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.
privitization of government services and operations
Law and medicine are public services that have long since been privatized to an extent that only the upper middle class and the rich benefit from high quality service and specialization or have access to high quality service and specialization at all. Consequently law and medicine serve as a working model of a worst case privatization of public services scenario.
Despite this warning privatization is being sold as a solution to the current economic crisis because the private business model is to maximize profit and minimize cost while the public government model is to reduce services or raise taxes.
Whereas public government can only reduce services and operations or raise taxes, private business can minimize or eliminate:
taxes
regulation of the environment and industries like telecommunications.
programs that assist persons living below the poverty line
cost of living increases for government workers and pensioners
and guarantee maximum profit by charging whatever business desires for:
government administration
mail
electronic communication
transportation and parking
police, fire and military protection
to the joy and benefit of the rich while destroying and eliminating the poor.
Is this an accurate assessment of the current effort to privatize government services and if not what might make this assessment more accurate? --DeeperQA (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the present in the State of Florida. Although registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans the Governor is a Republican bent and determined on privatization and deregulation backed by his Republican legislature. One bill that passed and became law in July, 2011 is the deregulation of the telecommunication industry. It is aggressively eliminating analog telephone service requiring cable, FIOS or cellular. The Lifeline poverty discount has been eliminated for cable and FIOS while cellular offers only 250 minutes at 2 cents per minute per month Lifeline poverty discount. Full discount on unlimited service, the equivalent of analog Lifeline discount, is not available. The poor are therefore being cheated by telephone menu and hold times that can consume ten time as many minutes as the conversation or message. --DeeperQA (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Privatisation of services in general is the path to the Dark Side - it leads to oppression, which leads to anger (at the bourgeois), which in turn leads to hatred (of the capitalist system) which in turn leads to suffereing (revolution). →Σ⚑ ☭ 03:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I am far from republican, I do question your statement that the poor are being cheated by the removal of free unlimited phone use as I can't see unlimited phone access as being a right. The poor are still, from your information, recieving free phone use for ~9minutes a day at $0.18 a day, I do not see how use over this is not purely recreational. I also don't see why the government should be forcing companies to provide for out of date technology such as analog telephones. When I think of deregulation I think of minimum wage laws, which force businesses to become efficient per worker, disappearing, or Competition laws disappearing allowing inefficient monopolies to tyrant a market, building standards disappearing, allowing skyscrapers to topple over, accreditation for doctors disappearing, allowing a medical school drop out to perform heart surgery on anyone who will let him (he swears he knows enough and is half price!), etc. These things hurt the public, you're just talking about change.
No. Poor people are entitled to unlimited service because that is what is being replaced. They are not asking for free unlimited service because that is not what they had. What they are asking for is unlimited service that everyone else has, only with a government assisted discount sufficient to allow then to have it.
Since you are not Republican we can assume you are poor and disabled. Lets start with unlimited analog service. Without government assistance you can not afford unlimited analog telephone service which is available to everyone at the same basic minimum cost which will allow the hospital to monitor your condition and you to communicate with your doctor, hospital, pharmacy, electric company and make and receive other necessary calls.
Unlimited cellular plans, along with fixed minute plans at fixed cost, come into existence.
Telecommunication service is deregulated.
Cellular service takes the place of analog service. Unlimited service for either analog or digital is 43,200 minutes of service per month.
You still need the same unlimited service and government assistance.
Instead of coming out of deregulation with the equivalent services you had under unlimited analog prior to deregulation you are given 250 free minutes, which is insufficient even to handle the time required for call interruption and redial, phone menus and hold times and unanswered calls.
Consequently, after your allocated minutes are gone your medical monitoring equipment can not inform the hospital you just had a heart attack and died; fulfilling the desire of the rich if you are poor, the desire of the Republicans if you are Democrat and the desire of people looking for empty handicapped parking spaces if you use a wheelchair. --DeeperQA (talk) 07:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you're not talking about privitization or deregulation, you're talking about service cuts, particularly cuts to services for the poor. What can I say, that's what Republicans do, if you're not a fundemental christian or have millions of dollars there's no reason to vote Republican. Public awareness (talk) 08:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about what the office of a legislator told me. The office of Sen. Joyner said that deregulation was part of the Governor's privatization plan which lower business costs and taxes by eliminating or decreasing tax paid service to the poor. The Republicans and the rich do not want to pay taxes so the government can provide services but rather to provide government services themselves from which to maximize profit. First step is deregulation so the need for taxes can be eliminated and second step is privatization so profit can be maximized by commanding necessities. One alternative is to run government as a non-profit business in place of taxes. --DeeperQA (talk) 10:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So even with the modern capability to mitigate social inequality even for the most basic human needs, we still should live as selfishly as our ancestors did? No one's asking for the total removal of incentive that capitalistic competition provides, but when it becomes more important to protect the right of a billionaire to obtain just one more limo at the expense of someone else dying from a disease that could have been cured with a fraction of the money, don't you ever wonder about priorities? Or is the concept of humanity too commie? -- Obsidi♠nSoul13:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Under laissez faire capitalism you are free to donate as much of your own money as you wish to whomever you like and to convince others to do so as well. Just not with either your guns or those of the tax man as a threat. If your noble schemes will only work with government guns and other people's money then maybe "selfish" is not such an appropriate word for you to use as criticism. μηδείς (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mein Gott in Himmel! 60,000 Reichmsarks?!!! I retract my previous post. That money could have been better spent nuking Bikini Atoll again, just to make sure it really works.-- Obsidi♠nSoul14:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The truth is that we have no reason for everyone not to be rich and have the highest possible standard of living because the Solar Mass we call our Sun keeps throwing money at us like we were on a never ending hot streak at Las Vegas. --DeeperQA (talk) 07:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone find a list of the legal ages to view porn in different jurisdictions? I can't find such a list either via Google or on Wikipedia. Wiwaxia (talk) 00:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pornography by region, though I'm not sure there is a legal age to view porn in most places, just a legal age to buy porn, ie. You have to be 18 to buy porn where I'm from, yet 99% of 16 year old males have viewed porn, and that's legal. Public awareness (talk) 01:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I'm pretty sure that it's illegal to view porn if many places if you're under 18, even though that law is almost certainly never enforced. Ragettho (talk) 13:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure of that? I did a quick search and found a lot of confusing not particularly reliable stuff on Yahoo Answers and the like. The few more reliable looking stuff which actually mentions laws like [1] seem to suggest there's often no law against a minor viewing or possessing porngraphy in the US (federal or state) although someone selling or making it available to a minor may be committing a crime. Unfortunately a search isn't easy due to the plenty of stuff discussing child pornography.
However you may have broken other laws to obtain your pornography. For example, if you went to one of those websites which ask you your age then you potentially committed a crime by lying, although I'm not sure in the US as the courts had some recent rulings coming down against criminalising stuff just because you violated someone's TOS. (But this isn't so clear cut since it's to do with age and websites attempting to prevent minors accessing their material as they may be required by law.) Of course if you presented a false ID or stole the pornography from a store you've probably broken the law. Similarly if you downloaded something without the copyright holders permission, this may be illegal in some cases (either way the copyright holder could likely bring a civil case against you) although again things don't see so clear cut in this area in the US. If you used some sort of P2P when you downloaded the materially you very likely uploaded/distributed it which is more likely to be illegal.
And of course if make your pornography available to a friend/sibling who is a minor you may be guilty of making it available/distributing it to a minor. The ultimate no-no, which some minors have gotten in to trouble for, would be any pornography involving a minor such as stuff sent via mobile phones of school mates or even the minor themselves since there are plenty of laws against possessing and I think viewing child pornography. While this does I think (from case histories) sometimes include pornography only involving yourself, I don't think the laws against making pornography available to a minor are likely to be interpreted as meaning it's illegal for a minor to possess or view pornography since they're making it available to themselves, a minor. But I could be wrong....
By comparison, in the case of alcohol there are laws making it illegal for minors to consume alcohol in some states in the US although that's 21 (see Legal drinking age) and in NZ [2] where it's 18.
Don't BTW think this means if you're a minor you can go around boasting to everyone including cops and teachers about your porngraphy collection and nothing can be done about it. If you're a minor, you would normally have a parent or guardian who is responsible for you who would likely be entilted to confiscate/delete your collection. And if they fail to do so when they've been told you're boasting about it, they could potentially get in trouble.
Hey everyone. I recently read that the Kerguelen Plateau sank and that the only remains were the Kerguelen islands and the Heard Island and McDonald islands, and that there were no native inhabitants living on either of them. But if the Kerguelen plateau didn't sink, is it likely that natives from South Africa or perhaps even the Austronesians could have traveled to the plateau to inhibit it? 64.229.181.189 (talk) 03:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a large microcontinent, so possibly, provided ocean currents are correct. Early Austronesian sailors were able to colonize Madagascar in the same way. It would really all be conjecture though. It also sank 20 million years ago, long before modern humans arose. -- Obsidi♠nSoul04:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... could any of them have gotten to Belgium? We should find out... Surely someone is eventually going to ask us how many native Kerguelens are living there. :>) Blueboar (talk) 04:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, funny, but why do you keep picking on that question? Rwanda, Burundi, and DR Congo were Belgian colonies, so it makes sense to ask about Rwandans, Burundians, and... Deeahrcongolese living in Belgium :D 92.81.28.53 (talk) 14:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To give a serious answer for once: I pick on that particular question because it refers to Belgium. The word "Belgium" has become an English humor trope (I think it goes back to Douglas Adams and The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy.) Belgium (as a word/name) is considered humorous, while the names of other European nations are not. Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It goes back to at least Monty Python, "can't think of a more derogatory name than Belgians" etc. (Although Douglas Adams did write for them too...) Adam Bishop (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's just as possible that people from South Africa or Madagascar could have traveled to the existing Kerguelen as it is that they could have traveled to a larger continental Kerguelen. While the distance is great and the seas are treacherous, it is possible that people did travel to Kerguelen. However, its climate is so forbidding and so different from the climates of likely travelers' homelands that it is difficult to imagine them having the cultural resources to survive after they arrived there. The only plausible means of livelihood would be foraging the marine and terrestrial flora and fauna, since the climate would not support significant agriculture. Yet no foraging people is known to have developed the technology to undertake long sea voyages. Marco polo (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. As mentioned, the Austronesians who colonized Madagascar, basically sailed there in outrigger canoes from more or less, halfway around the world. There are actually plenty of ethnic groups in Southeast Asia which have cultures based almost entirely on itinerant marine harvesting, sometimes collectively called 'Sea Gypsies'. And let's not forget the Kon-Tiki and Tangaroa. Nevertheless, yes, the island would have been pretty much forbidding. But that hasn't stopped humans before, heh.-- Obsidi♠nSoul14:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Austronesians who colonized Madagascar were not foragers, they were agriculturalists. None of the sea gypsy peoples are currently equipped for long-distance sea travel. Their boats can't hold enough food to live for weeks far from land, which is how long it would take to get to Kerguelen by sail from the nearest settled lands. Still, it is conceivable that a group of sea gypsies might have developed a long-distance sailing capacity. Even so, their culture involves exploiting tropical or subtropical waters, and none of the possible jumping-off points, such as Madagascar or South Africa, would have enabled them to develop the cultural competence needed to live sustainably in a subpolar environment. It is true that people settled Iceland and then Greenland, where climates comparable to Kerguelen exist, using premodern navigation, but life in Iceland prepared colonists to survive (tenuously and ultimately not sustainably) in Greenland, and life in Norway prepared colonists to survive (also rather tenuously in premodern times) in Iceland. No inhabited land area within a reasonable range of Kerguelen would offer a similar preparation for life on Kerguelen. Marco polo (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sailing technologies of the sea-based Austronesian peoples are basically the same as that of the other more agricultural Austronesian cultures. The relatively simple boats may seem rather unseaworthy when compared to western large ocean-going vessels, but remember, Hawaiians and other Polynesians are also Austronesians, and catamarans with its carrying capability and speed were an Austronesian invention. Austronesian boats influenced both the Chinese interest in building large trading ships and the introduction of ships built with nails (rather than lashed together) in African and Middle-Eastern boat designs in the Indian Ocean. But yeah I guess. It would have been a pretty hostile place for people more used to tropical islands.-- Obsidi♠nSoul15:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Malietoa
Who was the Malietoa during the United States Exploring Expedition to Samoa? This article seems to suggest Malietoa Moli but Moli wasn't Malietoa till 1858. Malietoa Vaiinupo, Moli's predecessor, died in 1841 according to this [3]. So who was Malietoa during this time between 1841 and 1858 and who was the Malietoa that was met by Americans in the United States Exploring Expedition and drawn by Alfred Agate. Also Agate drew a women named Emma Malietoa, who was she?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point 128 was making is that there is no certainty he'll retire. He may drown. He may be dishourably discharged. He may be kidnapped by aliens and never be found again. It's a pedantic point, but it has some merit. --Dweller (talk) 13:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You doubt it's possible he won't retire because of something else hapenning which prevents him doing so? That's just silly. I would agree it's most likely he will retire, but there's no certainty as Dweller and 128 have said. Despite their statement, I'm not sure whether even Bb intended to suggest there was no possibility he won't retire. The original question itself is fairly silly anyway. Their twins, not duplicates and there are clearly things going on in Mark's life that made retirement far more likely that don't apply to Scott. So the recent retirement of Mark has limited relevence to Scott. And it's fairly unlikely there are any sources where Scott discusses whether he plans to retire soon so there is no way we can answer it on the RD. (This isn't Scott's private e-mail.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Timeline of Daylight Saving Time Adoption
I'm looking for a timeline of daylight saving time adoption worldwide. Ideally it would be a list of what years countries started using DST and, if applicable, stopped using it. --CGPGrey (talk) 10:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Daylight saving time around the world has more of the details you want. Unfortunately, it's not as simple as "Country A adopted DST on Date X and nothing's ever changed since". In some places it goes in and out of fashion. In some countries like Australia, it's governed on a state-by-state basis, not nationally. The detailed history of DST in Australia alone would fill a book. Doris Chase Doane wrote such a book, "Time Changes in the USA", followed by "Time Changes in Canada and Mexico" and "Time Changes in the World (except the USA, Canada and Mexico)". She's dead now, and I don't know if updated versions of her books are available. -- Jack of Oz[your turn]19:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that a lot of people throw around the term Oligarchy as just some epithet, but what would an actual oligarchy look like? Would it just be a democracy with a franchise restricted to the well off? Would it be rule by some central council that elects its own members? Or is it just a vague descriptor that doesn't refer to a form of government at all? Rabuve (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent question. An oligarchy occurs when a particular corporate group in society (or even within a micro-society like an organization) promotes its own welfare by exploiting others. Aristocrats and monarchs have existed since almost forever and for all of that time they have been in a position to control and coordinate those groups, and therefore they have also been in the perfect position to exploit them.
The expectations of the individuals in all these other groups (i.e farmers, smiths, etcetera) was limited to their own requirements and processes because of the need to focus on their own work. Having no other work than government, the oligarch is able to focus on the society as a whole, and how it should fit together. This vantage point is very useful for exploitation.
If you are looking for examples of societies that are oligarchies, well there is a sense in which they all are still, and there is a sense in which none of them are anymore really. Societies that exemplify an "oligarchical culture" have existed historically, however their historical placement is not of primary significance. These cultures have existed in some form in varying degrees for thousands to years, and still exist today.Greg Bard (talk) 01:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ethnic groups in Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Burkina Faso, Sierra Leone, Senegal, Nigeria, the Gambia, Côte d'Ivoire practising Islam.
I was told that Yoruba people of Nigeria practice Islam and Wolof people of Senegal practice Islam. In Nigeria, is there any other ethnic groups that practice Islam and is there any ethnic groups in Senegal that practice Islam?
What about ethnic groups in Guinea; which ethnic group practice Islam?
Which ethnic groups in Guinea-Bissau practices Islam?
Which ethnic groups in the Gambia practices Islam?
Which ethnic groups in Côte d'Ivoire practices Islam?
Which ethnic groups in Burkina Faso practices Islam?
Which ethnic groups in Sierra Leone practices Islam? Please answers my questions and thank you. This is no homework question. I am curious about this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.17.129 (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In each of the articles about those countries, there's a section devoted to religion. Please take a look at them first. I have wikilinked them all for you.-- Obsidi♠nSoul16:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Before others answer... religion and ethnicity do not necessarily go hand-in-hand. While most Yoruba may practice Islam, there are at least a few that adhere to other faiths. And there are Muslims among ethnic groups that are mostly Christian. Perhaps what you are really asking is: "Which ethnic groups in West Africa are predominantly Muslim?" Blueboar (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These days we need to think a lot more about what is meant by "practising Islam", just as we should with "practising Christianity". Such terms are old and possibly outdated. I know less about Islam, so I'll use the Christian example. If I go to church most Sundays, but never pray otherwise, and eat steak on Fridays, am I a practising Christian? I have great difficulties with defining the numbers of adherents to particular faiths. Figures that have long been held to be meaningful can be very deceptive. HiLo48 (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's only Roman Catholics in certain specific times and places (not universally) who had an obligation of "meatless Fridays", and not complying was considered to make you a sinful Catholic, not a non-Catholic. And large-scale measures of religious membership count external signs of affiliation more than individual definitions of faith (something which requires long personal interviews to get at, and can then be tricky to reduce to simple dichotomous categories). So I think that most researchers or census-takers would consider you to be a practising Christian under those conditions... AnonMoos (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And there we have a problem. You see, that post of mine describes me maybe 30 years ago. My views haven't changed, but now I don't even attend church. I like the term "Social Christian", or "Social Muslim", meaning that one participates in the rituals of one's society's religion because that is what is expected, rather than because of any strong belief. I'm pretty sure there's plenty of such people in most places. Are such people in a so-called "Muslim" country actually practising Muslims? HiLo48 (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did know a fundementalist christian (homeschooled) once, she "knows" that only Christian fundamentalists are christians, and the rest of those called christians are going to hell. I than proceded to bring up the fact the bible condones slavery in front of her and my strongly (but non-fundementalist) christian black friend, that was funny. So yes, there are multiple levels of dedication to a religion. I practice opening presents on Christmas and enjoy having Good Friday off work, that's my level of christianity. Because of these different levels, stats on religion don't show the reality that much. Public awareness (talk) 02:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that Yorubas are predominately non-Muslims. The Wikipedia article Yoruba people states that 50% of Yorubas are Muslims, but I'd take that statistic with a grain of salt. The large Muslim ethnic group in Nigeria is the Hausa people.
The Fula/Peul people is another group that is virtually 100% Muslims (spread across West Africa). In Guinea-Bissau, they would be the main Muslim group. I think in Burkina as well, not sure.
In Guinea, all major ethnic groups are Muslims. The main non-Muslim populations are the Forestiers, the different groups living in the interior regions, as well as a minority in the capital Conakry. Likewise, in Senegal and Gambia 90+% of the population is Muslim, so a better question would be which ethnic groups are non-Muslims. --Soman (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to know if her work is in the public domain. UK, Life + 70 years. Exact dates (birth, dead) might then be helpful for a category on commons. -- Cherubino (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC) PS: "fl." (flourished) only refers to a person's known period of activity[reply]
I know that the formal education required for the average job in the industrialized world is increasing. Is this increase accelerating? Also, if it ever reaches a cognitive or economic limit (even with any advances in cognitive enhancement), is this likely to slow technological acceleration? NeonMerlin20:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is called credential inflation. It's probably impossibly to say if it is accelerating, because it isn't possible to measure it accurately. I see that our article says it can hamper innovation. I suppose the mechanism is that people who should be out in the real world making innovations are instead shut up in classrooms mugging up on outdated facts they need to pass exams. But the world is more complicated than that. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, the rates of high school and 4-year college completion in the US (according to Census table HS-22) from 1940-2002 (points before 1940 are estimates according to the footnotes) fit linear and exponential curves about equally well.
The average BA holder can be equally well(or badly) educated than many years ago. Maybe we are just educating more people .... Quest09 (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the issue is that more people have the higher certifications, but it is not always readily apparent that having those certifications necessarily means one is well suited for a particular job. Educational certifications (degrees, diplomas, etc) act as "gatekeepers" for certain jobs. Most people will still have to be trained for their specific job by the company that hires them, regardless of their degree, so it isn't the educational training per se which matters. The degree acts as a sort of "is this person an idiot" test; people with higher degrees have a better chance of being trainable (and thus hireable) for whatever job one is offering. It isn't that there is a guarantee that every single Bachelor's Degree holder will automatically be better at the job than every single High School Diploma holder; it is that there will be less idiots with Bachlor's degrees (not zero, just less) than hold merely a High School Diploma, if only because there are less of them. The first goal of someone hiring for a job is to narrow down the applicants to a managable group. They know ahead of time they are likely getting rid of a number of good applicants when they, say, eliminate all people who don't have a Bachelor's Degree. They don't care about that, but they are also getting the list down to a more reasonable number of interviewees. The more people get higher degrees, the higher up a company will raise its bar for applicants. If as many people today get Bachelor's Degrees as got High School Diplomas, say, 50 years ago (made it up, but you get the idea), then a Bachelor's Degree today will be worth what a HS Diploma was worth 50 years ago, because hiring managers will still need to cull their list of applicants, and they need to use the higher qualification to do that. If, in another 50 years, there are as many Master's degrees as there are Bachelor's degrees today, then that will become the new cutoff. It has nothing to do with what you may or may not have learned, it is how you, as an applicant, can distance yourself from all other applicants. If everyone else has a Bachelor's degree, you aren't special and thus you don't stand out as an applicant. This will always be true, so the more educated the population becomes, the less important that education will become when applying for a job. --Jayron3219:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jayron's argument is a standard one on this topic; that education is a positional good. My earlier post was meant to sum up why someone might think that the increased average length of full-time education hinders innovation. I agree with it only to a certain extent. People do learn something in the years they continue in education. Most importantly they learn the confidence to think for themselves. On the other hand they would also have learnt a lot if they had been out at work. The solutions may include the following: not to value education unduly and reject the benefit of work experience, to allow people to choose how and when they study, to provide opportunities so people can study part-time while they are working and allow people to come back to education in later career. A lot of nonsense is said about these questions. This afternoon I heard Chris Woodhead say on BBC Radio 4 that children should be allowed to leave school at 14 because they couldn't read and write at 11 and there was no point in trying to teach them now - and then they could go onto to train as plumbers. A plumber who can't read or write isn't going to be a lot of use. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of conspiracies have been proven, try Watergate for starters. The issue here is that the term "conspiracy theory" is usually used to refer to paranoid concepts of grand conspiracies encompassing large portions of history. These have not been proven true and wont as long as the reptilians are in control. --Daniel21:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See Conspiracy Theory for more information. The fact is, the term 'conspiracy theory' has come to mean 'speculation without any evidence whatsoever'. This is the main reason that they continue to be theories (see theory and hypothesis - and then think why there is no such thing as a Conspiracy Hypothesis). Watergate was indeed a cover-up, but in no way would it be called a conspiracy theory now. It wasn't even called that then. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK)23:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Err, most conspiracy theories have plenty of evidence. God, do they ever have evidence! The question is not whether they have evidence, but whether the evidence is being marshaled correctly, whether they have succumbed to various cognitive biases (often the case), or whether the evidence for their theory is in any way relevant to the evidence against it. But it's not that they have zero evidence. Even the goofiest of conspiracy theories can bore you to tears with their volumes of purported evidence. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought about this a bit, in part because there was a lot of discussion about whether there could be some kind of List of conspiracy theories that were true on here at some point. There were two different ways of thinking about what would populate a list:
1. Any scary government or non-governmental thing that was hidden but turned out to be true
2. Any theories about said conspiracies that percolated for a long time and were denied/covered up, but turned out to actually be true
The first was too broad a category, I thought. If nobody on the "outside" theorized it, then it wasn't a "conspiracy theory" in my view. It was just a "conspiracy." There have been plenty of conspiracies. ("Conspiracy" is an exceptionally broad term.)
The second was more what I had in mind. It rules out most secret things, because they were usually not speculated about much. The Manhattan Project is a nice borderline case. During World War II there was a lot of speculation amongst newspapermen, politicians (including Truman, when he was a Senator), and various other folks (scientists who were not part of it, for example) that the US was engaged in producing a uranium-based weapon. It was hushed up by the Office of Censorship to a large degree (but not perfectly), by the War Department, and even by the White House (e.g. calling up the Truman Committee and telling them to take a hike). Eventually it came out that the US was indeed doing just that. Of course, after the fact, the bomb was described as a huge surprise for everyone, which was only partially true. But was there a large movement of "conspiracy theorists"? Not really. Was there an official story they were challenging? Not really — it was more of a suspicion. So I don't know, does that count? I'm on the fence about it. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The P2 conspiracy probably qualifies. The conspiracy that masonic lodges are the secret masters of government has been around since there have been freemasons. This one time, it happened to be right. gnfnrf (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite... What is beyond doubt is that there was a conspiracy involving members of the P2 Lodge (there is a lot of debate as to when that lodge was or was not legitimate, and thus whether we can legitimately say "the Masons" were behind it.) There is also some skepticism as to whether all the people purported to be members of P2 actually were members. And, as is common with the genre of conspiracy theory in general, the tale has grown in the telling. A lot of frigne claims are made about P2 ... many of them don't pass close examination. So... it is true that there was a conspiracy involving P2... but that does not mean that everything stated by the conspiracy theory is true. Blueboar (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth pointing out that ordinary collusion such as price fixing can sound as wacky as any popular conspiracy theory, but there have been plenty of collusion convictions when the parties involved were not aware that they were colluding. Because no intent is involved, if RAM manufacturers, for example, price their product at what they think is a competitive point, but that information comes from other vendors, even if it is conveyed by customers, that counts as a bona fide conspiracy. 69.171.160.45 (talk) 08:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also there are some conspiracy theories which depend on actions predicated by the zeitgeist or collective subconscious (e.g., some forms of racism, sexism, ageism, etc.) which are statistically obvious even when all individuals deny them. Ask a black teen if there's a conspiracy by the cops to harass him when he drives through the wealthy suburbs, and you know what he will say and why he will say it, just as surely as the cops will all deny it vociferously. Similarly, "separate but equal" and Jim Crow were bona fide conspiracies against blacks as much as whites would pretty much all deny it in some areas. 69.171.160.45 (talk) 08:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll put forward Reichstag fire as a close one. We'll probably never know what has really happened, but it certainly is a conspiracy theory and mainstream opinion seems to be pretty much fifty-fifty divided between believing the official version and the conspiracy claim. 109.149.83.20 (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's 50/50. I think the preponderance of historical opinion is that the Nazis took advantage of the fire, but didn't set it themselves. Unless that wasn't the conspiracy you meant... --Mr.98 (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Conspiracy" is a felony in the US. So every instance of that law resulting in a conviction is an instance of a conspiracy being proven true. Also, any misdemeanor can rise to the level of a felony, if it was perpetrated by more than one person who planned to do it. In the college town I used to live in, the police charged some student protesters with "conspiracy to jaywalk" when they blocked a state highway (it was 1969 and they were protesting the fact that a state highway running through campus was unsafe). Later the charges were dropped and the road was closed through campus and rerouted. The postmodern interpretation of conspiracy theories is that they are attempts to make sense of a world that makes no sense. The world doesn't always make sense, so therefore they are very often not proven, because they aren't true at all. I.e. Oswald really did act alone, there was no complicity by the US on 911, etcetera.Greg Bard (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are some implications that the devil will tempt individuals, but nothing explicit that this involves speaking with words as opposed to communication by way of a big juicy steak, a big jug of wine, and a lusty attractive member of the appropriate sex, for example. What is the passage where one of the prophets refers to errors in scripture as the result of temptation? That's a convenient self-reference to explain a few things. 69.171.160.45 (talk) 08:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that Jesus was a man, then he conversed with the Devil during his sojourn in the wilderness. Luke 4: 1 - 15 is the reference. I had thought that perhaps you could find instances in the book of Job, but it seems that Satan's dealings with Job were confined to being a goddam nuisance! --TammyMoet (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I assume Tammy simply meant to cover her bases in case a somewhat gnostic contributor wanted to dispute Jesus having been a man when he spoke to the Devil in the desert. There are those who deny his human status, just as there who deny his divine status. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So there is no bible verses that say the Devil spoke to any human beside to Eve and Jesus who was on Earth in a human form. You guys can't find any verses, am I right? 99.245.76.117 (talk) 00:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What they are saying is that they haven't found a reference for a Bible verse where the devil speaks to any man other than Jesus. That's what we search out: references. Bielle (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently acquired ARMA 2: Operation Arrowhead, and there is a scenario editor with it. I set up a game, with my forces consisting of a T-55, a Mi-8, a IFV of some sort, and some infantry. The enemy forces had some infantry and two Bradley Fighting Vehicles. After a very short time, my T-55 had destroyed one of the Bradleys, but then itself got destroyed, and i have no idea by what. Does a Bradley have the firepower to destroy a T-55 in real life? The enemy infantry were too far away to use anti-tank grenades, and had no anti-tank weaponry at all. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK)00:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks. I should have looked at that. This probably explains it, then - in fact that article mentions that Bradleys took out T-55 tanks in Desert Storm. It was about 1,000 metres away, with the other one (which was destroyed) a bit further out, with infantry between them. Thanks! KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK)01:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ArmA 2 doesn't have fantastically realistic tank damage modeling either. Any explosive weapon except an AP grenade will damage armor slightly. Repeated hits from the Bradleys autocannon will wear down a section of the tank to the point of its destruction, which will cause an automatic crew bail and eventual destruction of the tank, depending on where it's hit. This would happen in real life too but only after a long long time. Most likely though it was the TOW missiles the vehicle packs. 192.84.79.2 (talk) 10:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Africa Islam
Out of total 55 nations, which African nations have Islam as their major religion? Please no arguments. Just clear answers. Thank you. 70.29.35.64 (talk) 03:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Don Musty the African lover.70.29.35.64 (talk) 03:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, you ask for no arguments, just clear answers. Maybe the reason for the more complicated answers than you want (not arguments) to other similar recent questions is that in this area there ARE no simple answers. Asking for something doesn't make it so. Many of the worlds problems are caused by politicians, or the uninformed masses who voted for them, hoping or thinking or acting as if the world is a simple place. This was particularly so in the western world's responses to Islam 10 years ago. Sorry, the world isn't simple. Nor is religion. I'm glad you're trying to learn about it, but do be willing to accept the more complex answers. HiLo48 (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a really stupid response. My post was explicitly about the fact that there are often no plain factual answers, even to what seem like simple questions, so you attack me for not giving a plain factual answer. Dumb. HiLo48 (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The question must be clarified. Do you mean: In which African nations is Islam the single, government supported religion? Do you mean: In which African nations is Islam recognized as one of several official religions? Do you mean: In which African nations is Islam the religion of the majority of the population? You will get a different answer to each of these questions. Blueboar (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or could you even mean which African nations have Islam as the religion of a plurality of their population? In which case, how do you seperate religions? Do you count all Christians together? Nil Einne (talk) 00:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear friends,
I went through article on FII and FDI in wikepedia.But i have few queries.Can anybody help me out please:
1.What is basic diff between FII and FDI?
2.What advantages/disadvantages a developing country(like India) has in allowing FDI instead of FII?
3.I heard that FDI is more stable than FII?can anybody please explain me on this query?
4.For which sectors FII is preferred than FDI and why so?
Friends,please dont feel I am asking very basic things...Actually i am facing problems in understanding these issues.
Both activities bring in money from other countries. If an American investment company buys shares in Indian companies, that is an example of foreign institutional investment. If an American company sets up a factory in India, that is an example of foreign direct investment. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. I don't know answers to your other questions, except that in your question 3 you can see that in FII the American company could sell its shares in Indian companies very quickly but in FDI the American company couldn't sell its factory so quickly. Perhaps this will get you started on your own reading. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you found it helpful. Ask further more specific questions if you need to. There are quite a few people here who are well informed about business and economics. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As of now, is the Nobel committee saying still that Ralph Steinman is a recipient
Current rules say the prize can't be given if the person dies before the announcement is made. Ralph Steinman did die days before the announcement was made that he was a winner, but apparently the Nobel committee hadn't heard. But the fact remains that he did die before the announcement was made. Have they rescinded the award since by their own rules he's ineligible, or are they still at this moment saying he's a recipient (thus making an exception)? 20.137.18.53 (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They decided to award it to Steinman anyways [8]. The loophole/excuse is that the committee is not allowed to consider giving the award posthumously, but since they were not aware of his death, they awarded the price in good faith. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Daylight Saving Time, Germany, Coal and the War
The article on daylight saving time states that:
Starting on 30 April 1916, Germany and its World War I allies were the first to use DST (German: Sommerzeit) as a way to conserve coal during wartime.
Two questions about this:
1) I presume -- but the article does not say -- that the Germans thought this would help save on lighting. Is this true?
We hold these truths to be self-evident. In London today, (1 degree of latitude south of Berlin) sunset is at 18:35. Without DST, that would be 17:35 so anyone wishing to work past 5:30pm would have to turn the lights on. On the other hand, sunrise today without DST would be at 06:05 when must sensible people are still tucked-up in bed and wasting daylight. The proof is that just about every other industrial country did the same thing. BTW most lighting in 1916 would come from coal gas, which I imagine is less efficient. Alansplodge (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that if you want everybody in your country to get up an hour earlier and finish work an hour earlier, the easiest way is to put everybody's clocks forward an hour. I'm not sure that flexi-time existed in 1916. Obviously, workers like miners who worked shifts and farmers who worked whenever it was daylight, wouldn't have been affected much. Alansplodge (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
re:flexible hours... if you are flexible enough, you don't even need a watch... get up at "dawn", have lunch at "noon", go home at "dusk". Blueboar (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As an interesting "aside": The Norwegian expression for someone who wakes up late is "syvsover", lit. someone who sleeps until seven. Sadly, I don't think it'd be easy to get everyone to wake up earlier: There are all those interesting shows on TV that only air late... Or, Wikipedia articles that just have to be written. :-P V85 (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re part 2 of your question, there are some academic studies of the subject of whether daylight saving time saves money and/or energy (which I guess are the two reasons why you would want to "save lighting"). Jørgen (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good news portal about globalization?
Could you please recommend me a high-quality news portal with emphasis on globalization?
Topics: European union, integration processes in America, Africa and whole World; economical, political and cultural integration and globalization.
But, please, without hippies' crap about evil corporations, "indigenous people rights" etc. Real news and analytics.
Sorry but I don't think it's logically possible for such a thing to exist, you want both "high-quality" and to be missing large numbers of facts, aka, low-quality, at the same time. If you don't mind low quality, I'm sure there are many far-right wing blogs and forums out there that you can find through google. Public awareness (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The World Bank website has a news section which is frequently updated. However, even globalization advocates often have occasion to discuss poor people, restless natives, and other losers. Indeed, they devote attention to these groups precisely to avoid the appearance of callous indifference. So even in the most pro-globalization corners of the web, you may have to wade through a lot of stuff that you find annoying and irrelevant. LANTZYTALK21:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Economist magazine has a good website with lots of articles on global economics, business and finance, and takes a strongly free-market approach. But it too will occasionally consider human suffering, inequality, human rights, etc. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's impossible to talk about globalization without talking about corporation and the sometimes destructive outcome of their business. Wikiweek (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
sacred caves maya
Hello! I have a question about the Mayan archeology. In the mid 90's. I watched an interesting TV show. In it a group of people studied karst systems in the Yucatan. In the most profound and far from the surface of the cave they found a small, stuffy stones input (such as having the right kind of masonry), supposedly leading to the lower world (or sanctuary) Maya. This entry is supposed walled Mayan priests to keep out a sacred space aliens (such as Spanish) when they invaded their land. Log razmurovyvat did not. On this TV show has ended. Information about this entry, I never found it. If you know something, please tell us: what was this cave and to actually lead this entry? Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Странник27 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hush Spiderman, I think it's legitimate. :P Googling for "Underground Mayan Ruins", led me to this National Geographic article. The name attached to the ruins thus far, seems to be the Tahtzibichen Labyrinth. Of which we don't have an article about. If anyone is archeologically inclined, feel free. :P There are also other such labyrinths elsewhere, like those under the Tzat Tun Tzat (or Satunsat) building in Oxkintok.
I am interested in looking at prior versions of Vermont laws, to see when certain provisions were introduced. I am concentrating on notary laws. Does anyone know of a free on-line source? Jc3s5h (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but that turns out to be a pointer to the same databases one would find at the Vermont legislature site, plus a few things from 1993/1994. I was looking for mid- to early-20th century. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or even better, you could ask a real expert - [9] gives contact information for the Vermont State Archives; I bet they'll know if what you're looking for exists, and if not, what your alternatives are. Sometimes if stuff isn't available online you can nevertheless submit a research request and get your info that way without having to travel to the archive in person. 184.147.120.196 (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It appears if I want to be thorough I will have to go to the state capital. At least this way, I'll know which buildings house which records, so I can select a strategic parking spot. I'll try some less thorough approaches at the local libraries first. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How would it be possible to get rid entirely of the Labour Party and the Conservative Party (and the LibDems)? Would it be possible to sue the Labour Party for putting us into the economic chaos we are in? And then to sue the ConDems for continuing it? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK)01:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to clarify: I don't want to be totally flip here, but the idea that you would want to "get rid entirely" of two parties is to me pretty extreme, way beyond "throw them out of office at the next election, and let them wait a few years before trying again." Look, I think that the US Republican Party is responsible for a tremendous amount of domestic and international grief at the moment, and would love it if they were in less of a position to muck things up now, much less have mucked things up in the past. But I'd never want to get rid of them entirely. I disagree with most of their positions, but ousting all opponents from the political sphere is a recipe for madness, as history has shown again and again and again and again. There needs to be, to use a Star Wars aphorism, some balance in the Force. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the problem isn't so much the parties, but the idiots who voted for them, and the slackers who didn't vote for anybody, let alone against them. I could be your next door neighbour. HiLo48 (talk) 02:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this straight. If you vote for a major party, you're an idiot. But if you don't vote for anyone, you're a slacker. The only vote that gets your tick is a vote for a minor party, i.e. a party that has little or no chance of forming government and therefore little or no chance of making any changes. I certainly hope you don't impart this fantastic philosophy to your students, HiLo48. -- Jack of Oz[your turn]02:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the last UK general election 35 % of the electorate did not vote. 70 % of them would have been sufficient to give a third party a larger vote than the Conservatives got. In other words, if the "slackers" had wanted to, they could have picked the winner of the election. 188.117.30.209 (talk) 04:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding suing political parties: we do not supply legal advice, consult a solicitor. Regarding how to entirely get rid of a political party, normally this requires that a society no longer has a reason to have such a political party (or political parties in general). While the United Kingdom has a capitalist economy (per Marx's meaning), there will be a space or location for a party claiming to have a pro-capitalist, or capitalist compatible, economically "progressive" stance. Even if illegal, there would be a demand for such a party organisation. If you mean how could the Blair style Labour Party cease being relevant to parliamentary politics and the formation of majorities, look at how the old Labour party ceased being relevant: their electoral base hollowed out due to changes in working class consciousness, and a failure of the Party to remain relevant to an electoral vision of Labourite politics. (Hint: the Winter of Discontent was a decisive turning point for the British left and labourites, towards or against a modern vision of revolution). Similar requirements could be specified for the Liberal Democrats, or the Conservative Party, but I am far less familiar with party specific criticism. For the abolition of parties in general: National Government or, of course, the higher stage of socialism where government itself disappears. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am an American, so I am not sure if UK citizens have to register for a party or how that happens, but in America it is always possible to be an "unaffiliated voter" or "decline to state" (this is often referred to as being "registered independent" but that is NOT the same thing) If everybody would just do that, your issue would be addressed.Greg Bard (talk) 03:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell under the British constitution, political parties are exactly the same as any other formal group of people: they would have to decide to disband themselves. A proposal to do just that has been put forwards by a candidate for leader of the Scottish Tories recently. So if the electorate of the UK wish another party to be elected, then another party would have to be created and gain enough votes. This may well happen. As for suing whoever got us into this mess, may I suggest you look at suing Lehman Brothers, or Sir Fred Goodwin, rather than the politicians who had to do the best they can to get us out of the mess the bankers had got us into? --TammyMoet (talk) 07:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's extremely rare for anyone in the UK to be able to vote for a political party in any form of election. You vote for an individual who you think will best represent the interests of you and others in your area. If, after the event, you don't think they did represent your interests very well, you call for them to resign and/or you vote for someone different, nominated by a different party or no party at all, next time around. Or, you mount a revolution. Political parties are just aggregations of like-minded people - I would think it's very debatable (I'm not a lawyer) whether they hold any corporate responsibility at all. In answer to Gregbard, no, you certainly do not have to cannot "register" for any party in the UK in any official way, and only a tiny minority of voters are members of any party. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the education. I certainly agree that the major parties are the problem, because inevitably they end up acting in the interest of the party, rather than the individual citizen. This is because parties are corporations and they further corporatism (even without being conscious of it.), The path is clear. Only elect candidates who profess no allegiance to any party. If you throw them all out via populism, there is no need to depend on any member of a party making a motion to dissolve their organization. Power to the people. Greg Bard (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any evidence for your opinion that "major parties... inevitably... end up acting in the interest of the party, rather than the individual citizen. This is because parties are corporations and they further corporatism..."? The fact is that most people vote for one or other of the major parties in the UK because they are more likely to be able to implement the policies that people support than anyone else. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's why we don't like Proportional representation, even if it would be fairer to minority parties, ... ... and, of course, in the UK, you are at liberty to choose not to vote if that is your preference. You are also at liberty to complain bitterly about whatever government is then formed without your contribution. Are such liberties not permitted in your country, HiLo48? Dbfirs08:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to hear that you still have the second liberty. Derek Hatton's mad militants tried to withdraw it in Liverpool many years ago. I can understand the thinking behind the withdrawal of the first, but I hope it never happens here! Dbfirs09:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Our founding fathers were of British stock and, like the UK, they didn't consider that voting ought to be compulsory, and so at Federation in 1901 there was nothing in the Constitution about voting being mandatory. It was only in 1924 that the change happened, but again, not on the initiative of either the government or even the opposition. It was a backbench senator from Tasmania who started the ball rolling in a private member's bill. Hardly anyone even spoke to the motion at all, and nobody objected, so it became law virtually overnight, without the slightest fanfare or controversy. The actual voters had no say in the matter. Attempts have been made to overturn the law since then, but all have been resisted with far more energy than was ever expended in putting the law in place in the first place. It is not on the platform of any of the major parties to abolish compulsory voting in Australia. See Electoral system of Australia # Compulsory voting for more details. -- Jack of Oz[your turn]09:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realise that you'd had the law for so long. I suppose when it has been there for all of living memory, it isn't a big deal for most Australian voters. Dbfirs15:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We know we're out of step with most of the world on this. Well, some of us know that, anyway. Having a different way is in itself no bad thing. I'd say most Australians are reasonably keen to have a say, and would probably vote most times even if they didn't have to. But maybe that's because it's become so ingrained in our psyches. The 1924 change was inspired by a record low voter turnout in the previous election, but travel and communications are vastly superior now. There are some who vote with resentment; and there are some who refuse to vote on principle, and cop a minor fine. Some of those would vote if only they didn't have to; some still wouldn't. There have been campaigns to get this law changed, but they all seem to fizzle out. -- Jack of Oz[your turn]18:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know Jack knows this, but it's worth clarifying for others that the practical effect of the compulsory voting law is that you must turn up at a polling place, get your name crossed off the electoral roll in use that day, and be handed a ballot paper. At that point you have satisfied the legal requirements. What you then do with the ballot paper is up to you. Many suggestions have been made over the years. HiLo48 (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't know that, HiLo. Another quote: "It is commonly but wrongly claimed[8] that it is compulsory only to attend a polling place and have one's name checked against the electoral roll. In fact, Section 245 of the Electoral Act[9] says that "It shall be the duty of every elector to vote at each election... The Electoral Commissioner must, after polling day at each election, prepare for each Division a list of the names and addresses of the electors who appear to have failed to vote at the election." A voter who has their name crossed off but then refuses a ballot paper or is seen not to put the ballot in the ballot box may be recorded as having not voted.[3]" -- Jack of Oz[your turn]10:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Proposing to get rid of big parties is a bit like saying you'd like to get rid of any kind of general consensus that emerges, unites people and brings about change - good or bad. I think it's called 'democracy' or something.. 213.120.209.210 (talk) 12:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The traditional (pre-Pinyin) spelling in English is probably Kuan-yin. By the way, in early Buddhism there seem to have been more male manifestations than female, and in strict Buddhist doctrine (as opposed to popular piety), it's not clear to me that the word "Goddess" is really appropriate... AnonMoos (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The poor and disabled were granted financial assistance by the State so they could afford unlimited analog telephone service, which the poor and disabled need to maintain communication with hospitals, doctors and other health care and welfare providers. Some Republican legislatures and governorships that sought deregulation, however, did not extend equivalent assistance from analog to digital communications service. State financial assistance therefore appears to be ending under telecommunications deregulation such that the poor and disabled can no longer afford the equivalent digital service. Is this an example of class warfare on the part of Republicans and the rich who desire to privatize as well as deregulate government so they won’t have to pay taxes? --DeeperQA (talk) 05:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While greed does certainly play a part in trying to avoid paying any taxes, or prevent taxes from going into anything but those that benefit the large-scale corporations directly, I wouldn't quite go as far as to regard it as deliberate, organized, and malevolent attempts by such entities to oppress a social class (except in certain clear-cut cases of bigotry). That way lies conspiracy theories and tinfoil hats. More likely, it's just an intrinsic inability to grasp the big picture. Evident in the way that for most of those kinds of people, "small government" means "bigass military".-- Obsidi♠nSoul06:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do disagree Obsidian, there is active class warfare going on, though it's not the poor vs the middle vs the rich, it's more the top 0.001% vs the bottom 99.999% and the bottom don't even realize what's going on. They're too busy watching TV to realize over a third of total new income in the last 30 years goes to the top 1%. The highest income bracket in the "progressive" tax system doesn't even come close to rich people, and the highest tax rate has been massively cut down recently. In 1963 the highest tax rate was 90%, now it's so low that after tax breaks and loopholes those who make $70 million and more per year pay an effective tax rate similar to those who make $70k per year. Wanna run for president to change the system, well everyone can run for president, it only costs $700million to win. You can't mark time or achievements, without active resistance society will regress to virtual serfdom through thousands of small steps. It only makes sense that those with power to change society change society to benefit themselves. While a coal mine owner lobbies successfully against carbon taxes and a tobacco company lobbies against health warnings and taxes on tobacco, and both put out studies which show climate change as false, and tobacco good for the economy (don't have to pay pensions to dead smokers) respectively, ALL businesses lobby on behalf on the corporations and their rich owners for lower corporate taxes and lower capital gains and income taxes for the uber-rich. So yes, cuts to programs for those least advantaged is class warfare. Public awareness (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But the question here is motivation. The aims of those lobby groups are personal gain rather than malice for the lower social strata. They still do what they can to appease them with empty comforts (like you mentioned, TV), as they do need their services still. They don't make those billions by slaving on their own after all. Keeping the lower 99% stupid and happy is good for business. But yeah, it is rather organized, sadly. The extent of their power is more apparent in the banana republics than in their home countries. Ah dystopia... LOL. Tomorrow: The Sprawl.-- Obsidi♠nSoul10:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I have to disagree with DeeperQA and Public awareness. Republican legislatures aren't the embodiment of the bourgeoisie's goals, nor are Democrat legislatures, nor are Labour—each demonstrates attempts to hegemonise social power by the bourgeoisie, none are direct representatives as with 19th century bourgeois parties. As such the bourgeoisie proper, Public awareness's 99.999%, shift their support between all the parties in bourgeois parliament, relying on the regular action of electoral backlash to ensure that the then "necessary" Democrat actions get passed, and that later the then "necessary" Republican measures get passed: all legislatures enforce class war upon the working class. For those with a hope for "progressive" Democrats or Labourites, you could do worse than to read RW Connell & TH Irving, Class structure in Australian history who provide an excellent example of how Labor governs: yet again in the interests of the bourgeoisie, but occasionally by repressing the working class by buying it out instead of directly assaulting it. Public awareness' schema of class warfare being simply the bourgeoisie operating through parliament is simplistic to say the least. For a very long time, and certainly since Braverman, workplace based analyses have drawn out the role of non-owning management in the direct and most brutal class warfare: the workplace fight over the managers right to manage versus proletarian self-management. Many believe this indicates that there is a third class position in capitalism, in Poulantzas' crude terms a "new petits bourgeois," in the Ehrenreich's formulation a professional-managerial class. Therefore, for people who follow the actual nature of class conflict in the workplace, there may be conflicts other than bourgeois:proletarian. This finding would indicate that there are differences in interest between the bourgeoisie and their management, such as Veblen's technocratic analysis of the position of engineers in the Fordist factory. —Providing free phones to the poor was part of the class warfare function of the welfare state, in producing "happy healthy workers," removing such access is another part of the cycle of class warfare. Reading Mario Tronti or Sergio Bologna on this ought to help. A good group to read in English is the group Solidarity (UK). The workplace is always the central moment of class struggle, not parliament. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was being simplistic, I could write a book on contemporary class warfare. Both parties get the majority of their funding from businesses and the rich, so while the vary slightly, all possible winning parties are pro-rich people. Republicans may take away your cheaper phone service and this is obvious as you once had it, but Democrats will keep away your free post-secondary education, keep health care costly and privately owned, and would never suggest Co-determination. The middle non-owning management is hardly a separate group, they are simply a Sheep dog, the owner controls them just as much as the owner controls the sheep. Of course the influence is not just on government, they actively influence your thoughts - Necessary Illusions... the rich use media to form your image of how society should be, an image that suits them. "The workplace is always the central moment of class struggle, not parliament.", for a revolution yes, but parliament is where the thousand little battle happen, capital gains taxes aren't being slowly cut with input from workers, gifts to the rich happen in parliament. Public awareness (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An analysis on the basis of "business and the rich" isn't a class analysis. On the point of "the rich" the average Australian income is 2.2 times the minimum waged income, a white collar working class household in Sydney, or a mining family up the Hunter, or a family of firefighters, could easily earn as a household 8 times the minimum waged income. These internal disparities within the working class are greater than the income disparities inside Hungary in the 1950s between income earners and the AVO/AVH political and border police. The Hungarians concretely, and a number of other analysts (including Milovan Djilas) believed the Hungarian situation to be a class distinction. The Australian situation is at best a distinction between different "stratum"—as our Leninist friends describe it—of the working class: the working class in general and the "labour aristocracy". When talking with people, they understand "rich" based on their own situation, sometimes as little as twice their own income makes someone rich subjectively. (A similar case with business, I'd gesture at co-operatives as an example of firms that don't display such rampantly bourgeois behaviour).
As far as the debate on new classes—Andy Anderson makes the case quite concretely in his The Enemy is Middle Class about the managerial section of British society in the late 1970s and early 1980s. "The owner controls [management] just as much as the owner controls the sheep," is a somewhat fatalistic metaphor given that the aim of most class analysis is to note the points for working class self-emancipation. As far as instances of "biting the hand," we can point to Veblen's analysis of the class distinction (interest in throughput maximisation versus interest in value maximisation) and note the overengineering of civil projects in the 1940s-1960s (Snowy Hydro and Melbourne's Sewer System come to mind, I've read the pamphlet advocating engineering over profit in relation to the sewer system issued by leading professional engineers). We could also point to the authors of core free software projects, such as the linux kernel; and the fact that corporate sponsorship of engineering is being conducted. There is, of course, the vast areas of independent competence controlled by medical professionals, and the difference between, for example, drug culture pushed by bourgeois institutions, versus the much more immediate corruption of the Deep sleep therapy projects, or the lobotomy therapy movement. And, of course, there's Djilas' analysis of the Soviet elite as being non-value maximising. All quite pertinent when I've never been directly repressed by a bourgeois in my working life, but only by their non-owning employees. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some Australians are richer than others, and some Australians' jobs are to manage other Australians, but this does not mean there are two groups, two classes. All non-owners ride the same subway, go to the same bars, and go to the same theaters to see movies, their children go to the same schools, though many can not afford university, their children mix, date, and marry. The very rich own helicopters and jets, drink 200 year old cognac at exclusive bars, and have true home theaters. The rich were educated at Harvard, their children will go to Harvard, their children will likely marry the children of fellow rich people. The poor class has opinions on issues and vote, the rich create the issues, control the breadth of the debate, and use their wealth to influence the poor on how to feel about the issue. I don't know what a "fatalistic metaphor" is but here's another one; I own a nail, I own a hammer, I use the hammer to beat the nail into place, the nail resents the hammer, stupid nail. Public awareness (talk) 05:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the petits bourgeois and small capitalists drink at the same pubs. But yet there is a class difference. Class is about the relations of production not the standard of living or culture. This isn't about rich and poor, but about who does what and how at work. This isn't about rich and poor, but about worker, boss and owner. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well maybe during Marx's time, but a manager today is just as much a wage slave as any other worker in my mind and the only active class warfare going on, where a group clearly tries to make their position better than if there was a veil of ignorance, is the richest 0.1% against everyone else. Public awareness (talk) 07:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps as recently as the 1920s wrt Veblen's analysis of the engineers. Or the 1940s to 1960s wrt the Johnston-Forrest tendency's analysis of US production. Or the 1950s wrt Djilas' analysis of the nomenklatura. Or the Autonomist analysis of the 1950s-1980s. Or the Socialisme ou Barbarie / Solidarity (UK) analysis of the 1950s-1980s. Or Andy Anderson's analysis of Britain in the 1980s. Or the post-Fordist workplace analyses of the 1980s-2010s. Workplace sociology emphasises the fact that local bastards fuck us workers over. This has been concretely reinforced in my working life, in part through industrial injuries as a result of local management. The very real class war I've experienced has been over working through lunch fifteen minutes late on a daily basis, bad machines, and workflows resulting in crippling permanent injuries, stress, the "power to hire and fire" as the still apt IWW analysis states. All of these contests have been about non-owning management at very local levels. Once, at a summit protest I viewed a helicopter landing members of the bourgeoisie at a casino. In day to day life, from the Prices and Incomes Accord to the bastard who gave me RSI when I was 19, it has been non-owning management who have fucked me in their own class interest. While there are critical analyses that deal with non-owning management as fundamentally aligned with the bourgeoisie on a non-class (hegemonic) basis, such as Erik Olan Wright these tend away from relations of production and towards Weberian class-as-stratum, and thus lose their predictive power about revolution. (Leninist shibboleths which avoid proof in practice have been discarded here). Discounting the actual productive terrain as experienced is what left many Leninists isolated from the actual environment of production in the 1940s and 1950s, correspondingly, the relationships of work are what transformed many Leninists (both CP and Trotskyite) towards the workers control position in Fordism. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should get a job as a manager. You would realize it's the same as other work; you have things to do and you get a part of the wealth you created back just like anyother job. You had a shitty manager, but that manager was merely a man working for someone with capital to get a job done. You need to see it is the man at the very top alone who creates the system. To complain that managers are keeping you down is a kin to complaining that a police officer is holding you down for enforcing the law. The cop doesn't make the laws he enforces, he's just a cog in the machine controlled by a few people at the top. Public awareness (talk) 09:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you're willing to produce an apologia for the police then I'm afraid I'll have to stop participating this discussion, as our moral systems are incompatible. I'd recommend reading some IWW history, particularly Melvyn Dubofsky's, if you want to understand why I'm no longer able to continue this discussion with you. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to talk about income disparities as a key determining factor in the structure of contemporary society, feel free to do so. It doesn't relate particularly well to the two hundred year discourse on social class, and the already established technical meanings embedded in the terminology mean that if you want to use social class to talk about income inequality then you're going to be facing a long series of definitional discussions at the front of the argument. If you want to theorise in terms of income disparity, the Gini coefficient is often used here; but, arguments revolving around income disparity rarely lead to a conclusion that those in control of social wealth ought to be displaced from their position. Moreover, most people who believe that those who control the social wealth ought to be displaced, tend to discuss this in terms of social class as relations of production. There is a dense a cohesive body of ideas that discuss the relationships between production, class and social revolution; the two best known and most influential segments of this literature are the Marxist and anarchist literatures. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fordism is a useful idea here, the kind of capitalism when workers are provided with stuff that helps them be good consumers. Now that period has gone and the welfare state is rolled back. Fifelfoo, if you have a minute, could you cast your eyes over that article and see if you can suggest any improvements? Since you are interested in the area. Cheers. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is one further point to consider: analog telephone services were expensive in the past, its digital version are affordable for even the poorest. On the top of that, some places even offer free access to internet, so everyone who wants to be connected, also will be connected. Wikiweek (talk) 14:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The idea behind deregulation is to do away with State control over rates. The problem is that phones are a necessity. Telecommunications companies can charge whatever they agree with each other to charge. All State assistance does is to compensate the poor for government charges like taxes and fees to lower their costs. Before deregulation corporations could not take advantage of State assistance and charge the poor more. Under deregulation they can. This is the logic for not providing State assistance to the poor under deregulation. The problem now is that the poor can not afford a phone under deregulation, much less internet and TV, without sacrificing proper nutrition, education, living conditions, etc. Under deregulation there is no reason for Telecommunications industry be concerned about the poor or maybe even the economy since they have control over a necesity rather than the State. --DeeperQA (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're kidding right? All you have to do is to look at cellphone coverage maps to realize telecommunications corporations are cooperating for the purpose of fixing prices. Look up Wimax and FTE and you will find a great many more that just two corporations buying up licenses to spread costs and then to share segments to create a network they all share - for fixed prices. No chance of being one of the crowd and offering lower prices as in conventional corporate competition. Additional service make possible high levels of service and equipment the rich can enjoy but not basic unlimited service which the poor and disabled need but which is not offered at a price they can afford. --DeeperQA (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-trust, anti-competetive, and price-fixing laws do change by industry, so read up, collect data and see if there is evidence of collusion. Price fixing isn't rare as the benefits are huge and businesses believe they can get away with it without people realizing. Public awareness (talk) 07:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Islamic men in those countries do during formal occasions. There are female versions of the Boubou in Mali as well. -- kainaw™15:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It may be possible to answer if reworded. A country cannot kill anyone. The government body of a country can institute a law or policy that may directly or indirectly lead to a person's death. So, you want to know which government body has been responsible for the deaths of the most people, right? Then, you need to define responsibility. If a government doesn't require earthquake-resistant housing and thousands of people die in an earthquake, is the government body responsible? Perhaps you want to refine it to be which government body directly ordered the death of the most people - avoiding endless discussion of what government could or should have done to prevent deaths (ie: there was a lot the Chinese government could have done to prevent deaths in the Great Leap Forward). -- kainaw™18:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This could easily degenerate into debate, since it is not at all clear how to assign responsibility for deaths that occurred in the various Cold Warproxy wars or their aftermath, such as the Cambodian genocide. Another issue is whether European colonial powers can be blamed for the likely tens of millions of deaths of indigenous Americans after the arrival of Europeans due to the spread of diseases to which they had no resistance. Apart from these issues, the government of China is a strong contender, as is that of Germany, if you consider civilians and military personnel it killed during the two world wars (including the Holocaust), plus deaths it caused in earlier wars such as the Franco-Prussian War or the Herero and Namaqua genocide and other colonial wars. Note that few demographic specialists accept numbers killed during the Great Leap Forward much higher than 30 million, and the number may have been as low as 16 million, though of course that is still horrific. Marco polo (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you try to fudge the factors, China is going to be hard to beat. If for nothing else, because they have had a large percentage of the world's population for so long. Googlemeister (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That in itself means nothing. Their culture could have abhorred killing. By your reasoning, China is automatically the world beater in any field of activity you care to name, but that is demonstrably not the case. -- Jack of Oz[your turn]19:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if their culture abhorred killing. But their culture did not. You have Qin's wars of unification, the Yellow Turban Rebellion, the Wu Hu uprising, and the Goguryeo–Sui Wars, the An Lushan Rebellion (Which killed an estimated 36 million in the 8th century). All of these examples involved China inflicting 100,000 or more casualties, and none of these examples are in the last 1200 years. If you want to argue that the Chinese empires became pacifists then and stayed that way for more then a millennium, go ahead, but it is not reality. Googlemeister (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But you've changed your tune now. You said "if for nothing else", which means that the sole thing that is considered is the population, and all other evidence is set aside. Now, you're bringing in that other evidence, the evidence that you previously said didn't matter because the population alone told the story. -- Jack of Oz[your turn]20:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, you need to stop putting words in my mouth. I said China was a good candidate for that reason, not that they were guaranteed to be at the top. Statistically speaking, if you are around more people, more people are going to be negatively impacted by you. You bring up the straw man argument that the Chinese are all pacifists, but since when has that been true of any large scale culture? Googlemeister (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We're discussing the exact words you used. Maybe we have different understandings of what "if for nothing else" means. I don't disagree with the proposition that the Chinese have had a massive negative impact, probably more than any other culture. That's because (a) large scale cultures always have negative impacts, and (b) they've had more people than any other country for a long time. You can't ignore the first part of the argument and pretend it is solely about their numbers. But that is precisely what you do when you say "If for nothing else, because they have had a large percentage of the world's population for so long". But my initial refutation of this was clumsily worded too, so I guess we're square now. -- Jack of Oz[your turn]19:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we count all deaths of the WWI and WWII as provoked by Germany, then it's difficult to top this number. Otherwise, Germany is still the top killer by some millions. Wikiweek (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would still go with China... simply becuase it has been around for thousands of years longer than any other country in the world, and has thus had more time to kill people. Even if more people are killed on an annual basis in other countries, the ones killed in China add up over time. Blueboar (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Killing million of people is not that common as you might believe. Neither were the technical means there not the ideology to justify it. Quest09 (talk) 23:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
China is an area not a nation, the PRC is 62 years old and to say it is the heir of China would make the Republic of China quite mad at you. Whether you include famines or not, I would say the British Empire certainly is one of the top nations for killing the most people. There were numerous major farmines in areas they ruled, like Ireland and India. Their contributions to the deadly colonizations of the Americas, Africa, the middle east, and South Asia adds up fast. England is almost 1100 years old and has fought countless wars and battles. While some could be seen as not their fault as they were not the aggressor, they certainly were the aggressor in many wars, List of wars involving England, Military history of the United Kingdom, and you can add a few tens of thousands for Capital punishment in the United Kingdom. Public awareness (talk) 01:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You'd have to determine the British culpability for the famines, though. They were not responsible for potato blight. They could, arguably, have done better in famine relief. THe question is how much beter (or worse) would any of the famine areas have been absent the British - that gets you the marginal causation amount. All of that doesn't seem directly comparible with, for instance, Stalin' gulags. Ditto "the deadly colonizations of the Americas" which, IIRC, the Spanish had heavy involvement in. Ton what extent are they responsible for the spread of disease, in a time when understanding of disease vectors was for the mpost part completely absent. So, good try, but ultimately, a fail. --Tagishsimon(talk)11:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK... if you want to get technical... I will amend my answer to "Imperial China". But my point still stands... simple scales of time, population, and size all argue in favor of it killing far more people than any other nation. Blueboar (talk) 02:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Get out the soapbox. This is a vague and ill-defined debate generator, and not at all an appropriate question for the Reference Desk. Prepare for extensive pointless nationalistic debate and ranting. The thread should be collapsed and the farce ended. Edison (talk) 04:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You also unilaterally collapsed my question about American exceptionalism, although that time, you offered no justification whatsoever. That question did not become a "debate generator" or lead to "extensive pointless nationalistic debate and ranting". This question also has not become a "debate generator", nor has it led to "extensive pointless nationalistic debate and ranting". The only pointless ranting here is your own attempt to shut down legitimate questions. --140.180.16.144 (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another reason it's almost impossible to answer: most of the deaths in wars before the 20th century were due to disease (although some of these diseases resulted from infected battlefield wounds); most of the deaths caused by Mao and Stalin were due to famine/starvation/cold rather than direct killing; many of the deaths in the Nazi concentration camps were due to disease and starvation. Were these deaths inflicted by nature or humans? Similarly, is the USA responsible for the millions dying needlessly of famine and treatable diseases in Africa? Only if you restrict this question to people who were deliberately and directly killed could you get a meaningful answer. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some more questions:
Germany starts WWII, the Allies storm into Germany, and a German citizen is killed by them (it's war, after all). Who's to blame for that death? The Allies, who fired the gun, or Germany, for starting it all?
What about armies with soldiers of many nationalities, or military alliances? Do we count all deaths for the country in command? Do we count soldier by soldier? Because if all the deaths caused by the Axis were attributed to Germany, then that would mean that the other Axis did not kill anyone
What about the soldiers killed by their own military leaders, for things such as treason, mutiny or desertion? Do we count them as if the country killed them?
What about prisoners or captured people who commit suicide to avoid capture or interrogation? Do they count as killed? Because the army may had not killed them but just kept them prisoners (or not, but after the suicide the point is moot) Cambalachero (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Jobs's Free Tuition, Room, and Board
According to this, Jobs went to Reed College and, upon it being discovered that he had paid no tuition nor could he afford to, he went to the Dean of students and persuaded him to let Mr. Jobs attend without paying at all.
I am very curious whether the Dean paid the amounts due himself, or if he just made the bills go away with a discretionary flick of his pen (is it within a Dean's discretion to flat-out give free room and board and tuition to a person lucky enough to be persuasive and charismatic?).
The fact that he dropped out after only one semester is immaterial. One semester of free tuition, room, and board is not nothing, quite the opposite. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Colleges typically can offer scholarships for promising students. It's probably within a Dean's power to arrange for a special scholarship occasionally, if not directly, then by pulling some strings. It probably was even easier in the mid 70s, when Jobs went to college. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just by my gut feeling I'm inclined to agree with the statement "It probably was even easier in the mid 70s, when Jobs went to college." But what are the actual reasons you hypothesize that big exceptions like this only get rarer and harder to get? I don't see why bureaucracies then would be less purely packed with people who don't give a shit about greatly giving to someone else without receiving something equal or greater in value than they are today.198.228.194.67 (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The bureaucrats are just as heartless, but now they're terrified of being sued because they did a favor for a promising student but that student was White/Black/Green/Jewish/Muslim/Little-Endian and not for my son/daughter who is a terrible student but is deserving for some reason that will get the court to take the case even if it's fairly obvious I'll lose. The school doesn't want the bad publicity or the legal headaches, so it's very much "by the book." SDY (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who knows quite a few people who have been on the financial aid/admissions side of things... SDY's conversation is not how it works. At all. - -Mr.98 (talk) 01:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mr98, since you have a few good sources more credible than my gut, I'd love to hear if they have more evidence-based estimates on the change in likelihood of someone being able to walk into the Dean of Students' office (who they don't already know), befriend them, and get them to give you an all-free semester in the mid-70s vs today, and if that likelihood has gone down, mostly because of what?198.228.195.4 (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably depend a lot on the institution, but I don't actually see it as impossible. As for likely, I don't know how likely it was in the 1970s either. Let's take for granted that Jobs was an exceptional person and that some of that was probably clear even then. Deans have considerable sway in general — one of their main roles is "fixing" things of this nature, even today.
But in terms of real sources. The biggest change in the situation between now and then is that the cost per student of higher education is much, much higher than it was in the 1970s. In 1976 (just to pick a year I could find easy numbers for), a semester's tuition at Reed was $1,940, and room and board would have been $775. That's around $10,400 in present currency. By contrast, a semester at Reed today costs $21,270 with room and board adding another $5,525. So that's a real increase in price of 250% in what it means for a university to give a student a free pass for a semester (and, as various scary graphs attest, the rise in tuition across the board is potentially even more elsewhere, other than Reed). If your gut perception is that university belts have been tightening since the 1970s, this is my understanding of things as well. The reasons for this are many-folded, but my understanding is that the universities lost a considerable amount of government funding starting in the 1970s, and that ended up driving a lot of other trends as well.
Still, a relatively rich university (which Reed is) has within its means to grant a few students exceptions without worrying about it much. They are not, I am fairly sure, worried about being sued by other students — they are allowed to give scholarships to whomever they please. One student does not a trend make, and without a trend there is no conceivable legal redress.
So, again, I think I would conclude with the following: there might be some chance that this sort of situation was "more likely" in the 1970s, if only because the costs of tuition were lower then. But even then I think the Jobs situation was exceptional then, and would be exceptional now. Not impossible, but exceptional. You would have to be a pretty clever kid to sweet talk a dean into an on-the-spot need-based fellowship. But I'm sure it has happened before and since, now and then. I've met a few kids who would probably have been slick enough to pull it off during my time in higher education. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
can a supplier cancel a booked event to give the venue to another party
You probably want to know if it's legal. Unfortunately, the RD does not provide legal advise. It's impossible to know without reading the contract and knowing in what jurisdiction you are. 88.14.195.104 (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The question is, can the reservation contract be assigned to a third party. Unless it says it can't, then it probably can, but how about asking the venue instead of the reference desk? 69.171.160.19 (talk) 07:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has happened many times - sometimes in famous situations such as when the Super Bowl was moved and some automotive conference had to be bumped. -- kainaw™13:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What are the historical reasons that make the Bronx to be one of NYC's outer boroughs like Queens, Brooklyn, & Staten Island?
Let me summarize what I understand from reading history. Before 1874, NYC covered only Manhattan Island. In 1844, the West Bronx was annexed to NYC, and then all the areas east of the Bronx River were annexed to NYC in 1895. The Bronx first assumed a distinct legal identity when it became a borough of Greater New York in 1898. What became the Bronx in 1898 was annexed to New York City before the other "outer boroughs," and was seen as an integral part of New York City. In the late 19th century, many people in the area listed their address as "City" after their street address. The Bronx was part of New York County from 1898 to 1914. In January 1, 1914, the Bronx County that we know today was created. By the way, I also learned that the Manhattan street grid was extended to the Bronx. So historically speaking, why is the Bronx part of the outer boroughs despite the fact that it was part of the historical, original NYC? When and why did people start considering the Bronx to be one of the 4 outer boroughs? Willminator (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Outer Borough" is not an official term, it's mostly a geographic usage (although there is a cultural snobbery side to it as well)... Geographically, Manhattan is more or less in the center of New York City, so you travel in to Manhattan, and out to The Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn and Staten Island. Blueboar (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Willminator, if you're looking for a good geographic history of NYC, then this category at commons: [10] has a lot of cool maps that may help tell the story. --Jayron3222:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, political boundaries don't always define people's mental maps. I think even during the brief period when what is now western Bronx was part of New York City and other outer boroughs were not, that the island of Manhattan, or maybe Manhattan south of 59th Street, retained a certain special status as the "real" city. Since there were no boroughs, it was not an "outer borough", but it was certainly an outlying district. Second, only the western Bronx was part of New York City before 1898, and it had previously been part of Westchester County. With the annexation of the eastern Bronx from Westchester in 1898, western Bronx was reunited with a region with which it had deeper historical ties than Manhattan, and with which it shared the status of being across the Harlem River from Manhattan. These two parts, combined in the borough of the Bronx, then shared the status of an outer borough. Marco polo (talk) 00:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Got something of an RFC to come here. Not sure why though. :p I think BlueBoar and Marco Polo covered it quite well. Most of us think of Manhattan as being the actual city proper. Usually, when people from the NY metropolitain area say the City, they are referring to Manhattan. It is the center of commerce and culture. The other boroughs are mostly residential (and to some extent suburban, except for BX) with a few things here and there to see. No offence to my bros in Queens or the good people in Brooklyn (Staten Island, eh, and Bronx, eh). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 7 Tishrei 5772 21:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: For clarification, I am thinking of individuals with a negative net worth. Bernie Madoff is a good guess, as suggested below, but I can't find his current net worth. --NilsTycho (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) If negative one million dollars is "lower" than negative five hundred thousand dollars, then I expect it's someone quite well off. Very hard to accumulate large negative net worth unless you're rich. --Trovatore (talk) 02:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how the working class would have a lower net worth then the non-working class... Besides, working class is a loaded term. Doctors work, and are well compensated for it, but are not considered working class. Does that make them part of the parasite stomping on the head of the common comrades class? Googlemeister (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict with 69.171) Read net worth: total assets minus total liabilities. Trovatore is exactly right - it's going to be someone who's "rich", but has massive liabilities. Or maybe someone who had a huge judgement handed against them, one that they'll never realistically pay off (or likely both). Mark Madoff, the late son of Bernard Madoff, apparently owed 22 million USD when he killed himself, but I'm sure there are people with much larger liabilities out there. Buddy431 (talk) 03:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that a homeless bum who lives in the woods eating grubs and roots, has far more "net worth" than someone who is millions of dollars/Euros/Yen/Pesos/Rubles/Drachma in debt. Edison (talk) 04:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I have an idea. The OP did say who, and he didn't specify he wanted one person. Isn't the level of debt related to student loans approaching 1 trillion USD in the US? If so, there's your answer, the college student population has the lowest net worth! (minus myself of course) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 7 Tishrei 5772 05:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't the population in the US with the lowest net worth be the population of everyone with a net worth below zero (or including zero)? Nil Einne (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Presuming we mean an individual, Donald Trump evidently once had a $900 million personal debt (see the article). I'm not sure (and the ref isn't clear to me at least) if this excluded his assests (in other words whether his net worth was -$900 million) and I don't know if we should be looking for something to this level of magnitude or he was a special case. Nil Einne (talk) 12:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its interesting that a lot of people with the lowest net worth will have a much higher standard of living than your penniless bum with zero net worth or even people with a moderate to average positive net worth. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is a common fallacy that debt is necessarily a bad thing. Clever use of debt can be the means of generating more revenue. You have to have considerable resources before you can actually get on the level of taking on hundreds of millions of dollars worth of debt. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reminds me of an old saying: "Owe the bank a thousand dollars, and you will be in trouble if you default ... owe the bank a million dollars, and the bank will be in trouble if you default." The amounts may need to be updated, but the concept is the same. Blueboar (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I might just note that having large personal debts does not necessarily mean one is so hopeless. In the US, most debts can be resolved by declaring bankruptcy. A more refined approach would look at debts that cannot be written off in that way — like student loans, for example, which are magically exempt from this requirement. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having a low net worth isn't that bad because you can always play country music backwards and get back your wife and your dog and your pickup truck. Bus stop (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a debt can be discharged in bankruptcy doesn't mean that it doesn't count against your net worth. And having large negative net worth doesn't mean that you're insolvent or that you're even considering bankruptcy. --Trovatore (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suitable References for a page documenting a sculptor
Hi there, I'm currently creating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Egan and, whilst the subject is an influential artist in the field I'm having trouble supplying Reliable Sources - in that the artist appears to be quite reclusive and does not give many interviews. I'd appreciate any suggestions re what refs may be acceptable.
Michael.j.lacey (talk) 09:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exhibition reviews in legitimate publications (newspapers, art magazines, art history journals, etc, or their websites); features or interviews in similar publications (interviews with other artists may be used to justify judgments of the artist's work); exhibition catalogues; articles in academic journals; small amounts of uncontroversial information may also be taken from the websites of the artist or their dealers, or even from Facebook etc, provided there are also other reliable sources cited. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Average processing fee for credit cards?
In light of Bank Of America's enactment of a monthly fee on debit cards, it is widely reported that the average debit card transaction costs the retailer 44 cents. How much does the average credit card transaction cost? Thanks. 66.108.223.179 (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It depends greatly on the merchant system. There is usually a fixed fee per transaction (around 25 cents). Then, there is a percentage of the transaction on top of that (anywhere from 0.5% to 5% - and it can be different for AmEx or Discover). To make it more complicated, those who don't run a lot of transactions are often charged a minimum monthly fee while those who do a lot of transactions are often given a discount. Therefore, it is very difficult to calculate the average. -- kainaw™13:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is that right? I heard that in the UK there is not a fixed transaction fee for debit cards (unlike credit cards), which is why they are suitable for small transactions. Many shops you won't be able to use a credit card for purchases of under £1, and often under £5 - and I think the cards themselves have a minimum limit of 50p, whereas debit cards are allowed. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The laws in the UK may be vastly different than those of the US. The OP used the word "cents" which would suggest that they are from a country that uses cents and not pence. Normally, when unspecified, the OPs are from the US. Therefore kainaw's answer is likely accurate for the OP since he talks about US law. And for the sake of completeness, the OP's IP geolocates to New York. Dismas|(talk)14:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interchange fee is what you want to see, but I just want to say that the processing fee (not subsidized in any way) for debit cards is $0.00825 in Canada, the total transaction fee takes into account more such as having to own the processing machine and the profit cut the processor demands, and is closer to $0.50. [12]Public awareness (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is this how disparity in income should be viewed?
I have an income at the poverty level of $10,980 per year while the average income is $49,500 per year. I pay 10% of my income to ride the bus every day while someone with average income pays the same. The percent of the average income is 2.2%. in terms of disparity the same purchases are 4.54 times more difficult for me. --DeeperQA (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may find the article Economic inequality to be interesting. One thing I must note, is that it isn't as simple as comparing relative amounts, percents, or fractions of income with regard to quantifying something like "difficulty" with regards to monetary outlay. Someone who has an income of, say, $1,000,000 per year can lose 10% of their income without a significant change in lifestyle, and more importantly, without significant effect on their well-being. Someone who has an income of $10,000 per year who loses 10% of their income is in serious real danger. People often look at raw percents as a measure of fairness; i.e. people who propose a straight flat tax of some arbitrary percent, as a way of being purely fair (i.e. everyone gives the same fraction of their income); which ignores the fact that the same fraction of income applied to different amounts of income has different effects (a relatively small percentage loss of income to someone at the poverty limit can be devastating, while a larger percentage from someone who is so wealthy they could live comfortably without any further income for the rest of their lives would have less impact on their survival ability). --Jayron3215:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Labourism, a predominantly 20th century phenomena, viewed income disparity as a failure of workers to access a normatively established bundle of goods—for example primary school education, milk for children, health care for birthing mothers, piped water, sanitary sewer systems, buildings with certain volumes. This was also tied to a growing consumer economy, and imperialist access to social profits. This is a very different view to the marginalist view. Marxist and anarchist views throughout the 20th century viewed income disparity as a tactical accommodation in what amounted to Gramsci's war of position; for a highly developed Marxist theory of income tactics in capitalism, see Trotsky's conception of the transitional demand: basically demanding unachievable incomes as a stepping stone to demanding control of production. In practice, many labourite trade unions effectively followed Trotsky's position, but retreated to incomes that capitalists were willing to award—this meant that in Fordism which we've talked about above, actual incomes depended on the strategic position of workers in capitalist production (Automotive workers often got much more than female office typists), the union power of the workers bargaining, and the political "militance" or willingness to fight of unionists. For the labourite position, insufficient income is a moral outrage. Social Catholicism seems to share a lot with the labourite position, and liberation theology seems like the normative moral position of Catholicism taken to the final conclusion. To the revolutionary position, insufficient income is a constant of capitalism. Other major 20th century alternate views of income on the left include the cooperative movement's attempts to supplement incomes outside of the market (quite often by increasing the _quality_ of goods consumed at the same price, so bread that's actually worth eating, for example); or the working classes' development of black, grey or non-market incomes, such as growing your own vegetables or part time prostitution. Access to cooperatives or grey/black/non-market income supplements varies with political climate. The expected bundle of consumer goods that income represents has changed so dramatically over the 20th century that some goods, such as not dying from throwing your festering sewage into the street (ie: paying for the saniman to take your shit away), aren't even considered by many Western workers—this makes talking about income even more difficult. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki editors rescinding copyright license grant
The Italian Wikipedia blanking has reminded me of something I've wondered about for a long time. The text below the box into which I am typing this says, "By clicking the 'Save Page' button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." However, the Wikimedia Foundation gives me nothing of value in return for this "irrevocable" license grant, so there is no consideration of a contract, so in most cases such an agreement would not be binding. Is there any legal reason that I or anyone else can not rescind such a grant? Is there any case law on this point? 69.171.160.204 (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only circumstances in which it's non-binding, that I'm aware of, is if the contributor is a minor. Please don't tell the children :-) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The foundation gives you the use of its facilities into which you place your contribution - the server and the mediawiki softwware user interface. Arguably these are consideration, though IINAL etc. You also consent to the agreement by pressing the save page button, so it might be a little difficult to rescind it. INteresting question, nevertheless. --Tagishsimon(talk)15:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Editing facilities are used only by contributors. Shades of the hotelier's wife argument in your riposte...it's not what is offered, it is what is taken. --Tagishsimon(talk)19:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I utterly lack the legal knowledge to contribute meaningfully, but might the answer be found in the case law on EULAs and Terms of service? Because that seems more pertinent to the contract question than the fact that what you are releasing are copyright rights. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are assuming it is a contract. It is not. You are agreeing to grant a license with certain terms, not agreeing to a contract. The word agree is not synonymous with contract. Here, it means "I consent." EULAs don't apply. The EULA is a contract law answer to copyright. The EULA does not fall under copyright law but provides the same function by operation of contract law. The license agreement uses copyright law rather than avoids it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.31.81 (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contract law normally would apply to uncompensated license grants but in the U.S., Congress has specified other terms in statute: "In the US, termination of copyright licenses is governed by Section 203 of the Copyright Code, which allows for termination 35 to 40 years after a license is granted. In Rano v. Sipa Press the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that because of section 203, nonexclusive copyright licenses of unspecified duration cannot be terminated before this 35 year date.... However, other courts have vehemently disagreed with Rano v. Sipa [so] copyright licenses with unspecified durations may or may not be terminable at will."[13] So the answer in this case is, yes, everyone can rescind the grant of their license, 35 to 40 years after they press "save page" when no consideration has changed hands. 64.134.156.47 (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia commenced operations in 2002 or so, right? We can start worrying about it in 2035, maybe 2030. My hunch is there's not going to be any practical way that this is going to matter, except maybe helping a few lawyers cover some billable hours. --Trovatore (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't entering into a contract with anyone. You are licensing the stuff you type. Consideration isn't a factor. Anyway, this question is close enough to a legal advice question that you should just address it to the Wikimedia Foundation, which has actual lawyers who know all about this. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bonds and rates
Hi everyone,
I have a question on government bonds and interest rates: essentially, I want to understand how the two are tied together. For example, on the one hand the bank of england is maintaining a low interest rate of 0.5%, and on the other hand you have government bonds of all different maturities, prices and yields. I guess in some sense the yield is effectively the interest rate you get for putting your money in the government bond, so then in effect these yields are the interest rates the government has to pay to borrow money, right? So then what does the rate of 0.5% refer to, is it just some 'recommended rate' at which banks are expected to lend within the UK? Because obviously there's also Euribor and LIBOR, so what's the point of the 'low rate' maintained by the BoE (or equivalently the fed) to encourage borrowing? Is this something like the rate at which the central bank lends out money to other banks? I gather that a rise in the 'interest rate' will make the yields on bonds less attractive (e.g. if 10Y yields were 2% and then the interest rate shot up to 5%, the price of the bond should drop correspondingly). Could anyone explain how interest rates and bond rates are related to me or give me some general context on how this all works? (I use England as an example but obviously it could equivalently be the Fed or elsewhere.)
Most of what you wrote is correct. The current yield is the interest rate that you get for putting your money in the bond, yes; but more relevant is the yield to maturity, which also counts the fact that when the bond matures in 30 years (or 10 years, or 6 months, or whatever) then the government pays the bond owner the amount that was originally put in. I recommend The Bond Book by Annette Thau for a very readable and thorough treatment of bonds for the layman. (It was written before the current financial disaster, so a lot of the material about GNMA bonds and the like is a little dated.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion, I'll be sure to track the book down! So the rate quoted in (say) the FT is the current yield, rather than the YTM? And do all the movements of these rates tend to track one another? e.g., if the BoE puts the rate up from 0.5% to 1%, would you expect a) the yield on government bonds to go up? b) the interest rate of something like a retail bank account (despite the fact these are obviously set by the banks themselves) to go up? Because if the yield to maturity discounts the final sum of money paid back (the bond value) at the interest rate set by the government, then that yield is only accurate in theory if the investor was otherwise able to keep their money and receive that amount of interest, right? By which I mean, if you discount the final payout of e.g. £100 by a factor of 1/1+r for say a 1Y bond, then that assumes you could have otherwise basically invested your £100 risk-free for a year to receive £100(1+r) back at the end. However, is that 'r' going to be 0.5% when the yield to maturity is calculated? Because from the sound of the comment below, that r is only the interest rate a bank would pay to borrow from the central bank and would have nothing to do with e.g. an individual investor. Hope that makes sense! Thanks :) 86.26.13.2 (talk) 23:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The 0.5% value is the rate that the BoE charges to some banks when it lends them money. The bond rates are the rates that you get when you lend money to the English government. Looie496 (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, there is no English government since England doesn't have its own government. The Bank of England, despite its name, sets interbank lending rates for the entire United Kingdom, whose British government is the main issuer of government bonds in England and other parts of the United Kingdom. Marco polo (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Police vehicle pursuits
Where in the world do police vehicle pursuits occur most often. What state in the US do vehicle pursuits occur most often and where in Ireland are police vehicle pursuits most common. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.134.16 (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They seem pretty common in California. I suspect that it is the state that has the most car chases, but could not tell you which county in Ireland would. Googlemeister (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Statistics agencies seem to only keep records of crimes (I don't think being chased is yet a crime?) so having this info available would depend on all the police forces making the stats available. For Ireland, the Garda has research unit that you could email and ask. 184.147.120.196 (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being chased is a crime in a way. It's usually called "resisting arrest" and that is a crime in every US jurisdiction that I know of. You could find stats for that maybe but I doubt very many departments break it down for statistical purposes between simply running from the cops and getting caught up in a car chase. Dismas|(talk)23:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Being chased is definitely crime, Resisting arrest. Statistics are definitely kept on car chase in the developed world. I to imagine California has the most car chases. It is the most populous state and it contains LA which is a highly populated metro area where there is little public transportation and most people (including those who the police like to stop) drive cars. LA was known for its televised car chases (from news helicopters) particularly in the late 90s and early 2000s. I have no idea about Ireland, but high population and vehicle ownership are the key factors. The other factor is police procedure. Car chases are very dangerous not only for those involved but also other road users. Situations where innocent people are killed as a result of car chases, especially when the suspect was not dangerous, have led to changes in procedure where not everyone who runs is chased. These procedures very from place to place and I don't have any details. --Daniel23:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't answer the original poster's question, but because California is being discussed in the above two paragraphs, I have to write to contradict them. In California, being chased by a police car and not stopping is not resisting arrest. All it is is "failure to yield", which is a mere traffic violation. The word seemed to have spread after the OJ Simpson "slow speed pursuit" because when chases became entertainment on the live news shows, one would see the aerial shot of the police car or two with lights and sirens on, following a car which was carefully stopping completely at every stop sign and travelling at just below the speed limit, because the driver knew that his only crime so far was a failure to yield, and he didn't want to pile on any more offenses like not stopping at a red light. Comet Tuttle (talk) 03:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NFL numbers with "O"
Looking at the Chief's roster, I noticed that some numbers have the letter O following them. It could be a database or programming error. If not, is there some significance of the O after the number? -- kainaw™19:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It may be either a) a glitch or b) signify that the player is "Out". The NFL uses a standard code on official injury reports: P= Probable, Q= Questionable, D= Doubtful, O= Out (see this page for the usage). Perhaps the roster is tagging those players which have an injury status of "out". --Jayron3219:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but it also has some people on the practice squad listed that way as well, and it seems unlikely that every single other player on the active roster is fully healthy... They also forgot to give Steve Maneri his number 68. Googlemeister (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
During the preseason, teams often give the same number out for two players (especially linemen). So 71o means that he's the offensive player 71, whereas 71d would mean defensive. See these preseason rosters They must've forgot to take out the 'o' after the other 71 was cut or assigned a new number. Hot Stoptalk-contribs19:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
changeover to non-profit
Is changeover of public utilities to non-profit corporations the best or easiest way to prevent the Occupy Wall Street movement from turning violent? --DeeperQA (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Best" is a matter of opinion. Easiest is also based on your point of view. If you simply want to stop a group from turning violent, nerve gas is a very very easy method to ensure they don't do anything violent. It isn't an ethical way to do it, but it is easy. -- kainaw™20:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where will all the money to buy the stock from the shareholders come from, so the shares can be turned over to the non-profit? Jc3s5h (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Investors are perfectly entitled and invited to retain their stock since some feel that the failure to disclose amount of markup to a buyer is the equivalent of retail theft. --DeeperQA (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the "movement" doesn't have any clear agenda and doesn't have any form of exit strategy. It is absorbing media attention while it can. When the media attention dies out, there will be nothing much left to do. If an agenda does appear at some point in time, then an exit strategy of ending the movement when the action items are met can be produced. With an exit strategy, the movement can truly end. -- kainaw™20:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Telecommunications have been deregulated in Florida by a Republican Governor and Republican controlled legislature. What will most likely follow is the same heuristic greed as banks only using public necessities like banks use debit cards and cash. --DeeperQA (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is a cycle. Privately held services are considered greedy bastards and the service is taken over by the government. Then, government run services waste resources and provide terrible service. To get good service, the service is deregulated. Then, the privately held services are considered greedy bastards and the service is taken over by the government. Then, government run services waste resources and provide terrible services. To get good service, the service is deregulated... -- kainaw™23:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even understand how that makes sense to consumers. A private corporation with no competition may trim allegedly wasteful spending, but there would be no incentive to pass that along to the customers. They'd trim it specifically to give it to the share-holders. APL (talk) 09:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Duh! Your mistake is assuming that humans operate on intelligence. Even hedgehogs are smart enough to know that most of what humans do is purely idiotic: Government is pocketing our tax money with utilities. Make it private. The company is pocketing our tax money with utilities. Make it government. Then there are many other common ones: I am tired of paying taxes for poor schools. Make a lottery. Now I'm paying three times as much on losing lottery tickets and the schools still suck. There are ones that can even trick the hedgehogs if they aren't paying attention: Let's cut property tax and replace it with increased sales tax. The poor people who don't own property rejoice at the idea of cutting taxes! Idiots. -- kainaw™13:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Completely irrelevant to your original question. If the primary concern of the movement is banks then there no reason to think changing public utilities to non-profits is going to make a big difference to the movement, in particular stop them turning violent, regardless of what happened in Florida and what may happen there in the (likely fairly distant in comparison) future. If you are here to continue to rant about what's happening in Florida please do it elsewhere. Nil Einne (talk) 06:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discourse of protest as "violence" has a long and disreputable history, based on the constructions of working class behaviour as inherently violent. E.P. Thompson's observations on the radical nature of the London Mob in the Making of the English Working Class, the construction of "physical force Chartism" as violence, and (for anyone who's protested in their life), the nature of policing of protests where the State clearly instigates violence in unprovoked manners ought to put the lie to "violent protest" (See the Ombudsman's report into police violence at the Melbourne World Economic Forum protests, policing on the Third Day morning for one of my own experiences, from an eye witness perspective we were beaten from above while complying with police instruction within the time limits they set). Getting caught up in a media discourse on "violence" is stupid politics. A variety of publications on direct action, the inheritor of the "physical force" perspective, give decent instructions on how to democratically control tactics. As far as violence as strategy, see Foco, Symbionese Liberation Army, and Red Army Faction for concrete reasons why violence isn't strategy, for the theoretical perspective on why violence is stupid strategy see the famous Australian pamphlet You can't blow up a social relationship which is a succinct account. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The occupy Wall Street movement is a pretty long-lasting protest, but I'd be really astonished if the government could socialize a utility before it eventually disbands. It's just barely more plausible that the utility company could buy itself out and become non-profit in that same time period. Even if by some miracle that did happen, the Occupy Wall Street crowd would probably (correctly) see it as a distraction from their main goal. APL (talk) 09:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"They're all so smart these days"
I've noticed that old people who see their descendants often say that the children and young people are "very bright/smart/clever, but then they all are, these days, aren't they?". Do we have records of this being something that old people have always said, or is it something we only know happens now?
I mean this in the way that we have centuries of old people saying that young people are less disciplined, or less well-behaved, or that colours are less bright and tastes less powerful. Do we have such cases of old people down the centuries saying that all young people are clever these days? 86.163.1.168 (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any specific examples of what you are asking for, but I do have a thought. Technology is creating rapidly changing lifestyles. Young people are very good at adapting to change. Older people are less skilled at adapting and the very old find it nearly impossible, my 93 year old grandma (while perfectly intelligent) really cannot be taught to use a computer and struggles to even conceptualize the internet. To the elderly, a young person picking up an iPhone and intuitively knowing how to use this strange device is an impressive feat. In the past change was slower. I imagine in hunter gatherer cultures were their is virtually no change from generation to generation this idea of the new generation being brilliant doesn't come up very often. --Daniel22:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in my sixties. I teach Information Technology to high school kids. They're nowhere near as smart as they think they are. HiLo48 (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Daniel, though there is a bit more to it. Average intelligence has actually noticeably risen over the last century, many believe this is due to better diets especially during childhood and due to increased access to education materials. See Flynn effect. Public awareness (talk) 00:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the first well known "young clever clogs" to be significantly influential was Alcibiades. He had the advantage of both aristocratic background and of being adopted by the mighty statesman Pericles, as well as being both a student and a romantic interest of Socrates (who also supposedly saved his life in battle). By his late 20's he was working aggressively to overturn agreements made with the Spartans, reportedly because he was "offended that the Spartans had negotiated that treaty through Nicias and Laches, overlooking him on account of his youth", according to our article. Nicias would've been in his late 40's at the time, and Alcibiades was able to out-manoeuvre and embarrass him in the Athenian Assembly - certainly a clear indication that the democracy did not defer to more experienced politicians if a bright spark was mouthy enough. (And Alcibiades had a reputation for being unruly).
Established Athenian society certainly did chatter disapprovingly about the youthful cleverness of Alcibiades and men like him, in fact one element of the charges against Socrates was "corrupting the young", a phrase undoubtedly chosen with Alcibiades in mind. The important aspects here were not so much technology (hoplite weaponry and triremes were not much different in 421 B.C. to sixty years earlier, although tactics had developed), but philosophical and rhetorical finesse and astute handling of politics in an age where strategic and diplomatic relations were becoming increasingly complex. Alcibiades was later able to manipulate the Spartans too, and then the Persians, and then get himself reinstated as an Athenian general even after having previously defected to the Spartans, before he finally got too old to keep up with his own webs of intrigue, and was assassinated in his mid-forties. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From my own observations, the current generation is full of moronic, sex-crazed bespoiled people with neither morals nor manners, who constantly swear and dress like slobs. You'd be hard-pressed to find the select few do not have those qualities. It is a generation I am sure nobody would envy living in. →Σ⚑ ☭ 06:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are only saying that mockingly, I mean that's what the voters for Joseph McCarthy sounded like. Elvis shaking his hips, girls wearing pants, children using the word "damn", boys not tucking in their shirts!
Of course there are spoiled, sex-crazed, cursing, poorly dressed, and ill-mannered morons in my generation, just as there are in your generation (I can say that confidently without a clue about how old you are), but I have to say that it has not been particularly challenging for me to find very kind, responsible people to hang out with. Now as for envy, we are coming into adulthood into a broken society with massive debt and monstrous degradation of the environment (largely not our fault... Well, we haven't had much time to exacerbate the issue yet anyway), coupled with the tremendous stress that comes from living in such a rapidly changing world. You probably have a point there; I can't imagine many would envy living in our generation. Falconusptc10:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you included "Chastity belt" in there, since historically this seems to have been used mainly by a quite small number of wealthy Renaissance (not medieval) merchants to enforce fidelity on their often much-younger wives. It really was not a major social problem at any period of history... AnonMoos (talk) 10:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to diminish the seriousness of it, but wearing a Renaissance chastity belt did not leave a wife incapacitated for her ordinary duties, and to judge fromcontemporarycaricatures they were often singularly ineffective in their main intended purpose (if the wife had a little gumption and resourcefulness). I was not questioning whether they would be unpleasant to wear (though usually not actively harmful), I was questioning why something that only affected a minuscule percentage of the population was grouped together with "Genocide", "Slavery", and "KKK"... AnonMoos (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was just painting a picture, not the particulars, but what they stand for, chastity belt (can also stop masturbation) was to show sexual repression, the opposite of "sex-crazed". Public awareness (talk) 02:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of Victorian anti-masturbation devices could not be worn under ordinary clothes, and were more aids to help prevent youth from succumbing to nightly temptations and/or involuntary "nocturnal emissions", rather than being chastity belts as we would think of them. I'm sure that in some cases chastity belts have been used to inflict mental cruelty and/or somewhat low-level but chronic physical discomfort, but historically they were a very minor phenomenon, and so looked out of place in your list of major problems... AnonMoos (talk) 05:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the premise of the question. Most older people seem to complain that the younger generation is not as good as their own. A few historical examples: Socrates allegedly said that "“Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.”. The 17th century Japanese Bushido handbook, Hagakure includes a lengthy diatribe on how young men were becoming more effeminate, lazy and disrespectful. Orlando Gibbons wrote (also in the 17th century) "Farewell, all joys! O Death, come close mine eyes! More Geese than Swans now live, more Fools than Wise." In the UK today, there is a widespread belief that improving exam results only prove that the exams are getting easier[14][15]. Alansplodge (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As Daniel has pointed out, technology change is the most significant factor. If you think the younger generation is dumb it may be because they don't know how to do math with a pencil and paper or "in their head". If you think the younger generation is smart it is because they are whizz kids with computers. Yada yada. Interestingly, it is grandparents that may have given a boost to human development. As this article points out, grandparents only became common around 30,000 years ago. "This surge in the number of seniors may have been a driving force for the explosion of new tool types and art forms that occurred in Europe at around the same time."[16]Bus stop (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, I can't do math in my head to save my life. :( My gf only got herself doing it again through very hard work. Yes, Prof. Allison Brooks talked about the importance of grandmothers on early human development (by which I mean; when kids are young, not early hominins) and that being a reason for women living long past the point at which they can reproduce. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 9 Tishrei 5772 05:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I'm 21 (22 next month!), and even I know that my generation is filled with people who are none too bright and nihilistic (case in point, my little sister). I think that things like Facebook and Twitter (where people can share the most boring details of their humdrum lives) are to blame. Out of curiosity, when did like start being used as frequently as it is today? (Annoying fun-fact: Israeli kids use the Hebrew word for like as much as American kids do and in the same context; though the maturity imparted to them by military service usually fixes that). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 9 Tishrei 5772 05:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, from this it sounds like my suspicions were right: while complaints from old people that young people in general are more decadent/corrupt/uneducated/undisciplined/disrespectful/lazy/selfish than in the past have been recorded throughout history as generally things that old people say, the phenomenon of old people saying that young people in general are cleverer than in the past is only something recent. Which would be indicative of the change over the last few generations being genuinely different in some way(s) to the change over previous generations.
Hmmm, I'd hoped for some sobering historical perspective: this has been less reassuring than I'd hoped. Thanks to those who answered the question asked. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more concerned about the philosophical rather than scientific aspects. Thanks for your answer, but next time, leave your patronizing attitude at the door. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clarityfiend - your question read entirely as a scientific one to me. I don't how you can think a normal reader could get anything else out of it. There was nothing patronising in Quest09's reply. I think an apology is due. HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess an apology is in order. Mea culpa. However, I'm not exactly a newbie here. That should have indicated the query wasn't misplaced. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not dogging Sagan. It's a question of whether he wants philosophy with a lower-case or capital P, really. The academic discipline of Philosophy is a very different beast that Carl Sagan's approach to philosophy. I prefer Sagan, personally. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this question may have a "philosophical" approach. You possibly want a popular science approach (like Carl Sagan, which is simplified but of quality). Or maybe you just want some philosophical approach to consciousness, but the process itself is a science topic. Wikiweek (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may be surprised, but there is a huge amount of seemingly science topics done in the humanities — philosophy of biology being perhaps the most relevant here. Much of it is decidedly non-popular. See also evolutionary ethics, science and technology studies and on and on and on. There are plenty of "big questions" to go around. Many folks who you probably categorize as in the "scientist" category on issues like this (like Daniel Dennett) are often self-categorized as philosophers. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the original question is a bit misleading. Just because something is not alive does not mean it is inert. The sun is very much not alive in any conventional sense, but it is certainly not inert, either. For a scientific perspective on a popular science level, I found the first few chapters of Nick Lane's Life ascending to be a very interesting and very plausible view on the beginning of life. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
October 6
Abraham Lincoln and African American colonization policy
I think that Lincoln toyed with the idea at various times in his life from the 1840s on, without ever really having any great confidence or high hopes that it would turn out to be feasible on the massive scale which would be needed to have a real impact... AnonMoos (talk) 10:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My concern was President Lincoln's actual policy. He did have an colonization policy effective in his administration. The question is how extensive was this "emigration" policy during and after 1863. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Legal action for using a name?
No, not a request for legal advice. Read the final section of the "Production" section of "The Principal and the Pauper", an episode of The Simpsons — one of the show's writers gave a character the name of an obscure insurance adjuster, and when the adjuster learned that his name had been used and contacted the writer, the writer feared legal action, although none ended up happening. How could anyone possibly have grounds for legal action just because his/her name was used in a TV show and not in reference to him/her? Nyttend (talk) 10:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I never heard that story, but in a later Simpsons episode, Homer changes his name to Max Power after seeing a Homer Simpson on a tv show (the episode is Homer to the Max). Our article doesn't say if the two incidents are related though. Hot Stoptalk-contribs16:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Jobs great mistakes???
Recently, reading the German press (welt.de) I obviously came across an article about Steve Jobs, but about his great mistakes (!). What is the point of focusing on his mistakes when he has recently died? Is Steve Job not specially liked there or something? Wikiweek (talk) 13:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you certain the article was written AFTER he died? Even if it was, Steve Jobs is considered by many people to be a religious leader. As with any religious leader, there is a strong interest in making him human by showing his mistakes. -- kainaw™13:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it looks like the article was written before (it requires some research), but published at the home page after his death, and due to his death. Wikiweek (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, many news are written anticipating some event like a death, and normally published after it, but not always. There are a good number of cases when famous people were declared dead too soon. Quest09 (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I read the article (or maybe a similar one) which was a front-page link on a high traffic website like CNN. I did not at all see the article as disrespectful, but as inspirational: "Look, Steve Jobs made this list of mistakes, but he kept driving onward on his goals and dreams and in the end he triumphed." Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He's been compared to Thomas Edison, and Edison made plenty of mistakes. Nobody's perfect. Apple made just one mistake - dumping Steve Jobs. They eventually fixed that one. And it remains to be seen whether Apple finds another visionary, or if it falls into the hands of beancounters and eventually gets swallowed up by another company. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Their more fundamental mistake is their whole "closed" approach to OS and hardware. Of course here by "mistake" I mean more "something I don't like" rather than "something not good for their stock price"; it's quite possible that it has been good for their stock price.
Things did get somewhat better with OS X. Now when I have to help my mom with her mac, at least I can get a terminal and use command-line tools. But I just don't like the graphical part of the interface. Sure, it's pretty, but I can never find the app I'm looking for, and when I do find it, I have to first bring it into focus on one part of the screen, and then use the menu commands in a completely different part. --Trovatore (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with making a dogmatic statement such as your ""Not a matter of opinion, one of fact", VW, is that anyone with any sense reading it will grok that you just do not have a clue. It's simply self-defeating tosh. The "superiority" of a UI is always going to have reference to the context and circumstances of use and will for that reason always be a value judgement. So. Sorry about that. --Tagishsimon(talk)19:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. All right, I'll rephrase for your benefit. You are still wrong; it is not hard to find an app in the Mac OS GUI. I don't know what you mean about different parts of the screen. --Viennese Waltz19:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is easy for you. That does not mean it is easy for anyone else. For me, if I want to surf the web, I type lynx, press enter. There it is. If I want to open my text editor, I type nan, press enter. There it is. If I want to check my email, I type pin, press tab, press enter. There it is. That is very easy to me. All that wiggling around with the mouse is hard and confusing and I don't like it one bit. Because of my work, I have to sit in front of a computer about 10 hours a day. I probably use a mouse about 5 minutes of the day. So, I really despise the Mac UI. If you can make it easy to press a single key and give me a command prompt, I'd be happy with it. -- kainaw™19:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're not comparing like with like. You can't compare a GUI with a command line interface, nor can you denounce the Mac GUI for not being command line without simultaneously denouncing the Windows GUI. As hinted at above, what I'm interested in is comparing the Mac GUI with the Windows GUI. --Viennese Waltz19:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But, nobody mentioned Windows. A person who obviously uses the command prompt stated that he didn't like using the Mac GUI. You jumped in to denounce Windows with no apparent provocation. Now, you state that your sole reason to complain is to denounce Windows. In my opinion, that is no different than suddenly jumping in here and complaining that lima beans taste terrible so they should be removed from school lunches! It is off topic and unwarranted - even if it is entirely true. -- kainaw™19:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that Trovatore's point was to compare Mac OS with command prompt, though. I hope he comes back to clarify his position, but the words "I don't like their user interface" (italics mine) sound pretty much like a criticism of the Mac's version of GUI, not of GUIs in general. As for "off topic", I like going off topic. --Viennese Waltz19:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
VW, when someone says they don't like something because they find it hard to use, telling them they're wrong is the worst possible response. No matter how easy you may find it, the fact is they find it hard, or did at the time of writing. Saying they're wrong is just like telling them they're lying, or that the experience that are actually having is the wrong experience, and a whole part of their life is the wrong life. Explain to to your heart's content; definitely show them a better way of approaching it or of thinking about it - but please never deny another person's experience. -- Jack of Oz[your turn]20:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed while this behaviour isn't in anyway unique to those who prefer Macs, it does seem to be a common experience whenever anyone criticises Macs (or anything Apple) and is one of the things which gives Mac (and Apple product) users a bad reputation. Nil Einne (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Has anything serious (i.e. not activist ramblings) been written on the concept of a conflict of interest in publicly traded companies on the prioritization of shareholders and consumers? They're both "customers" in a broad sense. The impression I've gotten over the years is that shareholder interests are always placed above consumer interests, but is this an intentional choice taught in business schools? Again, I'm looking for what are, in essence WP:RS type documents - I'm not writing an article, but I don't want a debate, just useful resources. SDY (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shareholders must be prioritized over consumers because every corporate board of directors (who appoints the CEO and thus controls the company) has a fiduciary duty to the shareholders. This is a matter of law. They owe no such duty to consumers at all; so this isn't just an arbitrary choice to teach in business school. That said, I remember a quote which I haven't found yet from, I think, an IBM executive, summarizing: "Shareholder satisfaction and customer satisfaction are the twin goals of any manager." (While searching for the quote, I did find this paper that contrasted the two philosophies.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that paper is exactly the kind of discussion I was looking for. I'm not sure I agree with it 100%, but it raises the right kinds of questions and brings up the right kinds of ideas. SDY (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that while there may be no fiduciary duty to their consumers, many companies do have legal obligations to existing consumers (i.e. people who have purchased their products or services). Nil Einne (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If your dog's not happy, it will chew up your furniture, and ultimately that will make you unhappy too. That doesn't make you a dog. Wikiant (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can anybody make out the numbers of this image? It's not always from left to right since a similiar image has number 1 in the center. Also can anybody identified who the No. 2 figure.
With 20/20 vision, I cannot make out anything but three smugges in the first photo, and for the second photo it appears to me to go 1,1,3. Perhaps someone out there has a good photo englarging program? Public awareness (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the source image (linked to from the image page) and zoomed in, and the leftmost one sort of looks like a "1", but I cannot make out the other two. The source image is a pretty crappily compressed JPEG image; unfortunately they didn't choose to scan it at a higher resolution or use better JPEG compression or use a format like PNG that doesn't use lossy compression. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a version of your picture which appears to have the actual names, and not simply numbers, below them. Maybe your eyes are good enough to see which of those names looks like Keohoua femme du chef Kairoua. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This slightly shaper version of the above makes it look like the one in the center is Keohoua, to me (the first letter of that one looks the same as the first letter of the one on the right, who I assume we're both assuming is Kamahamarou because of the word length/frequency). Also available from that website is the same image in an Ichabod Crane variation. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Country Where Speeding Ticket Fine Amount Depends on How Much You Make
I heard on NPR one time about a very rich business owner getting a speeding ticket somewhere in Europe where the law was such that the fine for speeding tickets was proportional to one's income, and that this guy's ticket was the monetary equivalent of almost $200,000 US. Who can find a source where I can read more about this? 20.137.18.53 (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You would think that would make the cops more susceptible to instances where they might take a bribe. I mean in the US, you can often talk your way out for free, let alone if you offered $10,000 (not that anyone would since I can't imagine a pure speeding fine to exceed $1,000). Googlemeister (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even in the United States, offering a bribe to a cop is a very risky business. If your cop happens to be honest (and many if not most cops in the United States are), you could find yourself facing prosecution for the attempt at bribery. Marco polo (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously it is not worth the risk for a couple hundred bucks, but if you were looking at $200,000 it would probably be a much higher return to risk ratio. Googlemeister (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably you talk in euphemisms, like asking the cop, "Can we take care of it here?" If he says Yes, then he's willing to take a bribe. If he says No, then you have to do it the normal way. Note that I'm talking hypothetically here. I still say the safer way is to have your driver do your driving for you, just in case. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly, the one time I got pulled over in Indiana, the cop showed me his credit card accepting machine in the cop car and wanted to know if I wanted to take care of it there. I probably looked at him funny for the use of this time honored phrase that Bugs quoted, and declined to take care of it there. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the fines for traffic violations in Germany depend on your income as well... the idea is to make the penalty for breaking the traffic laws hurt, so you don't do it again. If you earn a million Euros a year, a 200 Euro fine won't really hurt. A 100,000 Euro fine might. More than one, and you will definitely feel the pinch. Blueboar (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In Germany, it depends. If you commit a crime when driving (like drunk driving, and surpassing some speed threshold) you get maybe 90 days jail or 90 days salary (whatever you want). Obviously, most people will choose the monetary fine. Wikiweek (talk) 10:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I'm so late, but of course, we have an article on this. And it's not just for traffic violations, it's the basic system of determining the size of a fine in Finnish law.--Rallette (talk) 06:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a minimum fine? I mean if you are currently unemployed, you have no income, but you could be living off of savings for a while. I wouldn't expect they let you off for free. Googlemeister (talk) 13:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, writing a book, and part of it is set in a company that runs trade ships in and out of Ostia, near Rome. Now, this business is mostly normal, typical, however, they are up to something else as well, something perhaps slightly illegal. One of my major characters happens to be an accountant there, and he comes across something whilst checking the accounts, something that seems very wrong. When he takes it to his boss, though, he is told it is none of his business, and just to leave it alone. And the plot follows on from there.
However, trouble is, I do not know precisely all the details of how such a company would function, what they would or would not be allowed to do, and so have no ideas at all what it is they could be doing that so upsets this accountant. So, I wondered if anyone here had any suggestions of illicit business activities this company could be operating. (If it makes any difference, the story is set in 250AD, in the time of Decius Augustus).
If it's a shipping company, the obvious crime they could be committing is smuggling. I imagine a number of things were contraband, but one I know of is weapons. The Romans had superior weapons and depended on other armies not having them. If you could somehow skim off the top of some shipments of military equipment, you could make good money smuggling them to outside armies. APL (talk) 23:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you beat up a pregnant woman (<3 months), and she loses her baby, what is that legally? Murder? Or is it like any injure? Quest09 (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will a Federal Discount Card providing up to a 50% off retail, utility and tax charges now be possible, acceptable or necessary or are there other known means to compensate those living at or below the poverty line who have suffered doubling and tripling of prices from deregulation and privatization of State and County services by Republican Governors and legislatures backed by corporate greed? --DeeperQA (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This Federal Discount Card is a thing of your own invention? There are, as a moment's thought would prove, many other ways in which such compensation could be given, were the legislature inclined to do so. --Tagishsimon(talk)01:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its a logical method - much better than standing on a street corner, checking names and handing out $1,000 bills. While the State legislature or County Commission is controlled by corporate greed the American Congress is always ready, willing and able to lend the poor a helping hand. --DeeperQA (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(PS.To be fair Verizon is giving temporary discounts of as much as $50 off its regular $90 FIOS charge for 15/5 Internet and voice to coax subscribers to move from analog POTS and DSL to digital FIOS by also stating that subscriber can always return to analog POTS and DSL within the 2 year discount period if they are dissatisfied with FIOS, even though Verizon's motive for the discount is to phaseout analog POTS and DSL entirely whereas the motive for Congress in issuing a Federal Dicount Card is to prevent riot.) --DeeperQA (talk) 05:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming you're in America. Food stamps and Medicaid are essentially a version of what you mention. Your proposal would almost certainly be constitutional, in some form, under the Taxing and Spending Clause. Feasibly possible to pass in this political climate? Not really. NW(Talk)02:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they are but perhaps more complimentary to a surtax, which the Congress is considering, in order to get the intended results versus trying only to generate a "we-are-doing-something" atmosphere. --DeeperQA (talk) 04:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree, DeeperQA, you are bringing up more and more similar questions daily, this is not a forum for discussion, it's suppose to be a place where you ask for references. Public awareness (talk) 06:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You right it is a place to ask for references. I have been commenting on articles in the news and forget sometimes that the articles here have their own talk pages. In that regard what articles here cover the 5% on millionaire proposal before Congress right now and the $5 debit card proposal by Bank of America? --DeeperQA (talk) 06:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO the question might well change the perspective of the article just as pointing out that a $5 charge for a previously free debit card sounds like replacing Coke Classic with the New Coke or splitting up original Netflix service and charging 150% for both cost Netflix over 1 million subscribers. Do you prefer edit wars in articles or discussions to avoid them on the talk page? WP:There are no rules. --DeeperQA (talk) 07:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Purchasing a small kasher handwritten Torah scroll for personal use
I'm quite frankly not sure who or where one would ask about this, so I'll ask in Ref Desk (always a good spot imo). Where could one purchase a small (say about 1-2 feet tall) hand-written kasher (written on parchment made from the skin of a kasher animal) torah scroll that they could use for personal use (say Simchat Torah and also display)? I know they sell little electrically copied ones, [20] but I want something more authentic. And, if someone happens to find out where, could they be so kind as to tell the cost? (I'll assume they're not cheap) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 9 Tishrei 5772 05:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be one option [21] (rather pricey for new ones), but I wonder about ones produced in Israel. Can someone with better Hebrew skills than mine maybe locate such a service or two? It also looks like by small I meant 8 inches tall for the actual scroll (the other bits are taller :p) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 9 Tishrei 5772 06:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing that their main market is institutional buyers, not individuals. Get ten guys together pooling their money and it's not so bad. Interestingly, they use the "o." SDY (talk) 06:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that some of the smaller Torot [22] are advertised for both communities (by which I would guess they mean Jewish community centers and possibly other groups), as well as private homes, though it's too late to call about those (they also don't have the measurements sadly enough). I wonder if they sell such tiny ones in Israel that can be imported. I think many of the sites for those would probably be in Hebrew. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 9 Tishrei 5772 06:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is the purpose of syncing the online order taking rollout of the iPhone to a specific time to test the capacity of the ICload to handle a massive amount of simultaneous transactions or events? --DeeperQA (talk) 05:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's to increase the excitement of being one of the first, even though in this case the user is being one of the first to order, rather than being one of the first to hold the device, or unbox it, or whatever. If you think about it a bit, taking these orders is very important for Apple financially; more so than any client's use of the servers. A test takes place to see if the server system fails, and obviously it would be awful for Apple if there were a big server failure on zero day. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is exciting but also disappointing - Apple answers the phone and say it can understand a sentence so I ask: "How do I buy a new iPhone 4S?" I hear computer keyboard in the background and eventually Apple says its sorry that due to heavy call volume... call back later. --DeeperQA (talk) 06:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone identify the outfits on these fellows, as being from a particular type of fraternal lodge, or something similar? The photo is from what now is called the Greater Toronto Area in Ontario, Canada, but is currently unidentified. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 9 Tishrei 5772 05:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
