Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

January 15

Should I be able to sing in a Tenor voice?

I am male and 22 and I have recently joined a Gospel choir. In the choir there are Soprano, Alto and Tenor parts (only sometimes Bass parts). I find it really hard to hit the high tenor notes - all of the other males in the choir are a few years younger than me and handle the high tenor parts better. When I used to think of a tenor I would imagine Pavarotti singing very low and never realised how high he could sing (I have since found out that his high notes were one of the things that made him famous). Anyway, as I will have to be singing tenor apart from the very few songs that have a bass part arranged I need to work out how to do this. One of the voice coaches took me outside for some one-on-one and with his instruction I managed to just about hit the note in a falsetto 'head-voice' (whatever that actually means) - which was how he advised me to get that high - but I'm not sure how to do it on my own. Is a 'normal range' tenor something your average young man should be able to attain? --Joe^Talk_Work 05:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Different people have different ranges. It is unreasonable to expect any given man to be able to hit high tenor notes or low bass ones. I am an experienced (though untrained) singer, and have never managed to hit a note above tenor G#, even in falsetto. I believe that with some training I could learn to get higher, but if a choir required me to sing tenor parts regularly I would leave the choir. --ColinFine (talk)

I'm a baritone, and that gives me a natural range of something like F bass to G tenor. I do not beleive that any amount of training will vary that a great deal - it's just how my vocal tract works. However, in common with many bass/baritone singers, I can switch to a "child-like" true falsetto, and quite easily reach a D in the mezzo-sprano range - a top D for a tenor. A guy I sing with can go considerably higher - something like a soprano G. However, you wouldn't really sing in a choir or performing serious work with this type of falsetto voice - it's not powerful enough and doesn't sound right. Colin has given the right answer - if you're a bass, find bass music to sing. --Phil Holmes (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you're more of a baritone than a tenor maybe. Why could you not transpose these notes an octave? It would give the choir more depth than they have at the moment. But if they want high tenors in that choir, you may just have to find another choir. (BTW I speak as an alto tenor, which is quite rare in a female voice, but came in useful in all-female choirs when some bottom was needed!) --TammyMoet (talk) 10:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

One further comment - I'm surprised that there is no bass part in the choir. The basses typically sing the root of the chord in the harmony - without a bass line, the harmony would sound very empty. --Phil Holmes (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Joe, you may find that you become a tenor as you get older. That happened to me. When I joined the church choir at age 15, I sang bass, and continued to sing bass for 10 years; I couldn't go above middle C without switching into falsetto. At some point, a choir director asked me to sing tenor to help out because there weren't enough tenors, and I realized I was comfortable there. By the time I was 30 I always sang tenor in choirs. Now I can sing up to a G without falsetto, and I can't hit low Gs and Fs like I could when I was teenager (unless I have a cold, in which case I can get down to a D or even lower). And I've had no training; my voice just drifted up. +Angr 14:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all your answers - I did not expect so many good answers so quickly! The main issue is that there is not always a bass bart. The ratio of male to female is roughly 1:2, maybe a bit more on the female side. Because of there being less males the arrangements are usually for just alto/soprano/tenor as I think the males are more (or maybe equally) comfortable with tenor as with bass. I only joined this week and I think it would be awkward for just me to sing bass while all the other males do tenor, and it may be that they can't do bass just as I can't do tenor. Next session we will be doing a song with a bass part so that will be better, hopefully. I do usually transpose it just an octave lower as TammyMoet suggested but when I did that at the practice one of the voice coaches said 'it sounds like someone's doing a bass part' so apparently it's not OK for me to do that on my own. I'm just relieved to hear that I shouldn't necessarily be able to hit a high tenor note right now. Thanks for all your suggestions/information/tips, I will see how next session goes! Cheers, Joe^Talk_Work 18:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

In my experience most choirs are desperate to get enough tenors, so I doubt if it's true that males are, in general, more comfortable with tenor than bass. I suspect, rather, that the arrangements you have are SAT because they're not expecting to get many males, and there are often some women who can sing tenor. --ColinFine (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Gaius Maenius

While I can find Gaius Maenius as a Roman statesman and general and consul, I can not find him as a dictator as it shows in the List of Roman dictators. Was he really a dictator? Does he have some additional names or known by a different name? Is there at least a couple of good sources to verify he was in fact a real dictator and in the years 320 BC and 314 BC? --Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Maenius, Gaius (late C4 BC), was a consul in 338 BC who, in commemoration of his victory over the Latin and Antiate forces, fixed the beaks of captured enemy ships to the speakers' platform in the forum, which was thenceforth known as Rostra ('beaks'). The balcony (Maenianum) of the Basilica Porcia and the Columna Maenia, a column attached to the Comitia, also commemorate his work in remodelling the Roman forum. He was censor in 318 and dictator in 314. Hazel, J. (2001). Who's Who in the Roman world. p. 181. OCLC 44652641

—eric 21:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Caius Maenius (Livy IX.26), Antiacticus...—eric 22:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, had to run out for a bit, for Maenius dictator quaestionibus exercendis 320 is from Livy and others, i see dictator 314 in a few short bios, but can't find a text.—eric 00:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually "Caius"[sic] is an incorrect form in Latin; due to various reasons connected with the history of the Roman alphabet originally borrowed from Etruscan, the name Gaius was abbreviated as "C." in inscriptions etc., but the name in real Latin was Gaius, not Caius. (As opposed to the name of Gonville and Caius college, where "Caius" is a pseudo-Latin fancy spelling "Keyes".) -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I noticed in the article of Tiberius Coruncanius it does not say he was dictator in 246 BC as it is listed in List of Roman dictators. Nor is Gaius Duilius confirmed in the article as dictator in 231 BC nor Marcus Livius Salinator for 207 BC. What would be the reason for this and can these also be confirmed in a good source as being a dictator in those times? --Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You saw: Roman_Dictator#Other dictatorates?—eric 00:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No, didn't see this before. Overlooked it when I read the Roman dictator article before. Thanks for pointing it out. So, perhaps the articles don't mention they were a dictator since it was a mundane position?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 00:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I see they all became dictators because of comitiorum habendorum causa (for summoning the comitia for elections). I'm getting a better handle on all this now. Thanks for your help.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

ideas

i came across a word or phrase several months ago, but do not remember it, only its meaning.

it suggested that by having different laws and different cultures in the world providing different ways of addressing problems provided the best way for the world to solve their problems.

in other words, given a problem, the japanese may have an inherently better approach to optimizing the solution because of their cultural background, language, alphabet, religious beliefs, etc., whereas for the next problem, the united states may have an advantage because of their social structureor language expressions.

can you provide clues for this word or phrase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.179.244 (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Multiculturalism?--Wetman (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Heterogeneity, Diversity, or Pluralism? 78.147.233.120 (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

In economics it may be Comparative advantage or Gains from trade. 78.147.229.52 (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Social theory? ~AH1^(TCU) 02:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The fourth Indiction in the month of April in the year 6589.

The Alexiad mentions this date in Book 2, chapter 10. A note says it corresponds to a modern date of 1st. April 1081 AD. What calendar does the 6589 date come from? And what happened at year 1? Thanks 78.147.233.120 (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

See Byzantine calendar. The answer to your second question is "the creation of the world". Deor (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

See also indiction (and good luck making any sense out of it). Adam Bishop (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Geography question

I am looking for the name of an inhospitable place with following criteria.

1.A noted  explorer literally saw oil covering the ground here.

2.148 years later. a refinery was built, a pipeline was in place, and oil began to flow. Eventually, this ambitious project was abandoned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.69.80 (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It could be just about any one of the many tar pits in the world. The key is that it was abandoned - but why? For example, most drilling around Los Angeles (and the La Brea Tar Pits) was abandoned because the city grew in size. If you know why it was abandoned, you have a better chance of narrowing down which tar pit it is referring to. -- kainaw™ 15:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

...and I've only met one person who considered the climate of Los Angeles to be "inhospitable." He grew up on Kwajalein Atoll. -- Coneslayer (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The "inhospitable" could have to do with wild animals or unhappy natives, though neither really applies to LA. Woogee (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Where are these questions come from? We get about one a week, it would be much easier to answer them if we had some context. --Tango (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I have assumed they are a regular quiz feature of some newspaper or magazine. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we should start charging. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 13:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

patent law

What are the requirements for a patent? If I make modifications do they have to be improvements or just serve some arbitrary purpose? In other words would an embellishment to make something look pretty or to identify it be patentable? 71.100.14.125 (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It must provide some sort of functionality or use. An example often used is a patent application to add brown spots to tobacco leaves for cigars. It makes the cigars look more expensive. The patent application was rejected because it didn't provide a tangible benefit. -- kainaw™ 15:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That is untrue because there is a type of patent, in the US anyway, called a design patent. (The regular sort of patent is called a utility patent.) You can file for a design patent on your pretty embellishment. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Be aware that patent law is different in different countries. Look at the patent office website for the territory concerned for more info - for example www.uspto.gov for US applicable info.

Remembering that we don't give legal advice, Comet Tuttle merely meant to inform you the existence of this kind of patent, and not to imply that your improvement would qualify for it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As Comet Tuttle points out, there are two types of patents in U.S. patent law. The one we normally mean by "patent" is a utility patent, which covers how an invention functions. A utility patent has nothing to do with the aesthetics, and it must serve a "useful purpose", broadly defined. So an embellishment or an arbitrary purpose would not be patentable in this sense. A design patent is something different—sort of a cross between a copyright and a trademark, that happens to look like a patent. It is for purely ornamental aspects of inventions. So you could patent your embellishment and arbitrary purpose invention under this. Note that this costs money and so filing these things willy-nilly is kind of pointless. In any specific case, it is recommended that you contract with a dedicated patent lawyer, who will know very well whether something has a good chance of being accepted by the patent office, and will know how to write it up properly. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

In actuality, there are three types of patents in the US. They are Design, Utility, and Plant patents. Note that a plant patent is actually a patent on a new type of plant, for botanists. It has always seemed strange to me that there are a specific type of patent for this sort of thing. You should also keep in mind that there are other forms of intellectual property protection, such as trademarks. Finally, I would suggest you look at "Patent It Yourself" by Attrny David Pressman. It is both a great read and very informative. CoolMike (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Burma election

Will the Burmese general election, 2010 bring any change in Burma? Will it end the rule of military junta? And if elections are allowed in Burma, then why Burma is called a dictatorship? --Qoklp (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The Reference Desk cannot foresee the future, and is not a forum for discussion. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The first two questions: As it says at the top of the page, "The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events." The last question: See the Show election article (which could do with a lot of expansion in the way of examples). Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I can answer the first question: Yes, it will bring change. Every activity brings change. Will it bring substantial change? That's a different question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

See also Cyclone Nargis. ~AH1^(TCU) 02:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I’ll take the opposite view of Mr Bugs. The so-called election will be a sham; the opposition will not be allowed to campaign effectively; and the results will be rigged in favor of the ruling thugs junta dictatorship regime. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

snow

What do you call the effect of falling snow from tall trees and buildings82.46.88.158 (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

A minor avalanche. :) What do you mean by "effect"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's called "snow falling from tall trees and buildings"--Jac16888^Talk 18:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

slumping.--Wetman (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

snow blanket? --Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"Dachlawine" (literally "roof avalanche") in Austria. Rimush (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

A roof slide. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Roof-alanche. I don't think Dachlawine will catch on. ;) --220.101.28.25 (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

"..we are learning new words like “tree-alanche” and “roof-alanche”." quoted in a campus newspaper is a rare usage of roof-alanche found on searching the web. In contrast "dachlawine" warning signs are commonly seen in Kitzbühel. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

In the case of powder snow, blowing snow? ~AH1^(TCU) 02:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Vietnamese and white

Stale

 – very crummy sourcing, not a WP:RS

What does the second row mean. I know this site is very wrong. Which groups of asian-white causes moth white male and asian female couple. They said whiter/vietnamese is least likely to intermarry but somebody said vietnamese/white do intermarry alot. What I want is individual groups. Plus the ratio on that site is wrong. Since the site we had and isteve.com is 3.08 and I have 3.04, the asiannation.org have something very different. Do white husband and asian wife come by Vietnamese, it definietely comes by Pilipino and Chinese. Somebody could give me a better source, that one is VERY BAD.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a section on that page that discusses how to read the table. There's also a link at the bottom of the table that goes into more detail about the alleged methodology in compiling the numbers. The second row, then, is supposed to indicate how many males who self-identify as "Indian" have married women who self-identified as non-Indian but Asian. By the way, questions posted on the Reference Desk about "people of race X marrying people of race Y" tend to get few responses and even provoke arguments because many of the Reference Desk regulars were taught that "race" is a false construct without a scientific basis (see Race (classification of human beings) for more). Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that opinion expressed here frequently, and it's an idealistic, naive belief that does not square with real world reality. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you offer some support for your assertion that real world reality does not conform to the studies cited by many in earlier discussions showing how divorced the concept of race is from genetics? I'd say that these questions get few responses because, particularly after so many similar are asked, they set off people's 'troll' radars. In addition, they are unanswerable without knowing the criteria the OP is using for assigning people to a race. For example, I am unclear from the question asked here whether they consider Vietnamese people 'Asian'. 86.178.229.168 (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Where Is Malamute Located?

Where is malamute?174.3.106.27 (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The name is derived from the name of a tribe of upper western Alaska, according to our article. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 22:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Malemiut or Malemiutun is one of the dialects of the Iñupiaq language spoken by the Iñupiat in Alaska.[1] --Cam (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The page linked by the OP says, "Native to Siberia, the Husky was brought to Alaska by fur traders in Malamute for arctic races because of their great speed," which seems to treat "Malamute" as a place name. That's probably just a mistake, but it may a muddled way of saying "the region inhabited by the Malamute people." Deor (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

gene patents

On what grounds are gene patents granted, a unique sequence of nucleotides or the function a particular sequence of nucleotides performs? 71.100.14.125 (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Are we talking United States here? The laws on this would vary considerably, I imagine, between juridsdictions. Perhaps the real question is whether they should be granted, as they seem to be more of a discovery than an invention. See gene patents and Biological patent. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether they should be is not for the ref desk to decide, although the links you posted might lead to some discussion on the ethics of the matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

My bad. ;-P --220.101.28.25 (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

From Gene patents "A gene patent is a patent on a specific gene sequence, its usage, and often its chemical composition. Other gene patents claim processes." I suggest going right back to the references (if any) cited. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

So sequence, usage, chemical composition and/or processes. I see lots of flexibility here. How about who can hold a patent? I mean, I can see here an opportunity for God and if not Him how about good ole Mother Nature. 71.100.14.125 (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

That depends on whether you adhere to Creationism/ Intelligent Design/ Pastafarianism or Evolution. Or perhaps Capitalism! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 09:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Gene patents are pretty tricky (in the U.S.)—they are always about functionality in some way, but can be linked to actual sequences. So you can say, "I patent the sequence GACTAC on said gene for use in breast cancer risk detection, and so anyone who tries to look for that sequence for the purpose of assessing breast cancer risk has to pay me money." Which gets into strange legal and philosophical ground, indeed. It is one of the reasons gene patents are so controversial—there are patents on sequences that are in your own DNA, right this minute, to the point that if you looked at your own DNA, you'd be violating patents. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Have any such process patent claims been challenged and tested in court? Realistically, if they've patented the process, how could you look at your own DNA for that purpose without using that process? Unless you came up with a different process. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I've heard that legal systems around the world strive to get squeaky clean because they have never gotten beyond squeaky. 171.100.14.125 (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The case I alluded to is working through the courts currently. It is legally tricky. In the case cited in the article (relating to Myriad Genetics' patenting of BRCA1 and BRCA2), the patent is for the using the genes themselves in any sort of diagnostic fashion. So yes, you'd have to pay them if you looked at your own genes, even with a process not described in the patent. Who knows how the court could rule—it could easily say, "your genes are your property and nobody can keep you from looking at them," and it could just as easily say, "your genes are not your property in this sense, they are part of the natural world." (Or they could say something else entirely, I am sure!) There are ways of constructing pretty good legal arguments for both sides of the issue. It is one of the trickier intellectual property questions of the day, very popular in university IP and ethics courses. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

So there has been no final ruling on it or other such cases yet, which is what I should have asked. Again, you can't really "look at" your own DNA without some sophisticated and expensive equipment of some kind. As to who owns your body, that's also a slippery issue. Libertarians would argue that you should be able to do anything to yourself that you feel like. Laws say differently. It could also come down to a "fair use" argument: You can look at your own DNA without violating patent, but no one else can, unless they pay a royalty for the process. It will be an interesting case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It's true you can't look without tools, but the patent isn't on using specific tools, it's on using the genes themselves. Basically, you may or may not have a certain sequence of nucleotides in each of your somatic cells. That sequence may determine whether you (or your kids) are at a very increased risk of breast cancer. But according to the patent, if you want to know if you have that sequence, you have to fork over a few thousand dollars to this company. It's tricky, because we wrap up so much our identity in the concept of our genes, and we're not paying for the "looking" service itself (which has its own costs, patents, etc.), but for the concept of looking at our genes for a risk factor. I suspect the courts will uphold the patents, because they are generally conservative on patenting issues, in the sense that they usually say, "if it isn't banned by the constitution or something, then it's up to congress to legislate on this subject if they care about it," which occasionally congress has in fact done (though not often). (Relatedly, see Moore v. Regents of the University of California—the classic "you don't own your body parts" case.) --Mr.98 (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Using the genes for a specific purpose; i.e. for a process to examine them? Practically speaking, how could the average citizen "look at" his DNA? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not quite as hard as one might think to sequence your own DNA. I haven't done it (I'm no scientist), but progress in the DIY Biology movement (unfortunately just a sad little stubby article) makes me think it's actually not too far distant. If you have the right tools (some chemicals, a centrifuge, etc.), you can actually do this kind of thing in your kitchen. There are people out there doing this right now—they all happen to have done biology as undergraduates, but that's pretty much the only requirement. The "average citizen" can't, at the moment, but keep in mind that patents are in force for 14 years or so, and we're talking about a legal precedent that goes further than the immediate moment. I suspect sequencing one's own DNA for risk factors will become about as common in the next 30 years as the home pregnancy test is now (something that could only have been done by specialists in labs until the late 1970s). --Mr.98 (talk) 13:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting point. So the company that gets that patent might demand a royalty from a company that devises a way to analyze your own DNA. And by then this particular patent might be expired, but there could be others. But it's not just about who owns your body - it's about big bucks. As the saying goes, when investigating motives, "Follow the money." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

January 16

Quote's author?

“Individuals have the power to control their own thoughts and actions, and therefore to form their own character by their choices”

I can't seem to find who said this. Can anyone help?

PerfectProposal 00:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Google finds nothing. What makes you think it is a famous quote? Where did you hear it? It is basically a definition of free will. --Tango (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

More succinctly: “A man is but the product of his thoughts what he thinks, he becomes.” — Mahatma Gandhi Vranak (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

That's so succinct, it's missing some non-negotiable punctuation; as it stands, it makes absolutely no sense. How about "A man is but the product of his thoughts. What he thinks, he becomes". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer a semicolon. --Tango (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

As well you might. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Taken to its extreme: I think, therefore I am. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No, "Cogito ergo sum" attributed to René Descartes is baseline individual Existentialism that is unlike the OP's quotation because it does not declare empowering Free will for all. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a different quote, which states "Watch your thoughts, they become words; watch your words, they become actions; watch your actions, they become habits; watch your habits, they become character; watch your character, they become your destiny". The author of the quote is unknown. ~AH1^(TCU) 02:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, we found out what his destiny was, yes? To be Ann Nonymous. I've heard a shorter version of somewhat the same idea: "Practice doesn't make perfect. Practice makes permanent." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Does presentism imply nihilism?

Nothing you do will pay off until the future. According to presentism, the future doesn't exist. Doesn't that mean nothing will ever pay off, and thus nothing's worth doing? — DanielLC 04:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The New Testament verses Matthew 6:25-34 and Luke 12:22-34 don't seem to me to be part of a nihilist philosophy... AnonMoos (talk) 11:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

They don't seem to me to be part of any presentism philosophy. They look like they're just saying that if you do what God wants you to do, he'll make sure you'll have what you need. — DanielLC 19:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but if you read the first sentence of the Presentism article again, you will notice that it says nothing about the future, only that future things are unreal, that is to say, they cannot causally interact with present, real things. This description of presentism in fact supposes a future. There is nothing in presentism that would prevent us from considering future things that are more or less likely to come into being through our actions. Further, one could argue that a presentist nihilism such as you outline would be as impossible to actually live by as determinist nihilism, which has been around since antiquity as the "lazy paradox" (since everything is determined anyway, why bother?)--Rallette (talk) 11:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Future events can causally interact with the present. Events in the present cause them. Similarly, events in the past cause events in the present. It's only causal one way, but unless we discover time-travel, all events are. — DanielLC 19:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The present moment is always moving into the direction of the future. Presentism therefore appears very nearsighted. ~AH1^(TCU) 02:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You have confused nihilism with pessimism. Nihilism denies the existence of fixed values. Pessimism sits on its hands because it can see nothing worth doing. As to your question, I find 'presentism' to be a rather flaccid neologism and so have little to say about it. If the present truly is the only thing that exists then we don't need a term to remind us of that fact. It is an inherently vacuous term. Vranak (talk) 05:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Nihilism just means not accepting some meaningful aspect of life. It seems that what I'm talking about would be a form of nihilism. Mostly I used that because I didn't have a better word. What you describe sounds like moral relativism. Philosophical pessimism just seems to be the belief that life isn't generally worth living. It would still be worth while to improve it or get rid of it. Presentism is the belief that the present is the only thing that exists. We use the word to distinguish people who believe that to people that don't. — DanielLC 20:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

That may be your understanding of the term but I believe it to be in error. How for instance can you deny that which is meaningful? If it is meaningful it cannot be denied. Instead, nihilism is a mode of thought that suggests that contemporary values do not ring true to your experiences. It is in no way a denial of life, but rather a denial of the prevailing interpretation of life -- usually Christian in nature. Vranak (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to come back so late with a quibble, but then where's the fun in philosophy if not in nitpicking? In my book, interaction is by definition reciprocal, and your point about time travel notwithstanding, two-way causation over time is possible in turns: thing A can act upon thing B and B then act back on A. Assuming the persistence of identity over time. What I meant in my original response was therefore just what you said: future things cannot cause events in the present, and nothing can cause events in the past.--91.153.151.52 (talk) 12:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If thing A now is the same is thing A in the future, then you can't have one be real and the other not be. If they're not the same, than past A acting on present B and present B acting on future A isn't two-way causation. Also, I get the impression that presentism is philisophical in nature, rather than semantic. You make it sound like the only difference between presentism and eternalism is the definition of the word "reality". — DanielLC 20:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

William Penn and Indian languages

What language or languages did William Penn learn to speak from the Native Americans, and is there any information other than that below regarding William Penn and Indian languages (when he learned them, how, writings by him about them...)?

"Their language is lofty, yet narrow; but, like the Hebrew in signification, full. Like short-hand in writing, one word serveth in the place of three, and the rest are supplied by the understanding of the hearer, imperfect in their tenses, wanting in their moods, participles, adverbs, conjunctions, interjections. I have made it my business to understand it, that I might not want an interpreter on any occasion; and I must say that I know not a language spoken in Europe, that hath words of more sweetness or greatness, in accent and emphasis, than theirs: for instance, Octocockon, Rancocas, Oricton, Shak, Marian, Poquesian, all which are names of places, and have grandeur in them. Of words of sweetness, anna is mother, issimus, a brother; neteap, friend; usqueoret, very good; pane, bread; metsa, eat; matta, no; hatta, to have; payo, to come; Sepasen, Passijon, the names of places; Tamane, Secane, Menanse, Secatareus, are the names of persons. If one ask them for any thing they have not, they will answer, matta ne hatta (given here as "matter ne hatta"), which, to translate, is 'Not I have' instead of, 'I have not.'" (source: http://www.ushistory.org/penn/penn_journey.htm) Thanks. 74.105.132.151 (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't know which language it was, but it would seem probable that a language spoken in south-eastern Pennsylvania would be either Algonquian or Iroquoian... AnonMoos (talk) 11:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

From information here it seems these are words and names from the Unami language. The place names mostly refer to locations in what is now Bucks County, Pennsylvania.--Cam (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Jagrata and Vyala motifs in Indian Art

Are the motifs Jagrata, Vyala, Gajabidala and Gajasimha in Indian Art the same? If not what is the difference between them ? Is there any on-line source which explains these motifs? 220.227.207.32 (talk) 12:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I find a differing definitions each place i look, it's all very confusing. Gajabidala (elephant-cat) and Gajasimha (elephant-lion) seem fairly clear. Most authors use jagrata to mean a lion or lion-like figure, but it could be a particular depiction as in this tenth century work on temple architecture. Also:

• viraja a standing lion looking backwards
• jagrata a fierce standing lion, a roaring lion, or a seated lion w/ one paw raised
• udyata a seated lion, or a jumping lion
• gajakranta a lion stepping on or attacking an elephant

Vyala is the most difficult. Again, some use it as a lion or lion-like figure, but i've also seen: a fierce animal, a monster, a beast with the body of a lion and various different heads, or any type of hybrid creature. Some give yali as a synonym, others vyalaka. When authors mention a specific depiction, it's often a horned lion, usually goat horns. Maybe it's a regional thing, or different periods or dialects; but the best definition i can give for all of 'em (after quite a few searches) is: most likely some kind of lion.—eric 21:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for providing that reference. Britanica also defines vyala as a "popular motif in Indian art, consisting of a composite leonine creature with the head of a tiger, elephant, bird, or other animal, frequently shown in combat with humans or pouncing upon an elephant." Jagrata seems to be a similar animal with a rider(warrior). But is this really a bidala (rat)? 220.227.207.32 (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Geoffrey Chaucer's words

Chaucer is recorded as the first author to use many common English words in his writings. These words were probably frequently used in the language at the time of Chaucer. Some of those he introduced were acceptable, alkali, altercation, amble, angrily, annex, annoyance, approaching, arbitration, armless, army, arrogant, arsenic, arc, artillery and aspect. Is there someplace a list of all the words he introduced?--LordGorval (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Some are here. It says there are some 2004 of them, so listing them all is no easy task. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]}

Just to point out that he didn't "introduce" them. As you say, and as it says in the article, they were already in frequent use in spoken English. Book printing was still very much in its infancy.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

...in Chaucer's time? not even in the womb.--Wetman (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

So perhaps there is a way to derive these Chaucer words from the Oxford English Dictionary by filtering using "Chaucer" online or offline?--LordGorval (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I had that thought, and tried OED Online (I have free access with my council library card), but couldn't see a way to search the citations. DuncanHill (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You can do this on the online OED, choose advanced search and search for Chaucer as "first cited author". This incidentally lists only 1977 words so it seems scholarship has found earlier citations for a few words. This figure is related to senses of words though, the verb herald is first recorded in Chaucer but the noun is earlier. meltBanana 15:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks MeltBanana, very helpful. DuncanHill (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You might try: Mersand, J. E. (1939). Chaucer's Romance Vocabulary. OCLC 351173

Tabulates the words Chaucer derived from the Romance languages, comparing his usage to that of his contemporaries, and generalizing about Chaucer's language, the chronology of his works, and his contributions to the development of English. Chaucer's vocabulary included about eight thousand words, about half of which are of Romance origin, nearly twice the percentage found in John Gower's English verse, and three times the percentage in Mandeville's Travels. Chaucer's use of Romance vocabulary parallels the "accepted chronology of his works": his use of such words increased steadily until late in his career when he began to abandon them, perhaps because he fell out of favor with the Gallic court. Appends various tables, including a list of Romance words introduced by Chaucer into English.

or another work from this bibliography.—eric 15:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Prince of Neuchâtel

When did the rulers of Neuchâtel became Princes because they were counts before that? Also what was the exact date when Frederick William IV of Prussia renounced his claim to the Principality of Neuchâtel.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

1531 says Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911. but in effect the County of Neuchâtel was ruled by a Prince. At the treaty of Vervins, 2 May 1598, the Comté de Neuchâtel participated as fully sovereign, along with the Louables Cantons of Switzerland. At the negotiations leading to the Treaty of Munster (part of the Treaty of Westphalia), Henri II d'Orléans, duc de Longueville, is invariably qualified Prince et comte souverain de Neuchâtel. (I get this from Googling Jonas Boyve, Annales historiques du Comté de Neuchâtel et Valangin depuis Jules-César ..., vol. ii, ch. ch. xv "De l'interrégne de 1707"): he is prince in his personalty and count of Neuchâtel. The county had first passed by inheritance to the princes Orléans-Longueville in 1504, but the Swiss cantons occupied Neuchâtel, 1512-1529, because Longueville was fighting on the French side against the cantons. The successful partisans in 1707 for the rights of Prussia through his mother, asserted to the contrary that feudal overlords were not the HRE but the house of Châlon-Orange, whose right passed, according to a marriage of 1515, to the allied house of Châlon-Orange, in 1530, the same year the Reformation was introduced at Neuchâtel.--Wetman (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Would that have made the Prince a "count palatine"? In England and Germany (as "Pfalzgraf") these refered to sovereign counts, or at least counts (or earls) with some sort of autonomy from the Crown. Perhaps a similar term existed in the francophone world as well? --Jayron32 01:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

France didn't really have palatinates. There was the County of Burgundy but that was more associated with the Empire than France. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Except Neuchâtel is in Switzerland, so was also imperial. The HRE contained francophone areas as well as German and Italian ones as well. By the late 16th century, the Swiss Confederation had withdrawn from Imperial control, so I have no idea how it treated counties palatine. --Jayron32 05:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that's true. Sorry, I was apparenly not paying attention... Adam Bishop (talk) 06:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Who did Nixon shove?

The episode "Access" of TV show The West Wing contains a mocumentary about the history of the White House Press Secretary's job; this contains a montage of real historical footage of various presidents and their secretaries and their interactions with the press. One very brief clip shows Richard Nixon (at around 0:05.15 into the show). In it Nixon is seen talking to a suited man, jabbing the man in the shoulder with his finger. Then Nixon grabs the man by both upper arms, spins him around, and pushes him away. It doesn't look like horseplay. I guess a president shoving someone like this would be a newsworthy event - can anyone tell me who the man was (I'm guessing a reporter) and what happened? A grab of the (grainy) footage is here (none of the other frames shown in the show are any clearer). The only thing I've found in Google is this thing about Nixon shoving an FBI agent, but that brief description doesn't match the outdoor setting of the clip. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 15:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It was his press secretary, Ron Ziegler. There was somewhat of a deal made of it at the time, but not too much of one, since Ziegler was Nixon's own employee. As I recall, it was seen more in a humorous light than anything. Unlike some other former press secretaries since, he did not write a book criticizing his former boss. In fact, he was a Nixon loyalist to the end. I looked for a youtube of that incident, but couldn't find one. Ziegler was the voice of some of the more famous sound bites connected with the Watergate scandal, including the term "third-rate burglary". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It happened on August 20, 1973 outside the Rivergate Convention Center in New Orleans where Nixon was going to address the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.[2]--Cam (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Good researching! Funny that the OP had the answer in his first sentence all along! TresÁrboles (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Neglected estate in England

Some years ago I saw a documentary about an estate of several houses somewhere in England or at least Britain. The houses had been left empty for many years. The administrator sold a house off every few years to pay costs, but argued that he could not do anything more constructive. The owners - I assume by inheritence - were traced to a trailer park in the US, where they refused to have anything to do with the estate, I assume for extreme religious or ethical reasons. Does anyone know where I can find out more about this? Thanks 89.243.76.202 (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Erddig in the north of Wales? The Wikipedia article gives no hint of its ruinous state in the 1960s, its heir from Australia and how it was eventually passed to the National Trust, with a happy ending. --Wetman (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The OP says "houses", plural, so I guess it is more of an estate is the sense of a housing estate than in the sense of a stately home and its grounds (although the latter do often have other houses on the grounds, so it is possible). --Tango (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The difference between a "house in the country"— however stately its style— and a country house is that the genuine "estate" includes the home farm and other farms round about. An estate in this only genuine sense supports a house through the produce of its multiple farms. Sell off too many bits round the edges, each with their houses or cottages, and you're left with a white elephant no one wants to cross oceans to be saddled with. --Wetman (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be an estate (house). BrainyBabe (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

In my view a misnamed article, as I said on its Talk page a week ago. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've completed the formal WP:RM procedure, incidentally. Tevildo (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Moonraker2 is correct.--Wetman (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I meant estate in the sense of land ownership and the estate of the deceased. I do not think it was a large country house, although I might not have seen the whole documentary. It was not a housing estate, but several detached houses in the countryside or perhaps semi-rural suburbs. It was more recent than the 1960s, probably 1990's or perhaps early 2000's. 78.147.229.52 (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for that clarification. I've tried some googling for it, but no luck. We haven't enough information to find it, really, unless someone happens to recognise the story and can provide more details. Sorry. --Tango (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this is what you're looking for - [3] Haploidavey (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

And this is the chap mentioned by the Torygraph - John Paget Figg-Hoblyn. DuncanHill (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, WP:WHAAOE strikes again! --Tango (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Bull's eye!--Wetman (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

That is an estate in the country house, sense, but otherwise fits perfectly, so I expect it is the one. Well found! --Tango (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's it, thanks. Why do American professors go wacko? Unabomber is another example. 92.29.80.215 (talk) 11:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Is that an entirely new question (in which case it should have a separate header), or does it have some connection to the foregoing that has escaped me? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The unwilling heir is an American professor. --Tango (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Possibly for the same reasons that professors from other countries go, as you say, wacko. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Your example was Canadian. 89.240.50.241 (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously using this guy and the Unabomber to judge all American professors?! Dismas|^(talk) 02:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Especially since it would be more accurate to describe the Unabomber as a crazy person who happened to be an assistant professor for two years rather than a professor who went wacko. - Nunh-huh 07:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

January 17

Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky

They are possibly the greatest writers of the past few centuries, but did they knew each other and what did they think of each other? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.244.145.186 (talk) 04:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I have heard this superlative applied to Tolstoy once too often lately and I have to object. What exactly is the point of declaring him to be the greatest author? Does that make his books twice as enjoyable to read? Shall we dispense with lesser authors entirely? Really, it strikes me as folly to talk of the best anything. If you liked reading him, well that's super. Let's just leave it at that though. Vranak (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Please either answer the question, or don't. OPs are allowed opinions - we aren't! --Tango (talk) 05:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not fully understand this desire to keep the desk as robotic as possible. Vranak (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobody wants it to be robotic. But you seem to be deliberately derailing a question before any kind of useful answer was given. That is disruptive and inappropriate. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I do apologize, though my comment does not prohibit anyone else from giving their answer. The question is not really derailed. Vranak (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Vranak, the OP never declared Tolstoy to be the greatest author. Possibly people who hold that opinion are not as fanatical as you may suppose. Definitely your mocking questions are rude and unfit responses. IMHO the OP uses the word possibly responsibly as a qualifier when reporting an opinion without demanding that anyone share it. The OP is not responsible for whatever you have heard lately. For some reason you felt compelled to rant "it strikes me as folly to talk of the best anything" and after having thereby called the OP's post "folly" you ask us to "leave it at that". No to that. I agree with Mr.98. I suggest you do the same. That would be better than offering an uncertain apology (to whom? for what?). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Cuddly I was in no way mocking the original poster -- my questions were in earnest. You seem to have inferred a poor attitude where none exists. It's ok though. :) Vranak (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Forgetting the OP's debatable editorial comment, the rest of it seems to be a couple of reasonable questions. Might take some research, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

And in the Dostoyevsky article, under "Works and influence", it has some discussion about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Dostoyevski thought Tolstoy was the greatest writer of his day, or at least the greatest Russian, and at any rate thought himself beneath his very great compatriot. I would have to disagree, though I have only read one of Dostoyevski's novels, and none of Tolstoy's (I couldn't get through Anna Karenina) It's been emotional (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Iqbal poem

I am looking for a poem by Muhammad Iqbal. All I know about it is that it was one of his last poems and contains the verse: "Your prayer is that your destiny be changed; my prayer is that you yourself be changed." I do not know if the poem was in Persian or Urdu. If the poem is in Persian I would prefer an English translation and if the poem is in Urdu the original version. Does someone know where I could find it? Thanks-Shahab (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This may be it in Urdu here (see the last two lines). --Cam (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Henry O Studley obituary in the Quincy Patriot-Ledger

I am looking for a way to get access to the obituary referenced in the Henry O Studley article. The Patriot Ledger website doesn't seem to grant access to old articles (ca. 1925). Is my only option to drive to a library in the area? Surely someone must have access to this information.

Does anyone know of a good source for this sort of information? Is there an obituary archive somewhere on the web? I have tried google searching, but always just end up re-reading the text written by myself and my fellow wikipedia editors.

Any info would be greatly appreciated! Thanks, CoolMike (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, nothing new - I'm also caught in the Wiki-loop but you might try a personal email to the Patriot Ledger, addressed to the proprietor for forwarding to the archivist. These might well be one and the same person but most archivists respond very positively to such inquiries - leastways, they've done so for me. Good luck with it. Haploidavey (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the obituary you are looking for, but it does contain some more biographical information for the article. (Abbie E., born in Quincy, February 14, 1844, married Henry O. Studley.) I hope this helps JW..[ T..C ] 19:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I will look into that biographical reference. Will try contacting local libraries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolMike (talk • contribs) 23:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Questions about "counterfeits"

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

---

This is soapboxing by a banned user, please don't respond further. I've left the third question which is under a seperate subheading as the OP for that one is I'm pretty sure a different user Nil Einne (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

allowing counterfeit products and services to be listed

I have two somewhat unrelated questions about counterfeiting, the second about an extension of the term's application, so I'll ask only the first one now. This is a general question about logical thinking and not a legal question or a question about the law.

There appears to be no deadline for the time when printed money is determined to be counterfeit and when that money is acquired. In other words counterfeit is a permanent condition. However, while counterfeit products and services deemed counterfeit by the manufacturer may be deemed counterfeit at any time certain purchase protection plans do not recognize the manufacture's unlimited designation period but set a limit on protection of purchase to include a counterfeit item, even if they are a subsidiary of the advertising agency that claims they do not allow counterfeit products of services to be listed and sold, without rendering such claim to be false? 171.100.14.125 (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The question is, what? Bus stop (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Does an advertising agency make a false claim that it does not list or allow items which are counterfeit to be sold if it allows an item designated to be counterfeit by the manufacturer past the deadline of the agency's subsidiary buyer protection plan to be unprotected against such listing and sale? 171.100.14.125 (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This is clearly 71.100.1.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been asking essentially the same question all month, and is deaf to the many "we're not your lawyer" replies he's got. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Even so it makes no sense why you refuse to answer the question unless you are working for said agency and/or its subsidiary. 171.100.14.125 (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The reference desk rules are clear; they're written at the top. It says "The reference desk does not answer (and will probably remove) requests for medical or legal advice." You've been told this repeatedly. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 19:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

And 71.100.3.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 19:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

...kind of obvious that you have an alternative motive. 171.100.14.125 (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

And again this is not a legal question but a logical question about logical thinking unrelated to the law. 171.100.14.125 (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

There are at least 3 questions here that are basically the same and are basically bait for an argument. Should we zap them all? Or is the talk page discussion on these things "just talk"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll negate any chance of an argument by stating that from this point that I am satisfied that the advertisers claim of not listing or selling counterfeit products or services is invalidated by its subsidiary's buyer protection plan not covering the time in which the product or service can be found to be counterfeit by the manufacturer. 171.100.14.125 (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

counterfeiting genes

It seems to me that God or Nature created not only every gene and the nucleotides of which they are made God or Nature also created the molecular compounds of which the nucleotides are made as well as the atoms of each molecule and the particles of which each atom are made as well as the forces which bind them. Thus if when man alters anything God or Nature has created does God or Nature or other men have a right to claim that those altered components are counterfeit? 171.100.14.125 (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You're asking whether God has a right to claim something? Or whether Nature has a right to claim something? Just think about your question a little longer. That's all I'll say.

As for other men, do they have a right to claim that those altered components are counterfeit? Well, I suppose people can claim any damn thing they like, no matter how absurd it is. But really, did you ever refuse to eat a meal on the basis it was "counterfeit", because the order of the molecules had been unacceptably altered from the way the ingredients occurred in nature? No, I thought not. Humans for some baffling reason have not been given the power to do things without disturbing the order of molecules. A terrible oversight, that. I must talk to God about it. Or Mother Nature. People in irreversible comas are still breathing, and disturbing the order of the molecules in the air they breathe. Is the CO2 they exhale "counterfeit"? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

God does have Earth bound representative in the form of churches and as for nature you, yourself probably are subject to some type of natural drive. As for refusing to eat a meal, yes many people have refused to eat at Toco Bell for instance when it was discovered that GM corn meal designated only for animals had contaminated their Toco Bell products, specifically to avoid comma and death, caused by such products. 171.100.14.125 (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what it is. Eat anything, and what comes out the other end? Is it real shit, or just counterfeit shit? Whatever it is, the molecules are certainly not in the same order as they went in. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Dead people who die from allergic reaction to counterfeit genes can't eat as I recollect. 171.100.14.125 (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Tell me more about this "Toco Bell" situation. I've eaten at Taco Bell, but fortunately never at "Toco Bell". Which reminds me - just by cooking something, you're altering its nature. And by domesticating plants and animals, you're doing artificial (i.e. not natural) selection. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

These things are approved in the Bible are they not? ...whereas GM, well I don't see it and yes Toco is a misspelling. 171.100.14.125 (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The Bible is silent on genetics, because no one knew anything about it until roughly the late 19th century. Similarly silent on things like microbes, which no one knew about until the invention of the microscope. Man does not have dominion over the earth, microbes do. But the authors of the Old Testament had no way to know that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

How synchronistic that Glen Bell, the founder of Taco Bell, died yesterday. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, the OP is obviously just trying to foment an argument. Do we take this to the talk page, or zap it here and now? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC) ?

Since my position is neutral and at worst Devil's, God's or Nature's advocate now I'm wondering about the legitimacy of your motives. 171.100.14.125 (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Your question is not neutral. It starts with a questionable premise, and proceeds to ask leading questions based on that premise. Everything man has ever invented started out "made by God", or by "Nature", or whatever metaphor you want to use. Man makes tools. Man changes his environment to suit him. It's man's own nature to do that. Tinkering with genetics, be it through conventional breeding or laboratory-based gene modification, either way it's changing something "made by God". And people and companies who invent things have the legal right to some benefit from those inventions. If they didn't, no one would ever invent anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Including counterfeiters? 171.100.14.125 (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

By definition, counterfeiters do not invent anything. They simply copy existing artifacts, and palm them off as originals in order to make a profit. I'm sure you know this. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's pretend you are asking about how this would be treated under U.S. patent law, in relation to the other question about gene patenting.

U.S. patent law does not let you patent things that are made in nature. You cannot patent an walnut that you find. However, you can patent methods of using walnuts, and if you genetically engineer a walnut to be different than it appears naturally, you can patent that. In fact, if you come up with a new cultivar of walnut, you can also get a quasi-patent protection on that as well, even though in such a case you are really just waiting for a "natural" mutation to show up that you can exploit.

So this is all pretty standard ground... except when you get to gene patenting. As discussed above, this gets into weird territory, because you can patent genes that are "natural" if you discover them and what their function is. Or maybe you can't patent them... the courts have not yet ruled. This gets into a fine legal and ethical distinction—is finding out the purpose of a gene like finding an walnut? Or is it like coming up with a method for using walnuts? Or... what? That's one of the host intellectual property law questions of the day... in a nutshell (cue rim shot). To be sure, in general, intellectual property requires that a human being exert some kind of creative agency — something created "by nature" normally wouldn't be considered a candidate for exclusive intellectual property ownership (you can own the walnut, but not all rights to all walnuts). However there are exceptions and fine lines. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

But I'm not asking a question here about gene patenting because logic and law are not one in the same. While law can be completely unlogical, logic is used to show that. The purpose here is not to do either but to clarify whether or not there is consistency of term application. The purpose here is to explore and determine whether counterfeit money for instance and counterfeit genes are consistent in use of the term. In other words do they fit the same criteria for the meaning of the word counterfeit? 171.100.14.125 (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Your basic premise is flawed. A counterfeit is something that is presented as one thing but is actually something else. A counterfeit bill, for example. The only way a gene could be "counterfeit" is if it's not really a gene. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You are misapplying my use of the term in reference to the control context of money. If I say counterfeit socks in the context of counterfeit money then I'm referring to the right to manufacture or sell the socks. Presenting the socks as gloves has nothing to do with the context I'm using. 171.100.14.125 (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Restate what you mean by a "counterfeit" gene. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure you are understanding what counterfeiting is all about. You manufacture something cheaply and pass it off as something valuable. What you're talking about is tampering. Anyway God may have created every little nucleotide but he also gave us the means to tinker with them. In his infinite wisdom surely God would not give us tools if He did not wish us to use them. Vranak (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The most important (and most dangerous) tool God, Nature, etc., gave us was a Big Brain, which enables us to figure things out and invent things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

In the words of Galileo Galilei: "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use." TomorrowTime (talk) 09:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ever hear of good versus evil?

Due to the premature archiving of the discussion on the meaning of counterfeit I was not able to get back in time to restate what I mean by counterfeit genes or to respond to the last few comments so I am posting it here.

Just because God has given man a big brain does not mean that he gave us one incapable of committing evil. Creating counterfeit genes, i.e., genes which produce an end product indistinguishable from the original except by extraordinary means follows the definition of counterfeit as it is applied to money, i.e., a gene created by man, not God.

171.100.14.125 (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not a question, and so is inappropriate for the Reference Desk. Marnanel (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, as I expected! The purpose for premature archiving is to censor further comment undesired by the premature archiver! What lowly evil cowards counterfeit supporters are!171.100.14.125 (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, as I expected! The IP is a troll. I'm just not sure if it's a real troll, or a counterfeit troll. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No no, you don't understand, he's being oppressed. Come see the violence inherent in the system! TomorrowTime (talk) 06:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Is counterfeit items a social construct

Consider this, a factory under licence by company X makes genuine widget Y. Then later the same factory using the same raw material makes unlicenced counterfeit widget Y. So does that mean that counterfeit items could be nothing more than a social construct? 139.130.1.226 (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's an analogy. Is user 139.130.1.226 a construct of 171.100.14.125, or vice versa? Which is genuine, and which the counterfeit? Think about it. Haploidavey (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The ISP's are on opposite sides of the globe, which doesn't prove anything. The original question started out making sense until the last sentence. What is that supposed to mean? Is he asking whether people and companies should have the right to rip other people and companies off? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure. It seems to suggest that things which seem the same and have identical functions are not necessarily the same. Some are lawfully made and sold, others are not. The difference between them is a matter of law; and law is of course a social construct. OK, though I'm not sure at all why it's "nothing more" than that; perhaps it's an invitation to debate. I don't know whether the different IPs are different posters or not but their questions on legitimacy are essentially the same. That's why I invited the poster to "think about it". Haploidavey (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This question, like the other one, does indeed seem to be trying to start an argument, and as usual, the regulars may talk big about deleting frivolous stuff, but when push comes to shove, they won't do it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The notion of counterfeiting not just could be, but always is, a social construct, and we don't need a contrived example to see that. Suppose that company X makes genuine widget Y, and company Z makes counterfeit widget Y. What's wrong with the widgets that company Z makes? They're actual widgets, so they're not fake in that respect. No, they're fake - counterfeit - because they pretend to be something that they are not, namely, genuine widget Y. Even if they are of equal or better quality than the original, they still play upon our credulity through their deception. John M Baker (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. 171.100.14.125 (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Well yes of course the notion of 'counterfeit goods' is social construct. The question is, is it a construct that serves a useful purpose or is it just red tape. For a counterfeiter it's red tape. For everyone else it's a violation of social norms, decency, honorableness, you name it. Vranak (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have an idea. How about making an honest living, OP: it does great things for your mental state. Or, if you don't, because you're telling your customers that something isn't what it is -- or you're conveniently omitting certain information (this is commonly known as "lying" or telling a "half-truth" at best), try not to rationalize it. That's your answer, it's the right one, and I believe you and I both known it. Any more questions about the legality or moral legitimacy of counterfeiting? Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The idea of a "counterfeit" requires an idea of "veracity" in the first place. This is certainly a social construct. (Benjamin's The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction points this out wonderfully in a round-about way—why do we consider the "original" work of art to be more highly valued than the "copy", even if the two are identical? What are the implications for "art" in an age where perfect copies are possible?) But calling it a "social construct" does not mean it is unimportant—laws are, by definition, social constructs. Crime itself is a social construct. That doesn't make its consequences any less "real". Calling something a "social construct" does not really diminish its importance or strength, because human lives are, by the large, social constructs. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless that mechanical reproduction also duplicates the brush strokes in the painting, it's not an exact replica. There's more to a painting than the scene it's portraying. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Benjamin was referring to photography in particular. "Original" photographs created by an author are far more prized than the millions of derivative copies, for example, even though they can be physically indistinguishable. Theoretically a good forger could make paintings that were indistinguishable from originals, as well, yet we would value this considerably less, even if the artwork was completely identical. That's kind of what the article is about, in a sense—questioning what it is about authentic "originals" that holds all of their value. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The question is quite silly if it is aiming toward justifying counterfeiting. Counterfeiting is a social construct, but so is money, and so is the idea that producers of goods ought to be compensated. If you are going to try to justify counterfeiting by dismissing the idea as a "social construct", then all these other things would have to be dismissed, too, if you're going to be logically consistent. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Death rates in prisons

What is the death rates for adult males serving a prison sentence in a UK prison, compared with the rate for adult males in the general population�81.109.63.4 (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

As Myron Cohen mentioned in one of his stories, the death rate is "one to a person". :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The best I can find so far is a study from 2005 which looked at all prisoner deaths in England and Wales from 1978 - 1997. It's freely available to read here. It has the rather sad sentence "The mean age of death from all causes for male prisoners was 38.4 years (range 15–91, standard deviation = 14.7). For natural deaths, it was 47.5 years (range 16–91, 14.4)." But then it tries to adjust for the typical age of prisoners (they tend to be younger than the general population), and gives us these key points:

• There is uncertainty over whether rates for natural causes of deaths in male prisoners differ from age-standardised general population data.
• We investigated SMRs for natural deaths in male prisoners in England and Wales over 20 years.
• For all natural deaths combined, SMRs were significantly lower in male prisoners.
• For specific causes of death, SMRs were significantly increased in male prisoners for infectious diseases and respiratory pneumonia.
• These findings highlight the need for the screening and effective treatment of infectious diseases in prisoners.

(Direct quote, emphasis mine. Note it only talks about deaths by natural causes) Whether the situation today is the same as it was over those 20 years, I cannot say. For example, piecing together various sources, it looks like the suicide rate in prisons in England and Wales has been increasing since the 1970s, whereas Scotland has managed to reduce it recently (particularly in younger prisoners). 86.178.229.168 (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

More, this time with bonus hard numbers. The Office for National Statistics [4] kindly uploads quite a lot of statistics about the makeup of the population. For example, in 2008 the overall death rate for all males in England and Wales, per 1000 population, was 9.1, but this includes children. (Table 11, Main Tables section [5]) This is also not age standardised, which much of the data is. Lots of raw data there for you to calculate a more specific rate. I'm struggling to find raw data on deaths in UK prisons, and it's complicated by the split between "England and Wales" and "Scotland" (not to mention Northern Ireland): I doubt you'll easily find the data for UK prisons (or even the UK population) as a whole.

Ah, this paper says "This study explores the mortality rates of a six-year cohort of male probationers (1990-1995) with males in the general population. Male offenders (aged 17-54) had double the death rate, five times the 'external death' rate and nine times the suicide rate of the general population." (emphasis mine) But that's men on probation, not in prison. This article says "Prisoners and community offenders were found to be reasonably similar in vulnerability to suicide/self-inflicted death; however, the risk of accidental death and homicide was greater for community offenders, and drugs and alcohol played a bigger part in their deaths." looking at a similar time period: this paper doesn't seem to be freely available anywhere, so I can't skim it for numbers.

It's quite difficult to find the basic numbers: lots of sources want to tell me about the suicide rate (much higher in prison) or drugs-related deaths. 86.178.229.168 (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's stats on self-inflicted deaths per annum in England & Wales prisons. (Scotland and Northern Ireland have separate prison services from England & Wales.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

January 18

Situation in Haiti

I'm really thinking about leaving my job for a week and traveling to Haiti; I'm watching CBS News, and everyone keeps saying something should be done. I also heard on the news that they need manpower more than anything. Is this true? If not, I'm not going to look for a way to go, but if so, I will go if I can find a trip in my area. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

What they probably will need is men and money. If I were you, I would start by calling my local Red Cross chapter. I have a hunch they could point you to some reputable, legitimate assistance agencies who could tell you what's needed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That is a very good idea; additionally, even some of the millions of dollars being thrown at this might be able to pay for the trip that way... maybe. Thanks Baseball Bugs. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The reason I emphasize "reputable" is especially for anyone who intends to donate money, as phony donation-accepting websites and such always pop up when disasters happen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I've heard charitable organizations are discouraging people from trying to go to Haiti unless they are with the military or a search and rescue team or something like that. They say donating money is the best thing you can do right now. The problem in Haiti is not a lack of manpower per se -- it's a logistical issue with getting all of the people who want to come and all of the supplies they're bringing into the affected areas. The airport there is overloaded with flights, and the only alternative is to fly into Santo Domingo and drive 12 hours on winding, narrow roads from there. (The sea port is inoperable.) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Note there will be a telethon for Haiti on all the major North American networks on Friday. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The company I work for is soliciting donations from employees. I would guess that's happening in a lot of companies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, contact your local Red Cross chapter. I doubt you could be much help in Haiti unless you have some useful expertise, but if you tell the Red Cross you would like to donate your time I'm sure they'll find something for you to do - perhaps you could help fundraise in your home country? --Tango (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You probably can't help much by trying to get there. Even many experts can't get in. (Though politicians and media seem to have no problem, as always.) This weekend, an 80-person search-and-rescue team from Ohio, with two planes full of supplies and equipment, was told to stay home because of logistical difficulties in Haiti. Donate money now; if you want to help in person, they'll need assistance there for years to come, long after the story fades from the headlines. —Kevin Myers 05:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you really think that you have enough skills (manpower, language, otherwise) to recoup the travel expenses that you will spend getting there? So let's assume it costs $1k round-trip to get there and back. Will you produce $1k of good over and above what someone who is already there (or is a native Haitian) will do? Because otherwise, why not just donate the travel expenses and let those already there do the actual work.--droptone (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to pontificate, but as Kevin Myers pointed out, Haiti will still need lots of help in the years following the aftermath of the earthquake. One of the most impoverished nations on Earth...one media commentator said a new Marshall Plan was needed for Haiti post-recovery...perhaps the greatest humanitarian challenge will be to help Haiti and the bottom run of the underdeveloped countries achieve a higher Human Development Index within the next few decades --达伟 (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I would love to hook up with a company tasked with restoring the electric grid over the coming months. Edison (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Like to set up a nice DC power grid Edison? Googlemeister (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

For the downtown, I would vote for a nice 120 volt or 480 volt networked secondary grid with multiple feeders from redundant substations. Such a system could operate without an interruption for decades, and could be self clearing when there was a cable fault. That assumes it was properly maintained, not always the case in large U.S. cities. This provides about the same reliability as a DC grid with backup storage batteries 100 years ago in the U.S. Next best would be automatic throwover installations at hospitals, government building and public works, which provide automatic restoration of power after a few seconds of outage on the normal feed. Edison (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

...thereby supplying some of the poorest people on Earth with a DC supply that will burn up their few AC-only appliances, i.e. anything with a power transformer or a synchronous motor e.g. clocks, and that cannot be distributed efficiently over a large area without excessively thick cables... ? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I either heard on tv or read online somewhere that recent aid thinkinmg is that the best thing to do after the first few days is to simply give the locals money. For example building houses for people caught up in the tsunami was not as good as giving people money to build their own houses. The people given money to build houses were happier with them, and the money gave employment to the builders and helped build up and restore the local economy. And I agree that it would not help to go out there as an unskilled person - you would be mlore of a burden than an asset, and get in the way. Better to donate your air fare to a reputable charity. 92.24.114.231 (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Flag of Australia with Aboriginal flag replacing Union flag.svg

Is the File:Flag of Australia with Aboriginal flag replacing Union flag.svg legal under Australian copyright law? --84.61.165.65 (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't give legal advice on here, and this isn't the place to hold discussions over whether images on Wikipedia or Commons conform with its copyright policies. Don't come looking to us as a way of overruling decisions you aren't happy with on here or on Commons. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the answer, but US law says nothing about this, so it could probably be uploaded to en.wikipedia.org (instead of Commons) and not get deleted deleted on that basis. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe, maybe not. It might be copyrighted some individual. In any case, this user has been trying to get it deleted, as far as I can tell, and on Commons they decided against deleting it. I think that's really all that's at issue, here. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed above. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, 84.61.165.65 nominated it for deletion, and it's probably going to be deleted in the end, but 84.61.165.65 has issued a flood of pointless irrelevant queries and abrupt ultimatums which have not helped clarify any issues or move the deletion discusion along... AnonMoos (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with moderate inflation?

A lot of people and governments are in debt. A modest regulated inflation rate of say 10% for a few years would stimulate the economy due to increased borrowing for business growth because borrowers can see that they will not be burdened with debt forever - inflation will gradually decrease it. In other words the real inflation rate will be low, perhaps even negative. Consumers will go out and spend. So whats wrong with moderate regulated inflation? 89.240.50.241 (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you want to discuss moderate inflation, or a 10% rate of inflation? I do not think the two are the same. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the 2.5% target for inflation in the UK, for example, is that in most peoples minds its the same as 0%. And it is just a knife-edge away from deflation, as we are currently seeing. I'm also wondering how the Bank Of England is going to revive the economy when its also required to keep inflation at virtually zero. 89.240.50.241 (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I dunno; I think you're imagined people are being a bit insensitive here ... 2.5% never seemed that near to deflation until we most recent financial collapse, and I tend to think you're confusing a once in two generations cataclysm with business as usual, which is probably not a very useful thing to do. Put another way, I think there is a gulf between 2.5% and 0% which requires a large shock before it precipitates. Here's what the Bank of Canada has to say about the benefits of low inflation and the perils of high- and I really think that 10% is (albeit at the low end of) high.

The BoE has a difficult task, for sure. But I do not see that it is more difficult to grow the economy with a 2.5% to 4% target band, than it would be to revive it with a 10% or greater target; and my reading of the linked article suggests that all other things being equal, it will be easier to do with low inflation targets than with high inflation targets, unless one wishes to cause further boom & bust down the line. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, the UK target is 2%, not 2.5%, but that isn't very important. 2% is generally considered to be "moderate inflation", 10% is "high inflation". High inflation won't increase borrowing because interest rates would increase to compensate. Existing debt (with a fixed interest rate) would decrease in real value, which would help sort out government debt, but new debt would just have high interest rates so inflation would make no difference. You have to remember that inflation doesn't create wealth, it just moves it around a bit. Yes, government debt would go down in real terms, but only because the value of everyone's investment portfolios (which includes people's pension schemes) would also go down in real terms. Inflation is often described as a tax on holding money - high inflation can have all the same downsides as high taxes. Another problem with high inflation is that it has a tendency to become higher - you get an inflationary spiral which leads to hyperinflation, which is extremely damaging to an economy. --Tango (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The big drawback of low inflation is that it encourages people just to save money, and the economy stagnates. With higher levels of inflation people get off their backsides and look for ways to create wealth, which creates a higher standard of living for them and for society as a whole. As mentioned above, the potential wealth-creators are not put off by being lumbered with debts which never diminish. 78.146.100.48 (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That cuts both ways. You could equally argue that high inflation makes saving pointless, so encourages people not to bother working, live off inflation-adjusted social security and help pitch their country into an even greater financial black hole. --Dweller (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

High inflation means people spend their money, boosting the economy. Low inflation means that the rich do not bother working. 78.151.106.238 (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The danger from deflation, IMHO, is exaggerated. For example, the world has experienced massive deflation in consumer electronics for decades (the average price of a home computer has hovered around $1,000 since the 1970s yet the capabilities have continually grown -- hence, the price-per-capability has been falling steadily). Consumer demand for home electronics has grown and the industry has been one of the healthiest. Wikiant (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The price per capability may have gone down, but the required level of capability has been going up. In 1995, a large program might take 100-200 MB of hard drive space. Now there are a great deal of programs that take 10x that amount. Processor and memory requirements have also gone up. Googlemeister (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The change in requirements is irrelevant. It is like saying that the price of food has gone up because you are eating more. Inflation is a measure of the change in the price per unit, not the change in the total amount spent. Wikiant (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure you can use computers getting cheaper as an argument for deflation. Technology becomes cheaper because more efficient processes to make them are developed, that is certainly "good" deflation of price. For an economy as a whole, deflation usually signifies a stagnated or shrinking economy. That can lead to a deflationary spiral. That's "bad" deflation, and as I understand can be very tricky for governments to get out of, as demonstrated during the great depression and Japan's Lost Decade. TastyCakes (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Then the evil you fear is not inflation but the phenomenon that *caused* the inflation. The OP asked "what's wrong with inflation." The answer is still, "nothing." What's (possibly) wrong is the thing that caused the inflation. Wikiant (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree for deflation - it is usually symptomatic of problems that aren't immediately clear. But inflation seems a little more direct and easier for people to wrap their heads around (their money is worth less!). I agree though, inflation is a problem for people on a personal level only if their income and/or savings aren't increasing at the same rate of inflation. If inflation is running at 10% but your wages or your nest egg are increasing at 20%, there's nothing really wrong with inflation. That's probably the situation many Chinese are in at the moment. But if inflation is at 10% and your wages and savings are only growing at 5%, inflation is bad. TastyCakes (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Even here, the problem isn't inflation, but *unexpected* inflation. For example, if inflation were always and will always be 10%, everyone would (correctly) incorporate the price growth into their decision making. All rental contracts would include a minimum 10% price increase clause. All banks would pay a minimum of 10% interest. All wage contracts would include a minimum 10% annual adjustment. The problem comes when inflation is unexpected. Then, people find themselves locked into contracts that they would not have signed had they known what inflation was truly going to be. The problem in this case is not inflation but uncertainty. Wikiant (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Low inflation suits the rich - they can just live off their money. Their money keeps its value. The rich do not want any inflation, because then they'd have to work like the rest of us. Low inflation keeps the rich rich and the poor poor. 78.151.106.238 (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really, because the rich can invest their money at a higher return rate when there is more inflation, and do not really suffer, whereas, inflation is not as likely to raise Joe Workers wages to the same extent. Googlemeister (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

So you say. 78.151.106.238 (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Meaning The rich get richer and the poor get poorer? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor is what we've seen recently. 78.151.106.238 (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that's money illusion. The higher nominal interest rate compensates for inflation so the real interest rate is (in theory) unchanged. BTW, at least in the United States, the proverb that "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is not necessarily true. According to the Statistical Abstract of the United States (published by the Bureau of the Census), since 1980 the percentage of households earning less than $75,000 (after adjusting for inflation) has been steadily shrinking while the number earning above $75,000 has been steadily growing. It is generally true that the richer get richer faster than the poor get richer, but the poor do not (on average) get poorer. Wikiant (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I recall from the news more than once that the poor had in fact been getting poorer in the US in the last few years. The results must vary with where you choose to put the cut-off level and your time-scale. "Lies, Dammned Lies, and Statistics" as Gladstone once said. 78.151.106.238 (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It is possible that it is a matter of defining "the poor", however, many of the citations on income disparity are based on the gini coefficient, which measures the disparity in income between the rich and the poor. The problem is that gini is frequently misrepresented -- increasing *disparity* in incomes doesn't necessarily mean that the poor are getting poorer, just that they aren't getting richer as fast as the rich are getting richer. Wikiant (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It is still a disparity if for example the poor got 1% wealthier and the rich got 100% wealthier. 78.149.139.201 (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest to 78.151 that the poor tend to get stuffed irrespective of the prevailing rate of inflation. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics is usually attributed to Gladstone's arch-nemesis Benjamin Disraeli. Its first appearance was in Mark Twain's Autobiography (vol. 1, p. 246), which was published 14 years after Twain's death and 43 years after Disraeli's death, so it's probably in the same camp as Oscar Wilde's supposed claim I have nothing to declare but my genius, of which no contemporary record exists. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

January 19

Financial Time's article emailing

The FT recently installed a warning message on its articles: "Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web." Is this type of warning now common in online media? Do governments generally support such policies? Have readers made any major reaction to this practice? --达伟 (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

There is some comment on this in the blogosphere (ie [6] and others). It seems to be mainly reminding readers of their obligations under the FT Copyright T&Cs not to bypass their soft-paywall and cough up the cash for viewing articles instead of having them emailed around the world for everyone to read without the FT getting their ad clicks. Since the NY Times are mooting the same sort of soft-paywall, their articles may have the same thing soon. Nanonic (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no reference on this, but I don't think it's new; this sort of warning was more common on newspaper and magazine websites, if memory serves, a decade ago when the Web was newer. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Voltaire quotation

As the original will have been in French, and it is the French that I am seeking, I am not sure if this question is for this Ref Desk or for the Language one. I will start here. Where can I find the original of the the quote attributed to Voltaire: "The secret of being a bore is to tell everything"? The name of the book where it is found and a page reference would be wonderful, but even just the name of the book will do, along with the actual form of the quotation in the original. Thanks. Bielle (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Le secret d'ennuyer est celui de tout dire., in Sixième discours: sur la nature de l'homme, in Sept Discours en Vers sur l'Homme (1738). Source. Marnanel (talk) 05:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup, Marnanel! Bielle (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Targino-Flensburg

In the article House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg it says With the death of Duke Albert the Augustenburg line became extinct. The sub-branches of Targino-Flensburg became pretenders. What was the Targino-Flensburg sub-branch? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This has some information, though it's in Spanish. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hm. Maybe it's Portuguese. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, definitely Portuguese; Spanish doesn't have combinations such as "ção", which appear in this text. Nyttend (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, it's just a fork of the Portuguese Wikipedia page on the topic. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Will without living beneficiaries

In most US states, what happens if all the beneficiaries of a will die before the testator — does the testator effectively die intestate, or does the estate somehow get divided among the beneficiaries' beneficiaries by operation of law? Nyttend (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Reference Desk cannot give legal advice. As a point of information, the answer appears to depend on what it says in the will. This question was asked and discussed with relation to Ohio on an external website here, where it was suggested the testator would be treated as intestate unless they had provided for the possibility that their heirs would predecease them (by naming a charity in their will as the beneficiary of last resort, for example). The answer will depend on the jurisdiction you are in and the exact wording of the will, and a legal professional should be consulted if advice is required. Karenjc 18:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm very well aware that we don't give legal advice; I'm simply curious what happens. If I'd wanted legal advice, I would have asked about a specific state. Nyttend (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I know, and I do appreciate the distinction between a request for information and one for advice, but if I hadn't said it someone would quite probably have removed my attempted answer and slapped a "no legal advice" template on the question. It's an interesting hypothetical question, though, and I wonder how often it happens out there in Realworldland. Karenjc 20:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

In UK, it wouldnt pass by operation of law to the b's bs unless the will so directed. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think a professionally written will would contain instructions for what to do in those circumstances. If the will didn't include such instructions, then the statutes of the country in question will say what to do. What that is will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. --Tango (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Will for people not yet born

Along the lines of above, is it possible to leave things to people that haven't been born yet in a will? For example, I want X % to go to my first Great Great Great grandchild? TastyCakes (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

As above, this may be incorrect in some states / territories / jurisdications, but I think the usual way to do this is to will the money to a trust which is administered by some trusted relative or entity (like a law firm), and the trust is set up with rules saying something like: "This money is to be invested in the common stock of the IBM Corporation, or its successor. US$5,000 of this common stock per year shall be sold and given to the law firm running this trust as compensation for running the trust and identifying my descendants. Once my first great-great-great grandchild is born, that individual gets all remaining money". Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

In UK one would have to specify a bit more in order to avoid the "Rule Against Perpetuities". Namely The trust will terminate in favour of (whomever) on the first (or last) occurence of the following events, namely the passing of eighty years from the date of this deed, the birth of my first great great great grandchild, or twenty one years from the date of my death. Because as a matter of public policy a trust cannot be created which is capable of rolling on for an excessive period. Throughout that time, the trustees will be taxed through the nose. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

We've an article on that — Rule against perpetuities. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Confused about this rule — would this rule prohibit a situation in which a beneficiary can have an inheritance revoked for a specific reason some time after getting the inheritance? I'm thinking of a Bugs Bunny cartoon in which Elmer Fudd inherits a million dollars under the condition that he not harm any animals (especially rabbits!) but eventually loses the money (minus the $999,999.97 inheritance tax) because he loses his patience with Bugs. Nyttend (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Who owns who

I've been trying to find an article or website which will tell me the country of ownership of the UK FTSE 100 companies - I'm sure I heard there was one recently but can't find it. Can someone point me in the right direction please? --TammyMoet (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You might have to clarify what you mean by the country of ownership. All are PLCs with shareholdings owned by multiple entities, most likely in disparate parts of the globe. Some will, for all I know, be Dual-listed companies. Where they are domiciled for tax purposes may also vary, and may head office location. So, as I say, some clarification would help. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I'm aware of the complexities. A little background: this was sparked by the takeover of Cadbury's by Kraft, and the response of one of the BBC's economic reporters to the comment that there are no British-owned companies anymore. He said that most of the FTSE Top 100 companies were, in fact, British. I'm looking for the detail behind this, and have had no luck on the BBCs website. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

What you need is Who Owns Whom, I think. Marnanel (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Note the correct usage of the pronoun whom. "Owner(s)" in this question means major stock holder(s). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

According to FTSE 100 Index, the largest companies on the FTSE index are: BP, HSBC Holdings, the Vodafone Group, GlaxoSmithKline, and Royal Dutch Shell. If I make no mistake, all of these except Shell are British companies; Shell is split between Britain and the Netherlands. Marnanel (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

They are British companies in the sense that they are registered in Britain. They aren't necessarily owned by British people/companies. They are all public companies and will likely have thousands of shareholders. --Tango (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

HSBC means "Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation" merged with the Midland Bank earlier this century, and has its head office here. Thanks for the pointer to Who Owns Whom by the way. I agree it's difficult when talking about publicly listed companies to give a country of ownership, but there's still a notion of nationality regarding companies which I'd like to explore. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The Duke of Norfolk's Case

Someone mentioned the article Rule against perpetuities above. That article says, about the Duke of Norfolk's case (on which we have no article):

That case concerned Henry, 22nd Earl of Arundel (later the Duke of Norfolk), who had tried to create a shifting executory limitation so that one of his titles would pass to his eldest son (who was mentally deficient) and then to his second son, and another title would pass to his second son, but then to his fourth son. The estate plan also included provisions for shifting the titles many generations later, if certain conditions should occur.

I was under the impression that the passage of peerage titles was controlled by the terms of the letters patent granting the peerage, rather than by the terms of the will of the person who happened to hold it. Is this not so? Marnanel (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely you are right. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You are right. The article probably means Title (property), not the titles that come from peerages. --Tango (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

FamilyName Firstname

In which countries does the family name come first? China, Korea and ....... Kittybrewster ☎ 19:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hungary, for one. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I question that after reading Nagy. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Kitty, it's very common for Hungarian names outside Hungary to be reversed to conform to the usual order; so the person the Hungarians refer to as "Nagy Imre" is generally known elsewhere as "Imre Nagy". They talk about "Liszt Ferenc", we say "Franz Liszt", etc. This also happens with Japanese names, but in an inconsistent way, so that it's not always possible to have confidence which is the given name and which the surname. --- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

In telephone directories everywhere AFAIK. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No, if I remember rightly, Icelandic telephone books list by first name, because a person's surname is a patronym, not a typical Western family name. Nyttend (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

See family name. -- kainaw™ 20:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

...if you've got a few days to spare. For a more brief summation, see Personal_name#Name_order. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The general rule for name order is that East Asians (Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Vietnamese) will usually have FamilyName FirstName, and everyone else will use FirstName FamilyName. The primary exception is Hungarian. Be aware though that there are many areas where Surnames are not common or not found - Indonesia and Malaysia and Iceland have their own special system. Arabic names are very complex by Western standards, but many are starting to use a Western-style name, so ambiguity has arisen. Russian (and similar) names have patronymics that have special uses, and come before the surname. Steewi (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

cohabiting and marry status

I do notice and somebody told me 80% of black people cohabit w/o marry and only 20% of it actually marry. I don't know about Asians I don't know any Asians cohabit only w/o marry most Asians actually marry though I don't know all the asians who marry/inter/intraraically.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you asking for us to confirm these statistics? Dismas|^(talk) 20:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Unlikely to be true. Cohabitation in the United States says there are 4.85M couples, meaning 9.7 actual individuals. There are 36.6M African Americans, so unless I'm misunderstanding your question it's impossible. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

What is M stand for. let's try not to abbrevaite things, people won't know what it is.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes--209.129.85.4 (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

M = Million Dismas|^(talk) 23:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It's true that "M" sometimes means "thousand" and sometimes means "million"; but if you had troubled to click the link you were pointed to, Cohabitation in the United States, you would not have had to ask, because you would have seen that the first line says, "Cohabitation in the United States is illegal in five states but a total of 4.85 million couples live together." Anyway, this US Census page has a lot of data on marriage on people in the US, apged 15+, sorted by self-identified race.

• Married: "White" 54.7%, "Black" 32.8%, "Asian" 62.4%
• Widowed: "White" 6.1%, "Black" 6.0%, "Asian" 4.6%
• Divorced: "White" 9.8%, "Black" 10.6%, "Asian" 4.2%
• Separated: "White" 1.9%, "Black" 4.6%, "Asian" 1.5%
• Never married: "White" 27.4%, "Black" 46%, "Asian" 27.3%

But note that these numbers are not very meaningful alone because of the differing ages of the population. For example, there are proportionally more young "Black" people than young "Asian" people in the US — it appears that 21.8% of the "black" 15+ population is 15-24, whereas only 16.6% of "Asians" are 15-24, and since about 87% of people 15-24 remain unmarried, you'd expect the "black" population to have a higher "never married" percentage, as they do; so to make the numbers meaningful you would have to normalize them. Anyway, it's also unreliable because respondents can respond to the "race" question with multiple choice answers; and I think I'm done looking up these sorts of numbers on this sort of question — check out the Census pages I linked if you're interested. Oh, and to answer your first question, your 80%/20% numbers are nonsense if you do a little math comparing that 4.85MM (all races) number with the 28.9MM "Blacks" aged 15+ mentioned in these Census pages. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

average marriage age

What is the average marriage age in USA in the 2000s. I've hear the marriage age have been delay use to be in the 20s, no is pushing likely early 30s.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The estimated median age at first marriage (MAFM) in the United States for 2000-2003 was 27 and 25 years old for men and women respectively. [7] Marnanel (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(Is the median useful by itself without knowing the mean?) --Mr.98 (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Definitely. This is a classic case where the median is the right average to use. The other well known case is income distribution. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I would much rather know the median than the mean, so all those 87-year-old Texans marrying 25-year-old supermodels don't throw it off. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be useful to know the mean/median age of marriages in general, not just first marriage. That one is the one that's likely to be into the 30s. Steewi (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Zineb Jammeh

Is Zineb Jammeh born in Gambia or Morocco. Her skin color seems to be brown but her husband's skin color is black. Is people in Morocco consider to be black or morocco people seem to delcine by other race.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

On the second question, there is no way to answer, because the whole idea of a "black" or "brown" person differs a lot depending on where you live. Our Race (classification of human beings) discusses this. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently she was born in Morocco to a Guinean father and a Moroccan mother (http://www.statehouse.gm/firstlady.html). As to the second question, Moroccans are of Arab, Berber, or mixed Arab-Berber stock, and are usually not considered "black" in the sense of "Sub-Saharan Black African". What they consider themselves to be, and if others consider them "white" or "brown" is hard to tell.Rimush (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sylvia Ajma Valentin

Wow... Ali Ben Bongo's wife - does anybody have her birthday? She seem to be age in her 40s. So is she born in the 1960s.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Our article Ali Bongo Ondimba indeed says her name is "Sylvia Ajma Valentin". I typed this into Google and the first link claims, "Sylvia Bongo Ondimba, Gabon's new First Lady was born in 1963 in Paris, France and spent most of her childhood growing up in Africa." Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Dents in the border between New South Wales and Queensland

Is the western portion of the border between New South Wales and Queensland entirely straight? A number of online maps I've looked at (eg Google and Bing) show three protrusions of Queensland into New South Wales, all in Sturt National Park (ie, right in the far west, near the point where the border intersects with that of South Australia). Each appears to be one square mile in size. Firstly: do these "dents" in the otherwise straight border really exist? I've noticed errors with borders on some of these maps before, including times when political borders are incorrectly matched to the boundaries of parks. Secondly: if they do exist, why, when, and how were they created? They weren't mentioned in the original proclamation that created Queensland, as far as I can see. -- 203.97.105.173 (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Based on this site, I'd say - no. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on everything: Queensland and New South Wales boundary encroachments. They are apparently 20 acres blocks of land, and due to "survey errors". Pfly (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I bet there wouldn't be 1 person in 100,000 in Australia who knows about this (and I wasn't one of them). The things you read on Wikipedia. Amazing. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

January 20

two CNN specials

It's understood Larry King raised money through his two "How You Can Help" specials. One was for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. The other was for the victims of the 2010 Haiti earthquake. Who knows exactly how much money was raised through the two different specials?24.90.204.234 (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There's been a "ticker tape" on the CNN channel saying he raised $7 million for Haiti, but his Facebook page says "just under 9 million". Bielle (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

strong sexual urges

im almost 20 and i have very strong sexual urges. when do they go away? i though they would have ended with puberty but i still have strong urges for sex and masturbation, its disgusting. surely in a few years they would be gone? or would they stay with me depending on what i think on and stuff?--Mightybrick99 (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It is impossible to diagnose your mental condition and provide a prognosis over the Internet. If you are concerned, see a medical professional. -- kainaw™ 04:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

>:( im gonna go look at porn.--Mightybrick99 (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

By the time you're 30, you'll be bored with sex and your primary focus will be money. In any case, if you want to stop, you can't taper off. You've got to quit cold jerky. [That bit of wisdom courtesy of Lenny Bruce]. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

He's probably right about going cold turkey...--71.111.194.50 (talk) 04:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Lenny's exact word was jerky as in jerking. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Get married. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Men and sex: Age 20: Tri-weekly. Age 40: Try weekly. Age 60: Try weakly. Edison (talk) 05:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

From my own experience, I'll say about 22. And totally tempered by 30. Vranak (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:OR and TMI. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not feed the trolls. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

American education quality: University of (state name) vs. (state name) State University

(warning: sweeping generalization) Why are American universities titled University of (state name) better than those titled (state name) State University? Example: University of Florida vs Florida State University 218.25.32.210 (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Not endorsing your sweeping generalization, but many (most?) of the places named "X State University" began as land-grant universities, whose mission was "to focus on the teaching of agriculture, science and engineering as a response to the industrial revolution and changing social class rather than higher education's historic core of classical studies". Draw what conclusions you will. Deor (talk) 12:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the ridiculously sweeping generalization, let's just change the question to "are 'U of X' universities better than their 'X State U' counterparts?" I don't think it's worth addressing the "why" in any fashion until some semblance of evidence (and a definition of "better") is presented. That said, Deor's explanation of the naming disparity is excellent. — Lomn 14:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Suspended sentences

What proportion of suspended prison sentences end up getting served? I can't find any statistics on it. I'm interested in any jurisdiction, but particularly the UK. Thanks. --Tango (talk) 13:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried the Ministry of Justice website? A search shows a few promising-looking documents. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Massachusetts_health_care_reform and federal reform in house+senate

(Personal curiosity), what are the major differences/similarities between the health reform in 2006 in Mass and the current federal reforms being voted on in congress? Thanks Chris M. (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Public domain

Is it possible to release works containing copyrighted works in the public domain? --84.61.165.65 (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're the copyright owner, you can effectively license your work to be in the public domain. As for whether you can truly release your work into the public domain—a question that comes up because the Berne convention treats everything as copyrighted by default—there is some discussion in Public domain on this point that implies that you should be able to do this given a liberal reading of the convention, though it is not spelled out explicitly. Regardless, you certainly can license your work in a way that makes it public domain: "This work has no restrictions on its use" would do that pretty easily, as a one-sentence license (and would be the equivalent of saying "this work is in the public domain"). --Mr.98 (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I misread the question. You are asking if a work containing copyrighted works—i.e. a derivative work—into the public domain. The answer is rather unambiguously "no," if it is truly a derivative work of something that is still in copyright. Determining whether something is a derivative work or not is not necessarily straightforward, though. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Far be it from me to give legal advice, but I believe that it IS possible to release derivative works, and works containing other works, into the public domain. However such a release would NOT give people the right to reproduce the works contained in the derivative, and therefore NOT give them the right to reproduce the entire derivative work. It would only be useful to people who were already allowed to reproduce the contained works, giving them the right to also reproduce the derivative. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The parts of it which are derivative are still copyrighted, so it isn't really in the public domain as a whole. If there are restrictions on use (in a copyright sense), then it is not really in the public domain. If it's a derivative work, by definition, it is not in the public domain. There are other ways to have multi-licensed or mixed-licensed works, of course, but that's not the same thing as releasing it into the public domain. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

What about the File:Flag of Australia with Aboriginal flag replacing Union flag.svg? --84.61.165.65 (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

As we said to your earlier query, this is not the place to take your copyright dispute on Commons. Some advice: Repeatedly spamming your messages does not convince anyone of anything. Making legal threats or attempting to rush a process will cause people to resist. If you want to argue that the Australian Aboriginal Flag is considered copyrighted in Australia (which seems to be unambiguously the case), and thus the derivative flag is copyrighted and not in the public domain, and thus is incompatible with Commons' copyright policy, then say so. (Personally, I think the argument that the flag contains no artistic creativity and is just a "shape" is blatantly false.) That will work a lot more effectively. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the legal status of the File:Flag of Australia with Aboriginal flag replacing Union flag.svg? --84.61.165.65 (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

We can't give you legal advice. You're still in the wrong place. PhGustaf (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the Australian Aboriginal flag is copyrighted in Australia. The File:Flag of Australia with Aboriginal flag replacing Union flag.svg contains the Australian Aboriginal flag, and must therefore be deleted from Wikimedia Commons. --84.61.165.65 (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)