal Police (AFP) officer and a former Perth sports administrator with a nice explanation here[11]. So it's more than if you look, then... it's who's looking and for what purpose, and from what position (or as sociologists would say, what space: the personal, the public or from authority). Julia Rossi (talk) 06:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it any more of a thoughtcrime than conspiracy charges? No illegal action may take place but yet you can be charged with a crime (like planning to kill your wife and purchasing a gun legally). And I don't see why the level of emotion regarding the laws makes this particular crime a thoughtcrime. James Brady being wheeled out to promote gun control seems quite emotional. Families of murder victims pleading for the death penalty seem quite emotional. The fact that people today react with strong emotions says nothing about the prospects of legal reform. Try bringing a Constitutional amendment barring slavery in the early 1800s and there would surely be plenty of emotional outbursts (or giving women the right to vote, etc).--droptone (talk) 11:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of similar instances - for example the police are allowed to confiscate illegal drugs or guns in the course of their duties and it's not against the law.
On the other hand I was reading about a case during the building of the Canadian Pacific Railroad. A policeman had confiscated a barrel of illegal whiskey and afterwards taken it home to share with a few friends. The local judge found out and fined him and confiscated the whiskey. Then the policemen arrests the judge for posession of illegal whiskey and locks him up, hauling him before a judge of a different jurisdiction. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So should we stop law enforcement people from risky high-speed car chases of reckless driver, fighting with brawlers, kidnapping kidnappers, spying on spies, killing murderers, and robbing robbers of their ill gotten gains? Edison (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To enable a LEA to prevent, detect, and investigate non compliance with laws, the LEA is endowed with powers by its governing body which are not available to non LEA subjects of a governing body...Usually, these powers are only allowed when it can be shown that a subject is probably already not complying with a law.
So should we stop law enforcement people from looking at child pornography, risky high-speed car chases, fighting with brawlers or spying on spies? Not if it's done within their ambit. Kidnapping and robbery are crimes and and killing murderers is a tough one. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is important to note that many of the legalities of child pornography are based on the production and possession of child pornography. An investigator assessing the nature of the evidence is not in possession of the child pornography. Rather the legal entity who confiscated it is in possession, and is exempt from that part of the law under the assumption that it is investigating possible crimes of the originator of the evidence. Were the investigating officer to make copies of the illegal pornography for their own 'use', s/he would be putting him/herself at risk of charges, in a similar way to the policeman with the whiskey in Clayworth's example. There have been some police officers charged with possession of child pornography, arrested during sting operations, including one recently in Australia, although I think that police officer obtained the pornography from the internet, rather than from police-internal evidence. Steewi (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's almost impossible to look at an image which is not publicly available without possessing it in the process. If someone borrows it in paper or video form to look at it, they are in temporary possession. Even if they pass it on or give it back, they have still possessed it. And when an online image is viewed, it is temporarily downloaded to the computer, so the operator possesses a copy at that point. Even if they don't save a copy to the hard drive, in viewing it they have possessed it. --Karenjc20:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say Goon noot, your argument there is similar to your student's. For the sake of argument, it doesn't take the position, aim and stake of the role into account. See syllogism for premises. Some ethicists argue that when a person murders, say, they have forfeited whatever rights they had to "innocence. That's why laws are particular about the conditions, circumstances, reactions, culpability and degree, so that say, LEAs have to show the reasonability of their actions when a suspect is killed. It takes more thinking than a simple logical progression, otherwise you can end up saying, the cop was speeding/killing/watching porn so I can too. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the United States, at least, the relevant federal statute, 18 U.S.C. 2252A, does not criminalize viewing child pornography. Possession of child pornography is illegal when there is federal jurisdiction (e.g., through the use of interstate commerce). There are a number of related crimes, such as knowingly receiving or distributing child pornography. John M Baker (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recently in Australia there was some controversy over a photographic exhibition in Sydney.[12] I think the police were advised not to press charges.--TomDæmon (talk) 01:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Number of state legislators in the history of the U.S.
Any guesses as to the approximate total number of state legislators there have been in the states of the United States since their statehood? --Michael WhiteT·C17:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The number has to be in the hundreds of thousands. My guess would be 400,000 plus or minus 100,000. (My method: Assume roughly 400 legislators per state, average term roughly 8 years per legislator, roughly 50 states for the past 96 years. The biggest assumption is the average term. These assumptions yield 240,000 legislators from 1912 to the present. Before 1912, the number of states progressively decreases as you go back in time. Of course, in 1783, there were only 13 states. So I think that doubling the number from 1912 to the present would yield too high a number, even though the timespan between 1783 and 1912 is greater than the timespan between 1912 and the present. I guessed 400,000 because it is somewhat less than twice the estimated number since 1912.) Marco polo (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No your biggest assumption is 400 legislators. That is far too high. "The General Assembly has 253 members, making it the second-largest state legislature in the nation (behind New Hampshire)" from Pennsylvania General Assembly. "The Nebraska Legislature, with only 49 members, is the smallest legislative body out of the 50 states." from Wyoming Legislature. Rmhermen (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction, Rmhermen. I should have done more research there! Still, if we cut my estimate by two thirds, we still end up with a number over 100,000. Marco polo (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of these questions which might appeal to a dedicated datahound, since each state undoubtedly hgas a list of all its legislators. Of course there would be a few doubtful cases, such as names included in one list but excluded in another from the early days of a state, or perhaps certain records destroyed before the original legislative journals were copied or reprinted, or rump legislatures for a seceded state which were not really elected but appointed by the Union army, or which never met because the capital was occupied by the Confederate or British army. Another question would be if Joe Jones who served in the 1828 legislature was the same person as Joseph Jones who served in the 1838 legislature, but for a given state it would be less than a weeks work to compile or find a virtually complete list. If Jones was in one legislature, out of office for a while, then reelected would he count twice. like US President Cleveland being the 22nd and 24th president? State legislator lists would makes as much sense as articles with exhaustive listings of bus stops, highways, locomotive Many states probably have the info on line, or someone at the state library could find it readily, as for Maine going back to 1820 when Maine became a state, with the library having a card file for earlier members of governing bodies.[13]. Edison (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Welfare v. Money to poor people poll
I had heard somewhere some time ago about a poll that showed somewhere around 1/3 of Americans support "expanding welfare" or something to that effect. Meanwhile, another poll (or the same poll?) found that when the wording used was "giving more money to the poor," or something to that effect, support increased to about 2/3 of Americans. Does anyone know where I might find a source for this? --YbborTalk20:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)208.111.221.183 (talk)marriedlife
huntingandfishing
lawandorder
publisedbyyourcompanyin1942
wouldlikeinformationonthese
lithographs
dorothy
Take a look at these links [14][15] for information about Daumier lithographs. Please note however that this is not a company that publishes prints, it is Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit.--Eriastrum (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I often hear about how X Percent of Americans (or sometimes a specific sub-set of them) can't find a certain country on a map. Often said country is Iraq. Here are several examples of this:
My question is: What the heck are the showing people when conducting the survey? Is it a completely blank map of the world? A blank map of the middle east? A filled in map with names, and a time limit?
If it's a blank map, do you get partial credit for hitting a contiguous country, but not recognizing the precise shape of Iraq as opposed to Syria?
What does this classic factoid tell us, if anything about Americans? Is finding a country on a blank map a skill usually taught in school? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.24.148 (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The map in question is shown on page 24. It is a map of the Middle East and surroundings showing borders, and names of bodies of water, but not country names. --Lambiam22:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked as a substitute teacher in a large urban school district in California, and I've often come in to teach a social studies class in which the teacher has left me 30 copies of a blank map with a list of names on it, with instructions for me to have the students fill in the listed names in appropriate places on the map and to collect them and return them to the teacher's mailbox. So yes, this is a skill usually taught in school. Sometimes this is a quiz; sometimes it's a lesson plan if I come in when the students aren't quite ready for the quiz yet. arkuat(talk)10:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The leading geography textbooks in the United States include quizzes that require students to identify places on blank maps. So it is part of the curriculum, but this kind of skill isn't highly valued in U.S. culture, and so many students don't retain what they briefly learn. Marco polo (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard it said (but don't believe it myself) that the US Foreign Policy is the government's way of teaching geography to the Americans. Richard Avery (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to have failed then since most people still don't know where Iraq and Afghanistan is. I guess it's not surprising when your president didn't know Brazil is big and a leading presidential candidate doesn't know much about the borders of Pakistan/Afghanistan Nil Einne (talk) 12:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The OP asks: "What does this classic factoid tell us, if anything about Americans?". Coupled with other factoids like "Fewer than x% of Americans have passports", it is sometimes used to suggest that Americans are less worldly-wise than us Europeans. Astronaut (talk) 11:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do libraries handle books classified based on different editions of the classification schedule?
How do libraries handle the situation in which different books in their collections were classified based on different editions of the same classification schedule (say Dewey)?
Do they continue to shelf the books based on the originally-assigned classifications, even though changes in the classification schedule would have given some books different classifications? Or do they periodically re-classify (& re-shelf) the books in their collections to reflect changes in the classification schedule? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.241.23 (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My university library has books in different collections classified by no less than three systems (Library of Congress, Dewey and Harvard-Yenching) and probably more. If collections are merged, only one classification system would be used, but it is more likely that they would be kept separate so that the difficult job of reclassification is avoided. Thanks to the Library of Congress online catalogue, WorldCat and so on, finding the correct classifications for books in different systems is a lot easier than it used to be. Steewi (talk) 01:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In a standard community library, there is a lot of turnover in the books. So, reclassifying a book isn't really necessary. It will be removed from the collection eventually. In the case where books are retained indefinitely, there is no harm in moving a book to a new stack. Anyone looking for it will find the current location in the catalog and easily find the book. -- kainaw™15:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've also seen some libraries use placeholders on the shelves for books that have recently been moved because of one reason or another. I don't recall if it was for reclassification, but sometimes libraries will put markers on the shelf directing people to different but similar topics. This is mostly done for countries other than the US who use older systems when dealing with national topics(government, history etc). They'll use the more indepth numbers given to to US for their own particular country, because that's likely where their collection will be focused, with a smaller section for the foreign US. I could also envision this being done in regards to religion, where Dewey, for example, gives a vast range for Christianity, but relatively small ranges for other religions. I think recently most editions have changed to give proper room for expansion, though.142.33.70.60 (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know when it was changed, but the old Dewey system that I learned in the 80's considered Religion to be Christianity and Judaism. All other religions went in Philosophy. So, it wasn't just relatively small ranges. Other religions were shoved right out of the religion section all together. -- kainaw™00:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would be most grateful if a user could please answer the following question: In 1959, an unmarried mother in England decided to hand over her newborn child for adoption - (the father, a non British subject, had left Britain and did not even know that the child existed). The adoption agency found a suitable couple and duly informed the Children’s Department of the Local Authority about the proposed adoption and a Guardian ad Litem was appointed. Suppose the adoption agency had wanted the child to be circumcised . Who would have had to give consent: a) before the Guardian ad Litem was appointed, b) during the period when the Guardian ad Litem was acting (namely, prior to the Court making the Adoption Order) and c) after the Court had made the Adoption Order in favour of the adoptive parents? Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure sounds like a request for legal advice, which the rules for the Reference Desk do not allow anyone to provide. Why do you pose such a question? Edison (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, Edison is saying the question posed asks for a legal opinion, which we cannot provide. I can't even imagine why an adoption agency would ever want to do this. I'd have thought it was an issue for the adoptive parents to consider. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am researching a purely historical event which occurred NEARLY FIFTY YEARS AGO and am trying to ascertain who arranged the circumcision of the baby and hence who had to give the consent. It is not asking for legal advice. Simonschaim (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
African tribe
I recall seeing a television program some time ago about a tribe of black Americans that defected to Africa to "live forever". They only ate natural foods, exercised daily and just focused on taking care of their individual bodies. What were they called? Is there a wiki article? --EndlessDan12:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your quick response. It may have been the African Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem. It was a fasinating story and I always wanted to read more about this group. Are there any other groups similar to them (black or otherwise) that have left the US to form a commune/group/tribe/whatever in another part of the world? --EndlessDan12:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
causes and consequences of fortunate or unfortunate actions
Who said of the study of history (or his own work) that its purpose was to determine "the causes and consequences of fortunate or unfortunate actions"? I've done a bit of googling, but it hasn't produced any results. I'm fairly sure it's someone famous, like Gibbon, Burckhardt, Vasari or Thucydides but I can't find a reference in their books. thanks, 203.221.127.19 (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've drawn a blank on this, closest I get is Gibbon's famous "register of the crimes, follies, and misfortunes of mankind" and Voltaire's "Indeed, history is nothing more than a tableau of crimes and misfortunes". Mhicaoidh (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is rape worse than murder?? (Legal)
I have seen that many countries punish a rapist with death and a murderer with jail, fines and lashes but not death (Iran, UAE, etc). Why??.
Is rape a worse crime than murder? Thank you a lot. Maru-Spanish (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the specific answer to why those countries do that, but you would have to consider rape in the context of the preservation of women's virtue, and the protection of what may often be seen as men's property. Rape has, at times in Western history, been defined as a crime against a man, ie. the victim's husband, making marital rape difficult to prosecute (an ongoing problem, to the best of my knowledge). On a purely ethical level, regarding your separate question of which is actually (absolutely) worse, you have to remember that almost every crime perpetrated by humans against each other is also carried out in its own way by nature: time and accidents kill, the elements wreck our homes and steal (more accurately, destroy) our property, and the truth itself can defame us, but nobody other than a human ever rapes another human. It doesn't prove any particular case, but it is a significant factor (to me) in the ethical debate. 203.221.127.19 (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some societies view any sex outside of marriage (including those who are raped) to mean that the woman's soul has been lost. In that case, it's considered a worse crime than murder, where their soul presumably is still safe. StuRat (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It could be that rape in a particular cultural environment would cause more collateral damage than murder. It is possible that a rape might inspire a greater desire for revenge among a larger group of people than a murder would. A rape could be seen as not only being a crime against the woman but also, as was previously mentioned, a crime against her husband and perhaps even a crime against the grandparents of her potential offspring.
Also if one considers that there may be some genetic factors involved with being prone to becoming a rapist. The rapist would be seeding said family and society at large with a tendency towards extreme antisocial behavior again causing more ongoing collateral damage than murder. 71.231.122.22 (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
welfare states
Considering welfare states, are the most successful ones richer, more compassionate, or better organised? I know this involves at least some conjecture and opinion, but often people can provide a lot of meaningful analysis on the humanities desk, so I thought it would be worth seeing what people think. thanks, 203.221.127.19 (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a good argument that certain 'human development' standards are a prerequisite to development (health, education etc.); welfare states tend to provide these. Also there is an argument that income disparity decreases efficiency because people become fractionalized or disenfranchised; the welfare state 'takes from the rich and gives to the poor' (both in terms of money income and income of goods and services).
There is also the possibility that high income states are welfare states because they're high income (easier to sell politically). Not that they're high income because they promote welfare economics. NByz (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of the terms you used have clear definitions, so the quality of my answer will be a function of the similarity of the measures I use to your specific meanings. The Heritage Foundation rates countries on the basis of "economic freedom" where, in general, more welfare = less economic freedom (because the state confiscates income from the people to pay for the welfare programs). If you compare HF's economic freedom measure to average per-capita income, you'll see that (on average) countries with more economic freedom (i.e., lesser welfare) have higher average incomes. The counter-argument to this is: "but what if the higher income is concentrated in the hands of a few." If you compare countries per-capita incomes to their income distributions (the "gini coefficient"), you'll find that (on average) countries with higher per-capita incomes have *more equitable* income distributions (dollar figures are adjusted to account for differences in costs of living across countries). Short answer: This evidence does not refute the position that welfare states are less successful (via lower average per-capita income) and less compassionate (via less equitable income distributions). Wikiant (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not true that states rated low in "economic freedom" by the Heritage Foundation are welfare states nor that states rated high in "economic freedom" are not welfare states. For example Burma/Myanmar and many African nations are low in economic freedom not because they are redistributing income from the rich to the poor but because a kleptocratic elite keeps most of the population from advancing. The lowest country on their list is North Korea, which is hardly a model welfare state. Instead, this fits the model of a nation ruled by a kleptocratic elite. On the other hand, many of the top 20 most "economically free" countries (on their list of 157 countries) are frequently described as welfare states (e.g. United Kingdom, Denmark, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Finland, Belgium). As you've said, countries high on this list tend to have high GDP per capita. However, many of them are also commonly considered welfare states. One of these, Luxembourg, has a higher GDP per capita than the United States. The top countries on the Heritage Foundation list are Hong Kong and Singapore. Both have extensive social welfare programs. So the Heritage Foundation rankings of "economic freedom" hardly support an argument that social welfare programs cause poverty.
This goes back to the issue of defining terms. "Welfare state" doesn't have a clear definition. For example, a state with mandated retirement benefits and a state with minimum wage protections might both be called "welfare states," but the economic impact of the two types of "welfare" are very different. Wikiant (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the original question, yes, of course the more successful welfare states are richer and better organized. Whether they are more compassionate than other welfare states is really impossible to answer since compassion is a very subjective quality. Marco polo (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are richer though sometimes not better organised according to this documentary by Washington Post foreign correspondent T.R. Reid, Sick Around the World[16] and sometimes compassion is measured by a government's active care towards its citizens and by its politico-financial priorities. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How much do you know about history?
I need to know where a bomb landed in America.It came form the Japanese and ws launched during WWII.it didn't blow up until a few years later.I need to know the state and city it landed and exploded in.Mr. GreenHit Me UpAbout Me18:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about the years later part but the bombs launched from Japan were fire balloons. The article says " last known discovery of a functional fire balloon in North America was in 1955 - its payload still lethal after 10 years of corrosion. A non-lethal balloon bomb was discovered in Alaska in 1992." But nothing about any exploding after the war. Rmhermen (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably looking for the balloon that landed in Bly Oregon. See Balloon_bomb#Sole_lethal_attack. But I don't think that bomb was stuck in the tree "a few years", I think a couple of days is more likely.
Is there a name for this kind of fallacy/rebuttal?
For example, if a person argues "Abortion is wrong because the fetus could be the one who found the cure to cancer", I can argue that "It could also be the person who starts WWIII..."
Another example:
Person 1: "The government should listen to the protesters, because it could lead to democracy."
Person 2: "without the necessary condition for democracy, the country could also fall into chaos..."
So the point is, something cannot be proven right or wrong when there's an equal chance that it might have a positive/negative result. So does this fallacy/rebuttal have a name?
Cecikierk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.201.139 (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about a name, but I'd like to note that, just because both postive and negative outcomes are possible, that in no way means that both outcomes are equally likely. Otherwise this could lead to some absurd results: "We'd better nuke Washington, just in case the next Hitler is there right now". StuRat (talk) 04:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem is there is no good way to assess the probability that a fetus will grow up to be the one to cure cancer and whether or not making abortion illegal will have any non-negligible effect on this probability. This reminds me of the butterfly effect. In chaotic systems (which I think is a good representation of how reality behaves), a small change in initial condition can eventually propagate and have a major effect on the outcome. Because we are non-omniscient and therefore don't know the exact initial conditions or how chance events (quantum mechanical uncertainty) will play out in the future, our predictions become more and more uncertain the further one moves forward in time. This begs the question "Will making abortion illegal make it more likely that someone discovers the cure for cancer sooner." This probably fits the fallacy of questionable premise because if the premise is weak or unprovable then the conclusion is also going to be weak or unprovable.
(I am not trying to take a position for or against abortion by the way) 71.77.4.75 (talk) 06:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
veil of ignorance touches on this (The West Wing discusses on this in "Red Haven's on Fire" [17] to argue for a progressive tax policy). In general policy makers don't know what results their decisions will have, or even the relative probabilities of success (in part due to chaos and complexity, as noted above). So decision makers operate behind a veil of ignorance, whether they like to admit it or not. 87.114.23.84 (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's rare to find a "pure" example of any kind of fallacy - several usually apply. For your example, I would think that Appeal to probability is the main term you're looking for, but Nirvana fallacy or Perfect solution fallacy (which are similar) and perhaps Misleading vividness would also be appropriate (that last one especially for the abortion debate). There's a long list to browse at List of fallacies; apparently people just love coming to the wrong conclusion and are very inventive in finding ways to get there! Matt Deres (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't post this earlier because someone semi-protected this desk,
but this question has also been asked on the language reference desk.
Over there I [or someone else using the same name :-)] have argued that
what we're talking about is proof by example. The person gives an
example of why something might be bad (or good), and concludes that it is
bad (or good). --Anonymous, 23:22 UTC, June 14, 2008.
Number of backyard bomb shelters
Does anyone have a rough estimate of how many people built home fallout shelters, or otherwise substantially prepared to survive nuclear war, in any country during the Cold War? ~~ N (t/c) 07:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the U.S., so far the only number i can find is a 1960 estimate by Leo Hoegh, director of the Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization, that more than one million families had constructed some type of fallout shelter. That number seems unreasonably large, the estimate was prior to the Cuban Missile Crisis and the OCDM was arguing for a program to provide fallout shelters for every American by 1965.—eric02:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall, President Kennedy urged Americans to build the shelters around the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and around that time many public building's basements were identified as public fallout shelters and got water and food and radiation monitors placed in them. Before that, and after that, it was the truly odd bird that built one. Anyone who built one was wise to keep it a secret. to avoid the neighbors breaking down the door if an attack was actually imminent, as in the Twilight Zone episode The Shelter. Edison (talk) 04:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although probably less that 1,000 in number in the past decade one pastime of the eccentric rich has been to purchase vacated Titan and Atlas missile sites. However, many of the smaller Nike sites which have been abandoned have filled ground water and number less than 10,000. Prices range from $140,000 to $3,000,000 more or less. None were available, to the best of my knowledge, for private buyers during the cold war. BTW - Congress and other branches of government have very well stocked shelters somewhere on the planet. -- Taxa (talk) 05:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sergei Kurasov
Korolyev and "Kurasov"
The Sergey Korolyov article shows a photograph of his tomb in the Kremlin Wall Necropolis (shown to the right of this question). Beside Korolyov's tomb is another; if I transliterated the text correctly it's of someone named Sergei Kurasov. I can't find any mention of anyone of that name, so I guess I've messed up the transliteration. Whose tomb is that? THanks. 87.114.23.84 (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How can some of those late night infomercials be legal?
Without naming names here, I have to ask how some of those infomercials can legally say what they say (get rich with no money down!, this will cure every disease!,etc.)? At least some of those can't possibly be legit. Is there some small print or some weasally way of stating these claims without getting into trouble? I've seen numerous complaints about them on other websites , but maybe they're just jealous of the thousands of rich and disease free people that responded to those ads? --Hey, I'm Just Curious (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They'll often flash a 0.5 second subtitle disclaimer such as "results may vary" or "consult a physician". But yeah, in the USA the FCC is totally asleep at the wheel when it comes to policing infomercials. Rhinoracer (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is that government no longer has any particular interest in evaluating the truth of advertising. The ads that amaze me are the half-hour ones for a pill to increase your penis size. They must be raking it in, despite the obviously false claim, and no one bothers to shut them down - or take action against those enabling them by broadcasting that sort of nonsense. Less amazing are the ads that don't make any claims at all ("Head-on! Apply directly to the forehead!") An actual complaint from a defrauded consumer might get some measure of action, but there don't seem to be any pro-active governmental programs.- Nunh-huh17:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to joke about "who in their right mind would file a complaint about the failure of penis-enhancement pills". In the US private litigation (as opposed to government regulation) is the general means of policing such matters. Infomercial advertisers are very often shell companies with little in the way of worthwhile assets. The company that bought the airtime, and with whom your transaction is made, don't make the product (or indeed don't even make the ads or other promotional material - they get that from the manufacturer). They outsource the website and call center and financial processing and the fulfillment (that's mailing and stuff) to a bunch of dedicated (and perfectly legal, if a tad low-rent) outfits. Watch the ads really carefully - while the ad for PhalloPharm looks like you're buying from the manufacturer, check the "send money now" card (which often has mismatching fonts, graphics, and voiceovers) and you'll be asked to send money to ABCD Products at a POBox in Nowhereville, KY. Watch again a few weeks later and you'll see the same ad but placed by a different outfit. Like internet spamming, once you've got the infrastructure down you can run dozens of these outfits concurrently; as long as you charge the amount you said and send the stuff you promised to then you're not breaking the criminal law. If someone is dissatisfied their beef is legally with ABCD not PhalloPharm, and by the time they've got the paperwork drawn up ABCD has been wound-up. Even if someone could sue them in time they'd find that ABCD made no profit and had no assets - it was working through XYZ wholesale, and unless someone can prove that ABCD is really a shell for XYZ (and given that they're all cross registered in offshore havens that's difficult) litigation won't recover any assets. -- 87.114.23.84 (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They seem to be able to get away with stuff late at night that would never be countenanced in prime time. My current favourite (if that's the right word) is the one that asks you to SMS your name and your partner's name, and they'll tell you whether or not he/she is cheating on you. Just based on your names. I mean, really!! -- JackofOz (talk) 22:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the US, government "consumer protection agencies", such as the FDA, have completely sold out to the corporations they are supposed to regulate, and, as such, those corporations have nothing to fear. Even if they manage to kill large numbers of people with their faulty products, which were approved based on fake research and bribes to government officials, they aren't likely to suffer any consequence from the government more severe than a minor fine/slap on the wrist. The same is true of the government officials who took the bribes. StuRat (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At least in the UK, I gather there is a principle in consumer law that as long as it is reasonable to expect the average person to realise that the claims are false, it doesn't matter. Of course, what is considered reasonable for the average person to work out is arguable. Certainly, a Pot Noodle ad that claims Pot Noodles are mined in Wales is pretty safe, and I suspect a lot of shampoo ads rely on people expecting the science to be meaningless babble, but what about the penis enhancement ads? It's all rather grey... 79.66.60.129 (talk) 04:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've heard that the "pill to increase your penis size" folks make money by scrupulously refunding customers with checks stamped, in giant letters, " PENIS STILL SMALL "John Z (talk) 08:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A few points: in the U.S. the relevant regulatory agency for these infomercials is the Federal Trade Commission, not usually the FCC or FDA. The FCC doesn't investigate fraudulent claims and has almost no authority over cable channels. The FDA can only get involved if certain medical claims are made and isn't authorized to regulate nutritional supplements. The FTC does sue a lot of the companies that sell stuff on infomercials (see enzyte for a recent example), but litigation is can be lengthy and complicated. The First Amendment means regulators can't simply ban commercials that sound too good to be true, they have to prove fraud. --D. Monack | talk21:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I’m looking for some biographical material on Mary Faulkner, in particular her dates of birth and death. She’s listed by Guinness (or was at some point) as the most prolific author in history, with 904 novels to her credit, under various pseudonyms. All I can find about her is that she was born in 1903 and died in 1973. She seems amazingly little known for such a prolific and record-breaking writer. She doesn’t even make it onto our List of South African writers. Does anyone have a source with the details I’m after? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not surprised. If we assume that she wrote over a 50 year career, that's some 18 novels a year, or 1.5 per month. I'd be surprised if novels written so quickly would be very noteworthy, other than for their volume. Quality control takes time, after all. StuRat (talk) 01:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe none of her novels was individually noteworthy (I wouldn't know, I've never read any of them), but her getting into the record books was all it took for Wikipedia to consider her notable as a person. Surely she must have had a dedicated readership, otherwise her publishers wouldn't have kept on churning her books out for so long. That in itself means many people would have been interested in her details; hence, my surprise that they seem to be non-existent online. Perhaps she was just very private and never revealed her birth date. But at least her death would surely have been reported in the media. Somebody must know something about her. But who? -- JackofOz (talk) 02:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Intriguing, isn't it Jack? Here are a few more smidgeons of info from following her nom de plumes: Kathleen Lindsay, may have lived in WA! [18], Hugh Desmond, crime writer, lived in Aust and NZ! [19] Margaret Cameron, includes plays and nonfiction [20] One reason for her prolific output is indicated in the fantasticfiction site: as Margaret Cameron she published her first novel before she had turned one, and produced ten novels before the age of ten! Wait, theres more: Bead Threading and Laying: An Occupation for Young Children (1900) was conceived and produced even before she was (1903)... Are these dates incorrect? Or confusion of two authors? Or is it a mother/daughter team? There is a Masters thesis in this for some one Mhicaoidh (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The plot thickens. A tough case. Among other old books, Amazon has this a romance novel (re)published in 2007, probably by her. Books by her might have an about the author page, the publisher would have to know a bit about her. This 1990 usenet post quotes the Guinness info - noting it appeared in the 1984 edition, but not the 1989 edition - "The greatest number of novels published by any author is 904 by Kathleen Lindsay (Mrs. Mary Faulkner) (1903-73) of Somerset West, Cape Province, South Africa. She wrote under six pen names, two of them masculine." It seems most likely her real name was Kathleen Lindsay, and Faulkner her favorite pen name. Searching for obituaries at the New York Times and the timesonline.co.uk yields nothing under either name for 1973, although, remarkably all the NYT articles on "Kathleen Lindsay" yield Fall 1903 references to a Capt. and Lady Kathleen Lindsay, the captain being "well known in Ireland as one of their best polo players." Parents? South African newspapers could/should have something in the obituaries. Google books yields this for Kathleen Lindsay: [21] (one might have to look at the book to find the source for this data). Together with Mhicaoidh's Australian data, this gives a few solid things for an article.John Z (talk) 08:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
30 cats! My work computer has access to AustLit, here is the full text, I will put it on the article talk page too. Note she was born in Britain and her husband's name may yield more info. There was no info under pseudonyms or Mary Faulkner. AustLit : Lindsay, Kathleen. Also writes as: Cameron, Margaret; Desmond, Hugh; Richmond, Mary; Waring, Molly. Born: 1903 Aldershot, Hampshire, England. Died: [1973]. Gender: Female. Biography: "Kathleen Lindsay was a prolific author of historical romances. She was educated privately at the Convent of Sacré Coeur, Paris and the Sakkakini Convent, Cairo. A resident of South Africa later in life, it is probable that she lived for a time in Western Australia, as she contributed to the Western Mail. In a review of Lindsay's Here in Eden, the Bulletin's Red Page critic suggested that she 'appears to be an English authoress who has looked up some of our history at the Perth and Melbourne public libraries...' (July 25, 1951). In the acknowledgements for Loyal Lady (1965), Lindsay thanked F.L.W. Wood [Frederick Lloyd Whitfield Wood], whose Concise History of Australia (1935), given to her when she visited Melbourne in 1949, had been 'of the greatest help' when planning her Australian novels. Lindsay dedicated some of her books to her husband, Percy Edward Jeffryes." Mhicaoidh (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's great sleuthing; thanks, Mhicaoidh and John Z. Compare Guinness's 1984 entry quoted above with the 1986 entry (differences underlined): "The greatest number of novels published by an authoress is 904 by Kathleen Lindsay (Mrs. Mary Faulkner) (1903-73) of Somerset West, Cape Province, South Africa. She wrote under two other married names and sixeight pen names, two of them masculine". She must have been a very busy lady; she had time for at least 3 husbands as well as 30 cats and 904 novels.
By 1997 (the next edition of Guinness I have), she had left their hallowed halls. The most prolific novelist had become the Brazilian Jose Carlos Ryoki de Alpoim Inoue, who "had 1,036 novels published from 1 June 1986 to Aug 1995", which by my calculations is about one novel every three days - for nine years - what levels of quality he must have reached!!! By 2002, Guinness still has Senhor Jose listed as the most prolific novelist, but his output is even higher, now 1,058 novels between June 1986 and August 1996. Apparently "he writes westerns, science fiction and thrillers". Whatever; but we can at least relegate Mary Faulkner from her erstwhile most prolific status. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)She's still there in 1990, with the above (1986) text. I also have the 1973 edition (what strange things we all have on our shelves), when she appears to be unknown: The authoress with the greatest total of published titles is Miss Ursula Harvey Bloom (Mrs A.C.G. Robinson) with 468 full-length works to July 1972, starting in 1922 with The Great Beginning and including the best sellers The Ring Tree (novel) and The Rose of Norfolk (non-fiction). What literary treasures! What care she has taken: less than ten a year! Gwinva (talk) 01:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
err, Jack, I certainly hope your'e not implying after all this work that she is, gulp, not notable any more ; ) Seriously though I think the best selling novelist of a period remains notable even if they are forgotten by following generations: they reflect the taste, culture and concerns (or escape from those concerns!) of the period. And our appreciation of literature, by my colleagues in academia is certainly biased towards the "serious" rather than enormously popular genres such as romance. Now who's got time to edit the article?! Mhicaoidh (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can see her AfD discussion: delete: NN, also ran loser. Probale haox. Questionable and self-pulished suorces - to be followed by that for Ryoki Inoue - delete: nothing in English.John Z (talk) 03:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, Mhicaoidh, I'm not proposing that at all. I just wanted to correct the record, since we were saying that she is the world's most prolific novelist, when that ain't the case any more. Her incredible output still justifies an article imho, no matter where she figures on the list of prolific writers these days. In all this, I can only assume that the Guinness people weren't hoaxed by anyone; I believe their standards of veracity are even more stringent than ours, although I have encountered a few errors of fact in my travels (maybe those entries were written after a long lunch with a few pints of their eponymous beverage). But hey, the obvious question is: why don't we have our own List of prolific writers or something similar. There's lots of scope for quite a long list. As a matter of interest, leaving aside numbers of novels but just counting words, in 1997 Guinness was claiming that Frank Richards (of Billy Bunter fame) was the world's greatest wordsmith, with around 75 million words to his credit. Between 1915-26 he wrote up to 80,000 words a week for boys' weeklies. If he wrote for 10 hours a day, that's 1,143 words an hour. Which is pretty amazing for even one hour, let alone 11 years. But back in 1986 they gave top prize to Józef Ignacy Kraszewski (who?) and placed Richards second. They didn't have a tally of Kraszewski's words, though, so I'm not sure how they determined he outwrote anyone else. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I read it as "Are wikipaedians only people who paraphrase references, and since computer programs have been developed which can perform this act, are wikipedia's users now redundant?". Fribbler (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Wikipedians are only allowed to paraphrase references and therefore since Wikipedians are people and computers can paraphrase sentences, people are redundant. -- Taxa (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Paraphrasing a reference is only one part of writing an article, and just about the only major one that can be automated. Firstly, a Wikipedia article is meant to have multiple references, so you need to be able to combine information from all available sources without significant redundancy. You also need to be able to make a value judgement about what belongs in an article, since your average reference will include many things to aid in understanding, whereas a Wikipedia article would just wikilink it. An exceedingly large fraction of comments made that "Computers/machines can do X therefore people who do X are redundant" have been proven wrong due to the gap between the automated capabilities of a computer and the judgemental capabilities of the human brain. We have computer translation, so why do we need people writing Wikipedia articles in every language instead of writing them in one language and just translating them all? We have automated theorem provers, so why are there still so many mathematicians in college faculties? We have ELIZA, so are psychiatrists redundant? (I may even stoop to asking, what's your point?) Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 05:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That I may use a hand saw to cut one or two 1" by 2" furring strips, but not 500 and if I am not going to be allowed to utilize the higher capability humans are said to have because that would be considered original research then I may as well assign the task to a computer and save my own time for myself? -- Taxa (talk) 05:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that some people have incredible will. Always centered, always aware. These same people can drink a 24 pack and/or take LSD and not let it affect them. I'll bet some people can get parts of thier brain surgically removed and still function.--Dr. Carefree (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Man with a Shattered World: The History of a Brain Wound by Alexander Luria is another interesting book. It describes the case of a man called Zasetsky who suffered severe brain injury but tried to keep on functioning. DAVID ŠENEK18:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why was the Mongol Golden Horde had the word, "Golden"? Why was the White Horde called White Horde and the Blue Horde called Blue Horde? Sonic99 (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The origins of the name Golden Horde are uncertain. Some scholars believe that it refers to the camp of Batu and the later rulers of the Horde. In Mongolian, Altan Orda refers to the golden camp or palace. Altan (golden) was also the color connoting imperial status. Other sources mention that Batu had a golden tent, and it is from this that the Golden Horde received its name. While this legend is persistent, no one is positive of the origin of the term. In most contemporary sources, the Golden Horde was referred to as the Khanate of the Qipchaq as the Qipchaq Turks comprised the majority of the nomadic population in the region (the Ulus Jochid).
I'll even use it in a sentence for you: "The bank robber was reluctant to use explosives to open the safe, since he feared the collateral damage this would cause". StuRat (talk) 05:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my haphazard research on 16th century Venice, I've come across references to a governmental group called the Compagnia delle Calze, also called the Eterni - can anyone tell me what they were, who were they - anything about them at all?
Not that well, but it says that they were companies of young Venetian noblemen who organised shows (plays?) at Carnival time. There were different companies with different names. I think you can ask to have an article from a foreign-language WP translated. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great - thanks very much - I think I was barking up the wrong tree - thought they were a political entity more than entertainers - will check it out.Adambrowne666 (talk) 00:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which crisis? There have been a few. If you can get a date then you/we can look up some regional newspapers and find the answer. Fribbler (talk) 00:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can some lists be copyrighted?
In the United States, what are the criteria if a certain list is copyrightable? And if it can be reproduced in whole an or in part? I found this in the archives, but it didn't go into the detail I would like. Thank you. --Rajah (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IANAL, though I'd have to agree with MGM on this. Also, if the list was compiled by, for instance, a magazine then it is copyrighted by that magazine and it cannot be reprinted without their permission. If they are simply reprinted publicly accessable data from the government or something like that, then that list cannot have a copyright put on it. Dismas|(talk)04:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I'm not sure how I hit edit, didn't see the edit below, made my remarks, hit save, and ended up being three minutes later in my response without encountering an edit conflict... Dismas|(talk)05:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has happened to me a few times, though I haven't seen it documented. Some kind of software feature that notices that both edits just add new text at the bottom after linebreaks and decides it knows how to resolve the conflict? Algebraist09:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As Mgm said in that Help desk thread, creativity is generally the yardstick - so pulling the first 100 names out of the phone book, or getting the top 100 singles sold last week, will not involve copyright, but reprinting a Rolling Stone "Top 10 Songs About Pineapple" list will since creative work goes into determining (and generally writing a paragraph about) the reasons why "The Pineapple Song" is better than "Pineapple Love". Standard disclaimers of IANAL and copyright law is an extremely complicated thing apply. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 04:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am healthy and able to work, however presently I am in a country that guarantees a right to life to every one under every circunstance. Do I have a right to live leeching off other people? Since they cannot let me die under no circunstances, I was just thinking that I could live without working. GoingOnTracks (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe you find people to leech off (parents, social service and such), however you will not be GoingOnTracks anymore, but GoingByFoot 217.168.0.33 (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(after 2 ECs) Well, that's up to you. European (and other perhaps) countries will support you to stay alive without working. But people rarely wish to "just exist". Unemployment Assistance or it's equivalent will let you survive, but not neccesarily "live". My family lived off "benefits" for a number of years during a recession. It's not "cushy", it isn't "leeching" (there's often no choice) and it's far from pleasant (the experience, such as no christmas presents, is harsh and degrading). For that reason I would never look down at the unemployed. It is not a good life, believe me, and people who think it is "money for wasters" don't know the reality. Fribbler (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on how you understand 'right to life'. In most countries if you arrive at a hospital/medical facility poorly/dieing then you have a right to the staff making their best efforts to sustain your life. However you can starve to death/die on the streets without that necessarily affecting rights. Society lets thousands die a year in this manner, and thousands die due to doctors/medical professionals making informed decisions about the effort/resources you take up if you are extremely ill in hospital. Your 'rights' to social-welfare are also limit-based and there are many that are not entitled to them. Virtually all rights are limit-based in some manner. Rights are very closely linked with responsibilities, and most governments are moving towards a rights-responsibilities based system where to get you must do...So to get job-seeker welfare you might have to be actively seeking employment, or to get income-support you must be provably earning under or to get disability benefit you must have ailment/disability Y as proven by medical professionals. In short - your right to life is within a very narrow legal framework and you can easily fall outside of it. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In most Western democracies there are social security payments that you can claim under pretty much all circumstances. They are frequently very small, but usually enough to prevent you starving to death. The prerequisites are very minimal (having some form of address), although a certain amount of bureacracy is required so yes, you can probably live off the charity of others if you want. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
June 16
Could you help me find information about H. Loesch, an artist?
I have a print of a picture signed by H. Loesch. I believe the name of the picture is "Our Presidents". It has all of the American Presidents, up to 1901, standing together. The copywrite date is 1901 and there is a publishing company listed, as well. The name is Thos. H. Devereaux & Co. Chicago, U.S.A. I can find no information about the picture or the artist. Could you help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.141.165 (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A copy of your print is among the Edward Martin papers in the Pennsylvania State Archives (see here), which gives the size "24 x 18" - no doubt that's in inches. I've looked for H. Loesch, and the only candidate I can find is on the artnet page for Lod - Lof, Hans von Loesch (German, 1863). But the maker of your print may not be listed. Xn419:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Same Sex Discomfort
Do straight women find sexual or otherwise compromisingly close contact with members of the same sex less disturbing than straight men ? Eg At an office getaway recently hotel rooms were booked but only had double beds for two to share, - women with women and men with men - the girls said they had no problem with this whilst the men were totally grossed out ! As a straight male I find the thought of sharing a bed, or worse a nude or sexual encounter with another male totalling disturbing. Another example is in the porn industry, where it seems that straight women seem to have no discomfort in performing 'lesbian' scenes. Apologies for the nature of this question, just curious as to the mindset of the opposite gender !--196.207.47.60 (talk) 04:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. For another example, woman feel perfectly comfortable wearing men's clothes, but most men would be highly embarassed to wear women's clothes in public (Scotsmen excluded, of course). StuRat (talk) 05:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excluding Samoans, and our former Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, too, StuRat :) As to the beds, it does seem out of era to expect adults to bunk in like that – was it testing their team playing qualties? In contrast, our Edison reminded us that accepted sleeping arrangements were different 100 years ago[23]. Re clothes, maybe it depends on the context – a non-gay guy at my uni wore a miniskirt and tights the whole time but I only noticed when someone pointed this out to me. From a female pov, there's a difference between a woman wearing man-style clothes and actually wearing men's clothes imo, are you including y fronts, SR? Julia Rossi (talk) 06:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sleeping in the same bed in a hotel out of necessity is not going to lead to nude or sexual encounters. There is no requirement for snuggling. You can even sleep in your clothes. Or you can sleep on the floor. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My own theory on this comes down to confidence in ones own sexuality. I think men tend to be more concerned about potentially being seen as gay (if they aren't) than women are. This probably comes down to teasing. Men are more likely (at least in my experience) to tease men about their sexuality than women. I've no problem sharing a bed with a man if needs must - though many friends do find it odd, as Adam Bishop notes it's not going to lead to sexual/nude encounters it's just sharing a bed. As for porn - I expect that is a result of consumer demand and therefore to earn the best money female performers must also perform those scenes. We're in the era where the female form is considered more beautiful/attractive than the male form - and people seem to forget that historically that has not always been the case. The male form was oft considered the more beautiful, and historically the pre-pubescent (spelling) male form was considered most beautiful of all. The problem is people sexualise non-sexual activity and many men seem to be less comfortable with anything that could be viewed as gay/feminine around other men. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of it I think depends upon the paradigm. Think crowded elevator. There is nothing more than I would want that to be pinned against the back corner by the buttocks or milk factories of that loverly new young fox in accounting. On the other hand if its that gay guy in advertising I'd be ready to kill. He'd find my ball point pin quite capable of maintaining minimal proximity. Wake me up in the morning and tell me you "enjoyed" the warmth of my body and the smell of my hair and you're horse meat at the zoo. Adaptron (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree that it boils down to confidence in your own sexuality which implies that women are more confident than men. But why do men distance themselves from homosexuality more than women? I don't think it's related to teasing. Perhaps men find it harder more difficult to be open to experimentation because lesbian intercourse is less intrusive (?) than gay intercourse.
Personally, I'd be just as uncomfortable with the girl from accounting as I'd be with the gay guy from advertising (I'm a straight guy who hates crowded elevators). I also find User:Adaptron's attitude a bit disheartening. Homosexuality and homosexuals are here to stay, get used to it. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, it's essentially no different than sitting next to a guy at the movies or in a plane. The only difference with a bed is that beds are often places where sex happens; but just because you're in bed with another person does not mean that something sexual is automatically going to happen. (Just ask any married person :) Two people could be further apart in a bed than they would be at the movies or on a plane. Admittedly, the opportunity factor is greater in a bed than in the other places; but that only has relevance if both parties want to take advantage of the opportunity. Unless, of course, you think that all gay men are natural predators and want to have sex with any and every male body that happens to cross their path. Or if you think that all gay men are more-or-less rapists. If you think either of those things, think again. If you were asked to share a hotel bed with a woman, I imagine you'd have less of a problem than sharing with a man. You might even see it a potential opportunity for some casual sex, if she was attractive enough, and willing. If you'd have such thoughts in the sharing-with-a-woman scenario (and I'm not saying you would), you might want to consider the double standard you'd be operating under. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's just teasing but the social attitudes. There is definitely (IMHO anyway) greater social stigma to being a gay male then to being a lesbian female. It's manigest in any many ways. The above for example. Or the fact that many straight men will take great offense if hit on by a gay male (which logically should really be a complement in many cases.) I don't think it's just because of men though. I suspect many men would have no problem with dating a female who's 'experimented' however I suspect far more females will be reluctant to date a male who has 'experimented' and there are also I suspect far more likely to be comments and suggestions that he's gay but in denial. For that matter, any male perceived as being gay is likely to be seen as a friend but nothing more to many females whereas someone thought to be lesbian may be seen as a 'hot challenge' to many males. (And of course, many men have a fantasy of 'doing' two lesbians at the same time whereas I suspect fewer women have a fantasy of two gay men). Personally as a straight male, I have no problem sharing a bed with another male. Or being in a crowded lift next a gay male or a hot female from accounting. Nil Einne (talk) 12:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of men also sleep without a shirt on, or in their boxers, some take up a lot of room when they're sleeping, and there's stuff like morning wood that could be embarassing, or uncontrolled movement when someone's sleeping. Personally, I don't mind being pinned against a gay male or a hot female in a crowded elevator either, but I would feel uneasy if I had to share a bed with another male. I think it might also come from how often the situation comes. Guys might be more comfortable sharing a bed with a female than a male cause that's almost all males know (probably mostly from thoughts of sex, but that's pure speculation, of course), while females I knew that were young often had friends sleep over. I wonder if slumber parties are the reason females don't mind... hmm. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking whether there is a limit to the number of consecutive terms that a single-party can stay in office? If so I have never heard of anything like this myself - though as an early-years political student there's a huge amount i've not heard so perhaps it does exist somewhere. A look through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Electoral_restrictions doesn't find anything on political-party term-limits so I suspect not. It would be difficult because a huge number of nations are effectively a two (plus) party system so they have 2 dominate parties. Therefore if there a limit on a party the other main party would be almost guaranteed power which wouldn't be an ideal scenario (politically speaking) 194.221.133.226 (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are no term limits for political parties. Political parties are "extra-constitutional" constructs. That is -- they are private associations, not official governmental bodies. Wikiant (talk) 13:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that notion isn't set out in any written constitution anywhere, so to achieve it those holding a majority would need to pass legislation to ensure their own future removal from even the possibility of winning an election. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas. There are surprisingly few bodies which try to define international standards for democratic elections, but they include the Venice Commission and Democracy Watch International, neither of which is likely to promote such an idea. If a party can win three, or five, or even a hundred elections in a row, in free and fair elections, then it must be what people want, or at least what they fear least. Why should they be denied? Xn418:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh yes but on that basis why should a leader be limited to a set number of terms? If the person is popular enough to get 5 elections in a row why should they be removed from office? Not saying i'm agreeing with the idea, but it does rather ask the question of why some nations have term-limits for individuals. Incidentally I prefer no limits at all, provide the elections are democratic. ny156uk (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this sort of thing a few times on my recent trip to Yunnan, once at the Buddhist temple where the photo was taken, and other times near local stupas (2nd pic). I can't figure out what it's called or what it signifies from the articles on Tibetan Buddhism or Buddhist symbolism. --BrokenSphereMsg me16:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In more general terms: can an omnipotent being(who is presumably indestructible by anything less than all-powerful) willfully destroy itself? 207.233.86.189 (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is somewhat similar to the question "Can God create a Rock that even he cannot lift?" with the implication being that God, as an omnipotent being, can do anything. This includes being able to lift any rock ever created, but also being able to create an unliftable rock. It's abit of a problem with untempered omipotence, which has been dealt with by reasoned theologians.--NeoNerd16:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can also read the book God's Debris by Scott Adams, which deals with this same question. (Though personally I felt the book rather a little trite...) — Sam 17:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.152.238 (talk)
Donating to Democrats
Hi all,
If I wanted to donate to help the Democrats in 2008, which do you think would be the best recipient of (i.e. would make best use of) my $100? And why? Serious answers preferred, thanks... :)
Thanks! — Sam 17:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
P.S. As Lomn notes below, I'm not soapboxing nor looking for others to soapbox. I'm asking what, in your personal opinion, would be the best use of money if the intent is simply to help advance the Democratic Party in November. Thanks again! — Sam 17:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
While avoiding the "no soapbox" clause, I think it depends on what you think most helps the Democrats, as noted by the links you've provided -- contributions can range from the very general (the DNC) to the moderately specific (the DSCC) to the specific (Obama). Judge where you think the help is most needed and donate accordingly. — Lomn17:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On my philosophical debate website, thedebate.tk (so you don't think it's for a class), I plan on posting a thread in which we argue for the existence of God. I've used wikipedia in the past for information relevant to topics, but when I visited the "God" page, the proof section was very sparse. Do you know of any proofs that have yet to be debunked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.131.5 (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, but here's an argument that such a proof is inconsistent with (at least) the Christian concept of God. (1) God created humans to have free will. (2) If humans obtain irrefutable proof of the existence of God, then free will (for all practical purposes) ceases to exist. (3) Ergo, the human condition (in the sense that God created it) ceases to exist. Wikiant (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How does having irrefutable proof of god destroy free will? Having irrefutable proof of the existence of trees or water doesn't take away "our free will," so how would knowing the existence of another object or creature destroy it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.131.5 (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Irrefutable evidence of the existence of an omniscient and omnipotent God combined with the belief that choosing sin results in a break with said God means that one has effectively lost one's free will. Example: Someone holds a gun to your head and tells you to hand over your wallet. Technically, you have the free will to refuse. But for all practical purposes, your free will is moot. Wikiant (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...but let's say it's a hidden sniper who will kill you if you scratch your nose, but you have no way of knowing he's there. Do you still have free will? Is the sniper really there? You can choose to do whatever you want, gun or no gun, in my opinion. Wrad (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Wikiant's point implies that after someone "proves" to you that there is a sniper and that you would be shot for scratching your nose, you won't (practically) have the free-will to scratch. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the sniper example, the would-be-victim has to know that he will be sniped for scratching his nose, otherwise the thought experiment doesn't relate to the original problem: does knowledge that a certain action will lead to one's death remove that person's free will? Connecting back to the theological, in Judaism and Christianity, Adam and Eve knew about the nature of God (omniscent and omnipotent) yet still chose to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.131.5 (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that there is simply no (reasonable) proof for the existance of God that hasn't been debunked. You could use the sneaky argument that some historical persons (the prophets of the Old Testament, Jesus, Muhammmad) told that they have spoken with God (and that written records of this exist and are widely available). Noone can prove that they lied... Flamarande (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Face it: God doesn't exist :).[reply]
Wikipedia does not create arguments. It summarizes what has already been said about things. That's what encyclopedias do. If you want us to debate, then you're in the wrong place. This is not a debate forum. Sorry. Wrad (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to upset you, but an encyclopedia is a "comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically." It wouldn't go against anything wikipedia stands for by providing a more in depth representation for each argument. If you don't know, that's okay. I can look somewhere else too. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.131.5 (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, your definition is essentially a longer version of what Wrad said. But I still don't understand why you need arguments to be created. If you don't understand any of the arguments in that list, feel free to bring them here individually. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
