Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• 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.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

March 23

mining industry in Canada

what are the present situation: facts and figures, the economic strengths or successes, problems faced, main issues and controversies, policies adopted and implemented by the government and the extent of success and failures of these policies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.19 (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Your assigned subject of research can not be reduced to a question that the Reference Desk can answer.--Wetman (talk) 03:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Natural Resources Canada and its website are probably a good place to start. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You could also search the archives of the Hill Times [1]. They specialize in reporting on issues and controversies in key Canadian economic sectors. --Xuxl (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Housewife

How many percent of teenage girls in Western countries want to be housewives rather than pursuing their own career? Am I correct in my observation that this number is much lower than the percentage of women who are currently stay-at-home moms? --99.237.234.104 (talk) 05:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It is going to depend on whether you mean being a housewife for life, or just while their children are growing up. The latter will give a much larger number. --Tango (talk) 09:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Either for life or while their children are growing up. It takes 12 years to raise a child to adolescence, which is too long for a woman who's serious about having a career. --206.130.23.67 (talk) 12:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I take exception to that one, as you'd expect: so far in my life I've had three careers: a secretary, a lecturer and a therapist. Plenty of time for me to have had children as well in a working life of 30 years and counting! --TammyMoet (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess the dispute is over the definition of "career". Is it really a career if you only spend a few years doing it? I would tend to agree that taking 12 or so years off work to have children (and assuming you work part-time while they are at school during the period) doesn't preclude having a career, though. (I'm not sure why the OP has chosen the beginning of adolescence as the cutoff point, though. Puberty doesn't seem relevant to me.) --Tango (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well under some definitions someone who has passed puberty is no longer a child. Not that common under most modern definitions which usually refers to an age of majority which is usually way past puberty. But if you use such a definition then past puberty the person is no longer a child so I guess you're no longer a child. However I agree it's an odd suggestion, many mothers may start to work again once their children are at school or something of that sort. Some of course may wait until they consider their children can look after themselves while they are at work (i.e. don't need child care or a babysitter), which may be around the time of puberty but isn't going to be specifically associated with it. Nil Einne (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

There is also a big difference between "want to..." and "forced to by circumstances". I think many women would prefer to pursue a career, but a lack of affordable child care causes many to give up work until their children are able to look after themselves. Astronaut (talk) 13:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, some women would like to stay at home, but are thwarted by the fact that it's very difficult for a family in the United States to lead a middle-class lifestyle without two incomes these days. AnonMoos (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The whole idea of a "stay at home mom" (SAHM) is practically unknown in some countries, for example Denmark. There a SAHM is very lonely, and so are the children, since there are no other SAHM's or children in the neighborhood to socialize with or play with, like in the "olden days". Once the rather long maternity leave (which applies to both parents) is over, they are back to work: "Altogether parents are entitled to 52 weeks paid maternity leave." [2] It's a rather interesting fact that few men use it. This is likely because, even though job security is very good there, leaving work for too long can have a very negative effect on a career, depending on what profession one is in. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Do I detect that you imagine that all "western" countries are just like America, but with different languages or a funny accent? That seems to be a common idea among Americans from what I've read here. The percentage will vary from country to country. In Britain, for example, it would be rare for a woman to be a "housewife", although she could be at home because she could not get a job or temporarily while looking after young children. The percent of teenage British girls who want to be "housewives" must be near zero I expect. "Housewife" is an antiquated and rather derogatory word here. 92.29.120.231 (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea how much variation there is. I live in Canada; can you give an idea of how Canada compares to America, Britain, and other European countries? As for "housewife" being derogatory, I didn't know that, but if it's simply due to political correctness I couldn't care less. --206.130.23.67 (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not really derogatory: it's not the word that is looked down on, it's the people. Housewives are not particularly respected. There is perception of laziness, since housework is far from a full-time job in these days of refrigerators and washing machines - a housewife is presumed to be a "lady of leisure" (an exception is made for those with young children, but they wouldn't usually use the term "housewife", although there isn't a particularly accepted neutral term - most women that stay at home with their children would say just that, rather than try to put a name to it). There is also a feminist viewpoint that housewives are letting women down. --Tango (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Tango, you obviously do not know any housewives who have children. It is more than a full-time job. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I explicitly said it's different if you have young children. --Tango (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

We should create a new job title for them. Perhaps call it, a Victorian Traditionalist or something. Googlemeister (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

"Homemaker", for example. The term "housewife", my Webster's defines as, "a married woman in charge of a household". That doesn't sound so demeaning, does it? But it was made so, by elements such as those described by Tango. A little history: In the old days, nearly everyone worked, particularly among the poor (hence the early-1900s comic song, "Everybody Works But Father"). Women only stopped working long enough to bear children. And they were still expected to manage the home. As with the old saying that my Mom used to bring up, "Man works from sun to sun, but woman's work is never done." And it was grueling, due to the lack of modern conveniences. For example, Monday was typically "Washday", which was an all-day activity. Not that being a man was a picnic either. But a woman not having to work for a living and/or being able to hire maids and the like, and truly manage the house as opposed to doing all the work, was a sign of status, of being well-off. Following WWII, when prosperity finally came after a couple of decades of Depression and War, and with the development and growth of labor-saving devices, a lot more women could become "just" housewives because they no longer "had to" work for a living as such. That's largely true about suburbia. But the reality is that women in poor families still have to work and manage the home, just as they always did, since feeding the family is top priority. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

All of this is very interesting, but it doesn't get me closer to an answer. Is anybody looking for a numerical answer to the original question? --99.237.234.104 (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

In the UK, close to zero. 78.149.167.173 (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I was reluctant to say this since it wasn't really answering the question but since there's been no further discussion... I think the issue which the OP dismissed as polical correctness is important. If you were to ask a group of girls how many of them want to be housewifes when they grow up, the answer will be quite different from if you ask them if they want to play a role which you describe to them which is similar to what you imagine when you say 'do you want to be a housewife'. The fact you don't care doesn't change the fact many of the girls will care so are going to say they don't want to be a housewife even if they may imagine themselves in a role you would call a housewife. In addition to the points above, "want to" and "rather then a career" is a rather tricky issue for another reason. Many people growing up don't necessarily have one and only one goal in their lives. For example, if you were to ask a group of girls whether they'd be happy if they could marry a rich, good looking guy who would treat them well and take care of them for the rest of their lives and they'd live a live of luxury and never have to work I would expect a fair few would say yes, but it doesn't mean it's their goal in life, their main goal may still be to have a career. Note also that I said 'they'd never have to work' rather then 'they'd be expected not work' (the answer is likely to vary even though some of those who are in that variance wouldn't actually be planning to work). BTW, I would add that I'm sure some boys will be similarly happy with a similar scenario (i.e. marrying a rich, young sexy gal and.....) even though probably fewer and they're going to know it's even a less realistic scenario then for the girls. Nil Einne (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Health Care Bill

I read that the Health Care Bill will extend cover to 95% of Americans. Who are the 5% who are included out? - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

According to The Guardian, the 5% are illegal immigrants, people eligible for Medicaid who don't use it, and poor people exempted from having to buy insurance. But The Guardian says "Exact figures on who will make up this grouping are hard to find." Maybe we'll soon have a better idea since, as Ms Pelosi so aptly put it: "[W]e have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it...." —Kevin Myers 12:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Mostly undocumented migrant workers from Mexico, who are undergoing a tuberculosis epidemic. Could the Canadians have been on to something when they did that universal thing? 99.56.137.254 (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Also maybe the British, French, Germans, Australians, New Zealanders... DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Illegal immigrants in Canada receive a health card? Our article Health care in Canada doesn't address the issue. —Kevin Myers 14:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently so. LOL 99.56.136.197 (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Amusing, but the question remains. —Kevin Myers 16:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The article Providing health care to medically uninsured immigrants and refugees from the CMAJ doesn't directly address "illegal immigrants", "illegal aliens", or "undocumented workers". However, it becomes clear in reading that people who do not posses the correct status / documentation are ineligible for Canada's "Universal Health Care System." –RHolton≡– 02:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations to the US of A in finally catching up with Britain (well, 95% of the way) sixty-two years later. 92.29.120.231 (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Illegal immigrants aren't entitled to free-at-the-point-of-use (non-emergency) health care in the UK, either. However, even with the recent bill, American healthcare will be nothing like the NHS. For example, there are no deductibles here. As I understand it, for those in the US with the cheapest health insurance, health care can still be very expensive. The recent bill doesn't change that, as far as I know. --Tango (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Not really. This is nowhere near British health care. Woogee (talk) 04:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is our article on the new law. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

OFEX stock market, UK

Ofex re-directs to Plus. When did the change of name happen? Why did it happen? Is Plus exactly the same as Ofex except for a change in name? Thanks 92.29.120.231 (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

According to this corporate history page Ofex Holdings plc was renamed as PLUS Markets Group plc in November 2004. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

what qualifications can you get overnight

if you wake up tomorrow with all the mental skills (including memories of their experience) anyone possesses, to include world famous surgeons scientists mathematicians, anyone and anything that is "mental" in nature, then what paper quealifications could you get within the next few days assuming you have the money. 82.113.121.34 (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing worth having. You could gain membership to a high IQ society, but proper academic qualifications, medical licenses, etc., all require far more than a few days to acquire. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

One of the easier ones may be passing the local bar exam to qualify to practice law; there is no requirement to have a law degree to take the bar exam (in the US and many other countries, at least). (If I'm reading our article correctly, though, the bar exam is generally given only twice a year throughout the US.) Medical degrees are probably out; the Doctor of Medicine ("MD") has training requirements that will take a long time; though your hypothetical savant would ace them quickly, it's not quick enough for your needs. You have to write a book, basically, to get a Ph.D, so that's out. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It is conceivable to me that a person of immense brilliance could write a Ph.D. dissertation in mathematics or theoretical physics in a few days—they aren't necessarily very long. There may be other degree requirements, such as classes, that would take longer if the requirements aren't waived. Convening a committee for the thesis defense can also take quite a while. -- Coneslayer (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Immense brilliance and luck. If you are unlucky then, however brilliant you are, you could easily waste days (or longer) on a dead-end approach to a proof. The dissertations are only short because they miss out all the work that didn't go anywhere. --Tango (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

My condolences, Tango. Just remember: you fail 100% of the shots you don't take. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.38 (talk)

I think that's where getting everyone's experience (as stated in the question) helps. Probably somewhere in there is a brilliant, nearly-complete idea that someone just hasn't written up yet. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems you do need a law degree to be admitted to the bar in the US. There are some exceptions, but none that can be qualified for in a few days. --Tango (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected! Thank you, Tango; I struck my "easiest" claim above. This link lists some famous non-law-degree lawyers, like Abraham Lincoln, but as the article states, only 7 states in the US currently allow "reading" into the bar with the exam and no law degree; and all of those require some time apprenticing or the like. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

aren't there certificates you can basically just sit for? 82.113.121.38 (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of technology training companies offer week-long courses with exams at the end. They probably won't turn you away from the final exam just because you didn't show up for the course, provided you paid.

In Ontario you can get a license to operate a powered watercraft by just sitting the exam. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Assuming you have the money, you could get any qualification or degree you wanted in a few days. See Bribery. Googlemeister (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That's assuming you could find someone willing to be bought. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Even just finding that corrupt official could require several days' effort. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

They would not need to be an official. The poor schlub who prints the certificates would suffice. Googlemeister (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You need someone to put your name in the database in case someone phones they to verify the qualification. --Tango (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want a fairly meaningful qualification, you may well need to find several corrupt people. There are often moderation systems in place to make sure one people isn't solely responsible for giving out certificates. --Tango (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That might change the size of the bribe, but not the end result. If a bribe will not do, there are other illegal means of persuasion that can be bought. Googlemeister (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

these answers bite. i was thinking that maybe it is possible you guys are all thinking of bachelors, masters and so forth. obviously you can't get one of those. but there are a lot of other paper qualifications, and I'd like to hear some of them. an example would be getting a certificate like the DELF (French) saying you speak a certain foreign language. any other ones ? 82.113.121.37 (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

If we're so rubbish, why are you asking us for help? Answer the question yourself if you're so brilliant. --Tango (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently he (or is it "they") thinks we're being paid for this. :) And I have to wonder about the example he gave. How could you immediately get a certificate saying you know French? Maybe by taking a standardized French test? Yes, that by itself might be quickly done. But unless you speak French fluently as a second language and/or have been trained in how to speak French, it's not an "overnight" process. (Leaving out the bribery hypothesis.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

And as far as "finding someone to bribe", well, consider the recent George Ryan case. While he was Secretary of State of Illinois, his office took bribes from guys who wanted to get special trucking licenses without having to go through the work needed to qualify. The smoking gun for that kind of thing eventually comes, though, and in this case it was a fatal accident involving a driver with an illegally bought license. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

first of all I am sorry about my tone of frustration, I have striken it, though not from the record. As for baseball bugs' last statement above, it seems to show that I communicated very unclearly, as BB says "unless you speak French fluently as a second language". If I had phrased my original quesiton more coherently, speaking French obviously falls into the category of a mental activity, including all of one's experience and memories. I don't know how I can phrase myself more clearly, I will think about it and come back and try again. 82.113.121.34 (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Should we also assume you are assuming "by honest means", as opposed to bribery as some have semi-facetiously suggested here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I just don't know how I can be more clear. If you read these accreditation associations for example, and then extrapolate to every other similar organization anywhere in the world, which ones will grant you a paper accreditation you can just sit for or answer orally or by computer, or pass by means of a demonstration, and so on? Thank you. If you need further clarification of what I'm asking, please ask me and I will explain. Thank you for your contributions. 82.113.121.34 (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I can't believe no one has answered the question yet (except the Ontario boating one, that was real). Here are a couple personal to me:

Canadian Securities Course: Requires only two sittings that can be scheduled, I think, as little as two weeks apart. You need to pay for the books even if you're not going to use them.

General Securities Representative Exam (Used to be called the "Series 7"): The US version, similar to above, requires only one sitting, limited only by scheduling.

CompTIA's A+ certification: Requires only two sittings and I don't think there are any time requirements except what you can schedule with your local provider. You DON'T need to buy any books. Just ~ $150 for the exam. (CompTIA has several other IT certs that can also be completed in a single exam)

Level one of the Chartered Financial Analyst program: Needs to be signed up for by Sept 15 for a mid December sitting (only 3 months; not bad). Levels two and three take another year each unfortunately. You need to buy the books even if you're not going to use them. NByz (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this is an interesting question, and I'm surprised with how few examples we've been able to come up with. It seems almost everything requires you to actually do some study. In retrospect, though, maybe we should be less surprised. I think most people have realized that any kind of exam system can be gamed, if not cheated on, and awarding a significant qualification to someone who simply shows up and answers questions cheapens the qualification. In the internet age the opportunities for cheating are even higher. Maybe that's why even in the 1600s universities and law colleges had some sort of residency requirement as well as exams. DJ Clayworth (talk) 02:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You can sit many high-school-level exams in England without study ([[A levels], GCSE, BTech, etc), but you typically have to apply 2-4 months in advance.[3] I suspect most exams will have some requirement to register in advance, if only so they know how big a hall to book and how many invigilators to employ. Most exams are only held infrequently e.g. once or a few times a year. Another possibility is civil service exams, found from New York[4] to India[5]; but again there may be preliminary exams or a requirement to show existing qualifications, and these may only be held once a year. --Normansmithy (talk) 11:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If you possessed all knowledge and skills, like "Braniac from the 31st century" it should be easy to hack into computerized databases and make them show you had graduated in a degree program in anything of interest, and that you had passed the relevant exams. There have been many scandals in which amateur hackers have altered grades or added courses to high school or college files. A large degree program would be best rather than one in which the professors know each student quite well. Or a defunct college might be useful for the purpose, with a state database showing that once upon a time you had submitted proof of graduation and had then passed an exam. With all that knowledge and those skills, Photoshopping diplomas or certificates should be straightforward. If paper documents are needed, your extreme knowledge and skill base would allow you to hack any security system, pick locks to physically enter the place, and add any counterfeit paperwork needed into locked filing cabinets. Edison (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the question could be be restated: "What interesting certifications, accreditations or credentials can be acquired purely by demonstrating knowledge over an extremely short period of time (say, a single sitting)?" NByz (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned diploma mills. Wave enough money at the appropriate institution, & one can be "Dr. So-&-so, MA, MFA, BFD". -- llywrch (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

is there a psychological condition where people hear themselves being narrated?

is there a psychological condition where people hear themselves being narrated (or at least fragments) so that if they start doing something but change their mind they hear the fragment "...but thought better of it..." and so on. I know this has been the premise of movies, I can't remember just which one at the moment, it involves a watch and a chainsmoking writer, but my question is whether hearing oneself narrated is an actual existing psyhcological condition/disorder? Thank you. 82.113.121.38 (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hearing voices is a type of auditory hallucination. The voices some people hear vary enormously in how they sound and what they say; suggestions, orders, threats, personal comments on the hearer and others, compliments, irrelevant nonsense, and general chit-chat may all be experienced. A running commentary on what the hearer is doing is an experience that is quite regularly reported, whether fragmentary as you suggest or more coherent and long-lasting. I haven't found any evidence that the narrative type of auditory hallucination is regarded as a particular disorder, separate from other experiences of hearing voices. Our article about the support movement for those who hear voices, Hearing Voices Movement, is well referenced and you may find more information via its links and citations. Karenjc 20:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Stranger than Fiction is the movie you're thinking of. On a side note, isn't auditory hallucination also a side effect of schizophrenia? 24.189.90.68 (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hearing voices may be a symptom of schizophrenia (the term side effect generally refers to unintended effects of medicines). It is probably a dissociative disorder; it sounds vaguely like depersonalization, but there may be multiple causes of hearing oneself narrate one's own life, not all necessarily a mental disorder. Intelligentsium 21:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, hearing voices can be one symptom of diagnosable psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia, although the definition of such disorders has changed over time and continues to do so. However, some people who hear voices do not exhibit any other symptoms of a mental health disorder, and there is now some recognition that such people may be able to manage their voices and lead an otherwise normal life without medical intervention, which is the premise of the Hearing Voices Movement. See Anti-psychiatry. It is a controversial area. Karenjc 21:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like Scrubs :) 76.229.239.145 (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)John

Name the fallacy

Which logical fallacy is inherent in the following argument(putting aside the question of whether either statement is true): "Darwin recanted on his deathbed; therefore the theory of evolution must be false"? 137.151.174.176 (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a homework question. Logic 101 at Cal State? :) You're looking for a term. Maybe another Logic 101 student can come up with it. In this case, Darwin deciding he was wrong would not prove that he was wrong, except in his own mind; unless he would do more than just "recant"; he would also have to supply evidence sufficient to contradict his previous theory. Whether he would have time to do all that, while on his deathbed, would depend on what he was dying from. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Logically enough, the Fallacy article gives a similar example and labels it an Irrelevant conclusion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It was not a homework question. This argument was brought up in Philosophy 333: Evolution and Creation and I just wondered which fallacy it was. 137.151.174.128 (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to school, it was a homework question. Weepy.Moyer (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It could also be the genetic fallacy, meaning that a man's otherwise decent theory is considered inherently specious, based on it's origin. StuRat (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Very good. :) The OP said it was hypothetical, so another way to put it would be, "What is the truth value of the following statement: 'IF Darwin renounced his theory of evolution on his deathbed, THEN the theory of evolution is false.'" And the answer is that the truth value is PROBABLY FALSE, because given only the information we have (i.e. no elaboration on whether Darwin produced counterevidence), it would be an irrelevant conclusion. And I think the bold part is the answer to the OP's question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

doesn't the law of excluded middle (tertia non datur or whatever) say your another way to put it would be, "What is the truth value of the following statement: 'IF Darwin renounced his theory of evolution on his deathbed, THEN the theory of evolution is false.'" And the answer is that the truth value is PROBABLY FALSE is an impossible logical option? 82.113.121.34 (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I say "probably false" because we don't have enough information to definitively say it's false. We have to make certain assumptions, i.e. that he was dying quickly, and therefore he didn't have time to construct a devastating counterargument. Maybe if he was dying from a long-term case of ringworm, he would have had time. It's been a long time since Logic 101, but typically with true/false questions, if it's not definitively true, then it's false. So if forced to choose one or the other, then it's FALSE. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I would class this as an appeal to emotion. The suggestion being that fearing God and the afterlife, Darwin forswore his heathen teachings. Well, fear is an emotion. It is also the mind-killer. Vranak (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That could explain why Darwin (or anyone) would hypothetically renounce something they had said earlier. But his renouncing it does not logically lead to the conclusion that his theory is false, unless he provides counterevidence that demolishes his theory. However, I could see where a religionist might jump to that false conclusion. Perhaps that's what you're getting at? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not appeal to emotion; that's quite different ("Believe this, if you are a true patriot!" and the like). I think genetic fallacy is probably the best answer yet given. It's equivalent to saying, "if Darwin didn't believe his theory, it must not be true." The fallacy lies in asserting the theory's truth status has solely to do with whether Charles Darwin specifically believed in it. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

(Incidentally, in case anyone was curious, Darwin did not recant. See Elizabeth Hope for more information on the facts behind this.) --Mr.98 (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd class it as argument from authority. Despite the fact that Darwin was the credited as the discoverer, he does not enjoy any special privilege in arbitrating the truth/falsity of the theory. (e.g. even if Darwin had wanted to forswear the theory of evolution, Alfred Russel Wallace would have likely been willing to take up the role as its champion.) -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

To put this in some perspective, consider this assertion, parallel to the OP's question, except it's based on a true fact, albeit leaving some other key facts out: "Galileo recanted; therefore the theory of the heliocentric planetary system must be false." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Indigenous people of the United States

How many indigenous Amerindians are left in the U.S.? I would imagine it's below 1% due to what happened to them. B-Machine (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It is difficult to define native American. There are probably very few, if any, people whose ancestors are all from America all the way back to the initial colonisation of the continent thousands of years ago. So, how may native American blood do you require someone to have to count as native American? If you count anyone with any native American blood then there are probably more now than ever before just because the total population of the continent has increased so much. --Tango (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Our Demographics of the United States give a number of 2.4 million, or 0.8%. Googlemeister (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Googlemeister. References on the Reference Desk please, rather than guessing. This page from the 2000 U.S. Census says that 0.87% of the US population stated they were "American Indian" or "Alaska Native" alone. The number rose to 1.53 if you could "alone or in combination", meaning people who stated they were one of those and also reported belonging to 2 or more "races". Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This number is within the rather large range of natives living in the current US in the Pre-Colmbian times of 1-18 million. I guess it is hard to count people living in unexplored territory. Googlemeister (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the Native American population dropped off sharply, by maybe 80%, after first contact, mainly due to European diseases: See Native_Americans_in_the_United_States#European_explorations. Since then, the population has grown, although not as fast as other portions of the US population, since, unlike other ethnicities, there's very little immigration to the US of Native Americans. :-) StuRat (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Why not? There were a lot of natives in current day Canada and Mexico as well. Googlemeister (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

If they come from outside the US, then, by definition, they aren't "indigenous people of the United States", they are "indigenous people of Canada and Mexico". StuRat (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You said Native Americans, which includes those from Canada and Mexico. ScienceApe (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The OP asked about only Amerindians in the US. What I want to know is that do they have "Status Indian" type of classification in US census like in Canada. Note, Métis and Inuits are counted separately in Canadian census. --Kvasir (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The US census has the category "American Indian and Alaska Native". No one will ask for proof if you call yourself an American Indian in the census; the US government does not keep a list like Canada's "Status Indian" registry. In the US, it's up to the officially recognized tribes to determine who is a member of their tribe. As a result, the number of people who identify themselves as Native is much larger than the number of people enrolled in officially recognized tribes. —Kevin Myers 04:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting the recent growth in Native Canadaians - and probably Native Americans in general - turn out to be due to neither birth rate nor (obviusly) immigration. It's simply due to people who previously didn't call themselves Native deciding to call themselves Native. DJ Clayworth (talk) 02:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, same in the US. The Native count in the census really increased when respondents were allowed to identify themselves as belonging to more than one race. —Kevin Myers 04:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Related information can be found in Mixed-blood, Métis people (USA), Half-caste, Interracial marriage, Métis, Mestizo, and so on. As stated above, self-identification is a different matter than appearing on any official list. BrainyBabe (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I wonder what the original questioner means by "below 1%"? Some responses apparently take it to mean that he was asking about the percentage of the US population that is Native American. But that number doesn't really get to the issue he's raising. I think he may have been asking about how the current indigenous population compares to the pre-European contact population.

Keeping in mind all of the caveats mentioned above regarding the difficulty in defining who is and is not an indigenous American, the answer may be that the current Native American population is anywhere from 20% to 150% of what is was in 1492. In 1996, Russell Thornton, an oft-cited Cherokee demographer, wrote that recent estimates for the number of people in what is now the continental US and Canada in 1492 ranged from 3.79 million to 7 million people. Earlier estimates ranged from 1 to 18 million. The estimates vary so widely because there's very little hard data. Everyone now thinks the old 1 million estimate is much too low, so we'll ignore that.

Per Demographics of Canada and the 2000 US Census, the current population of indigenous people in the US and Canada is about 3.7 million to 5.4 million, depending on how you count multiracial people. So depending on which numbers you use, the current population is roughly 20% to 150% of what it was in 1492. If we use Thornton's estimate of 7 million, which is about in the middle of scholarly guesstimates, then the current population is about 50–75% of what it was in 1492. This is a significant increase from the much lower populations of 100 years ago.

If this seems like a surprisingly high percentage, you may have been influenced by what scholars call the "Vanishing Indian" or vanishing race" myth -- the 19th century idea that Native Americans had all but disappeared, and belonged to the past and not the present. It was a way of romanticizing storybook Indians while ignoring (at best) the real, living ones, who now number in the millions. —Kevin Myers 16:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Longevity of political systems or forms of government

Fascism for example seems to have only existed for about twenty years, which is not long in the history of mankind. Communism was about seventy years in Russia but still continues in one or two countries. Socialism is, I guess, about a hundred years so far. How long have other systems lasted? 78.149.133.100 (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

just being picky but fascism started in Italy in 1919 and dragged on in Spain until 20th November 1975. 56 years in total. Alansplodge (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The United States is generally described as a Constitutional republic, more specifically, as the longest continuous constitutional republic. We have had our current constitution since 1788, so 222 years and counting. Googlemeister (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Or 18 years, if we consider that each amendment results in a fundamentally different constitution. You can't really say the US has had its "current" constitution for 222 years, as that would deny the 27 amendments that have occurred since then. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Longevity of particular forms of government is difficult to measure, because governments shift form. for instance, the US has technically made one major shift in governance (from pre-civil war confederalism to post-civil war federalism), and some other smaller but significant changes (addition of Judicial review, changes in suffrage, commercialization of the military, the introduction and vastly increased influence of lobbyists and corporate influence). I sincerely doubt that Washington, Jefferson, of Franklin would approve of - or even fully recognize - the thing we credit them with creating. Kingdoms tend to last a long time, but mostly under different dynasties, as one family line is murdered off and replaced (there's a loose 3-4 generation rule for most familial dynasties). Empires have shorter life spans than kingdoms, mostly because they lack the internal cohesion of kingdoms - outlying regions tend to spin off, go into revolt, or get picked off by surrounding opponents. revolutionary republics tend to be short-lived because one of the inevitable first steps in a revolution is the destruction of the governmental structures that would otherwise hold the nation together (police, judiciary, civil service...). Fascism would likely have lasted a lot longer except that it connected itself with rabid expansionism. "Communism" in Russia actually constituted at least three different systems (pre-WWII, stalinism, cold-war period), none of which (except perhaps the first) could really be referred to as communist.

rankly, it's a badly framed question. are you asking about nations or systems? finding the life-span of nations is easy, finding the life-span of systems is next to impossible, because the system of governance of a nation is mutable and not easy to define. --Ludwigs2 21:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The British monarchy hasn't had the crown transfer through direct killing since 1485 (Henry VII killed Richard III). It's jumped around a bit due to people dying without issue, and the name of the ruling house has changed when we've had queens, but it's been fairly peaceful (not entirely peaceful, of course!). --Tango (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The UK has been a constitutional monarchy since 1688 - that's 322 years and counting! (touche!) --TammyMoet (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Where can I see a copy of the "British Constitution?" Edison (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Magna Carta. 78.149.167.173 (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

And the royal line of succession was established in 1066, which is a pretty good run also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs -- the current root of genealogical legitimacy was established in 1066, but the principle that the crown could pass through a female line of descent wasn't established until the Stephen-Matilda wars, and the principle that the crown could pass to a woman wasn't really established until Mary I in 1553, and the current principles of succession are laid down in an act of Parliament passed in 1701, so it's hard to say how the "line of succession" was established in 1066. AnonMoos (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Far as I know, every King or Queen of the UK and its predecessors, since 1066, has been descended from William I. That doesn't mean he intended it that way, or that the rules were the same. It's a little like saying that the National League was established in 1876, even though it looks rather different now than it did then. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The line of Emperors of Japan claims to be formed in 660 BC. Even if you shave off 50 years since it has become a Constitutional monarchy after World War II, it's still some 2600 years. The Icelandic Althing is one of the oldest parliamentary traditions. --Kvasir (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Egypt was ruled by pharaohs for three millennia. See History of Egypt. —D. Monack ^talk 23:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Pharoahs of many dynasties, though. AnonMoos (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Same with the England/UK then. Having different dynasties do not necessary mean different political systems, relating to the OP. --Kvasir (talk) 04:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

European and British feudalism lasted many centuries, maybe more than a millenium--I guess the Norman conquest just switched England from one line of feudal rulers to another, but the system itself arguably started centuries before William the Conqueror and persisted til the 1700's or so. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The general trend in recent historical studies has been to very narrowly and precisely define the word "feudalism", so that the period of classic feudalism defined in that way doesn't last all that long... AnonMoos (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Several newspapers noted that feudalism survived in Sark until a couple of years ago (though, of course, this depends on what you mean by "feudalism" and "survived"), see Sark general election, 2008.

Maybe another way to view the question is to see the beginning and end of a "political system" as those moments of significant change; this could be a peaceful move to independence (e.g. India); the formation of a broader national coalition (e.g. Senegambia); or it could come through violent coups d'états, rebellions, invasions, etc. We could then see the OP's question as asking which sorts of political ideology make for the longest gaps between such moments of change. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 04:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess that a number of uncontacted tribes (or, until recently uncontacted) will have had the same kind of chieftain/clan rule for several millennia. Gabbe (talk) 07:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

So just how long have humans lived on the North Sentinel Island? 50,000 years? -- llywrch (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The parliament of Iceland goes back to AD 930, see Althing. It was not meeting in the first half of the 1800s, but have otherwise been fairly continous. Iceland was not independent between 1263 and 1944, but you could still make a case for "longest continous government". (This is, however, possibly not what the original poster asked for.) Jørgen (talk) 08:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The Althing is already mentioned above (by Kvasir), but Tynwald and the Løgting are not. Gabbe (talk) 08:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Australian aboriginals probably lived in essentially the same way for 40,000-70,000 years (Prehistory of Australia) until the arrival of Europeans. But other hunter-gatherer groups probably lived in similar ways for much longer. Here's an article saying a fairly modern society with division of labour existed with homo erectus 750,000 years ago. [6].

Incidentally where does the figure for fascism lasting 20 years come from? Francisco Franco was in power from 1936-1975, and there were others before and after him. --Normansmithy (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Imperial China lasted over 2000 years, ruled by a Confucian system from 202 BCE to 1911 CE. --Normansmithy (talk) 12:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes but with many different dynasties, some radically different. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The Solomonic dynasty of Ethiopia went on for 800 years until the overthrow of Haile Selassie in 1974 I think that's the longest reign of any one dynasty in history. The True Wiki (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I asked about political systems, not royal lines of descent. 78.149.167.173 (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Well based on most contributors' answers, it seems monarchism (constitutional or absolute) has the most longevity (measured in centuries to millenia). The question is which country's and how you'd define it (whether different dynasties are regarded the same form of government). --Kvasir (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

just as an aside, I believe there's a debate in congress about officially changing the description of the US from a 'constitutional republic' to a 'destitutional republic'. It's still in committee though... --Ludwigs2 22:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Marahasta

... Nagar-Aveli was given to the Portuguese as a compensation for the sinking of a Portuguese ship by the Maratha navy.

— Dadra_and_Nagar_Haveli#Portuguese_Era

What this one of the requirements of the treaty? What is the name for "the requirement of a treaty"? What is this treaty? What was this war?174.3.113.245 (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

What treaty? The Maratha navy sank two ships, according to this source, and Portugal threatened war; the Maratha Empire offered the territory to avoid war. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Violin Sheet music for "hey soul sister" by Train

is there any way i can find Violin sheet music for this? I've looked everywhere but they have it just for piano and vocals and guitar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 23:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you a particular reason to think that somebody has arranged it for fiddle? It's quite possible that nobody has. --ColinFine (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried reading the upper line of the piano music? That generally corresponds to the melody and is likely in the violin's range. -- Deborahjay (talk) 23:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

March 24

Health care law

If the Supreme Court rules that Congress can't mandate that all individuals buy health insurance, would the entire law be invalidated? --70.250.214.164 (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd expect the legislation has a severability clause, so if the court knocked out part of it, the rest would stay in force. But I haven't checked. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The suit alleges that the mandate is central to the legislation and so, unseverable. If this argument carries the day, the legislation would be invalidated in its entirety. (And, of course, if not, not.) - Nunh-huh 01:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer and certainly not a constitutional scholar. However, I know that complicated legislation like this usually affects several different parts of the U.S. Code and that the striking down of one part doesn't necessarily impact the rest. For example, the censorship provisions of the Communications Decency Act were struck down by the Supreme Court, but the provisions that shield websites from libel liability for comments made by users in forums remain in force, which is why I can write here that Oprah Winfrey tortures baby seals for fun and the Wikimedia Foundation can't be sued. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently the new plan is similar to one that has been running in Massachusetts for a while and has survived legal challenges. See Massachusetts health care reform, sometimes called Romneycare after the then-governor who signed it into operation. Romney is likely to seek the 2012 Republican presidential nomination so it will be interesting to see how he plays it. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 04:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

From what that article says, the Massachusetts law is not quite out of the woods yet. There is also liable to be a major difference in that it's a state vs. the federal. Opponents are liable to argue that the federal government has no constitutional authority to mandate that every citizen have insurance, i.e. that it's a states-rights violation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

IANAL but from surfing around a little, the legal challenges don't sound very viable; they're just obstruction attempts, like the birther lawsuits against Obama. Also, apparently nobody is actually required to have insurance--the legal construction is that voluntarily uninsured people have to pay higher taxes. My guess is that the higher tax would pass rational basis review since those people might at some point need emergency medical services that has to somehow be paid for. Of course it's a highly regressive tax, not what I'd expect from a so-called "socialist" program. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit much to compare constitutional challenges to the health care law with birthers. Characterizing your political opponents as extremists is always popular, but rarely perceptive. So far the attorneys-general of 13 states have filed suit against the law, so this is not exactly a fringe idea. Constitutionalism and libertarianism might be politically dead in the US, but I wouldn't characterize adherents of those philosophies as quacks.

It is unprecedented for the government to mandate that every person buy something, so it's predictable and reasonable to expect some legal resistance to this new assertion of government power over individuals. (There are some exemptions to the individual mandate; those who are not exempted and still refuse to buy insurance must pay a $695 fine.) It appears to be a longshot, however, that the individual mandate will be ruled unconstitutional by the courts, but we'll see. —Kevin Myers 00:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"Severability" clauses are contract issues, not statutory ones. Statues that are invalid "on face" are invalid as a whole, but that doesn't necesarially apply to a whole "bill". Moreoever, it's quite rare that a statue is invalid "on face", rather than "as applied." A provision may be invalid even on face, but that doesn't mean the bill that passed it is entirely invalid.

If you want discussion about that specific provision, there are lots of legal blogs talking about it, perhaps most visibly, The Volokh Conspiracy, here, as well as elsewhere on there too. Shadowjams (talk) 05:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

procrastination trick

If I've got to do something and I'm putting it off, I have a really bad habit of purposely avoiding looking at the clock so I don't notice how late it's getting. Sort of a form of denial--if I'm not aware of it, it's not really happening. Is there a name for that trick, of not looking at the clock? I'm thinking of programming my computer to make a voice announcement of what time it is (or play chimes or something), every 15 minutes or so through the day, to undo the habit. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

"Burying ones head in the sand" describes it quite well. --Tango (talk) 00:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That's rather general, I'm asking about the specific pattern of avoiding clocks and I'm wondering if it's common. It's something I've noticed fairly recently. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 04:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I would just call it 'avoidance'. I don't know a name for that particular form of it. --ColinFine (talk) 08:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It may be related to the Horizon effect, in that you are deliberately manipulating your subjective time-horizon. You are trying to keep your time-horizon before the time of the work you have to do, so that you can subjectively ignore it. 84.13.22.69 (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's interesting. Horizon effect turns out to be a term from game programming, but it sounded like it might have come from behavioral economics, which suggests some ways to understand these weird habits. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 07:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

In my experience the horizon effect accounts for me perpetually putting off unpleasant tasks that I must do, even though things will be better after I've done the unpleasant task, which in theory I therefore ought to do immediately. Perhaps having a short horizon explains reckless or criminal behaviour, psychopoathy, etc, as their horizon is too near to care about the consequences. 84.13.201.209 (talk) 10:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Break Even

Hello. When a firm wants to find an output level and a selling price per unit to break even, the firm would like to maximize profits by finding the intersection of marginal cost curve, marginal revenue curve, and average total cost curve. Why would the average total cost curve be minimal at this point? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like mathematics. Well you have

FC = fixed Cost

MC = Marginal Cost (per item)

SV(price) = Sales Volume for each price

Profit(price) = price * SV(price) - FC - (MC*SV(price))

Profit(price)/item = (price * SV(price) - FC - (MC*SV(price)) )/ SV(price)

Profit(price)/item = price - ( FC/SV(price) ) - MC

Average Cost per item = ( FC/SV(price) ) + MC

So we have

Profit(price)/item = price - Average Cost per item

So you see it's very easy. All you have to do is find the mathematical function SV(price), the amount sold at each price 122.107.207.98 (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

122.107.207.98, you assumed that marginal cost per item is fixed, while it actually also varies by quantity, due to economy of scale. For example, if you order 10 tons of plastic to produce your parts, you'll likely get a better rate than for 1 ton. Also, fixed costs aren't really fixed. That is, as you increase production, eventually you'll need to build more factories, and thus incur higher fixed costs. StuRat (talk) 03:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

One more time with passion

This sounds like mathematics. Well you have

FC(vol) = Fixed Cost

MC(vol) = Marginal Cost (per item)

SV(price) = Sales Volume for each price

vol = SV(price)

Profit(price) = price * vol - FC(vol) - (MC(vol)*SV(price))

Profit(price)/item = (price * SV(price) - FC(SV(price)) - ( MC(SV(price)) * SV(price)) )/ SV(price)

Profit(price)/item = price - ( FC(SV(price))/SV(price) ) - MC(SV(price))

Average Cost per item = ( FC(SV(price))/SV(price) ) + MC(SV(price))

So you see it's very easy. All you have to do is find the mathematical function

• SV(price), the amount of items sold at each price
• FC(vol), the fixed cost at the volume of items sold
• MC(vol), the marginal cost at the volume of items sold

122.107.207.98 (talk) 03:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That looks better, but isn't SV(price) = vol ? If so, we should get FC(vol) = FC(SV(price)) or just FC(price), right ? And the same applies to MC. I also notice that none of this directly answers the original poster's Q, however. StuRat (talk) 04:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question, here's a bit of microeconomics:

Your firm breaks even at the point where total costs (FC + VC) are equal to total revenue (P x Q). (Additional - if we assume the firm is operating in a perfectly competitve market, the firm's pricing equation is P=MC.)

To maximise profit, the firm produces at the point where marginal costs are equal to marginal revenue. If a firm produces more than this, marginal costs outweigh marginal revenue, while if it produces less, extra profit remains untaken.

The reason why average total cost is minimised at the point of MR=MC falls out of this - at another point of production, either: MC > MR - Marginal costs are rising, increasing average costs MR < MC - "not enough" is produced, so fixed costs (which are not part of the MC calculation, as MC is simply the derivative of the VC formula) "push up" the average cost. --Roydisco (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Roydisco (talk • contribs) 14:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Date

When was this made? 300 BCE?[7]174.3.113.245 (talk) 07:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

They didn't have Roman emperors in 300 BC (or BCE if you prefer). If you'd gone to the description page at Image:Bust of emperor Philippus Arabus - Hermitage Museum.jpg, you would have seen the date 244-249 AD (or CE), but that is the date of the emperor's reign. If you check the museum's own web site, you will find this page which gives the date of the bust as circa mid-3rd century -- in other words, probably about the time he was emperor, but they don't exactly know. I'll edit the description page now to add this date. --Anonymous, 08:45 UTC, March 24, 2010.

fund for ferry crash victims

I found a source of information which claims a fund has been set up for the victims of the 2003 Staten Island Ferry crash. Is the Ferry Fund still open or has it closed? Anyone know?24.90.204.234 (talk) 13:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this where you saw it? Near the bottom, in bold type is a paragraph that reads: "Please send donations to the victims of this tragedy directly to: The Ferry Fund -- call Borough Hall at (718) 816-2000 or D'Amato's law office at (718) 442-0900." The latter phone number matches a law firm that still seems to be in business: Russo, Scamardello and D'Amato, of 1010 Forest Avenue, Staten Island, New York 10310. I would contact either Borough Hall or the law firm, who should be able to let you know what happened to the fund. It seems that many victims won substantial compensation from the city via the courts, but perhaps the fund assisted uninsured claimants with their legal expenses? Karenjc 22:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. When I tried to contact Borough Hall quite a few times, all I got were voicemails. When I tried to call the law firm, I learned Mr. D'Amato passed away in 2007. Who else should I turn to?24.90.204.234 (talk) 04:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've found plenty of coverage of lawsuits following the accident, but nothing suggesting payments from a public fund. I suspect it may never have come into being, or if it did, it was never a significant amount and has been used sometime in the last seven years - however, this is just speculation. This article is one of the most recent I have found about the lawsuits that followed the accident: it states that as of 1 January this year, four compensation cases remained scheduled for trial and one lawyer was trying to locate his client. There is a contact email for the writer, John Marzulli, at the foot of the article. It's a long shot, but you could try contacting Mr. Marzulli, with a link to the article mentioning the Fund, and asking for his help. He's obviously done at least some research into the story and may have an interest in finding out what happened to the Ferry Fund, or in talking to people with a potential interest in the Fund if it exists. Karenjc 10:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

developement of criminal law

I have always wondered how law and criminal law in particular, has evolved to to what it is today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zedlaw (talk • contribs) 15:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a bit of discussion at Criminal law#History. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Different jurisdictions have different laws, all with their own histories. Is there a particular jurisdiction you are interested it? A lot of modern jurisdictions (mostly former British colonies) have their law derived from English common law with various statutes added on. English common law is derived in part from Roman law. Roman_law#Afterlife_of_Roman_law gives a good description of how Roman law influenced both English law and other jurisdictions (it influenced civil law in continental Europe rather more than English law). --Tango (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hammurabi's Code from 1790 BC already contains a number of provisions about quite "sophisticated" matters of regulating inheritance, adoption, contract law, interest, economic relief for victims of natural disaster, price regulation, medical and veterinary practice, even laws regulating building contractors. Rmhermen (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Browsing through Amazon.com, A History of American Law by Lawrence Meir Friedman seems to be relatively popular. That is, if you're looking for a something focusing on the American legal tradition. Gabbe (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

See Tang Code and related articles. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Politics. Welcome to the jungle. Shadowjams (talk) 05:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Spoke Zarathustra

I teach you the Overman! Mankind is something to be overcome. What have you done to overcome mankind?

All beings so far have created something beyond themselves. Do you want to be the ebb of that great tide, and revert back to the beast rather than overcome mankind? What is the ape to a man? A laughing-stock, a thing of shame. And just so shall a man be to the Overman: a laughing-stock, a thing of shame. You have evolved from worm to man, but much within you is still worm. Once you were apes, yet even now man is more of an ape than any of the apes.

Even the wisest among you is only a confusion and hybrid of plant and phantom. But do I ask you to become phantoms or plants?

Behold, I teach you the Overman! The Overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: The Overman shall be the meaning of the earth! I beg of you my brothers, remain true to the earth, and believe not those who speak to you of otherworldly hopes! Poisoners are they, whether they know it or not. Despisers of life are they, decaying ones and poisoned ones themselves, of whom the earth is weary: so away with them!

--Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

Even the wisest among you is only a confusion and hybrid of plant and phantom. But do I ask you to become phantoms or plants?

What does Zarathustra mean when he refers to the plant and the ghost? Mac Davis (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's the ghost in the machine concept. Gabbe (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

sort of. Nietzsche is really speaking against the idea that there is a separation between body and soul. in fact, the idea that there is a separation is part of the corruption he rails against:it reduces people either to pure beasts (all body, who can only find gross satisfactions in this life) or pure spirits (who can only hope for salvation in a future life). Man is something else, and should be ashamed of both that pure carnality and that pure spiritual impotence. the plant/phantasm metaphor is just an exaggeration of the body/soul division, meant to highlight its silliness. --Ludwigs2 22:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla similarly made the argument that man is a "meat machine". Part of that essay about the Overman (or "Superman") is cited in connection with 2001: A Space Odyssey. I wonder, though, what the German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche would have thought about the "practical application" of their respective theories to date. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

well, Marx officially declared that he wasn't a Marxist sometime after the 3rd International. It's actually a fascinating issue. What you have starting with Hegel and running up through modern existentialism is a philosophical effort to ground morality in something other than religion, something analytic. most of those efforts though (in one way or another) got reinterpreted that sacrificed morality entirely (e.g. Neitzche says we must discard the social conventions around sin and virtue otherwise we will never understand or achieve virtue, and yet the Nazis turn his philosophy to advocate the denial of pity and compassion; Marx says we should give up religion because it is a drug that keeps people from seeing the true nature of their exploitation, and a generation later Marxist leaders turn to indoctrination so that people will focus on the bright socialist future rather than on their current misery). I think Erich Fromm pegged it. people are afraid of the inherent moral responsibility implicit in true freedom, and so they reject freedom outright by subjugating themselves to an ideology (be it an ideology of constraint, like religion, or an ideology of indulgence that absolves them of responsibility for their behavior). --Ludwigs2 02:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Nietzsche was an inveterate lover of puns. If you have the original text available, you might check if the German words translated as 'plant' and 'phantom' aren't cognates in some way, perhaps even in Greek. Many people misunderstand Nietzsche's sense of humor. Weepy.Moyer (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Architecture Copyright

I created a logo for a non-profit organisation (yes about the same logo I referred to here). One question popped up was copyright, as my design features a stylistic representation of the Calgary Tower. I remember something about the Sydney Opera House being copyrighted and I can't seem to find it? Is it an urban myth? How do I know if an iconic building and its likeness is copyrighted? Our article is US based. --Kvasir (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Buildings are creative works like drawings or writing or musical composition, so in general they're subject to copyright like anything else. The extent and use you make of an image of another's building is covered, in part (and for Wikimedia purposes only) at Commons:Freedom of panorama. Beyond that you need to consult a lawyer, as permissible uses will vary with use and jurisdiction. If your non-profit can't afford a lawyer or get one to do this pro bono, you might consider using a different logo. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, according to Freedom of panorama#Canada, there is no problem. --Kvasir (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Still, talk to a lawyer. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Or ask the people at Calgary Tower - they may be more than happy for you to use a depiction of their building. On the other hand, it would be a problem if they say "no". Alansplodge (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You might be interested to read Atomium#Worldwide copyright claims.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting. I had read something similar about the Sydney Opera House. I can't remember where or if it was real now. --Kvasir (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

death penalty and insanity

Suppose there is a hypothetical situation where some place in the US with the death penalty (Texas, Oklahoma whatever) gives out a death sentence to someone for a crime. At the time of sentencing they are legally sane, however, in the 20 years it takes before they are to be executed, they lose their minds, would they still be executed? Googlemeister (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any experience with law, but why not? They were sane at the time of the crime, so they still should be punished for it. Of course, I'm sure lawyers could find some way to argue their way out of that one. And why would it take 20 years for them to be executed? That defeats the "don't support them in jail" idea. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually in some places in the US, the average time before execution can be even longer. Googlemeister (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

According to the first yellow graph at this link, the average time between sentence and execution in the US has been on an upward trend since 1977 and currently stands at about 12.75 years. (The graph work is sloppy and I'm not sure whether that's the median or mean.) To answer PrincessofLlyr's question as to "why", it's because in the US there are automatic appeals of every death sentence to each state and federal appellate court, up to and including a chance at the U.S. Supreme Court, in an effort to make sure the original trial and sentence were not tainted by any unfairness. The defense attorney always files an endless series of motions at the appellate levels, for many ostensible reasons, but for the real reason of delaying the execution of his client. Our article Capital punishment in the United States has lots of juicy content. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Like I said, I've no experience in law. My common sense obviously doesn't agree with it! PrincessofLlyr (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It would appear not, but the state can forcibly medicate someone to make them sane so they can execute them, as in the case of Charles Laverne Singleton.ref). See Ford v. Wainwright for background. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Not your exact question, but you may be interested in the "Death row phenomenon", whereby people on death row for long periods of time become emotionally distressed and often suicidal. Some say this amounts to "cruel and unusual punishment" and should void the death sentence. Our article says "arguments about the death row phenomenon have never been successful in avoiding the death penalty for any person in the US". Staecker (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

No wonder, since the reason they are there "for long periods of time" is typically due to obfuscating by their own lawyers and/or by themselves (John Gacy is a good example of that). Maybe they would prefer dispensing with the lengthy appeals, and string them up 30-60 days or so after sentencing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you seriously expect anybody under the threat of death to stop fighting for their lives? --99.237.234.104 (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the place to debate these things. How about just providing references and links to valid information? Staecker (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Insanity is only a consideration for trial purposes - a defendant must be capable of understanding the charges against him and assisting in his defense. once convicted of the crime, his later mental state becomes irrelevant. A good lawyer might make the case that a defendant needs to be legally sane (capable of understanding and assisting) for the obligatory appeals processes as well, or might claim that a legally insane prisoner was also legally insane at the time of his original trial - neither argument would have a lot of chance at success, however. legal insanity is a very narrow thing. --Ludwigs2 23:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Same would apply to a person who was convicted of a heinous crime and later had some sort of accident from which they fully recovered physically but it removed their memory of everything that happened before the accident. Just because they can no longer remember committing the crime doesn't mean they didn't commit it and shouldn't pay. Any notions of remorse would go by the wayside, but still ... -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Come on guys, could you please look up some references so you could find out when you're wrong? Ludwigs2 and 202 are incorrect. In Ford v. Wainwright, which Finlay McWalter linked above, the US Supreme Court declared it was unconstitutional to execute an insane person. Ford had been sane when he committed murder, his mental state declined in prison, and at that point he could no longer constitutionally be executed. Looking up references prevents these sorts of errors! Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I normally refuse to be hobbled by mere 'facts', but I'll allow it in this case. --Ludwigs2 00:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Another way to look at it is that the legal system would probably prefer that the defendant be fully aware of why he's being put to death, which may be hard to do if he's insane or otherwise mentally handicapped; but that's not necessarily a usable excuse for commuting the sentence, because if it were, there would be an epidemic of "insanity" on death rows everywhere. The insanity defense essentially comes down to a decision about whether the perp is "responsible for his actions" at the time of the crime. The theory is that if they're legally insane, they're not responsible, even if they pulled the trigger. But as Ludwig notes, legal insanity is a much narrower definition than the broad brush of "mental illness". It usually comes down to the question of whether the perp was cognizant of the fact that he was breaking the law. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC) preceding comment deleted by Bugs. Staecker (talk) 12:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Sentence #1 incorrect as above. Supply references, please. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

In the Commonwealth the Privy Council or Judicial Committee of the Privy Council decided in 1993 no executions should take place after a prisoner had been on "death row" for more than five years. Weepy.Moyer (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Amnesty International and others campaign again the length of time inmates spend on death row and the detrimental effects upon their mental health, here is a report about the effects on health. Also, as individual US states determine mental competence for execution there have been many questionable executions despite Ford v. Wainwright. meltBanana 17:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

What is the cause of the length of time spent on death row nowadays, vs. the "old days" when time spent on death row was relatively short? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Lots and lots of lawyers. Googlemeister (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It is unconstitutional to execute an insane person, even if the defendant was found sane at trial, according to this article. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Mwalcoff is correct. For purposes of execution (in the USA), the relevant time-frame for consideration is whether or not the defendant is insane at the time of the execution, not at the time he is sentenced to execution. In other words, say that Criminal X is sane at the time of his sentencing and, further, that he is (properly) sentenced to death. Twenty years later, his execution date arrives, but -- at this point -- he is now insane. The US Supreme Court bars his execution, despite his sanity at the time of the crime (or the time of sentencing). The (basic) underlying principle is that a person should understand that they are being executed and should understand why they are being executed. And, an insane person cannot understand or appreciate these facts. See US Supreme Court Blocks Execution of Insane Convicts. This link details the US Supreme Court decision in Ford v. Wainwright. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC))

But sanity at the time of the crime also matters, as does sanity at the time of the trial. It is presumed that someone insane during a crime is "not guilty". If they were insane at the time of a trial, it would also be presumed that they were not competent to stand trial. So, a retrial would be in order and it would likely be delayed until the defendant was competent to stand trial, if ever, with the defendant confined to a mental institution until then. StuRat (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Correct, StuRat. However, anyone who is insane at the time of the crime (or at the time of the trial) never "advances" to a stage in the proceedings where he is actually ever sentenced to death. In other words, one who is insane (at crime or at trial) would never receive a death sentence, or at least a legal/proper death sentence, in the first place. And, thus, there would never be an execution taking place at all. The original question, I believe, inquired about a non-insane person (at the time of crime) who later becomes insane while waiting umpteen years between a death sentence and the actual carrying out of that death sentence. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC))

March 25

Arab world mineral industry

Is there a website where it tells information about mineral industries in the Arab World like which minerals does Algeria have, Saudi Arabia mines which minerals and etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.107 (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Our articles can answer your question. See Mining industry of Algeria. As for Saudi Arabia, in Economy of Saudi Arabia, you will see that petroleum is the main geological resource for that country, but a government-owned mining firm called Ma'aden has been mining a number of minerals. Marco polo (talk) 02:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

minerals Canada

What type of minerals does Canada mine besides iron ore, coal, and gold? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.107 (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure there are many. Uranium, diamonds, and rare earths come to mind. Deor (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This table from the Canadian Minerals Yearbook lists a bunch for 2006-08. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Obama

Resolved

 – Asked and answered. Further discussion probably not needed. AlexiusHoratius 04:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Someone told me that the day after Obama was elected, the winning number for Illinois's Pick 3 Lottery was 666. Is this true? --70.250.214.164 (talk) 03:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I've reinstated this question because it appears to have been asked in good faith. However, it's not really a Reference desk subject - the Illinois Lottery could provide the data, not to mention Snopes [8]. Acroterion _(talk) 03:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you were correct to remove it. it's a question of no possible interest or value except to try and incite idiotic responses. Good faith or not, it's far too pointless to retain. --Ludwigs2 03:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, from http://www.illinoislottery.com/subsections/NumSearch.asp, the winning numbers of the evening Illinois Pick 3 on November 5, 2008 were indeed 6-6-6. However, I'm a lifelong non-Obamaniac and even I'll admit this doesn't mean anything. The number is bound to turn up somewhere if one looks hard enough. AlexiusHoratius 03:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

...and it's not even all that unlikely. These lottery draws pick 3 numbers in the range 0 to 9. Draw happens twice a day, so 6-6-6 will turn up on average about once every 500 days or about every 18 months. Before November 5, 2008, 6-6-6 came up on 23rd October 2008, 22nd March 2008 and 16th January 2008 ... but it didn't turn up at all in 2009. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Currency manipulator

What's the definition of currency manipulator? How a country be listed or defined as a currency manipulator? Thanks. roscoe_x (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Question moved here from the Science desk. Comet Tuttle (talk) 04:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

According to [|the US Treasury], “authorities of an economy could be said to manipulate the exchange rate if they intentionally act to set the exchange rate at levels, or ranges, to prevent effective balance of payments adjustments or gain unfair competitive advantage in international trade such that for a protracted period the exchange rate differs significantly from the rate that would have prevailed in the absence of action by the authorities. However, such a significant difference could also arise from the interplay of economic forces or other factors. Hence, in making assessments, a wide range of economic data and policies must be reviewed . . . ” How a country is listed is simple: Treasury sends a report to Congress declaring that Iceland (whoever) is guilty. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

And could China be equally guilty?--ProteanEd (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

China actively manipulates their currency, yes. They don't deny it. --Tango (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I agree that China is a currency manipulator according to the definition of the US Treasury, but the Chinese government would most certainly deny that they manipulate their exchange rate "to prevent effective balance of payments adjustments or gain unfair advantage in international trade". The Chinese justify their currency policies as a means to promote economic stability and recovery from the global downturn. If they prevent balance of payments adjustments or give them an advantage (of course not an unfair one!) in international trade, that is merely a side-effect, according to the official Chinese position presented to outsiders. The US Treasury department might decide to adopt the Chinese view and to refrain from labeling China a currency manipulator because labeling China a currency manipulator could lead to a dangerous spiral of adversarial measures, which could include China dumping its massive holdings of US debt, which would drive up interest rates in the United States and could lead to a collapse of the US dollar, both of which would have devastating effects on the US economy. Marco polo (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

What I can’t figure out is why people are so anxious to drive up the cost of the daily necessities that people have to buy – the Wal-Mart stuff – at a time when we still haven’t fully recovered from the recession. It obviously isn’t about jobs (in the event China quickly raised the value of its currency by, say, 20%, zero new jobs would be created in America), so why is one side of the political spectrum so eager to kick the least well-off people when their down?

It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to recognize that needlessly jacking up the cost of just about everything the poor have to buy at Wal-Mart is an incredibly stupid thing to do to consumer confidence, personal consumption expenditure and the economy in general. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the higher costs would be expected to be temporary, since the higher prices would encourage US companies to compete for the market. The increased competition would drive the prices lower again, only now the US would have some ability to make it's own supplies, creating jobs in the process for a net gain. In reality, I am not sure how well it would really work, but the US does have the power to effectively raise the currency of China in the US anyways by raising tariffs. Googlemeister (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Nah, it’s a permanent step up in the cost of living. If the things people have to buy (e.g., at Wal-Mart) aren’t made in China, they’ll be made – at higher cost or lower quality (or both) – in Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, India, Bangladesh or somewhere else that is just a shade below competitive with China under the current circumstances. US companies are part of the equation only in so far as they are operating in those countries, and the only competition generated would be for market share taken away from China. Manufacturing in the US? Not part of the picture. And, having the power to do something has absolutely nothing to do with whether it’s a good idea or not. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

is it true that...

...before the 16th century, china was the dominant world power, india second and the west third? if yes, that means the rise of china and india may be just restoring the natural order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.216.77 (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I would have to say no, those assertions are not very accurate. While China and perhaps India were able to exert a great amount of power, it was on a regional scale and not global. That is not to say they were not the most powerful of the time, but their influence on a global scale would probably not be sufficient to be considered a global power in a modern sense. Additionally, one can not really consider the West to be a power because the West would have consisted of separate entities such as Spain, Portugal, Venice etc. These entities were not really working together, and were often working at odds with each other. Googlemeister (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think India was unified at that time either. --Tango (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It is further incorrect to make a claim that there is a "natural order" to world powers. Just because something existed in the past does not imply that it is natural. -- kainaw™ 16:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Why is the 16th century special? There were other powers before then. The Mongol Empire was very powerful, for example. --Tango (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) prior to European colonialism, there was no such thing as a 'world' power. there were a number of very large empires in various regions (at least three in the Mediterranean region, a couple of different ones in the indian sub-continent, a long-lived one in most of what is now China, the Mayan and Aztec empires in the New World), but they were all regional empires. world powers were not possible at all until advances in ship technology made long-range bulk transportation of material and people possible, and not fully realizable until advances in weaponry reduced the military presence needed to secure a region (a single knight with armor, weapons and steed had an equivalent weight to to a small squad of musket men with a good quantity of shot and powder, and that small squad of musket men was a far more effective fighting force than an armored knight).

the 16th century is special because that's when the technological advances I mentioned above came into full play. --Ludwigs2 16:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It might be interesting to note what has "held back" China and India in recent times. In the case of China; colonialism, civil war, communism (and specifically some idiotic leadership under Mao) were the problems. In India; colonialism, civil war/war with Pakistan and maybe assassinations/terrorism were they problems. While many of those problems have been addressed, the remnants of communism (like refusing to have an open Internet) may continue to plague China, while political problems between Muslims and Hindus (and other ethnic or religious groups, like Tamils and Sikhs) continue to limit the growth of India. StuRat (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

yeah, though (IMO) that really all comes down to colonialism. India never would have had it's current structure if it weren't for the Europeans arbitrarily imposing a geo-political superstructure over the region (Pakistan would be larger, and large sections of western india would be under its rule or under separate muslim states; the main body of india would probably be divided into at least three different states, based on historical, linguistic, and religious distinctions). Communism would never have gotten much of a foothold in China if China had remained as simply a dynastic bureaucracy. the chinese revolution (which was inevitable, I think) would have focussed on anti-imperialism rather than anti-capitalism, and may have leaned towards democratic/republican forms rather than Marxist forms (the same ideas that are creeping out now in the Chinese political underground). who knows, though... --Ludwigs2 17:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

China briefly dabbled with overseas exploration in the early 15th Century (see Zheng He) but then decided it wasn't worth the effort. Perhaps if they'd have persevered, they would have taken the role that Spain and Portugal adopted a century later. Alansplodge (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

that would have put the fox in the henhouse. by all accounts, Chinese civilization of the period was more advanced than that of the equivalent western nations, it just lacked some of the technological advances. --Ludwigs2 17:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is widely believed that China had better technology in a lot of areas earlier then European countries did, at least until the Renaissance period. Googlemeister (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

yes, generally. however, they lagged behind the west in the development of firearms (possibly because of metallurgical issues?) and in seafaring tech. I don't think the Chinese had anything approaching the deep sea vessels the Europeans had at the time the Europeans were engaged in the major 'voyages of discovery'. Part of that is happenstance, of course - The primary threats to the Chinese throughout most of their history were land-based enemies like the Mongols. Japan was an issue, but the Japanese were never great sailors and Japan is a bit far away from the chinese mainland to mount a determined invasion. Europe, however, had Britain just a few scant miles to the west and the Mediterranean and Africa to the south, so they had a significant competitive incentive to develop navies and superior ships. Being able to get from point A to point B is a big part of conquering point B. --Ludwigs2 20:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

There's the idea that Europe developed sea-faring technology, skills, and knowledge capable of reaching all parts of the world (you don't just need good ships and sailing technology but understanding of large-scale wind patterns and so on) while China certainly could have but didn't, was because China produced lots of things Europeans wanted while Europe produced very little that the Chinese wanted. Europeans had the incentive to figure out how to get to the place that had the stuff they wanted, while China didn't want anything from most of the world and so little incentive to undertake the expense and risks of long-distance ocean sailing. In short, China had the luxury of staying home and letting other people come to them. As late as the early 19th century trade with China was hard for Europeans (and Americans) because there were few goods desired by China. Imports at Canton consisted mostly of furs and hard cash (specie). Of course it wasn't long before the East India Company turned to opium. In time the inflow of specie to China reversed to an outflow as massive amounts of opium were imported--illegally at first, until.. well, the Opium Wars of course. Anyway, I've seen the notion of China not needing to go anywhere much and Europe really really wanting to get to China playing a factor in European seafaring. It's an oversimplification, of course, but makes some sense. Pfly (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

(Responding to Alansplodge above) If you accept the thesis of Jered Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel, the reason that China "fell behind" Europe was that it had no immediate competition to encourage its peoples to innovate & improve their livelihoods. As a result, until the 20th century China remained a powerful pre-industrial power, depending on the backs of millions of toiling peasants to produce its GDP. (Zheng He's voyages are of an example of what China could do if one man -- the Emperor -- wanted it done; when a new Emperor came along who wasn't interested in that accomplishment, funding dried up & further advances would not be forthcoming.) In contrast, the geography of Europe led to the formation of numerous nation-states which were chronically in competition with one other -- militarily, economically & culturally; their inhabitants were all stumbling towards the Industrial Revolution & world domination exploration. If one European country lost interest in an area, there were several others that would take up the slack. Which would be an explanation at odds with what Pfly wrote above. -- llywrch (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Studies that have been done on the size of various economies and their share of global GDP prior to the 20th century have all concluded that China was the first or second largest economy for most of the period between unification (212BCE) and the mid-19th century. Moreover, all of China’s neighbors regularly sent tribute to the emperor, unless they were engaged in a war with China (generally, for not sending tribute). Admiral Zheng He’s early 15th century voyages were as much about reminding South and South-East of their responsibilities to pay tribute as it was about exploration. In the absence of any other power even seeking to challenge China’s supremacy (unlike constant internal squabbling among Europeans), that one-third of the world was under China’s power, if not direct rule. Still, I agree with kainaw that there’s nothing “natural” about any world order. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

While I'm willing to concede that the economies of what is now India & China were each larger than the economy of what is now Western Europe, the Wikipedia article you linked to is basically a recap of the findings of one scholar -- Angus Maddison -- which is considered, based on the Talk page of that article, very controversial. Which is not a surprise: the raw statistical material needed to produce the economic information is notably reduced prior to 1900, & becomes attenuated prior to 1800. In other words, one is reduced to making estimates based on assumptions before 1800 on an increasing basis as one goes further back in time & records dwindle in number & quality. The economic investigations of Gregory King may be useful for England circa 1690, but England is only one part of the British Isles, let alone Europe. I have no knowledge of the state of the government archives of China, Japan & India, but except for papyrus finds in Egypt European archival records effectively end at AD 500; anything before that is based on the subjective opinion of upper-class historians or investigators. It would be foolish to consider any statistic before 1800 a solid fact without careful investigation. -- llywrch (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Racists everywhere?

How many innocent children stories have been discovered to be indeed racist? Like “Snow White,” who insisted on being the “fairest of them all.” ProteanEd (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

They aren't discovered to be racist, people just make nonsense claims that they are racist. The story uses the first, not the third, definition of fair (in the order used on that page). --Tango (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's that simple. Lighter skin was considered prettier (hence "fair" meaning both), probably because princesses, who never had to go outside to work, had it, while peasants had tans. Later, the term "healthy tan" was used because people who worked outside were more likely to be healthy than the sedentary. But now we know that tans aren't that healthy after all, so perhaps pale will come back into style. StuRat (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Skin lightening cream is massively popular in India [9]. Not sure if that means they're all racists, but if so they are at worst frivolous racists motivated by vanity. 213.122.7.193 (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe Skin whitening and skin lightening cream is popular thoroughout much of East and South East Asia as well. In fact from our article "The whitening cream industry is estimated to be worth around $432 million in India and $7 billion in China" Nil Einne (talk) 10:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely everything that exists is racist if you want it to be. Therefore, every story ever written is racist to some degree. -- kainaw™ 17:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Little Black Sambo may be the foremost; the story itself has no racist overtones, as our article states; but the illustrations of most versions are taken to be racist caricatures, and over time Sambo became a racist term in some places. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

OP's clarification:I chose a wrong wording for my question. I should have said "stories which were accused of being racists" or "stories which were 'discovered' to be racist". I know that there is some conceptual and semantical twisting in labeling Snow White as racist.--ProteanEd (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) You have to be careful with interpretation. I once heard Robin Williams (as a comedy routine) give a scholarly interpretation of "goldilocks and the three bears" as an allegory for 20th century European politics, and the hilarious thing about it was how well it worked. Some stories are racist because they were considered cute in times when racism was commonplace; some are made racist by an overly-particular analysis. --Ludwigs2 18:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No small part of the problem is the slippery term "racist", which means many things to many people. Is the movie Blazing Saddles racist? Well, it throws the N-word and other ethnic slurs around quite a lot, but the white people are depicted as morons, in general. (As noted by The Waco Kid in the movie's script.) For example, is sterotyping in the same category as actual racial discrimination? Then there's Huckleberry Finn, Twain's biting commentary of the times in which he lived, which ironically found itself being banned in some places in more recent times, because of its alleged racism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how depicting white people as morons means a movie isn't racist - it could well be racist, just against whites. (I'm not saying Blazing Saddles is racist against any race, I'm just commenting on Bugs' comment.) --Tango (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a comedy, so there's a lot more latitude. And it's actually a statement against racism. Bart wins everyone over, through his leadership and resourcefulness. The point is that some folks who lack perspective will zero in on something specific in a work and say, "That's racist! Ban it!" When I was a kid, I never thought of "Little Black Sambo" as being racist. It was just a story about a kid dealing with a tiger, or some such. But as someone implied earlier, if you go looking for racism (or anything else, for that matter), you're sure to find it. That doesn't mean there isn't racist stuff out there, or maybe a better way to say it would be "stuff that's embarassing by today's standards". That's the real issue with "Little Black Sambo" and parts of "Huckleberry Finn", or "Amos and Andy" for that matter. What's needed is better education, to explain these works as a product of their times. For an editorial reference, Whoopi Goldberg's disclaimer at the start of some of the WB cartoon DVD's shows excellent perspective on the matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Some would say, Tango, that racism is racial descrimination plus power (i.e. systemic) so that Blazing Saddles may exhibit racial discrimination, but since it's against the power group (whites) it's not "racist" in that regard. Moot clarification of your point, I suppose, but it shows how what Bugs is saying about slippery terminology can get in the way of the discussion. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 23:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That's it exactly. True racism, or racism "that matters", is suppression of one race by another. Name-calling may be racist in nature, but unless it's part of the greater aspect of suppression, it's really of no consequence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"True racism"? Where's that definition from? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

American Heritage dictionary, definition 2. It's not the only definition, but it is a valid one. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 21:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Marginally. Mostly I've heard it used by people claiming it's impossible that they are racists because they are a minority, forgetting that it's possible to be simultaneously oppressed and an oppressor. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I've seen it often in academia and particularly amongst those who make a distinction between racism and racial discrimination. I believe popularly most people do not make such a distinction. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 02:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem with finding racism everywhere is that one waters down real racism to the point where it cannot be recognized. If everything is found to be racist, then we can't differentiate. There is real, harmful, damaging racism in the world, and so much of it there's no point in inventing it in places where it doesn't; and doing so hurts, rather than furthers, the cause of ending it, because filling our awareness with frivilous claims of racism clouds our ability to combat real racism. --Jayron32 18:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Well-stated. :) Ray Charles also provided some perspective, quoted on p.95 in Lynn Sherr's book about his recording of America the Beautiful, a quote from the early 70s or so, taken from another book: "I'm the first to say this country is racist to the bone. But that doesn't mean I can't be patriotic. For all the B.S. about America, I still work and live here in comfort." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The Annotated Brothers Grimm, aside from being a beautiful and fascinating work, shows quite clearly how these European folk stories often had values that are more than a bit out of touch with modern sensibilities. Some of the Grimm stories are simply not translatable to modern ears—The Jew in the Brambles, for example, shows its heritage a little too starkly. People adapt stories to fit the values of their times. Sometimes that means rather obviously nasty things. Sometimes it involves less obviously nasty ones—a focus on princesses, for example, which has only magnified in the last few years, has been the subject of a lot of critique for what it broadcasts as being the appropriate values for women, for example.

In a more general comment, Bruno Bettelheim was famous for reading Freudian values into many classic short stories. Estimations on how accurate his analysis is vary quite a bit. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Recess appointments

What's to stop a US President from using recess appointments to permanently fill a position?

For example, say the Chief Justice resigned, during a Senate in recess. The President, faced by an opposition Senate could make a recess appointment. As the Constitution limits such an appointment until the expiration of the next session of the Senate, why couldn't the President simply re-appoint said Chief Justice as the Senate is once more out of session? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamUK (talk • contribs) 18:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Congress has the option to properly fill the position. If Congress chooses not to properly fill the position, they are choosing to let the recess appointment stand. It is a situation where choosing not to do one thing is a choice to do another. -- kainaw™ 18:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

But, of course, Congress can only vote to approve those people who are nominated by the President. So, if the Congress is absolutely opposed to anything the President does, then that deadlock is addressed with a recess appointment. The broader lesson here is that a division of powers doesn't function any more if those in the various branches of government refuse to ever cooperate. StuRat (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

So in answer to the question: nothing. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 23:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

However, if you're the president, you'd want your appointments to be in office as long as possible, especially if you fear that your successor will be from the other political party. Consequently, you may want to try to compromise with the Senate at some point to be able to get a permanent appointment, since unfilled positions (especially on the Supreme Court) are a significant political advantage for the party in power. Combine that with the fact that the most likely reason for wholesale opposition from the Senate is that it's controlled by the other party, and you're in an even worse situation: a successor from the other political party would be very likely to have an easy time getting appointments confirmed. Nyttend (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

But, if you need 60 votes in the Senate for confirmation, as now seems to be the case, you may not get that with either party in charge. Therefore, we could eventually end up with all Supreme court seats filled as recess appointments. This would result in the Supreme Court alternating between all liberals and all conservatives whenever the Presidency changes party. That would make for some rather chaotic rulings, and effectively kill the concept of an independent judiciary. StuRat (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Executive recess appointments in the U.S. can only serve for up to two years without needing to be confirmed by the Senate.[10] [that's a PDF file, you may need to rename it from .cfm to .pdf to view it after downloading] However, controversial recess appointments usually have a pretty good chance of being reconfirmed. Time heals controversies. 99.27.201.226 (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

So what happens after 2 years if no confirmation happens ? Can the President then do another recess appointment or is the office just left vacant ? StuRat (talk) 03:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure -- it might just be that the title changes to "Acting ____" but the appointee stays in place. 99.27.201.226 (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "2 years"; it's a matter of the end of the current Senate session, at which point the recess appointment expires, and the position is again vacant. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Then what ? Can the President just reappoint the same person to the same position ? StuRat (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Unsuccessful recess appointments to United States federal courts (I love Wikipedia!) mentions Taft using a recess appointment to reappoint a couple of judges who'd been recess appointed by TR and then rejected by the Senate. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

bankruptcy

How does bankruptcy work? I am not looking into it personally, but am working on an idea for a short story. Say an individual buys $50,000 worth of stuff (furniture, car, star wars collector glasses or whatever) with a credit card, and gives away the money from selling the merchandise, or gives the merchandise itself to a third party. When the bill comes due, the individual declares bankruptcy. Would the credit card company be able to get money or goods from the third party, or would the CC company just be SOL? After the bankruptcy, is there no obligation to pay back the CC company? So the third party could give the original purchaser back the merchandise, which is now free and clear? Googlemeister (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you read our article Bankruptcy? DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Those portions that appear relevant (seemingly Chapter 7 in the US). It does little to address my questions though. Googlemeister (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

First, intentionally hiding assets like that would be considered fraud, and jail terms could result. Second, you stay in bankruptcy for years, so your friend would have to keep those items a long time. Third, your friend could refuse to give the items back. Fourth, bankruptcy puts a permanent mark on your record, leading to an inability to get good credit, jobs, etc., for years. So, considering all this, is it really worth it ? StuRat (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, chapter 7 bankruptcy "only" stays on your credit report 10 years. And in some cases, the fact that you aren't carrying loads of debt can actually improve your credit more than the fact that you filed for bankruptcy hurts it. I'm curious about a slightly less contrived and bad faith situation in a similar vein: what if a guy declares bankruptcy, but his wife (with separate financial accounts) is doing well? Could the creditors go after her assets? What if she divorces him quickly before bankruptcy is filed, and keeps the lion's share of the assets (bad faith yes, but not quite as blatant)? Buddy431 (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

A few points. First, I think it's 7 years, not 10. Second, some bankruptcies don't last for years (mostly just chapter 7's) and are open and shut affairs. If the court doesn't have to administer a plan (again, mostly just 7's) then they won't necessarily take all that long. Moreover, the length of the case doesn't affect how long you would need to keep the goods. What is part of the "estate" is determined at the order for relief. Shadowjams (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Our article says it is 10 years (7 for Chapter 13). US bankruptcy is very different to UK bankruptcy, it seems. In the UK, when someone is declared bankrupt they are considered bankrupt for a certain period of time (a year, usually, it used to be longer). During that time, your assets are vested in a trustee and you are under certain restrictions. The main ones are that you can't be a director of a company and you have to inform anyone about to lend you more than a small amount of money about your bankruptcy. You are also usually required to pay as much as you can towards your debts during that time. That will be a portion of your salary and also any windfalls you may have in that time. After that time, your bankruptcy is "discharged" and only then do you cease to be liable for your debts. It stays on your credit report for 6 years (I'm not sure if that's from the date of the order or the date of the discharge), and even after that time you still have to declare it on mortgage applications and similar. --Tango (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

A deliberate bankruptcy petition as you describe, would likely be considered to be in bad faith, (see here) in that the debtor did not earnestly intend to repay the debt when he incurred it, and hasn't made every reasonable effort since to repay it. . Simply the splurge-give-bankruptcy cycle you describe would alone seem like obvious bad faith. If a court feels the bankruptcy petition is in bad faith, it will deny it - individuals don't really "declare bankruptcy", they ask to be declared bankrupt, a process that creditors frequently oppose. With the petition denied, the person's credit is still ruined but they still owe the debt, and the interest accruing, and hefty collection fees, and the costs of the failed bankruptcy petition, and lawyers, bailiffs, and collection agents can still purse them, often by any number of unpleasant means. As StuRat notes, the addition of the deliberate concealment and you've got a strong case for criminal fraud or deception. Creditors and bankruptcy courts are not idiots, and will not fall for amateur shenanigans like this. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 19:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

(Assuming the U.S.) There are good faith provisions in a a few parts of the bankruptcy code, (search title 11 for "good faith" and you'll find them). In addition, some of what you're describing is also fraud which is criminal and also would bar a discharge itself. Concealment itself is a separate type of fraud and crime. As far as credit goes, ironically in some cases people's credit improves somewhat after bankruptcy, at least for limited purposes (non-debt related reasons, like car insurance); generally, creditors don't like the idea of lending to people who didn't pay their last creditors.

Finlay's made a few errors in describing the situation, at least in the U.S. (I suspect he's referring to U.K. bankruptcies, something I know nothing about). In the U.S., a petition is what you first file to create the case. It's the equivalent of filing a complaint. Simultaneously (in most cases) there is an "order for relief." Then the case begins. Depending on the type of case (Chapters 11, 12 and 13) there may be a plan "confirmed" by the judge. The confirmation may be opposed by creditors, but there are specific rules for this; it's not as though a bankruptcy requires the consent of a creditors. Again, depending on the type of case (actually depending on the type of debtor and case), there may be a discharge of that debt. Technically a discharge is just a federal order from the bankruptcy court forever prohibiting creditors from collecting enforcing those debts (people can pay discharged debts after a bankruptcy, and there are strange provisions for this all over the law; for example, article 9 allows payment of a discharged debt as consideration for a security agreement). Finally, the case may be closed and the matter dismissed (when the plan's complete). This also doesn't even mention lots of helpful things for the debtors and creditors along the way, things like avoidance actions, the automatic stay, and lien testing.

There are also dollar restrictions on the consumer purchase of luxury goods.

Our bankruptcy article needs some updates I think, but if you're curious about any other pieces, we'd be happy to help. Shadowjams (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Incubus ?

Though I am not the believing type and have never seen a ghost etc. I am nevertheless troubled by a small entity when I am about to fall in sleep or on brink of wakefulness. It pulls off the bed-clothes etc or presses my limbs here or there and even pulls me back to bed when sometimes I get up and try to run. I am totally unable to cry or speak at such moments  Jon Ascton  (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Incubus would indeed be the article you're looking for. There are many internet forums for discussing paranormal experiences.--Wetman (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Also Sleep paralysis and Night terror. From "sleep paralysis" article:

In addition, the paralysis state may be accompanied by terrifying hallucinations (hypnopompic or hypnagogic) and an acute sense of danger.[8] Sleep paralysis is particularly frightening to the individual because of the vividness of such hallucinations.[7] The hallucinatory element to sleep paralysis makes it even more likely that someone will interpret the experience as a dream, since completely fanciful, or dream-like, objects (often described as looking distinctly demonic by those who experience the paralysis)[citation needed] may appear in the room alongside one's normal vision. Some scientists have proposed this condition as an explanation for alien abductions and ghostly encounters. This description seems to match your situation.
Do you actually see it? Can you describe it? Maybe you should try to find a way to get a picture/video of it. Does this happens regularly?--151.51.45.45 (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I have read incubus article. But in my case I am not a woman and the thing does not do any sexual act. It seems to be a small child trying to stick to me desperately Jon Ascton  (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The opposite gender equivalent of an incubus is a succubus, although, as indicated, incubi/succubi are usually considered to be sexual in nature. Poltergeist is a term used for mischievous spirits, which has no sexual connotation. -- 174.31.194.126 (talk) 05:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The hypnagogia article might have some useful info for you. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

succubus and incubus date from pre industrial times. Modern famous hypnogogia of the same kind are aliens of whichever kind are popular in that time and place. I find my hypnogogic entities (usually ghosts, people or spiders) act nicer if I talk to them, and often go away if I ask them if they're real. --203.202.43.54 (talk) 06:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The good folks at the Reference Desk are not permitted to provide any medical advice at all. Advice and commentary from random people on the internet is not a substitute for medical/psychological/psychiatric help if something is happening which troubles you. Your primary physician would be the first person to see if such experiences trouble you. (Original research) It is certainly alarming if one has the sensation that there is some intruder and one is unable to get up and respond appropriately. This may occur (very rarely) in the sleep of anyone. There is motor inhibition which normally prevents people from running around responding to dream experiences, for obvious reasons. This system can sometimes get a bit out of order, so that one is aware of the inability to move. Another out of order condition can lead to sleepwalking. Edison (talk) 05:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

once when I was 14 or so I had a very convincing moment where I could have sworn that a coven of witches were surrounding my bed chanting something, while I was completely unable to move. snapped out of it in a bit, but it gave me the complete and total willies for a day or two. This happens (as best I understand the psychology) when you wake up quickly but incompletely: body movement is still suppressed as in sleep, the semi-awake mind tries to move, can't, and quickly confabulates a dream-like sequence to explain your inability to move. what it dreams up (like any dream) is a codified representation of your current anxieties, but without a much longer discussion of the experience I couldn't say what those are. Suffice it to say it's not abnormal unless it's consistent and recurring over a fairly long period of time (in which case you should consult a therapist).

incidentally, deep breathing will usually dispel it quickly, if you're present enough to remember. the extra oxygen wakes up both the body and mind. --Ludwigs2 04:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

citation help

Can anyone please help me and tel me what is the citation style used when writing an online article? for instance what citation style is used in this article (when it makes a list of sources used with the heading of NOTES)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_pollution —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.81.123 (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you read WP:CITE? Gabbe (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

citation help

Can i use MLA format List of references at the end of my online article about environmental or health sciences? is MLA suitable for articles about science or it suits for subjects like philosophy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.81.123 (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If it's for Wikipedia we have a whole page of citation guidelines, WP:CITE. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks. but the answer isn't of much help...Anyone else, plz help me out..

WP:Cite says that MLA (among other formats) is acceptable, but it should be consistent throughout an article. Therefore, if MLA is used in the article, that's what you should use. If not, use the style already there. If this is not a Wikipedia article, our article, The MLA Style Manual, says that it is used for publications related to literature and culture, but I think it would be acceptable for science also. If you still are not sure, I would suggest using a style that is acceptable for any subject, such as Turabian. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 03:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"Book Within a Book" Title

Can you give me any examples of a book which takes its title from a fictional book (or poem) within the book? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

A Perfect Vacuum and The Neverending Story are the first two that I thought of. Fictional book lists some more. Story within a story might have some too. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that, in the Neverending Story, there is a two-way interaction between the characters from the book and the characters from the book-within-the-book.. StuRat (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The Book of Three comes to mind because I'm familiar with it. Also Inkheart. Similar to Neverending Story, there is interaction between characters in both books. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Taking some liberty with the question, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy might also be an example of this. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 22:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"The Princess Bride" is an entire book written as though it is only the "good parts" of a fictional book. -- kainaw™ 00:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Two examples of books which take their titles from a fictional play within the book: The King in Yellow and The Flying Classroom. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

A Clockwork Orange springs to mind. If you mean books which are supposedly written by one or more of their characters, and so the book itself exists as a fictional book within it, then there are many examples, of which The Lord of the Rings is the first the occurred to me. Algebraist 10:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow that. The Lord of the Rings is written in the third person, and Tolkein's narrative mode is that of the omniscient narrator. In what way is it "supposedly written by one or more of its characters" ? Gandalf61 (talk) 10:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think he's referring to the Red Book of Westmarch. Zain Ebrahim ([[User

talk:Zain Ebrahim111|talk]]) 10:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Or The Hobbit, whose full title is The Hobbit, or There and Back Again. According to the story, Bilbo Baggins wrote the book There and Back Again as a memoir of his travels. Kingsfold (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

A bestseller from a few years back, The Shadow of the Wind, is an example, as is Nabokov's Pale Fire (which actually includes the entirety of the eponymous poem). I'm sure there are quite a few of these. Deor (talk) 13:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

My daughter's favourite Charlie Cooks Favourite Book is a nice children's example ... the book itself is being read in the book. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

As I was sitting around woolgathering, another example occurred to me: The Land of Laughs. If the original querent had asked, in addition, for short stories that take their titles from fictional books within the stories, the list would have no end. I hope no one is planning to write a WP list article on this concept (and hope even more that no one has already done so). Deor (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be quite the list?! There's also One Man's Horse by Marguerite Henry. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

If on a winter's night a traveler. Recury (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"It was a dark and stormy night, and the crew were huddled round, and the Captain said "Tell us a story Jim", and Jim said "All right, I will", and this is the story he told - "It was a dark and stormy night, and the crew were huddled round..."". DuncanHill (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That book could have been the documentation for Dilbert's project whose acronym was "TTP". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"In Ed O’Loughlin’s first novel, one correspondent – the kind who “made a fortune by turning his three-week assignments into epics of suffering and hope” – writes a book called Not Untrue and Not Unkind. That book contains an emotional account of the correspondent’s friendship with a murdered photojournalist (though he barely knew him) and caricatures of the tough-but-vulnerable journalists he met in Africa. Given that O’Loughlin himself has previously reported in Africa for The Irish Times, and that the journalists in this novel are mostly tough-but-vulnerable, the real author seems to be having some knowing fun." An excerpt from The Telegraph review of Not Untrue and Not Unkind here BrainyBabe (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The OP asks about a fictional book or poem, but would a fictional TV show be OK? Gore Vidal's novel Duluth plays off a TV show in the book (a parody of Dallas and Hill Street Blues) called "Duluth"; and his novel LIVE From Golgotha features a TV show of the same name. 63.17.63.71 (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The title of Kafka on the Shore by Haruki Murakami was taken from the title of a song written by one of the characters, and that song turned out to be a one-hit wonder. --Kvasir (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Psychopaths

Is there any form to recognize them? --SouthAmerican (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The article Psychopathy#Characteristics might help. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The Hare Psychopathy checklist is the clinical standard, if I remember correctly.--droptone (talk) 11:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Its worth noting that psychopaths are not just gun-toting maniacs, but can exist in everyday life. I've known at least two people who had a very good chance of being classified as psychopaths. I do not know what percentage of the population would be considered psychopaths. 84.13.34.56 (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

One might say a surprising number of salespeople are psychopaths/sociopaths. Especially in the fields where any high-priced items are sold, e.g. automobile sales, financial services, housing, large appliances, etc. Not all, or even most of them, but clearly more than in any other field of employment. (And if this impression is true, better that they are salespeople than murderers.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that psychopathy does not exist in a vacuum. Certain behavioural and personal characteristics elicits 'bad behaviour' in otherwise latent psychopaths. Vranak (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, being elected or appointed to a high-ranked public or corporate office being the most dangerous trigger.John Z (talk) 05:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

passport notation

Passport control, on entry to Israel, hand-wrote, next to the stamped visa, "ביד קטין". What does this mean (translation of the words, and import of their being there)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.108.20 (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If you can read Israeli handwriting (which is very different from the print forms of Hebrew letters), then I would think you could probably use a Hebrew dictionary, but anyway, the basic meaning is "by an underaged person, minor". AnonMoos (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"ביד" usually means "by, through", yes, but that makes it sound like the stamping official was a minor, which makes no sense. And what's the point of writing "by a minor" (even if it means the passport is a minor's) if anyone looking at the data page can tell it's a minor's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.119.82 (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Random guess here, may be it meant a child was travelling with the parent under the parents passport? While a lot rarer nowadays then in the past, it's still allowed in some circumstance I believe Nil Einne (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but the natural way of saying "with" or "accompanied by a minor" would probably be עם קטין ... -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and anyway the notation was on a minor's passport, not an adult's. (I'm the same IP-based poster as the previous two.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.119.82 (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Another way to understand "ביד קטין" is "Given to a minor", However, this still doesn't make any sense as this sounds incorrect grammer-wise. My guess would be that the asker didn't read well for what the passport control wrote. It would be very helpful if he can upload an image of the relevant text. Tomer A. 19:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Tomer, and those others who tried to answer also. I cannot now upload such an image. If that becomes possible in the future, I'll try this again. Thanks again. (I'm the same poster again.)

I am not following this page so in case you're uploading such a file give me a call in my talk page on the he wiki (he:user talk:תומר א.) Tomer A. 06:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

March 26

Meyer Lansky never went to trial because...?

Meyer Lansky is all OVER Wikipedia's articles on the mob in America, yet his own article makes no mention of any trials, nor explains how someone who is implicated practically everywhere escaped prosecution? 218.25.32.210 (talk) 04:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

He actually did go to trial later in life, but they had insufficient evidence. The article suggests he was pretty good at covering his tracks. Also, I'm not so sure so much was known about him in his peak years. A lot of stuff about the Mafia was discovered after the fact. Read the article on Joe Valachi and how he exposed a lot of secret Mafia facts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Indicted for illegal gambling in New York, 1953. Served three months.—eric 03:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a general comment, but it has always been hard to prosecute high-level mafia. The reason is quite simple: they were careful, they let underlings do much of the dirty work, and they intimidated or killed witnesses. This is one of the reasons that the standard technique has been for "tax evasion"—if you can show that the official income is very low, but the actual income is very high, you can convict them of simply not reporting their income correctly. (And they can't report it correctly, because the income is mostly illegal.) It's a pretty tame offense as far as mobsters go, but it is prosecutable. (This is eventually what they tried to get Lansky on as well, but it turned out even then that good evidence was hard to get.) --Mr.98 (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Can a professional not be humane also?

I have a friend who is very good at her work, very efficient and known as a performer. She marks those people in the company who can affect her ratings, who matter to her. She pleases them and always remains in their good books. No doubt she is very honest to her work and very good at it. The moment she realises that a ceratin person is of no use to her...she no longer remains in touch with that person.. or does not care about that person at all. Is this professional approach? Will it not affect her adversely in the long run though i can see her only reaping benefits today? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rugmiyer (talk • contribs) 12:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It might, or it might not. The article on Narcissism might help explain some things about her behavior. Victims of that behavior sometimes hope for Divine retribution, but I wouldn't count on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The quick answers are obvious "sure, someone can be both professional and humane, within limits" and "we don't know what will happen to your friend in the long run, we don't have a crystal ball." Perhaps someone can dig up some studies as to which kinds of interpersonal strategies pay off in the long run, though, which might be a more concrete way towards a useful answer. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Her approach is short-sighted. The risk with that strategy is that someone who is useless to her now may at some future point rise to a position where he or she becomes significant. She then changes her behavior towards him or her, but the damage has already been done. There's quite a number of proverbs along the lines of "treat well those at the bottom, they may someday be in a position to help or hurt you". Even people she treats well may notice that she does not do so for others, and it will reflect badly on her. --207.236.147.118 (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear that ill will come of it. Plenty of jerks succeed in this world. I agree that personally I would prefer if karma was a little more reliable, but whether it actually is or not is an empirical question. I'm not sure it's been studied, but just because we'd like something to be true doesn't make it so. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with 207. There's no reason to believe someone can't be professional and humane (or any variation - unprofessional and inhumane etc.) it's not like the two are linked. Your friend sounds like an idiot - the sort of person that maybe can get places under certain leadership but i've no doubt that everybody at that person's level is fully aware of their tactic and likely has limited respect for them as a result. The term would be 'arse-licker' in my culture. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Or the similar "brown-noser" in the US. If she was nice to everyone, it wouldn't be obvious she was doing so to advance; while only being nice to those who can help her out makes it quite obvious. Most people don't care for brown-nosers, even when they are the recipient of the brown-nosing. StuRat (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

In the company where I work, it is very common—practically the norm—for managers not to communicate, or to communicate minimally, with people below their level in the hierarchy, including people who supposedly report to them. They maintain cordial communications with their peers but devote most of their attention to their superiors. This seems to be a proven way to get ahead, though the exceptions prove that it isn't necessary to ignore people at lower levels. Marco polo (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Another related Q is whether companies which reward this type of behavior are more or less successful than others. I'd have to think that dissing the line employees will have consequences, from low productivity and high absenteeism up to intentional sabotage. StuRat (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That is called being a manipulator or a just plain jerk. There are plenty of famous big shots in politics, show biz, etc. who go out of their way to maintain contact with old friends from before they became famous. When Richard Feynman won the Nobel prize, he thought all the hoopla from the press and the academic physics community was a big yawner, but he was really touched that a number of his old buddies from his school and his childhood still remembered him and got in touch with him. He saw that as a much greater reward than adulation from a bunch of strangers. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

See Machiavellianism, although in this case the lady is using a diferent kind of stilleto. Bosses love being sucked up to, they were like that themselves earlier in their careers. They want to be confirmed in their dominance and have loyal supporters who they can depend on for lipstick lip-service when they are putting on a front to their bosses. 84.13.201.209 (talk) 10:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not on our "instrumentalism" page, but I think that I've seen the word instrumentalism used to describe treating people as people as merely as tools to be used to achieve one specific purpose only. There's also Stepping Stone (song)... AnonMoos (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Dying so that someone else may live

What are some notable peacetime examples of someone dying voluntarily so that someone else may live?Wavelength (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC) [I am changing "people" to "someone" for clarity. The word "people" was correct, in agreement with "examples", but I wish to clarify that "someone dying" can be either one or more persons in each instance, and likewise "someone else may live" can refer to either one or more persons in each instance. Of course, the indefinite pronoun "someone" is grammatically singular in any case. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)]

Maximilian Kolbe comes to mind, Wavelength. It wasn't peacetime, but it was still a rather unusual circumstance. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

A remarkable wall full of ceramic panels, the "Memorial to Heroic Self Sacrifice", can be seen in the City of London, in a tiny green space called Postman's Park. It details ordinary people who gave their lives in the attempt to save others, mostly in the second half of the 19th Century. I doubt whether many had self-sacrifice in mind when they acted, but all must have known that they were putting themselves into danger. Full details on this site[11]. A new plaque was added in 2009, the first for more than 70 years.[12] Alansplodge (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Louis Slotin is the most dramatic example I can think of. Although even that is a matter of interpretation and conjecture. Vranak (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Some ideas under Sacrifice. The Victorians gathered morality tales with grisly glee. There's a lighthouse keeper's daughter I am thinking of... BrainyBabe (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC) PS Grace Darling. She didn't die, but she could have.

Surely bomb disposal squads put themselves in harm's way at least once a day to clear unexploded ordnance, and those who die have died so others can live? See [13] --TammyMoet (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The Hurt Locker paints a somewhat less flattering picture. Vranak (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

And medical volunteers, including doctors who experiment on themselves. From History of yellow fever:

Carlos Finlay, a Cuban doctor and scientist, first proposed proofs in 1881 that yellow fever is transmitted by mosquitoes rather than direct human contact. Walter Reed, M.D., (1851–1902) was an American Army surgeon who led a team that confirmed Finlay's theory. This risky but fruitful research work was done with human volunteers, including some of the medical personnel, such as Clara Maass and Walter Reed Medal winner surgeon Jesse William Lazear, who allowed themselves to be deliberately infected and died of the virus.

BrainyBabe (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

See self-immolation for examples of people who killed themselves in a horrific way to bring attention to causes, perhaps saving lives down the road. Although from reading the article, it seems this action has become common enough that it may no longer attract attention like it did in the 1960s. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The same could be said of suicide bombers: they kill themselves (and a few others along with them) in a horrific way to bring attention to causes, perhaps (or so may be their intention) saving lives down the road. — Kpalion^(talk) 00:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Another example would be any crew or passenger on the Titanic (or any sinking ship) who voluntarily gave up a seat on a lifeboat so that another could have the seat. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC))

I found this external page: http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/theme/Self-sacrifice/. -- Wavelength (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Strange that nobody has mentioned the Christ yet. — Kpalion^(talk) 01:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Jesus and Crucifixion of Jesus may be more informative articles in this context. —Akrabbim^talk 01:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Strange? Wasn't Jesus in the business of saving souls, rather than lives? Vranak (talk) 01:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Saving the lives of souls, not bodies, but still. — Kpalion^(talk) 02:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

For some people, the two are interchangeable. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 02:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

For the example of Jesus Christ, I found the following ten external pages: http://mlbible.com/genesis/2-7.htm; http://mlbible.com/ecclesiastes/9-5.htm; http://mlbible.com/ecclesiastes/9-10.htm; http://mlbible.com/ezekiel/18-4.htm; http://mlbible.com/ezekiel/18-20.htm; http://mlbible.com/john/3-16.htm; http://mlbible.com/romans/5-8.htm; http://mlbible.com/romans/5-12.htm; http://mlbible.com/1_corinthians/15-22.htm; http://mlbible.com/1_corinthians/15-45.htm. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a story of some Saudi prince with a heart condition, who flies around on a personal jumbo jet equipped with an on-board surgical hospital and staff, in case the prince suddenly needs a heart transplant, and there is a living donor on board to supply the transplant organ. It's in the chapter "The Service Heart" in Richard Conniff's book "The Natural History of the Rich". The chapter also talks about people voluntarily giving up lifeboat seats on the Titanic. Apparently most of the Titanic's first-class (rich) passengers survived since their cabins were closest to the lifeboats, and quite a few third-class (poor) passengers survived despite being futher away, but the second-class (middle) passengers were almost wiped out, basically through self-sacrifice. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Again with the Titanic, consider that a large majority of the crew remained on board rather than taking places in the lifeboats. Of course, that was what they were supposed to do, but they still died for it. There have been a number of other maritime disasters where the crew, or many of them, simply decided to save themselves -- for example, the Morro Castle fire.

Also in vehicular crashes, sometimes in the crash of a war plane the pilot has a chance to parachute out, or in the crash of a train a crew member has a change to jump clear, and they choose to stay with the vehicle because they think they have a chance to mitigate the disaster (by steering the plane, blowing the train whistle, etc.). I can't bring any good examples to mind that are likely to be in Wikipedia, but it happens. --Anonymous, 10:11 UTC, March 27, 2010.

Casey Jones springs to mind. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Not in these lyrics surely? [14] --TammyMoet (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I said no good example. --Anonymous, 20:25 UTC, March 27, 2010.

There is no historical evidence that Jesus' execution had the effect of preventing anyone else's death; in fact, even non-historical sources mention at most one person (the mythical Barabbas, i.e., "son-of-father") whose death was prevented as the result of Jesus' death, though not at Jesus' instigation. As for the OP's question, I believe the philosopher Walter Benjamin allowed himself to be captured and killed by the Nazis in order to allow others to escape. 63.17.63.71 (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The Resurrection (of Jesus Christ and afterward of imperfect humans) is discussed in 1 Corinthians 15.

(See http://mlbible.com/1_corinthians/15-1.htm.) -- Wavelength (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and Corinthians was written by Paul, who contributed absolutely nothing to the store of information we have about Jesus as a historical person (he never met him and was at odds with those who had, such as the "Pillars" in Jerusalem). The Gospels and Acts are the quasi-historical sources, and nothing in their narratives suggests that Jesus' execution prevented anyone else from dying except Barabbas. (Meanwhile, Mark, if not the other three, indicates that Jesus' death was not "voluntary.") As for historical sources, we know only that Jesus was convicted of treason to Rome and died under Pilate and Tiberius, as did many thousands of other Jewish rebels, none of whom were spared as a result of Jesus' execution. 63.17.63.71 (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

For Biblical evidence that Jesus died voluntarily, I found these pages: http://mlbible.com/matthew/26-12.htm; http://mlbible.com/matthew/26-26.htm; http://mlbible.com/matthew/26-27.htm; http://mlbible.com/matthew/26-28.htm; http://mlbible.com/mark/14-8.htm; http://mlbible.com/mark/14-22.htm; http://mlbible.com/mark/14-23.htm; http://mlbible.com/mark/14-24.htm; http://mlbible.com/luke/22-19.htm; http://mlbible.com/luke/22-20.htm; http://mlbible.com/john/18-4.htm; http://mlbible.com/john/18-5.htm; http://mlbible.com/john/18-6.htm; http://mlbible.com/john/18-7.htm; http://mlbible.com/john/18-8.htm; http://mlbible.com/john/18-9.htm; http://mlbible.com/john/18-10.htm; http://mlbible.com/john/18-11.htm.

-- Wavelength (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Responding to a comment above, I don't think suicide bombers meet these criteria, because they seem more to be motivated to kill for the sake of killing than for any sort of altruistic motive of bringing attention to a deserving cause. One person who certainly did "die so others may live" was Vince Coleman (train dispatcher), who decided to remain at his post and face almost certain death to warn an oncoming train to avoid the area, saving up to 300 people. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Another example is the brave citizens of the USSR who died as a result of responding to the Chernobyl crisis. 63.17.79.42 (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I thank all who provided examples, especially Alansplodge for mentioning the "Memorial to Heroic Self Sacrifice" and providing links.
-- Wavelength (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Scottsboro Boys

Yesterday was the anniversary of the 1931 arrest of the Scottsboro Boys. This made me curious about the case, and I did read the Wikipedia article about this matter. I am curious about the following. What does conventional contemporary thinking tell us about this incident? Did any rapes occur at all? Or were the women simply lying? If they were indeed lying, what was their motivation? Was the motivation to "hide" their consensual sexual activity to protect their reputation? If they were known prostitutes, would they really care about their reputation? If there was consensual sex, was it with the Scottsboro Boys or with some other males? Would not DNA tests clear all this up or can we presume that the evidence from 1931 is no longer available? I am just curious what conclusions have been drawn by contemporary thinkers, in reviewing this incident in hindsight. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC))

I don't know enough to supply a summary, but this Google Books link is a list of plenty of books about the case. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

As for DNA, I doubt if any viable samples remain. And, even if they did, that would only prove who had sex with them, not whether they gave consent. StuRat (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, StuRat ... but the DNA could exclude the Scottsboro Boys. If their claim is "we never had sex with the victim", the Scottsboro Boys could use DNA to refute the allegations. As you say, if their claim is "we had sex, but it was consensual (as opposed to rape)", then the DNA findings are useless. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC))

Dear 64.252.65.146, there's one thing about the American South in the 1930s that you may not understand -- that once a white woman publicly accused a black man of raping her, then to a lot of people it didn't matter too much whether the man was factually guilty or not, since either way he had to die in order to wipe away the shame of the accusation. (A somewhat similar attitude is now current among many in Pakistan when a Christian is accused of blasphemy against Muhammad or the Qur'an...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't just the South. During the nadir of American race relations, many blacks moved north resulting in friction, such as that leading to the Red Summer of 1919, specifically the Chicago Race Riot of 1919. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

To AnonMoos ... yes, I am aware of -- and agree with -- what you say. In my original question, I was wondering what was the motive that prompted the accusations by the women? If they were known prostitutes, I would hardly think that they would "worry" about their reputation. I am confused by what motivated the female "victims" to bring about their allegations in the first place. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC))

It appears to me that they used the blacks as a scapegoats, to deflect blame from themselves. That is, they could be arrested for vagrancy, trespassing, prostitution, etc., but, once they portrayed themselves as victims of rape by blacks, such charges would be dropped as "small potatoes" in comparison. It could also be an example of Münchausen syndrome, where one made the false claim and the other just went along with it. StuRat (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to inflationary pressure of full employment

Traditionally, central banks are charged with balancing low inflation with "full employment," a euphemism which has over the past decades in the U.S. come to mean about 5% unemployment. This is because when unemployment falls too low, competition in the labor market causes salaries to rise, spurring inflation. The root cause of any inflation is the increase in the money supply; in this case brought about by increasing salaries.

Could high top-bracket income tax rates (very steeply progressive income taxes) used to pay down the U.S. national debt serve to reduce the money supply enough to keep inflation under 2%, if the unemployment rate were also held under 2%? If so, approximately what would the top bracket rate need to be, assuming the top bracket rate only applied to income over $250,000 per year? 99.27.201.226 (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that might have the exact opposite effect, as those with high salaries would just demand more money to cover the additional taxes, spurring inflation. Many people in upper income brackets, like CEOs, movie stars, and professional athletes, can just about demand any salary they want. StuRat (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

How do you spell hyperbole? Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

h-y-p-e-r-b-o-l-e'. how do you spell sarcasm? --Ludwigs2 23:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Say that's true, and all the CEOs, movie stars, and professional athletes obtain additional salaries to keep their net income constant. Doesn't the additional money they still pay in taxes used to lower the national debt still reduce the money supply, relieving the inflationary pressure? 99.27.201.226 (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to your question above about the optimal rate but I have a few comments. If you accept the theory behind the Laffer curve, high-earners will either 1)avoid the higher income taxes or 2)avoid employment (or work less) while living off their accumulated wealth so tax revenues might not increase by very much. Another factor is that US tax revenues as a percent of GDP have historically not responded signifantly to changes in the income tax rate. Also, even if treasury were able to collect more tax revenues, it may decide to spend on infrastructure instead of reducing national debt. Lastly, it is increases in the money supply that cause inflation - if you keep those increases in line with real GDP growth, inflation probably won't spiral out of control. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem with interpreting the historical Laffer Curve is that it is independent of the Gini coefficient -- if you plot tax rates and the Gini score as the independent variables, their effect on growth is much clearer. This suggests a way to find the optimum values. 99.27.201.226 (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the most important determinant would be what would-be US government debt-holders would do with their funds as the aggregate national debt decreases. As the national debt decreased, it's rate of return would decrease (as only the most risk averse held on to US bonds), and those would-be US debt-holders who demanded higher rates of return would be forced to take their funds elsewhere. This - still relatively low-risk - capital would likely flow to international sovereign debt or domestic AAA corporate debt (much capital of this nature is restricted by the governing committees or founding documents of pension funds, endowments, or other long-term investment agents). The capital that flowed towards international sovereign debt may act to reduce reduce the exchange rate, devalue the US dollar, and spur inflation. The rest, may act to crowd capital out towards higher risk investments, and perhaps result in an increase in consumption as - at any given level of risk - the investment landscape becomes less palatable. Increased consumption, like increased wages, can increase the velocity of money (not the money supply) and have an inflationary effect. Exactly how all of this plays out depends on a great many things. These things change rapidly are very difficult to predict (marginal propensity to save, risk aversion, and the elasticities of all of these curves).

Also, Zain's comment about what the government might choose to do with the money is one that touches on the idea of an optimal debt level. Much public finance theory would suggest that, if the rate of return on a public investment (roads, schools, etc.) is greater than the cost of debt to that public entity, it ought to borrow to carry out the project. This suggests that the optimal debt level is one at which no projects exist that would yield a rate of return greater than the cost of debt. This ignores any crowding out or other complicating effects.

I think your argument might be an attempt to bypass the western central bank model by using fiscal policy rather than monetary policy to control inflation. As my opening question about what would-be government borrowers would do with their money suggests - and the comments above about what government would actually do with the funds, and how high income people would react - this can be a less precise tool of intervention than plain old open market operations. NByz (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Presumably those who wanted to hold government debt would be required to turn to other countries or bonds, no? Open market operations incur the interest premium when the government needs to borrow to perform them. 99.27.201.226 (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, most would-be government debt holders would likely choose foreign sovereign debt or other domestic AAA rated fixed income securities. But, as I mentioned, the international outflow of capital wouldn't reduce the domestic money supply. It would just reduce the demand for the domestic currency and would likely reduce the rate of exchange. This could actually be inflationary (imports become relatively more expensive), especially in a country with a large trade deficit. I mainly wanted to point out that the monetary effects (inflationary effects) of this sort of fiscal policy rely on the estimation of a whole lot of variables. It is also likely to have a lot of other unintended effects as well (changes in the trade deficit/surplus, high income people moving overseas, less domestic private investment being crowded out by government debt etc.).

Open market operations aren't the same as the government issuing more debt (or paying interest on bank reserves, discussed above). Regardless of the federal government fiscal situation (how much debt it issues, what rates it gets etc.), the central bank influences short-term interest rates, inflation and, more directly, the money supply by buying and selling government bonds or other assets on its own account. If the federal government decides how many bonds are in existence, the Federal Reserve strongly determines how many are in public circulation. The Federal Reserve can create more money, either physically printing it (technically the Treasury's Mint prints it, the Fed just puts it into circulation, I believe), or putting it into the reserve accounts held by member banks, in exchange for government debt (or other assets), increasing the money supply. Or it can sell those acquired government bonds (or other assets), decreasing the money supply (taking money out of circulation). These monetary actions are, preferably, independent from the federal government's fiscal actions. NByz (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Re-reading your question, I should also mention that reducing the total government debt (holding all other things constant), doesn't reduce the domestic money supply. Government debt securities are assets, not money. They yield a return, in money. But that money flows from taxation in the real economy. Issuing $100 in government debt, for example, simply transfers $100 to the government, then creates a promise to pay whatever the coupon rate is over the time specified. The $100 debt is simply a notional amount that represents the present value of the amount that would have to be paid to cancel the coupon (and eventual principal) payment. It's not the same as increasing the money supply by $100, which would increase the price level (making all goods more nominally expensive). NByz (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Very good point. What if the taxes were placed in Treasury accounts, such as the "social security lockbox" or the other entitlement funds? It can't be impossible to reduce the money supply by increasing the top bracket income tax rate. 99.27.201.226 (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

A government could choose to increase taxes and destroy (or otherwise take out of circulation) the money raised. This would have the same monetary (eventually (dis)inflationary) effect as the Federal Reserve taking money out of circulation by selling bonds. The main difference would be that in the former case, money is taken either from people generally (or in the case of your plan, predominantly high income earners), whereas, in the latter case, it's taken from people who are interested in buying bonds. This distinction might have efficiency and social justice-related side effects. Also, the money may have to be destroyed. If the money is simply placed in a vault, it may not be credibly believed that the government won't spend it eventually. If it is invested (as most typical "social security lockbox" ideas would recommend), it isn't really taken out of the money supply, as it would be transfered to the seller of the investment(s).

To harp on my theme somewhat: monetary policy definitely can be performed by fiscal authorities (governments), but this generally tends to lead to significant non-monetary side effects. The western model of central bank and government interaction with the economy usually attempts to concentrate actions on producing the desired effect with as few side-effects as possible. For example(s), if you want to increase the progressivity of the income distribution, do it by angling marginal tax curve upwards (but keeping total revenue the same). If you want to increase overall taxation (for macroeconomic reasons), slide the whole curve upwards but leave the marginal curve at the same relative angle. If you want to alter the money supply (for purposes of stabilizing growth and/or achieving maximum long-term growth), do it by interacting with a free market. NByz (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Allowing someone dearly loved to die for someone else

What are some examples of someone (entity 1) dearly loving someone else (entity 2) but voluntarily allowing that someone (entity 2) to die so that someone else (entity 3) may live? In each example, each "someone" (entity 1, entity 2, entity 3) can be either one person or more than one person. -- Wavelength (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you looking for references in fiction as well as in history? If fiction, then I think that Sophie's Choice would fit the bill in that she has to decide which of her children or else they will both die. Dismas|^(talk) 02:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I am looking for examples in history. -- Wavelength (talk) 03:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Um... I think My Sister's Keeper might be close... The parents have a daughter who suffers from leukemia, so they have another child via in vitro who can function as her sick sister's bone marrow and kidney donor. Having your own kid undergo a dangerous surgery to save your other kid's life should fit your example. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 02:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

pardon me for saying so, but two questions in one day about 'noble death' makes me want to ask if everything is ok with you. is everything ok with you? --Ludwigs2 04:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, your statement and your question startled me. On another day, I might ask two questions about another topic. Also, there are certainly topics more indicative of personal problems than these ones. However, because you asked and only because you asked, I will reveal to you my reason for asking these two questions, which reason some readers of this page might already have guessed. At this time of the year 2010, we are approaching the Passover (Christian holiday), and I am interested in finding this information to analyze in relation to the central theme of that event. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, if we're talking about Christianity, don't forget the whole Crucifixion story, per John 3:16. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, had to check. excessive interest in death is one of the signs of people with suicidal ideation.

That being said, I'm finding the connection to passover a bit odd. the Jewish passover had almost no self-sacrificing ideation. In fact, all of the death in the Jewish passover story was punitive - God killing off egyptians because the Pharaoh refused to let the israelites go. The Christian Easter story is a bit more on point, except that story actually focusses on the resurrection of Jesus, not his death (despite Mel Gibson's best efforts). There's the metaphor, of course, of him sacrificing his earthly body to show people the entrance to heaven, but I don't see that as quite the same thing as what you're asking about. --Ludwigs2 15:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, most of your points are addressed in the article Passover (Christian holiday). See also Nontrinitarianism.

-- Wavelength (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I know you said examples in history (are you doing research or something? I'm just curious :p), but do real life examples that aren't exactly "historical" count? (Sorry if I'm more annoying than helpful, but I'm googling the best I can!) 24.189.90.68 (talk) 04:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, real-life examples from very recent "history" count. I answered Dismas and used some of that editor's wording, although I should have chosen a clearer wording. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, there needs to be a name for this type of thing that does not evoke the Sophie's Choice story. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 04:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Should we count the families of kamikaze pilots and suicide bombers? 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Not really. That's entity 1 suiciding and also killing lots of entities 2 he never met and who never did him any harm, all for the sake of some ideology. That doesn't fit the patten of the question, which is about letting entity 2 die so that entity 3 may live. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually some/many? suicide bombers may believe their actions are going to help save some entity 3 in the long run. The key difference is most don't particularly dearly love entity 2 which was part of the question. Edit: Actually rereading the answer, I believe 66 was suggesting the family (who may occasionally know of their loved one's plans) is entity/ies 1, allowing entity 2 (their loved one who is going to undertake the suicide bombing) to carry out their suicide bombing (which they obviously know will cause them to die) I presume under the belief this will save some entity/ies 3. In that case 66 is right this arguably qualifies although the murders of entities 4 by entity 2 means few people are going to put it in the same league. Many may also dispute whether entity 3 is saved (although some may argue it's irrelevant if entity 1 genuinely believed it would). Nil Einne (talk) 11:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your re-reading is what I had in mind. Kamikaze pilots and the mission planners of the kamikaze program presumably thought they were defending their homeland. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It depends what you mean of course. For example if your family is stuck in a burning building you may be force to make a decision about which members to save first, cognisant of the fact you may not get a chance to save all of them or even fully aware you're only going to get to save one. (Hopefully you do love all of them.) This may not always be completely your choice. If both your partner and your child are stuck, there's a fair chance your partner will tell you to take the child and leave them so I don't know how this effects your view of these examples. I'm sure there are plenty of real world things like this, although I don't know of any specific cases. Nil Einne (talk) 11:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This reminds me of a grisly country music song called, I think, "The Deal", which was basically a man going into a chapel while his wife was struggling to give birth, and asking God to take his life instead of his wife's so the child could live. As he dies the doctor comes in to tell him that both mother and child are doing well. Now excuse me while I examine the contents of my stomach. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly on topic, but this recent story is about a father who died needlessly while trying to save his three children from their burning house, unaware they'd already been pulled to safety. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me almost an essential contradiction to purportedly love someone and yet be willing to see them perish. That can't be a very robust love, suffice to say. Vranak (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes people are placed in circumstances where they have to choose between more than one loved one. Better to save at least one than let all of them die. Typically there's no time to come and ask questions on the Wikipedia Reference Desk about it; they just have to decide immediately, with no book of rules to help them. A father is out swimming with his three young children; they get caught in a rip and he can save one or perhaps two of them, but not all of them. Who misses out? (Don't answer that.)-- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The Resurrection (of Jesus Christ and afterward of imperfect humans) is discussed in 1 Corinthians 15.

(See http://mlbible.com/1_corinthians/15-1.htm.) -- Wavelength (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

That's martyrdom, which is not exactly what the OP was asking about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The Bible says that Jesus did many things. (http://mlbible.com/matthew/20-28.htm) -- Wavelength (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Are there any examples involving stem cell donation or organ donation? -- Wavelength (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

March 27

Health care bill opposition

I'm looking for a summary of points made by people that oppose the bill without having to wade through hours of rhetoric and accusations and ideology, simply a declaration of opinions and criticisms. Does such a summary exist? (For the sake of clarity, I'm trying to make an honest assessment of why these people disagree as a "sanity check" on my own support/acceptance of the measures.) SDY (talk) 05:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The conservative criticism is basically that it's too liberal, and the liberal criticism is basically that it's too conservative. There are several relevant articles like Health care reform debate in the United States that say more. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

If bill opponents are actually for anything other than the maintenance of health insurance company profits, standing up for the rights of such megacorporations to commit "recision" and refuse to cover "preexisting conditions", and implementing Jim DeMint's cynical ultra-politicized "Waterloo" strategy, then they certainly haven't managed to explain it coherently in terms that I can understand... AnonMoos (talk) 11:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

And the debate has begun.... Better that we stick to answering the question (i.e. pointing to a summary of the opposition) rather than weighing in with the very sort of "rhetoric and accusations and ideology" that the questioner is seeking to avoid. —Kevin Myers 11:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Criticism usually focuses around it being too expensive, giving too much power to government and resulting in reduced quality healthcare. Whether you believe any of those claims is up to you. --Tango (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Then there are the criticisms that health care will be more inefficient if run by the government and that private companies won't be able to compete with the government. At first these two claims seem to contradict one another, but, if the government health care is sufficiently subsidized by taxpayer dollars, both could be simultaneously true. StuRat (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, the requirement that everyone get insurance goes into effect in 2014. This is designed to subsidize insurance for the sickly with premiums collected from the young and healthy. As such, many of the currently uninsured young and healthy may object. Then there's the tax on "Cadillac plans", also used to subsidize the insurance for the sickly. So, we basically have redistribution of wealth, which is always unpopular with those whose wealth is being redistributed out of their pockets. StuRat (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

From the liberal side, one objection is that it doesn't create a "single payer system", code for a government run health care system. One objection I surprisingly haven't heard is that it doesn't have price controls. Many other nations mandate price caps for each procedure, medication, etc., and this does indeed keep prices down. In the US this is done for Medicare payments, but the health care providers can still try to make the patients pay for whatever Medicare didn't cover. For those on private health insurance the situation is similar. (Anyone who has gotten a hospital bill for a $20 aspirin tablet knows how far prices can get out of hand.) StuRat (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This Wall Street Journal editorial contains a basic overview of the argument that the Health Bill is bad for corporations. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28rich.html?hp is an interesting column discussing some of the hyperbolic (e.g. "tea party") conservative opposition. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Rail Spur construction cost

When a factory or other business builds a new plant or needs a rail spur onto their property, who pays for the rail spur? The company or does the railroad pay for the construction in order to get another customer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.64.15 (talk) 08:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

One expects that it's a business negotiation like anything else. Two suits have a meeting and each argues that the other one has more to gain from the deal, and therefore should be the one paying. Whichever one is the better tap dancer "wins". 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I can think of a couple alternative strategies:

1) The company might bear the entire cost initially, then get rebates if other customers use it.

2) The company might choose to operate it's own tiny railroad, the length of the spur. StuRat (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Ownership of foreign companies

I've heard that, in China, the government owns 51% of each (foreign) major record label in China (e.g. Sony Music China). Is that true? If so, is this a condition of operating in China? Is this usually what happens if a (large) foreign company enters the chinese market, i.e. the Chinese government is given partial ownership of the foreign company? 165.228.228.39 (talk) 11:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about China, in particular, but that is a common strategy, in general. StuRat (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Common where? Widespread state ownership of companies is common only in communist (and some former-communist) countries, as far as I know. --Tango (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I should clarify. Many countries require majority local ownership. In the case of non-communist nations, this means that local companies must have a controlling interest. StuRat (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you give some examples of countries with such rules? I know Zimbabwe recently introduced such a law and it was very controversial. I assumed it was unusual. Either way, requiring local companies (or individuals) to have a controlling interest is very different to requiring the state to have a controlling interest. --Tango (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Not really, the reasons are the same, to prevent foreigners from gaining control of your companies, and hence economy. StuRat (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

For an example, the Philippines liberalized their laws in 1991, but still restrict foreign ownership of small, non-export business to 40%: [15]. StuRat (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

One example doesn't support a claim of "many". --Tango (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

(indent for Tango) The Norwegian state owns Statoil by a majority stock. The same is the case with Nammo and Kongsberggruppen, weapon producers, and Den Norske Bank, a/the bank. The practise of securing these domestic interests in a volatile international market is widespread, but not in the manner that China has institutionalized this protection. Strategic interests (energy, weaponry, banking, etc) are more easily protected by the state when it owns these corporations. I've never heard of a music label in that context! Completely misread the OP. 88.90.16.187 (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I'm the OP logged in. Thanks for your answers everyone. Maybe my motivation behind the question might help. I just wanted some confirmation that the government has 51% ownership of major record labels in China. From the discussion I've read so far, it seems like a reasonable assertion. I also just wanted a bit of context behind this reason if possible. I'm guessing EMI, Sony Music, Universal Music, etc. handing over ownership follows normal patterns of doing business in China. Would I be right about that?ExitRight (talk) 04:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

What's worth a pound?

Quick and easy one. My friend is certain the US dollar equalled the British pound in value some time in the last few weeks. My research would indicate otherwise, but maybe she got the currency wrong. Are there any other currencies which have had a 1:1 exchange rate with the pound any time, say, this year? Vimescarrot (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I googled ["british pound" exchange rate] and this interesting site came up:[16] It only shows current values, but the closest one currently is not the dollar, but the Euro. So there's another reasonable candidate to investigate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I found this by Googling, which lists...apparently, every currency, even ones not currently in use. I've checked a few of the more obvious choices (Canadian and Australian dollars, Euros), but none of them come closer than the Euro. Vimescarrot (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that site I found has a history option, and at some points during 2009 the Pound and the Euro were nearly identical, whereas the Pound and the Dollar were not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The pound and the dollar have never had the same value, this year or any other. However, the dollar and the Canadian "loonie" ("loony"?) reached parity recently. 63.17.63.71 (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure you can say "Canadian loonie", it's "Canadian dollar" or "loonie". --Tango (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I've got no problem with Canadian loonie (unless you're referring to me), though it's a bit redundant. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Like "Reference Desk pedantry"? 63.17.79.42 (talk) 03:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing like that has happened in the last few weeks involving the pound that I know of. The Pound and Euro got close to parity at the end of 2008 (€1=£0.96) and, as 63.17 mentions, the US and Canadian dollars hit 1:1.01 on 17 March 2010 and actually crossed parity in May 2008. --Tango (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Not too long ago the rate was about two dollars to the pound, but there has never been parity. 89.243.43.75 (talk) 23:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well there was parity. The dollar was worth a lot more than the pound many years ago. I think maybe while we still stuck to the Gold Standard, (under Churchill)? 78.109.180.8 (talk) 04:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you've got that around the wrong way. When I was a child I remember my father refering to half a crown (a pre-decimalisation coin worth the equivalent of 12.5p now) in slang as half a dollar. I think you got four dollars for the pound around world-war 2. That may have been a fixed rate for a long time. 78.144.250.185 (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

In the mid 80s the dollar got pretty close to parity, 1.05 according to this site [17]. That was, however, fairly short lived. Qrsdogg (talk) 05:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

78.109, that is simply not true. The dollar has never had a value equal to or greater than the pound -- period. And PARTICULARLY not before the devaluation of the 1960s. 63.17.79.42 (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, for most of the history of the pound/dollar exchange rate, during the Gold Standard period, £1 was worth around $4 (hence the 2/6 = "half a dollar" coin nickname) ($10 briefly during the American Civil War). After WW2 £1 settled at $2.80 until the 1967 devaluation when it was $2.40. Once we moved to floating exchange rates in the early 1970s things got much more unstable, and I remember one stage in, I think, the late 1980s when £1 was briefly as low as $1.03 before recovering (the SF bookshop I used to frequent in Birmingham complained that because of other costs they had to price the US books they sold at £1=$1 as soon as the rate dropped below $1.08). The £ strengthened to $2 until the economic crash, and has just dropped below $1.50 in the last month or so. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Helpful stuff - it's possible she misinterpreted parity of the dollar and the dollar. Thanks for all the info. Vimescarrot (talk) 09:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

There have hardly ever been any basic currency units anywhere which had parity with, or exceeded the pound sterling. OR: When the original San Serriffe hoax was published, I was glancing over the pages without noticing anything, until I came to an advertisement (the last image in [18]). The first thing that caught my attention was "Universitij do San Serriffe", which puzzled me because it seemed to mix Dutch and Portuguese in the same phrase. Then I read the ad, and it was "C1 — £4.30 sterling" which really caused me to question it, and start looking more carefully. I was pretty sure there wasn't a currency unit that big anywhere. --ColinFine (talk) 10:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the Papiamentu language actually does kind of sometimes mix Dutch and Portuguese... AnonMoos (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

In my 1960s childhood, the British pre-decimal coin called the Half Crown worth 2/6d or 12.5p (ie one-eighth of 1 GPB) was known colloqually as a "half-dollar". Alansplodge (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

magic and witchcraft

wHat is the purpose of magic and witchcraft.i am researching on the anthropological relevance,significance and the purpose of magic? why did magic evolve?what function it serves? what is the anthropological significance of it in todays world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.45.48 (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone, please suggest me some downloadble ebooks or research material on internet ,which can be downloaded in pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.45.48 (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Magic (in the sense of witchcraft, rather than rabbits out of hats) doesn't exist, so it has no purpose or reason for existing. Do you mean why did people used to believe in magic? It basically boils down to humans wanting to be able to explain and control things. Magic, like religion, lets people do that. --Tango (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

See http://mlbible.com/deuteronomy/18-10.htm; http://mlbible.com/deuteronomy/18-11.htm; http://mlbible.com/deuteronomy/18-12.htm; http://mlbible.com/2_corinthians/11-14.htm; http://mlbible.com/2_corinthians/11-15.htm. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you look at Magic (paranormal)? The works of Malinowski are somewhat classic... AnonMoos (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Arthur C Clarke. You may also wish to investigate the role of Aleister Crowley in inventing modern-day Wicca. In fact, I'd say you couldn't write your proposed thesis without being fully conversant with his role and activities, if only so you can distinguish modernist Wicca and magickal practice from traditional witchcraft. Or are you really interested in paganism? Not being Wiccan myself, but knowing a fair bit about it as well as quite a few white witches and mages, I would say it represents a desire to establish control over the environment, while celebrating oneness with the environment. If you'd like to establish a discussion without being ridiculed or told "it doesn't exist", then contact me on my talk page. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You may also wish to consider the role Christianity played in redefining paganism and witchcraft, at least in the British Isles, as devilish, sinful and punishable by death. It was a case of the new religion wishing to completely obliterate the Old religion. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

According to Matthew 2:1-16, the Star of Bethlehem led the Biblical Magi (astrologers) first to King Herod and later to the child Jesus, and afterward King Herod attempted to kill the child Jesus. (http://mlbible.com/matthew/2-1.htm) -- Wavelength (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Spiritism is associated with druggery. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/15737568/Drugs-Does-the-Bible-actually-forbid-the-use-of-drugs-for-pleasure)

-- Wavelength (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC) .......... [See Scribd. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)]

what we call 'magic' and 'witchcraft' is really kind of a neo-Christian interpretation of shamanism, pantheism, and other archaic religious beliefs. In pre-monotheistic times there were assumed to be numerous gods, spirits, forces, elements, and etc, and it was assumed that objects had their own inner essences that could be called out in an almost social way. so, for instance, when a Native American spiritual leader does a rain dance (which is also a fairly common practice in other cultures), he is actually trying to call out the cloud and rain spirits - which would be pleased by the dance and impressed by the dancer's strength of will - so that they give a gift of rain to the community. A Christian watching it, of course, doesn't believe in rain gods who can be pleased that way, and so reinterprets the act as some sort of ritualized sorcery. Or for another: an early European pagan woman might have a tremendous knowledge of plants and their properties, all of which are committed to memory (writing was a rarely learned skill until recent times), and so you might really have seen them hovering over a pot, stirring in herbs, and repeating to themselves the recipe for some poultice, like the three witches in MacBeth. That kind of thing got translated into Alchemy in the Christian world, and eventually lead to ideas about 'Harry Potter' type magic. Magic has been really warped into fantasy in the modern world, of course, bu it has a basis in traditional spiritual and medicinal beliefs. --Ludwigs2 18:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Researching the topics of the original questions involves carefully separating truth, falsehood, half-truths, and uncertainties. (http://mlbible.com/john/8-44.htm) Although many people may offer to guide (or even misguide) a truthseeker, ultimately each person has an individual responsibility to contribute mental effort to finding out the truth. (http://mlbible.com/proverbs/2-4.htm) Also, if the discovered truth requires one to discard dearly held beliefs or practices, then the figurative heart can play a pivotal role. (http://mlbible.com/proverbs/4-23.htm)

-- Wavelength (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, define your terms. Dion Fortune is widely quoted: "Magic is the art of changing consciousness at will." Define them temporally and geographically too. Have you read our articles on magic (paranormal) and witchcraft? From the former:

In 2003, Sinafasi Makelo, a representative of Mbuti pygmies, told the UN's Indigenous People's Forum that during the Congo Civil War, his people were hunted down and eaten as though they were game animals. Both sides of the war regarded them as "subhuman" and some say their flesh can confer magical powers. On April, 2008, Kinshasa, the police arrested 14 suspected victims (of penis snatching) and sorcerers accused of using black magic or witchcraft to steal (make disappear) or shrink men's penises to extort cash for cure, amid a wave of panic. Arrests were made in an effort to avoid bloodshed seen in Ghana a decade ago, when 12 alleged penis snatchers were beaten to death by mobs.

You ask about its significance in the world today. The answer ranges depending on where you are looking, but yes, anthropologically, magic is important. Perhaps you are considering opening a candle shop in Glastonbury, England. Perhaps you live in Tanzania and were born an albino, and fear with good reason that you might be killed for the alleged properties of your body parts. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

March 28

what does the bible actually say about pedophilia on part of priests?

what does the bible (or catholic dogma) actually say about pedophilia on part of priests - ie can someone quote scripture (or pappal bulls and the like) saying that it is wrong for priets to do that? Or could it be a thing where scripture/dogma is silent on the issue, so we have only just everyday morals and law, but no scripture/dogma for it. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.95 (talk) 00:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The Church's celibacy doctrine for its clergy, combined with the Biblical proscription against homosexuality, would pretty well cover the bases. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It may have escaped your notice Bugs, but none of the priests accused of abusing girls are female. DuncanHill (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

And what's it got to do with homosexuality? That's attraction between adults of the same sex. Pedophilia is pedophilia, regardless of the sex of the individuals involved. In terms of Catholic dogma, ALL sexual activity is sinful except between a man and a woman who are validly married to each other in the eyes of the Church. That includes masturbation; same-sex sex; adultery; pedophilia; incest; bestiality; sex with a new spouse after divorce and remarriage, and before the old spouse has died; sex with a surrogate where the spouse is unable to conceive; rape; prostitution; you name it. Go here and search for the word 'sexual'. Item 2389 is relevant. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Priesthood is not part of Biblical church organization in the New Testament. The only offices discussed in the New Testament with regards to church leadership are pastors ("overseers") and deacons. So it doesn't say anything specifically about priests. Some relevent passages regarding sexual relations and church leadership from the New Testament are:

• Acts 15:22-29 is a short letter written by early christian leaders to all churches, telling christians to avoid, among other things, "sexual immorality", again without defining it.
• 1 Corinthians 6:12-20 Paul asks all people to avoid "sexual immorality"; however he does not define it specifically.
• 1 Corinthians 7:1-9, Paul states that it is preferrable for people to not have sex at all; but if they MUST have sex then they should be married first.
• The two letters to Timothy are generally taken as instructions on how to be the spiritual leader of a church (pastor) and 2 Timothy 2:22 tells pastors to avoid "the evil desires of youth", which could be interpreted in many ways. 1 Timothy 1:3-13 says that, among other enumerated sins, "adulterers and perverts" aren't fit to be church leaders.
• The most important passage in this regard is 1 Timothy 3 which describes the qualifications of both "overseers" (pastors) and deacons. It states clearly that "Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable..."

These were just the few that I was able to dig up, there are likely many more. There are dozens and dozens of biblical passages that state pretty clearly that having sex with little boys and girls is probably a bad idea for anyone. --Jayron32 01:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Etymological sidelight -- the English word "priest" historically derives from the Greek word presbyteros (you can see an intermediate stage in the name of Prester John), though it corresponds in meaning more to the Greek word hiereus... AnonMoos (talk) 03:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Homosexual means "same sex". Celibacy has to do with heterosexual or "other, i.e. opposite sex". As Jack says, the Church considers any kind of sexual activity outside of marital relations to be sinful. The purpose of sex is reproduction within a marriage framework. All that stuff Jack lists either cannot lead to reproduction or is outside of the approved rules for marriage, therefore it's sinful. P.S. That's the Catholic view, not necessarily mine. P.P.S. Celibacy is a Church doctrine, not a Biblical doctrine, and could be changed tomorrow if the Church decided to. That would have no impact on the items on Jack's list, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the original definition of celibacy has nothing to do with sex, heterosexual, homosexual or otherwise. The word celibacy is derived from the Latin caelibatus, a variant of caelebs, meaning "unmaried". That's what "celibate" means with respect to Catholic priests - simply that they should remain unmarried. As pointed out, this also implies that they aren't supposed to have sex, as the only "acceptable" way a Catholic is supposed to be sexually active is with their spouse, within an officially recognized (by the Church) marriage. -- 174.31.194.126 (talk) 06:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The original poster can find some related information here. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't followed all the links, but what I haven't seen in this thread is a cite giving a scriptural or other reference for pedophilia being any worse than other non-marital sex. I think the concept that a child is incapable of giving informed consent to sexual activity with an adult is common in legal systems today, thus making pedophilic sex the equivalent of rape (and hence the expression "statutory rape"). Is there any Biblical passage or doctrine to support a similar view, or at least saying that non-consensual non-marital sex is worse than consensual non-marital sex? --Anonymous, 02:32 UTC, March 28, 2010.

If you are asking if there is a passage that specifically says, "Is it wrong for a priest to have sex with a child," then, no. There isn't. As most people above have posted, it's covered by various proscriptions, but not one specific one. I can't give a citation because there isn't anything to cite. I'm pretty sure the Bible doesn't split hairs here; there is no degree of bad/worse/worst. Aaronite (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

To Anonymous: From a theological point of view, there are no rank order in sins; while secular authorities may assign various crimes different degrees of punishment; and while people may hold certain crimes to be personally more heinous than others, sin is a binomial state of affairs. According to Christian theology, God is perfect, and therefore cannot allow sin into his presence. All sins cause eternal seperation from God. Again, according to Christian theology, Jesus Christ is therefore the sacrifice that redeems or atones (makes up for) all of the sins of humanity. Since all sins cause seperation from God, and there is no sin that Jesus's death did not absolve Christians from, there is no point in ordering or ranking sins. From a theological standpoint, paedophilia isn't any worse than any other sin. This doesn't mean that the act is not heinous, and should not be met with the full force of secular law (the bible repeatedly tells Christians to submit to secular authorities); just that from the point of view of one's place in heaven, sins of a sexual nature, even rape and paedophila, aren't considered a greater or lesser impediment to eternal salvation than any other sin. Aaronite is correct here as to the bible not splitting hairs; the whole point of the New Testament is an end to the old Jewish system of lists of offenses and prescribed sacrifices to atone for them, and a new way of thinking about sin and one's relationship with God.--Jayron32 04:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait, I thought there were mortal sins and venial sins, sentences in purgatory of various lengths for sinners who don't quite merit eternal damnation, and (as of the time of Dante) nine concentric circles of hell for those who do merit damnation, according to just what they did. They may have had to add more circles in recent years, for spammers, internet trolls, and the like. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, for Protestants, not since the Reformation, and for Catholics, probably not since Vatican II, except for small groups of Traditionalist Catholic sects like Sedevacantism. Since Vatican II, concepts such as purgatory have continued to be part of official Catholic doctrine, but have been de-emphasized in favor of a more bible-centered view. Dei Verbum, the major Vatican II document regarding theology and doctrine, affirms the sacred nature of extra-biblical concepts like Purgatory, but also removes such concepts from a central position in Catholic doctrine and dogma. --Jayron32 06:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I had Catholic religious instruction when I was a kid (long after Vatican II) and I'm quite sure I learned about cardinal sins then. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

A more specific question might be whether the Bible has anything specific to distinguish rape as particularly undesirable (I think the evidence has been quite large that these were not exactly consensual relationships). Is there anything other than Sodom and Gommorrah that specifically discusses rape? --Mr.98 (talk) 13:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a commandment to stone to death rape victims under certain circumstances. It's in one of the more obnoxious books of the OT, probably Leviticus or Deuteronomy. DuncanHill (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

<sigh> Please keep in mind the following:

1. the notion of 'pedophilia' is a modern, western idea. evan as late as as the 18th century, it was not at all uncommon to consider people as young as 12 and 13 to be marriageable (or at least sexually active - Benjamin Franklin reportedly cavorted with 13 year olds in France, and Mohatma Ghandi was married at 9, if I remember correctly, and began living with his wife at 12 or 13). That has become distasteful (and illegal in much of the modern world) mostly because of extended childhood and improved medicine. mandated high school, career orientations for both boys and girls, plummeting rates of mortality amongst infants and expectant mothers: These all have placed a pressure on families and children to stay out of the world of sex/marriage/family until late teens or early twenties. any mention of pedophilia int he bible would have had to refer to children under the age of 10, and anyone caught molesting a child under the age of 10 in the ancient world would have been quickly and quietly stoned to death by the other people in the community. No one would have thought to write it down as a rule.
2. God (should you believe he exists) is not an accountant, and is not 'tallying up' the number and severity of each sin. Breaking their vow of celibacy is sin enough to keep a priest out of salvation (which is assumedly their goal).
3. The Catholic Church is about forgiveness, and confession is strictly private. It was stupid of the Church not to encourage father-confessors to encourage priests who commit such sins to leave the priesthood and enter monastic life. but don't fault them for trying to save the souls of their priests. --Ludwigs2 13:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Matthew 18:6[19] hits the nail on the head (quoting Jesus) "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." Alansplodge (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Interested parties may find the following passages from the CCC worthy of note:

§2356 Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act. Graver still is the rape of children committed by parents (incest) or those responsible for the education of the children entrusted to them.

§2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity (Gen 19:1-29; Rom 1:24-27; I Cor 6:10; I Tim 1:10), tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered"(CDF, Persona humana 8). They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

--Aryaman (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You get those sections from the link I provided above. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I have the CCC in print, which comes with a handy index. Sorry to have overlooked your link. --Aryaman (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Prostitute tea

Do you think the marketing people who came up with the packaging for Arizona Diet Green Tea - With Ginseng realize they put a Japanese prostitute on the label? That's kind of odd since both Green tea and Ginseng are usually associated with China. Although I think the label is very pretty, you would think they could come up with something other than a prostitute. I would guess the picture was chosen because they probably thought it was a Geisha. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 09:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

They grow tea in Arizona? DuncanHill (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

--Tagishsimon (talk) 10:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Consider the average American consumer. If you were to ask most of them to name a country associated with tea, besides England, they'd likely name Japan. With ginseng tea, they wouldn't even think England first and go straight to Japan. Ask them to name something about Japan and there's a good chance they'd come up with geisha. Show them that picture and they'd say it's a picture of a geisha woman. Marketing isn't about truth. Dismas|^(talk) 10:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

These kind of mistakes happen everywhore.

HA!!! --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The real question is: does it sell more tea? perhaps it was a marketing decision. --Ludwigs2 13:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

In any case, Geishas were not really simply common prostitutes, and Ukiyo-e type artistic depictions have had a strong following among some in Western cultures since the 1870s... AnonMoos (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the picture is of a Japanese courtesan. They primarily served as prostitutes and only later learned refined skills such as singing and dancing later on (unless they were an apprentice, then they learned it earlier). Once the government cracked down on prostitution, the Geisha replaced the courtesan in popularity. But some Geisha eventually fell into the practice of sleeping with clients. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

No Ghost I do not! I agree with your assessment entirely -- that it's pretty. When I see that picture, I think refined, classy, elegant, not a vulgar working woman. Vranak (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you implying that an American prostitute; in hot pants, fish net stockings, stiletto heels, and with more make-up than Tammy Faye Bakker, is not as "refined, classy, and elegant" ? StuRat (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You said it, not me! Vranak (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"Hand car"--means of transport

I found the following image: http://www.harappa.com/magic/7.html, taken in 19th century British India. I've never see or heard of such a "hand car" before (where the passengers, sitting in which is essentially a very small, bare-bones railroad car, are pushed by manual labor on a track)...were these in common use in India or elsewhere? Did the passengers and laborers travel on actual railway tracks or special tracks exclusive to that purpose? Seems dangerous and/or impractical, depending....Thanks! If this is the wrong Ref. Desk, please let me know. --达伟 (talk) 11:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

And while you're answering the above question, if you could also tell me what the handle is for, I'd appreciate that. Is it a brake in case the people pushing can't keep it going slow enough on a downhill slope? Dismas|^(talk) 13:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Our articles hand car and draisine may enlighten you. DuncanHill (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

As the article says, "Handcars are a recurring plot device of twentieth century film comedy" (especially the kind where two people stand on either side of a "see-saw" type handle and alternately move it up and down). If you've watched 4 or 5 Hollywood movies set in the American West in the second half of the 19th century, then there's a good chance you've seen a scene with a hand-car... AnonMoos (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

For example, Blazing Saddles has a handcar scene early on. (I see the handcar article already mentions that.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

And, more recently, O Brother, Where Art Thou?. However, note that this type, where the occupants propel themselves, is fundamentally different from the type posed in this Q, where one person or group pushes the cart containing another person or group. This type is more like a rickshaw, and implies a great disparity in wealth and social status. StuRat (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, folks. I tried to cover my bases by doing a Google search that turned up little...don't know how I neglected to look on WP first!--达伟 (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I note that in the illustration, no crossties (sleepers) are visible. In most early railway construction, the crossties extended quite a ways above the gravel or "ballast." In that case, it would be slow and impractical for four men to stumble along hitting or missing the ties as they step smartly along. It would take a lot of expense to completely cover the cross ties just to provide level footing for the four pushers. A puzzle, all in all. The ties did not just rest on dirt because in a climate where the temperature dropped below freezing and there was some precipitation, the frozen dirt would heave and displace the ties. Gravel ballast provided drainage [20]. The 2 man pumped handle handcar could go faster than the 4 pushers could push . A handcar sold for $25 in the early 20th century, and a handcar could carry 3 to 10 men, so the two officials could have been passengers. A handcar might weigh 800 pounds and be capable of 12 to 20 miles per hour[21]. Edison (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Correlation between the Sharpeville Massacre and Cato Manor Massacre

Having done some research prior to the celebration of Human Rights Day here in South Africa (21 March) which commemorates the Sharpeville Massacre in which 69 people were killed by a group of policeman manning the station at Sharpeville on that day in 1960, I was surprised to note that there is no cross reference to the incident two months earlier at the Cato Manor police station some 550 km from Durban.

According to your Cato Manor article “On The 23 January 1960 an angry mob attacked 4 white and 5 black policemen at the Cato Manor Police station; they butchered the men and mutilated the bodies. The mutilated bodies, with genitals stuffed in their mouths, were then dragged through the streets by the mob.”

I think that the cross referencing of these two articles is imperitive in order to give a balanced view of the Sharpeville incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.210.208.52 (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

This belongs on the article talk page, not here. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Also note that you can add those links yourself. StuRat (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

History of writing out currency amounts on checks

I had a hard time explaining to a young friend how to fill out a personal check. Besides the cardinal number for the amount, one much also spell out the amount using English words. I've seen these for cashier's cheques, money orders -- any certificate that has monetary value. What's the origin of this? And why do we still do it? --68.103.143.23 (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason for it is because it's easier to change "$50" to "$500" by inserting a strategic zero than it is to fraudulently change the written word "fifty" to "five hundred"... AnonMoos (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure, but it probably has to do with avoiding ambiguity. Much like a legal contract would state (for example), "the term of this lease is for twelve (12) months" -- which has the amount spelled out both in numerals and in words. I believe that I saw somewhere that it is the written word that is the legally controlling amount ... despite what the numerals indicate. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC))

After reading AnonMoos's post above, my comment (above) makes even more sense. That is probably why the written word controls over the numerical symbols ... to avoid forgery and alteration of the amount. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC))

I don't think either the amount in words or the amount in figures have any precedence over the other, because if there were any discrepancy between them, the whole cheque would be void as no bank would honour it. If anyone knows differently, I'd love to see a cite.-- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

When writing prescriptions for narcotics, it is recommended to include the number of tablets in both numeral and word form to avoid fraud -- I'd say it's the same here. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been phoned by my bank about a cheque I wrote where the numerals did not match the words. (I am in a small town and the bank manager knows me.) I just confirmed the words and the bank then honoured the cheque. I don't know what would have happened differently, if anything, if I had confirmed the numerals rather than the words. Bielle (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I clearly remember studying a "famous" legal case, where this was the exact issue at hand. And the legal principle held by the court was that the written words printed legally controlled over the numerical amount printed. I will have to look for the actual case citation. But, I definitely remember studying the case. (This was a case in USA case law, by the way.) It has stuck in my memory after all these years because, at the time, I remember thinking to myself, "wow, I never knew that". Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC))

There are checks in the Cairo Genizah dating to the Middle Ages that are quite similiar to ours -- they have the amount written out in both numerals and words. So this is not a new idea. See [22]. -- 76.190.138.251 (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

damaged aircraft auction

It's understood Flight 1549 was up for auction. The auction ended just recently. How much money was brought in?24.90.204.234 (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Source of quotation, probably from W.B. Yeats

I would like to use the following quotation in a talk I'm about to give and would like to cite it correctly:

"All rising to a great place is by a winding stair."

I believe the quotation is from William Butler Yeats, but have not been able to find it in his Collected Poems. I know that Sister Corita used this quotation in at least one, if not two images she created prior to 1973, but I have not been able to find these images either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankellen (talk • contribs) 21:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Google consensus is Francis Bacon. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

In Bacon's essay Of Great Place to be precise. Yeats did have a volume of poems called The Winding Stair and Other Poems with the winding stair motif in the poem A Dialogue of Self and Soul. meltBanana 22:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hypothetical scenario

What would happen if unemployment in the United Kingdom were to reach 100% what would happen. I know the country would go bankrupt but in reality what does this mean, the country's just left to rot or do we get bailed out by the IMF. . . ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.195.77 (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

That would mean there are no businesses operating at all. It might be useful to see what conditions were like during the Great Depression, when unemployment was quite high, and extrapolate from there. It's also possible someone has written about such a scenario, which you might be able to find via Google. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't see how that could ever occur. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Not at present, no, as the economy would collapse long before then. However, one can imagine a future time when automation has improved to the point where human workers are obsolete. Then, it could happen. This would mean capitalism would no longer function, as only owners of the means of production would have any income at all. Something more like pure socialism would result, with everyone sharing in the wealth created by the machines. StuRat (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If nobody's working, then nobody's got money, and nobody's buying. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Under capitalism, yes, hence the problem. StuRat (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Apart from StuRat's automated world (which requires some really impressive AI), the only way I could see that happening would be if everyone reverted to subsistence farming. While they would be working, they wouldn't be contributing to the larger economy (of which there would be none). If nobody was working, they would just die, obviously. If the UK has got to that stage, we have to assume it is a global super-crisis and the IMF wouldn't be any help. --Tango (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

How are nurses who kill caught?

I mean, there are a lot of examples of nurses who've killed patients, I mean, how are they caught?, what's the evidence?. I am not sure if I can exaplain what I mean. A serial killer who uses knife, rape, etc. can be caught by his/her DNA. So, what's the evidence in the cases of nurses who kill? --190.178.150.51 (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Start with the page Angel of Death and go from there. In the first case listed, there were suspicions about a high quantity of similar deaths happening while a particular nurse was the only one on duty. That observation can start the snowball rolling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

In the developed world, anyone that dies without there being an obvious cause will be given an autopsy. That will usually establish the cause of death. If it is something like a drugs overdose while they were in hospital then someone will look at the patient's notes and try and work out what happened. There is a lot of paperwork done in hospitals and one of the reasons for it is to enable them to work out what happened in the event that someone dies that shouldn't have done. --Tango (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they are that careful with autopsies. At least in the US, anyone who is old and/or sick when they die seems to bypass the autopsy table, which would be most of the people a nurse might kill. StuRat (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

In the UK, anyone that hasn't been seen by a doctor in the last 2 weeks is automatically autopsied. With anyone else, it depends on whether a doctor is confident stating their cause of death on a death certificate and signing it, I think. If the nurse killed someone that could easily have died anyway, then they might get away with it fairly easily. --Tango (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

But Tango, in the case of Colin Norris, he gave overdoses of insuline to his patients (four women) and was caught just because his colleagues reported him because of his ironic comments. So, there weren't autopsies to those women. --190.178.150.51 (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Our article doesn't go into details about how he was caught, but it does say none of the women was terminally ill, so there would almost certainly have been autopsies. --Tango (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I also think that the law of probability works against all serial killers, whether they are nurses or the "regular" Jeffrey Dahmer type of killer. That is, after several murders, they get over-confident, they make mistakes, they get sloppy, more evidence piles up, the "coincidences" start to make the authorities suspicious of the suspect, etc. This would be the case for anyone who engages in serial killings. So, having a nurse/patient relationship is not particularly germane when considering that the probability of getting caught increases as the body count (number of victims) also increases. So, yes, it may be pretty easy for a nurse to escape detection after 1, 2, or 3 suspicious deaths ... but less so after 20, 25, 30 suspicious deaths on their watch. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC))

(Business Valuation) Sales / Headcount -- a meaningful statistic?

I just got back from a campus recruiting trip for my joint venture, and at this particular presentation I unveiled a chart comparing sales per person growth (350%) (SPP from here) to headcount growth (150%) over the past 5 years. My point was to show that the company was not just expanding its numbers, but also dramatically expanding its market-share & that value creation per employee was way up. It served its purpose, making a strong impact on all the impressionable college seniors. At the same time, I had this nagging thought in the back of my head that this particular comparison was rather limited in its validity. For example, our foreign parent company's SPP is roughly 200% ours, while our domestic parent company's is roughly 25% ours -- nevertheless, both are widely praised as successful companies in their industry. This is a huge discrepancy! Furthermore, I suspect SPP to be biased towards tech companies who can create more value with less workers... I haven't checked but I'm guessing McDonald's would not fare well in this comparison because it employs so many thousands of people.

So, my question: is this comparison useful? is it a standard business valuation metric? should I abandon it entirely? It does seem useful if you're only looking at one company's history... Thank you for your time! 61.189.63.151 (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It is certainly not useful for comparing companies in different industries. I think you are right that it is most useful for comparing one company at different times. It is a similar idea to looking at "like-for-like sales growth". That is where you only count sales in stores that existed at both times you are interested it (so you don't count stores that have closed or ones that have opened in the intervening time). That is very commonly used, since sales increasing just because you have opened new stores isn't very interesting. --Tango (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

See our recent discussion here: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2010_March_19#sales_revenue_and_employees. StuRat (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)