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

February 4

Did Paul von Hindenburg ever give the Nazi salute?

I'm watching a documentary on the military channel, and they just showed a clip of Hindenburg making some sort of announcement (it might have been a press conference) and when he finished, many people in the room gave the Nazi solute but not Hindenburg. Did Hindenburg ever give the Nazi salute? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey you kids, get off my Lebensraum! But seriously... if you look for pictures of Hindenburg and Hitler, it's clear that the former was the more "senior" of the two. Hitler usually is the one formally prostrating himself. I find it unlikely that Hindenburg would have formally pledged his alliance and subservience to Hitler in such a way, but that is just speculation. Hindenburg was old school (and quite old), and not a huge fan of Hitler anyway. He didn't have to grovel (moreover, he could, in fact, make demands upon Hitler). I would suspect he never did. But that is just a hunch—I don't see anything out there that says he did or didn't. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I have a vague recollection that Hitler at least publicly deferred to Hindenburg. Although when he named the world's largest blimp after the portly Paul, it might have been his idea of a subtle joke. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Good points and I see now that it's actually called the the Hitler salute (Hitlergruß) so it's unlikely Hindenburg would have done such a thing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I would venture a guess that the German "Gruß" and the English "greet" have a common root, especially as the first definition for "Gruß" in my German dictionary is "greeting". So although the salute and the accompanying slogan seem blood-chilling to us, it was really just their cheerful way of saying, "Hiya, Hitler!" :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Officially, it was called the "Deutscher Gruß" (German Greeting), at least at first. I don't think that ever changed before 1945. Of course, the gesture was imported from Mussolini's Italy...so much for "German" ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

So it's Italian, going back to the Romans, yes? Oddly enough, ol' Benito could do the salute just with his jaw. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Can I just point out that Hitler didn't name Zeppelins, the Zeppelin company did, and that they were run by Hugo Eckener who was as anti-Nazi as they came such that he even considered running for President in 1932 just so he could oppose Hitler? Oh, and the LZ-129 wasn't a blimp but a rigid airship, and while the biggest at the time was subsequently beaten by the LZ-130 Graf Zeppelin II which was slightly larger. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware that the LZ-129 was a rigid airship. :) Is it the case that Hitler, at least in public, held Herr Hindenburg in high esteem? If Hitler had wanted the ship renamed after himself, for example, I have a hunch no one would have stood in his way. But maybe he felt it was politically better to keep it in Hindeburg's name. And from what you're saying, I'm guessing Herr Eckener was not too crazy about those big swastikas on the tail, either, but he probably had little or no choice in the matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

LZ-130 was slightly longer and bigger around than LZ-129. If I understand its article correctly, all its flights were demonstrations, and it was never used as a commercial airship. That probably accounts for my misunderstanding on the "largest" airship. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The swastikas on the tail were a compromise. Hitler wanted even bigger ones on the sides of the blimp. --Carnildo (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

At least they didn't have a picture of the Red Baron and a sign saying "Met Death". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Greeting someone without addressing the person's name

If a person who isn't close to you or who isn't your friend but just an acquaintance greets you by calling your name, is it rude of you to greet in return but without addressing their name? For example, say my name is Bob. Then:

Person: Hi Bob.

Me: Hi.

Rude or doesn't matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.129.94 (talk) 02:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Not in my social circles (college in North Carolina), but it also depends on context. Mannerisms speak far more loudly than words. If you walked up to me and said "Hi, Falconus!" (not my real name, btw) and I said "Hi," and promptly opened up a newspaper and started reading it, that could (but not necessarily in all cases) be rude. But if I answered "Hi!" and continued with "how are you?" or "how's it going?" then it would be perfectly normal. My advice is to observe (discreetly) the people around you, and see how they handle that social situation. If everybody replies with "Hi, [name]", then that probably is the accepted custom for your social group, and you have to make the choice of whether to accept that custom, or whether you can get away without accepting it. Falconus^{p t c} 03:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary. I very rarely address anybody by name. It's like putting a little label on someone saying 'you're Bob'. Which is a bit presumptuous. Bob didn't name himself and even if he did, maybe he doesn't want to be called Bob right now. And calling someone by name is a useful tactic when they are out of line, which Bob probably isn't. Of course if you needed to get Bob's attention across a room filled with people... well then go walk up to Bob and draw his gaze. No need to call names, even if they appear on a birth certificate. I'll drop all this if I haven't seen someone for a while though. Vranak (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Just as note, social customs such as this are probably very likely to change from place to place. I don't find it presumptuous to address someone by name, but I don't find it necessary either. Falconus^{p t c} 04:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Not replying with their name may also suggest that Bob has forgotten the other person's name. That may be considered rude in some situations. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 04:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This is true, but if Bob is so unremarkable that I would forget his name, then I would not feel the slightest bit abashed on that account. Vranak (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I once worked with someone who made a point of always addressing people by name (I think he'd been on a management course that told him it would increase his effectiveness, or something). I found it quite jarring, but even worse was that fact that he very often got my name wrong when speaking to me. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

What may be worse is if 1) you are a shy person who doesn't like to call attention to yourself, 2) you have a slightly less common name, and 3) you are being introduced to someone who has never heard the name before. So, you spend the first full minute of the conversation repeating your own name and trying to explain how to pronounce it. Dismas|^(talk) 22:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

organizational behaviour

what can you do,as a manager, to increase the likelohood thayt your employees will exert ahigh level of effort? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natasha dabral (talk • contribs) 04:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead by example. Show in your own work the level of effort you want them to show. If people respect you for your hard work, they are more likely to work harder. While they may not necessarily work as hard as you do, the converse is dangerous -- they are almost certain to be slackers if their manager seems to be one. Just speaking from experience here, of both being a manager and observing others. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Be confident (and correct) in your decisions. Set realistic goals and stick to them. Be open to discussion. Make clear what you want done and that you expect them to do it. Then let them do it. Don't hover over them, but do check progress frequently, especially if you don't know them well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Align their incentives with project success — set up a bonus program where they get more money the better they hit the goals that you value. A slightly different goal program is to make sure the team sets their own goals; it's easier to dismiss a goal as unrealistic if it was dictated to you by a manager, and wasn't a shared goal that you came up with along with the other members of the team. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(1) Take care in your written communications. (2) Do your own homework. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Attend a good leadership course and ask your boss for advice. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Much good advice above. My 2 cents(Australian) worth:

• Treat your staff as people, they are not machines. Don't expect machine-like perfection.
  
• Be even handed and consistent in 'discipline'.
  
• One good principle I have heard, but not seen too often is, "Praise in public, chastise in private". Too often Managers make a show of their 'authority' by publicly abusing staff. This is poor mangement & usually counter productive. Best if you need to give some 'negative feedback' to do it in private. On the other hand good performance should be praised openly.
  
• If you have more experienced staff working for you, don't be afraid to take their advice. (Just don't take credit for their ideas.)
• As Bugs says, discussion but listen too. Too many bosses talk, but then ignore their staffs viewpoint. Big mistake.
  
• Not everyone is Management material

Human resource management may help. Knowledge of Psychology also. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 12:32, 4 February

2010 (UTC)

You'll want to make the workplace somewhere where employees are excited to go to each morning. Where everyone's contributions are valued. Good luck with that! Vranak (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, don't forget to always and without fail call employees by their first name in every single sentence you direct at them. Never mind if you don't remember their names - just make a similar name up, they'll nevertheless understand and appreciate the gesture. TomorrowTime (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"Where everybody knows your name / Where they're always glad you came..." Alansplodge (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

After you ask them to work harder, provide "donuts and the possibility of more donuts to come", as in this documentary.[1]John Z (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Did anybody ever really try this ploy?

In just about every submarine movie I've ever seen (and a Star Trek episode or two), the trapped sub shoots out loose debris and spare oil to make it look like it's gone to the bottom. Was this real or just another Hollywood invention? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that was actually a viable (if last-ditch) tactic in world war II, at least before sonar became commonplace. There was no other way to know if a sub got hit than to see oil and debris fields. I'd be curious to know who invented the tactic, though - seems inspired. --Ludwigs2 10:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This account from HMS Mermaid[2]

"At last fuel oil rose to the surface, smelling strongly, turning the foam of our wake a dirty brown, but because the asdic reported a still-moving target, it was decided that this was just a ruse to persuade us to believe in the destruction of the boat."

I found several other references where Allied attackers believed that this tactic was being used[3] but no confirmation from the other side. Alansplodge (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

As with plane shootdowns, the number of claimed submarine sinkings always greatly exceeded the actual results (for instance, when the Allies went over German Navy records after the war and compared them to all Allied reports). Considering the extra structures that WWII subs carried on deck compared to most modern subs, some of the debris reports may just have been from stuff knocked loose from deck but I would imagine desperate submariners to have used the fake tactic and eager surface mariners to have been keen to claim a kill on little evidence. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I did find this "Submarine Bubble Target"[4] which is interesting if not really relevant. Alansplodge (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Attractiveness

It seems to me that males and females view attractiveness in a different manner. Annecdotally some women find me *very* attractive, but some evidently find me quite unattractive. This appears to be the same with others as well, but when it comes to male-female attraction there seems to be more agreement. That is, if 50 percent of men find a woman attractive, chances are most of the other 50% will as well whereas this is not the case with female-male attraction. Is this correct? If so, why is this? 98.20.170.216 (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

There used to be, and maybe still is, a wikipedia article on this general subject. I can't think of its name, but you might be able to find it in a search, if it wasn't zapped due to it being laden with POV. Regardless of percentages, attractiveness depends on individual viewpoints. It also depends on how you define "attractive". Physical beauty only goes so far. You can find out too much about someone and discover that she's "ugly" on the inside. And the reverse is also true. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The fifty percent who do find you attractive are for starters, not put off by vanity. The other half probably are. Vranak (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Somewhere I hear a balloon busting. :) I heard a quote years ago that I think still works: "A beautiful woman is one I notice. An attractive woman is one who notices me." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

(deindent) Male and female attraction are different in their modalities. Both have nothing to do with "what's on the inside", or at least, not with any qualities that anyone would interpret as positive. Men generally don't care about how attractive a woman is to their own judgement, rather they care about how attractive a woman is to their peers. Of course, they think that they are responding to their own individual judgement, but what they do is they slowly change their preferences until it settles on the dominant preferred model of their social group. When they change their social group, they will slowly change their preferences. Men in a given social group all agree on attractiveness ratings. They come to agree by gathering together in public and rating women by attractiveness. They then shame any member of the group who rates differently than they do. Since men like a woman to be attractive to other males, they prefer a woman who has been with many men. They will say the opposite. Men don't have modalities of attraction--- so that a woman that they would like to take to bed is the same woman that they would want to marry, and is the same woman that they fall in love with. They will say the opposite. If a woman is unfaithful to them, they will become more strongly attached. They will say the opposite. Women on the other hand have strict modalities of attraction. They will say the opposite. They each classify men into two classes: the "superman" and the "ordinary man", with two different roles. The "superman" is above your powers of control, generally above your social class. He cannot be manipulated by female casual hypnosis. He is extremely attractive, but become unattractive the moment he shows any deep attraction or attachment. He can be taken to bed, but he is not suitable for long-term relationships. He has the characteristics of a Nazi SS officer. The "ordinary man" can be placed under control by hypnosis, and is normally not attractive at all. This man only becomes attractive when he is mistaken for a Nazi SS officer, which happens once in a while under certain conditions. Since this is a question of random chance, a few women will find this man attractive, but most will not. Once the woman finds the "ordinary man" attractive, and he is captured, he can become a boyfriend/husband. This requires waiting for a rare random event. The female distinction between "supermen" and "ordinary men" is defined entirely socially, and is all in women's collective mind. It has nothing to do with the man himself: it does not depend on his physical characteristics, on his intelligence, on his race, on his wealth, nothing. It only depends on the shared perception of other women, and on the man's callous behavior. To be seen as a "superman", a man just has to be perceived as one who casually sleeps with many women, shows no compassion or kindness, disobey authority, but succeed socially. If this man is portrayed as having this characteristics, even if he has no verifiable manly traits, he will be attractive. This operates in much the same manner as the male social-group bonding, except with subtler cues depending only on submission and domination. Women will gather together and ask males to do tasks in front of other women (get me some coffee, etc.). Those that do the tasks are shown to have submitted to female hypnotic control, and are therefore eliminated from the class of supermen. The "supermen" are those that don't do anything that is asked of them. Men do not respect this distinction, and know that there is no real difference between the superman and the ordinary man. Likewise, women know that there is no real difference between a woman whose features are currently in-favor with the social group and one who isn't.Likebox (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've collapsed a long, rambling WP:OR post with no citations that has it all — hypnosis of men and the Nazi SS. Good times. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw a doco once where they took 10 couples and cut their wedding photos in half, they give the pictures of the men to a group of ladies and the women to a group of men who are both asked to "rank" the photos in order of attractiveness. Maybe unsurprisingly the men that were ranked highly by the women were actually married to the women that were ranked highly by the men, and same for the ones that were ranked low. (the married couples were not included in the groups that did the ranking). The surprising find was how precisely they correlated. The show I saw about it claimed there was a total one to one relationship, when the pictures were lined up they ALL matched, not one couple out of place. I'm going to do a search if that's been repeated. Vespine (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

See Sexual selection. --ColinFine (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That article, and Ronald Fisher... just... ouch. FiggyBee (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, just needed a minute to get my thoughts together. Those articles just reminded me that, however much we may laugh/despair at young earthers and religious fundamentalists, the day that "science" rules the earth is the day I move to the moon (or become a fundamentalist!). FiggyBee (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Without science, there are no trips to the moon. Or anywhere, really. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying, and I don't think anyone would say, that science is bad. I'm saying that people who think their worldview is unequivocably correct and should be imposed on everyone are scary, and the most credible and powerful people of that sort in western society today are the Dawkinites, "Brights", and similar. FiggyBee (talk) 03:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That description could apply equally to religious fundamentalists. But I don't understand what any of that has to do with attractiveness? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It could, but religious fundamentalists don't seem to have the same appeal to educated western people. What it has to do with attractiveness is how unimpressed I am by the Sexual selection article Colin linked to, which is based heavily on the work of Ronald Fisher, "the greatest of Darwin's successors", a eugenicist and white supremacist whose work was heavily influenced by his early 20th century conservative values. But it's science, so who can argue with it? We are getting a little off-topic, I must admit. FiggyBee (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Eh, there's an old saw I heard once: some people in the world have questions, and some people have answers; you should never trust the latter. --Ludwigs2 06:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Or the Will Rogers comment to the effect that it's not what folks don't know that's a problem, it's what they know for sure but which ain't so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Photogenic is an article that relates to this subject matter. I actually don't think it necessarily relates to this subject matter. But apparently a lot of other editors (at that article) equate attractiveness with the quality of being photogenic. I know there is a correlation, but I also think the two qualities are often different. Bus stop (talk) 04:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Getting back to the question, it's not clear to me if the OP is referring solely to physical attractiveness (that article may be of interest and is perhaps what BB was referring to although it doesn't really address the issue directly). It's also not entirely clear how he's finding out if women are attracted to him. If for example he's asking, then it's fairly obvious that a fair number are going to lie for a variety of reasons (say yes to avoid hurting his feelings, say no either because they're annoyed by the question or to avoid giving him ideas if they aren't interested in a relationship) and are likely to be influence by things other then physical attractiveness even if you specifically ask about that (the same with males of course).

Or to put it a different way, any experiment where you're getting people to rate people they already know and particularly such an anonymity lacking one is pretty useless. Females of course tend to consider physical attractiveness as less important then males when it comes to choosing a mate. I would also point out without intending to offend anyone that it's pretty pointless to compare how males may rate females famous for being attractive, with how females may rate more average males.

Anyway my point is that I'm not sure whether the thesis at least when it comes to physically attractiveness, is particularly well supported, while females may very well be more variable in their ratings, I'm not aware of much evidence from the various things I've read that females tend to be highly variable from each other in how they rate male physical attractiveness (compared to males rating females). There is some evidence females preference do vary by the stage of the menstrual cycle which complicates things so you probably want to choose females at the same stage in their menstrual cycle when conducting such an experiment.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

does/did noam chomsky drive, and if so what kind of car

does/did noam chomsky drive, and if so what kind of car —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.194 (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Google says he drives a red Audi. I can't imagine why you would want to know this. [5] [6] Marnanel (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

He used to have a Porsche 911 Turbo and a Mercedes E63 but I think he traded in the Mercedes for the Audi S6.

Because Colourless red Audies sleep furiously ? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

What would Jesus drive?--71.111.229.19 (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well that one's obvious. An SUV, of course. Duh. TomorrowTime (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sheep (in a good way). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

King Arthur and English royals

Did any kings of England ever claim descent/right to rule from King Arthur? 174.20.67.206 (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the Tudors did, but if so not very seriously. Peter jackson (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Arthur seems to be an honored name among the Brit Royalty, but it seems to be more in the realm of mythology. William has always been popular, a real guy who proved that love and a large army conquers all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by it seems to be more in the realm of mythology, Bugs. Arthur is one of the names of the current heir to the throne. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as I recall it's "Charles Philip Arthur George". Philip is his father, of course, and both Arthur and George are honored names among the British royalty, except that the Georges were real guys (some of whom even spoke English), whereas Arthur is largely mythological. Not totally, but significantly. And theoretically, Prince Charles could rename himself King Arthur (II) if he wants to, but that probably wouldn't be the wisest thing to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

As I think I've mentioned before on here, he wouldn't be Arthur II; King Arthur is not a historical King of England, and in any case the numbering starts with the Conquest (Edward Longshanks was Edward I, despite three earlier Edwards). FiggyBee (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I should amend the question to "Did any of them claim it seriously enough for a textbook that isn't even about English royals to bother mentioning it as a serious fact?" 174.20.67.206 (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Henry VII certainly did[7], through a line of Welsh and British princes, some made-up by Geoffrey of Monmouth and some from earlier Welsh sources. His granddaughter Elizabeth I, had a 22 foot long pedigree made, showing her descent all the way from Adam and Eve by way of King Arthur - it is in the library at Hatfield House. The Round Table at Winchester Castle was repainted in Henry VIII's reign to show Arthur looking strikingly similar to Henry. While the Arthurian legends were hugely popular across Europe, in England they were a political tool. For the Plantagenet kings, it was a chance to cast the Saxons as villains, while the Tudors were desperate to legitimise their dynasty by aligning themselves with the Kings of Britain. Arthur was thought to be the great-grandson of Constantine the Great, the first Christian Emperor of Rome, so all the more reason to be descended from him. Arthur, Lear, Coel and Lud were genuinely believed to be historical figures. If the King and the College of Heralds said that he was descended from them, then that would be taken as the truth. Alansplodge (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

But then, King Arthur's family says "Although Arthur is given sons in both early and late Arthurian tales, he is rarely granted significant further generations of descendents [sic]; this is at least partly because of the premature deaths of his sons in these legends". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed it's not straightforward. Perhaps I should have said "out of the house of Arthur" rather than a direct descendant. I've spent the last hour trying to find a clear explanation on the web without success. The claim certainly existed and I believe was taken seriously by most at the time. Sorry I can't back it up in a better way. Alansplodge (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright, sweet. Thanks. 174.20.67.206 (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Historical basis for King Arthur would be an interesting read for people interested in this topic. --Jayron32 06:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

..and also King Arthur's messianic return. This article states: "Henry VII made a good deal of his Welsh connections to rally support in his march from Milford Haven to Shrewsbury in 1485. Much was made of his alleged descent from Cadwaladr, according to Geoffrey of Monmouth the last “King of Britain” in the seventh century, and of Merlin’s prophecies that his descendants would one day reunite the realm. (That they would do so by “driving out the Saxon” was discreetly ignored.) Henry’s naming his eldest son “Arthur” was a sop to these “British” roots...." Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

FB isn't entirely correct. The numbering of British monarchs follows English or Scottish numbering, whichever is larger. It's the English side of the numbering that starts from the Norman Conquest. However, there was no King Arthur of Scotland either, so FB's main conclusion is correct. A future King Arthur wouldn't be Arthur II. Peter jackson (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not always what is larger — except in a Scottish context, we never talk about the Stuarts as James VI and VII. Nyttend (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It depends on who "we" is. Scots talk about James VI and VII all the time, whether they're in Scotland or not. And why shouldn't they? It's not as if their Jameses I-V suddenly retrospectively ceased to have ever existed. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I see, although from what I can gather "whichever is larger" was merely a suggestion from Winston Churchill to shut up the Scots who complained about having EIIR on their postboxes. MacCormick v Lord Advocate established that numbering was a matter of Royal Prerogative, so there is no rule or law as such regarding numbering; future Kings and Queens can use whatever number they like. FiggyBee (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The statement that there never was an Arthur I is correct, but it wasn't for the want of trying. Arthur of Brittany was set to be Arthur I of England after the death of Richard I, his childless uncle having named him as his heir some years previously in an attempt to prevent his own brother John from inheriting the throne. Richard changed his mind on his deathbed and John took the crown after all, but Arthur fought for recognition, at least for Richard's French Counties as a consolation prize, and gained a fair amount of support. He came to a nasty end (it is assumed) as a result, and the bad luck attached to the name Arthur continued with Arthur, Prince of Wales, who would have been Arthur I but for a nasty bug, and whose childhood marriage was the excuse for his brother's divorce and England's split from the Church of Rome. My grandmother told me that there were some raised eyebrows back when the name of the current Queen's first-born son was announced, because of a superstitious belief that someone named Arthur was unlikely ever to be king. We'll see ... Karenjc 14:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

And his firstborn son is William Arthur Philip Louis... --TammyMoet (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

FB, you're correct to say that there's no law on the subject, that it's a matter of royal prerogative. Legally, Prince Charles could call himself Benedict IX when he comes to the throne. But there are also realities to consider. In the modern political climate it seems unimaginable that any future monarch is going to tell the Scots that their monarchs don't count. Of course this can't go in articles because of WP:CRYSTAL, but I don't see why it shouldn't be mentioned here. Peter jackson (talk) 10:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

February 5

Personal qualities admired in others by criminals etc?

I've realised recently that I was brought up to admire the Seven virtues in others and try to embody them myself. But what do people admire who eschew the Seven (or eight) Virtues, such as repeat criminals? 78.146.193.0 (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

it probablly depends on the individual people have different vitures some people consider doing the greatest good for the greatest number to be a viture like jon steward mill others like ann rand consider shellfish to be a viture —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr hursday (talk • contribs) 05:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest Machiavellianism. - Fullobeans (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd go with shellfish being a virtue. Perhaps John Stuart Mill and Ayn Rand would agree. Bielle (talk) 06:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think Dr. Zoidberg would more likely call Shellfishness a virtue. --Jayron32 06:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing a userbox; "This user considers shellfish to be a viture" FiggyBee (talk) 09:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I was going to add to that line of discussion, but I decided to clam up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's a paper looking at Prison Culture in Israel, especially among Russian inmates. I haven't read the paper, but it appears quite interesting. From the abstract alone, I can quote the qualities of "machismo, domination, defiance, rebellion, and open antagonism against the establishment and its representatives". Buddy431 (talk) 06:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The paper is subscription only, there is not even an abstract. Correction: it does have a brief abstract if you click on the link to the right. "This subculture is characterized by a hierarchical class structure and manifestations of machismo, domination, defiance, rebellion, and open antagonism against the Establishment and its representatives." Cost $25 to read it. 78.144.242.151 (talk) 11:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

People admire whatever traits that cause the dominant individual to be dominant. Some people also admire skill. I'm a big fan of anyone who can yo-yo, though I'm not yet a criminal, so I guess that doesn't count. Vimescarrot (talk) 07:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what kind of relation you are trying to establish. Just because one is a 'repeat criminal' doesn't mean he don't admire the Seven virtues or anything else. Must also remember you that criminals are hypocrites, not for being criminals, but humans.

Even if you get a relation or a consense that would mean so much as a election poll.200.144.37.3 (talk) 11:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody clarify the distinction between a "repeat criminal" and a one-time criminal, as concerns the question posed? Bus stop (talk) 11:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The universal stimulant among those out of touch with dependable values is money. Case in point (if you are familiar with one of his several TV shows) -- Kevin O'Leary. He's always going on about how important money is to him -- probably because he doesn't quite believe it himself. Vranak (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Based on careful watching of all episodes of The Sopranos and the Godfather movies, a course in criminal psychology, and reading countless detective novels: Courage, strength, and skillwould be admired. Many would admire loyalty. Many would admire ruthlessness. Some would admire cleverness, but that is likely less universal. Compare to the enumerated Seven virtues, "Loyalty"(toward the mob or accomplices) might correspond to "love." Excess "Greed" would not be admired, if one criminal tries to seize more than his share of the loot, but I doubt they would advocate its claimed opposite of "Charity," at least toward victims. Many crooks wrap themselves in religion or patriotism, virtues not in the listed seven. Edison (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps they don't admire anyone. Admiring others requires a certain degree of altruism, altruism is connected with concientiousness, and concientiousness is incompatible with criminality. In more than one criminal memoir that I've read (Howard Marks is a name that has floated up from the subconcious) it is remarked how the hardcore criminal types are very sensitive to any slight suggestion or nuance of personal superiority shown by others, and react aggressively to its source. Perhaps they dont admire people, but some people they dislike less and are less jealous of than others. Then there are people with coercive power over them who they either fear or "respect" as its said. 78.146.215.222 (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

In the modern history of many countries, political prisoners have had a special status within the prison communities. In general political prisoners were better educated and came from a social background atypical of the general prison inmate. There are several examples were political prisoners set up informal schools for other prisoners within In particular, political prisoners often possesed legal knowledge (or formal education in Law) and could speak on half the other prisoners towards prison administrations. --Soman (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Toughness, according to "Reading People's Faces" in Reason. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasnt especially interested in prisoners, its just that criminals were an example of people who do not aspire to being nice. It seems to me that professionalism culture, or the ethical, are in a silent war with the machismo/toughs culture. The machismo/toughs culture is just as internally consistent and passed on from generation to generation as professionalim/ethical culture is. One is like a sinister mirror-image of the other. Machismo/tough culture lurks in the shadows where professionalim/ethical culture is not looking. When professional/ethical culture sleeps or is complacent, then machismo/tough culture spreads out from the darkness and insidiuosly strengthens. 92.29.142.75 (talk) 13:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

equity yheories

What role does Equity theory play in the new system? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanibhatti (talk • contribs) 12:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It probably has something to do with people getting a fair reward for doing their own homework. We have an article on Equity theory if it's of any use. FiggyBee (talk) 12:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Book recommendations for Spanish learner

I can read Spanish decently, but I'm not super amazing. Right now I'm reading Crepusculo, the Spanish version of Twilight, and it seems like a good reading level. Does anyone have ideas of books in Spanish (not translated to Spanish) at a similar reading level that would be good for me? Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Though not a book, perhaps reading Mafalda in Spanish might be very useful and very good practice. Steewi (talk) 04:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget the Spanish Wikipedia. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

does steve job wear the same thing to work as his public appearances?

does steve jobs wear the same thing to work every day as in his public appearances, ie turtleneck tucked into jeans with sneakers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.153.191.112 (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The only images I could find of Jobs in anything other than turleneck and jeans either showed him in a dinner jacket (complete with red bowtie and matching cummerbund) or in a suit from about 25 years ago. However as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", I went to the WP's own "highly placed source" close to The Man. (Warning: OR coming) With her persmission, I quote:

Any time I've seen Steve here, he's been in the usual sweater-and-jeans mode, . . . Last time was when I beat him out to the coffee machine in the cafeteria - he let me go ahead, too, but I was in a complete panic that time :) In short; almost always casual here at Infinite Loop :) (Italics and link coding mine.)

Bielle (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

To be able to get in Whitehouse or government office

Do I ahve to be an ambassador, senator, prime minister to get in Whitehouse? Could I bwe an random stranger to walk in to see Obama or John Kufuor or Hu Jintao. My sister thinks I would be shot if I try to see John Kufuor before I even get in Golden Palace--209.129.85.4 (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Even an ambassador, senator or PM would need an appointment to meet with the POTUS. A random person would almost certainly be stopped (though probably not shot, unless brandishing a weapon or similar) before one could reach the oval office. Being very unfamiliar with the Secret Service equivalent in Ghana, I could not venture any guess on your second part of the question. Googlemeister (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

So I can see them if I meet with POTUS. What's being stop mean?--209.129.85.4 (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for being unclear. POTUS stands for "President of the United States". To meet the US president in the White House, you would need an appointment. If you try to walk into his office without an appointment, people will block your path and move you to another place so you can not see him. Googlemeister (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

John Kufuor is no longer present of Ghana, so he no longer occupies the Golden Jubilee House. Kufuor apparently now has some kind of position with the African Union, though he probably has a private residence in Accra. I don't know whether he has a doorman or security guard at his private residence who would try to stop you if you tried to see him without an appointment. As for Hu Jintao, as he is the president of China, you would certainly be prevented from seeing him without an appointment. Marco polo (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Technically, anybody can get into the White House by taking a tour. I've been there. See the White House article. But to see the President, no, as Googlemeister wrote, you'd be stopped if you tried jogging over to the Oval Office, where the President spends a lot of his time. You might get lucky, though; here is a CNN story about a couple of tourists who were just on the tour and got invited to an event and met the President. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Random strangers have recently walked into the White House for a State Dinner and gotten to shake hands with the President and other high government officials. Other random persons on a tour were recently seated at a breakfast they had no invitation to and met the President. Someone I know quite well was on a White House tour and managed to pet a Presidential cat who was being carried past by some functionary whose job title probably did not say "cat wrangler." In the days of Abraham Lincoln, many random people walked into the White House and spoke to the President. By the time of Theodore Roosevelt, there were guards to keep the public out unless the were Important, knew Someone Important, or had an appointment. Those who were persistent or argumentative were hauled away and questioned by Secret Service or police, at the very least. There is one POTUS and many millions of people who would like to take up a few minutes of his time. Work out the math: there are but 2,103,840 minutes in a President's term of office, and he needs some time to sleep, sign bills, do politics, read bedtime stories to his children and cut brush/play basketball. Edison (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln lived in the days of federal patronage jobs (as opposed to a civil service), and so an endless flood of job-seekers seeking to be appointed as Postmaster of Podunk, or whatever... AnonMoos (talk) 09:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I seem to remember reading that Albert Abraham Michelson (then an ordinary person) was given a position by the President after accompanying him on his daily walk. Hut 8.5 19:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be much easier than getting to see the Queen. 78.146.215.222 (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want to see high-up people, remember that they are jealously guarded at the obvious places people will try and get a photo-op or a handshake, such as when they are speaking in public. Get a part-time job as someone's assistant (MP, CEO, etc.), and then just walk in with your boss when he's meeting the big names. User:Krator (t c) 00:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Unless you try the Michael Fagan technique (I expect security is a bit tighter now) Alansplodge (talk) 00:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

To just get into the Whitehouse, take the public tour. To meet with the president, you would need to make an appointment and probably have a damn good reason for taking up the time of a very busy guy. To meet with other dignataries, you would need to speak with their "people". Don't expect anything other than the tour to be easy. Astronaut (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Isnt a public tour of the Whitehouse a h*ll of a security risk, even if you do not see the president? I can think of at least three ways someone could cause mayhem. 78.146.215.222 (talk) 03:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Come to think of it, it was a long time ago that I went on the whitehouse public tour. I don't know if the tours are still operating, especially in the current security climate. Astronaut (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could ask David Shankbone for hints; he's at least gotten to meet with the Israeli president for remarkably average reasons. Nyttend (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Given her present recumbent state and strict values of morality Mary Whitehouse R.I.P. would be posthumously offended by the OP's intrusive interest, though visits to the Black Man in the White (space) House and the other people could conceivably be arranged by apointment only. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

February 6

rate of margin growth or decline

hello my name is hursday i would like to know if there have been any studies or information avalible about the direction of prophet margins over time that is it seems that when a new market is created prophet margins contract over time or approach zero, as competitors emerge compete with one another. i would like to know if there is any analysis done over time that looks at prophets declining over time as competion and productivity increase. my theory here is that the free market continually errodes prophet (on existing markets) as existing competitors compete not only with each other but with new markets that are created thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr hursday (talk • contribs) 00:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a given, rather than a theory, but I am no expert. You might want to look at Cournot competition which has a mathematical model in section 3 for the decrease in price (and thus decrease in profit) approaching the marginal cost as competition increases. There are no references on the page and I cannot vouch for the formulae. Bielle (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

In microeconomics it is taken for granted that competition makes a product more like a commodity because the product is less unique relative to the number of its producers/sellers. This is disastrous only for products that have low rates of unit sales. Because return on assets is equal to the margin of profit times the asset turnover, a company whose margins decrease by half but whose turnover doubles will maintain its ROA. Many companies sell commodity-like products with low margins but high sales (e.g., supermarkets). (An example of the opposite would be, say, a drug company with patents on rarely used drugs: even with low sales, the lack of competition will allow for huge margins, thus good ROA.) So your theory doesn't account for companies that survive and thrive via selling commodity-like products. For example, a company like Fastenal sells nuts and bolts and other construction materials. Obviously, such products could be produced or retailed by almost any start-up company, so entry into the market would be easy. But Fastenal also has a chain of stores, a good brand name, economics of scale, a well-organized delivery system involving company-owned transportation, and so on. Other examples, for illustration, are insurance and banking: there is nothing unique about an insurance policy or cash, meaning margins in these industries are necessarily reduced by competition -- yet many insurance companies and banks thrive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.17.91.85 (talk) 04:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

hello this is hursday again. it seems as though there are large government created barriers to entry to banking and insurance industry i cannot go and start bank of hursday or hursday insurance corperation very easily so banking and insurance industry may not be best to go on —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr hursday (talk • contribs) 08:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Agent of the Queen?

And what-if Barack Obama was an agent of the Queen? As a business man doing business with mainland China I find it strange the Obama administration would suggest China had devalued its currency for the purpose of aggravating the trade imbalance while resisting more loans to America. But this coupled with Obama’s line of heritage, yet undisclosed birth certificate and remoteness and aloofness with direct descendants of the American Revolution (not on the British side) and a host of other subtleties, brings this question to bare: Is Obama not a true representative of the America people and agent on their behalf but an agent of the Queen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.3.73 (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

His birth certificate has been fully disclosed; see our article Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Obviously the issue is complicated of China's de facto pegging of the yuan to the dollar (see United States dollar, about 3/4 of the way down) — letting the currency float freely would benefit some companies and will disadvantage others — but I think we can say that Barack Obama is probably not an agent of Queen Elizabeth II. In general, those who present extraordinary claims such as yours are required to present extraordinary proof. Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, to my shock, a recent poll showed that about 31% of Republicans believe that Barack Obama was not born in the US. I am wondering what additional evidence, exactly, would be required to convince these several million people. Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

How does that compare with the percentage of Republicans who think Sarah Palin is their party's best choice for President in 2012? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

So.... You're proposing that Obama is secretly working to re-establish British dominion over the rebellious American colonies? Is that it? TomorrowTime (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It's beautiful. When in doubt over someone else's policies... suggest the most bizarre conspiracies. What could go wrong with that approach? --Mr.98 (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that 3.73 didn't specify which Queen, and we shouldn't leap to conclusions, would she want dominion over the American colonies? And what does snarking at the Chinese have to do with anything? FiggyBee (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

What? I know we are supposed to assume good faith here, but that is the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time. Obama is a US citizen and the duly elected president - get over it. Astronaut (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Could be a Lyndon Larouche thing -- it's an article of unshakable faith among the Larouchites that QE2 is a drug-dealer... AnonMoos (talk) 09:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Larouche was buying whatever drugs he was on from some Royal source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You're too suspicious for your own good, 71.100.3.73. Vranak (talk) 03:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The Queen nearly revoked the Grant Of Independence over the Hanging Chad fiasco of a few years ago. 78.146.215.222 (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"Nearly" doing something is not the same as actually doing it. "Close" only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Er, ah. "Grant Of Independence"? Woogee (talk) 06:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Even with all that, it's not like the Queen has a whole lot of power to begin with. I choose to think he's working with the Queen in her role as Queen of Canada, and is trying to get the U.S. to join Confederation as the 11th province. That explains the push for health care reform. Get the US in line with us, and then we will have our Manifest Destiny! Aaronite (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yees, yees, that makes sense. All the hubbub about Obama being a secret Kenyan and/or secret Muslim was in fact generated by Obama himself, to throw people off the scent. Nobody realizes Obama is actually a secret Canadian! Perfect! TomorrowTime (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, that could happen. Or maybe Puerto Rico will annex both the U.S. and Canada. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

SHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh bugs... Shadowjams (talk) 07:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry to tip off any state secrets. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

:Thanks guys for brightening up my Saturday morning here in QE2's beautiful United Kingdom! Wow you have some seriously screwed guys over there! ROFLMAO! --TammyMoet (talk) 10:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Would that by any chance be the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Northern Ireland, Kenya, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and America? With the Crown Colonies of Singapore, Hong Kong, Formosa, Tibet, Sinkiang, Canton, Shanghai, Nanking and Peking? —— Shakescene (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You'd be amazed at the objection to which Americans take to being called British colonies. Shadowjams (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for answering the real question... whose agent the Wikipedia reference desk is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.0.210 (talk) 03:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Very witty, one and all, but please, don't feed the trolls. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It never says which Queen though, maybe they mean Queen Abigail Kinoiki Kekaulike III Kawānanakoa, a slightly more plausible claim. 148.197.114.158 (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this queen, or this one or these ones. --Kvasir (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Christopher J. Alden

I am trying to setup a redirect for Chris Alden. Does anyone know what the "J" in Christopher J. Alden stands for? I would appreciate a reference, if possible. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Different terms for different houses of bicameral legislatures

Any idea what percentage of bicameral legislatures are set up so that the members of one house are elected for a different period of time than the members of the other house? In case this is confusing — I'm asking about a system such as the US Congress, in which representatives are elected for two years and senators are elected for six. I'm also not interested in legislatures in which one house isn't elected at all, such as the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Bicameral legislature doesn't address the topic. Nyttend (talk) 04:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Can't give you a percentage, but I can tell you that in the Australian Parliament, Senators are elected for six years and MPs (Representatives) for three. Elections for both houses are held at the same time (except when they're not, which can happen if a government calls an early election for the lower house), with only half the Senate seats (six of 12 from each state) up for grabs every three years, unless it's a double dissolution election in which case it's all twelve. MPs and Senators are also elected using a different system; preferential voting for the House of Reps and proportional representation (with most voters voting above the line) for the Senate. AFAIA the states elect a lower house (Legislative Assembly) and half an upper house (Legislative Council) every 4 years (upper house members having a term of 8 years) in a similar manner, except Queensland which has no upper house. FiggyBee (talk) 04:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

One minor correction: While they're still referred to as "half-Senate elections", since 1975 it's no longer exactly half of the Senate seats that are up for election. There are 12 senators from each of the 6 states, and 2 from each of the territories (ACT and NT), making 76 senators in total. The 4 territory senators have terms that are strictly tied to the term of the House of Representatives. These 4 senators face the electors at

• (a) a House and "half"-Senate election (by far the most usual case), or
• (b) a double dissolution, or
• (c) a House-only election (rare but not unprecedented; the last one afaik was 2 December 1972; since 1975, the term "House-only election" is a misnomer as such an election would include the 4 territory senators)
• but, paradoxically, NOT (d) a "half"-Senate election only (again rare; the last one was in 1970).

In case (a), 72/2 = 36, + 4 = 40 = 52.6% of senators face election.

In case (d), it's 72/2 = 36 = 47.4% of senators.

It's inconvenient to have to spell this out, so people understandably just say "half-Senate elections". The downside is that many people interpret this literally and completely overlook the fact that the Senate has 76 senators, not just the 72 from the States. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

(1) In many states of the U.S., the lower chamber (often called the House of Representatives) is elected for two-year terms and the upper chamber (usually called Senate) for four years, as in California. One exception is Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, where both houses of the General Assembly come up for election every two years. Illinois, in whose State Senate Barack Obama served several terms before election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, has a complicated system of staggering two-year and four-year terms for the Senate. If you have access to a copy of the World Almanac and Book of Facts, its pages on state government give the terms of each chamber of each state legislature. The information is also available in the Statistical Abstract of the United States, available free on line from the United States Bureau of the Census . (2) In many countries, the upper house is not directly elected, but follows the once-hereditary British House of Lords in having the sovereign, the government or the legislature appoint members to lifetime or very long terms. An example is the Senate of Canada. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The U.S. Senate was also "indirectly" elected (i.e. by the states' legislatures) until the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1913, whose article explains some reasons why it was switched to direct popular vote. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Golden Nymph

What is the Golden Nymph? And this is no greek myth.174.3.98.236 (talk) 04:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this a riddle? It's the name of the awards at the Monte Carlo Television Festival. FiggyBee (talk) 04:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so it's like the Oscars are the awards of the academy?174.3.98.236 (talk) 05:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Correct. FiggyBee (talk) 05:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Redirect now created for Golden Nymph.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

updated funds total from charity telethon

I was reading my copy of TV Guide. When I turned to a page, I was surprised to learn that $66 million was raised by Hope for Haiti Now: A Global Benefit for Earthquake Relief. Why can't that be updated on the article about the program I've just mentioned?24.90.204.234 (talk) 05:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, why can't it? Be bold and add it, or talk about it on the article's talk page if you want to discuss it with other editors first. FiggyBee (talk) 05:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Causes/motivations of boasting

What motivatates some people to want to boast? What makes some people never have the desire in the first place to boast? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.120.162 (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Genetics and upbringing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Possibly the most specific and helpful refdesk answer ever? ;) FiggyBee (talk) 07:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

We have an article, Boasting, though it is a stub and most of its value is the "See Also" links. Comet Tuttle (talk) 07:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Pehaps Pecking Order may help explain. I would also suggest the the boasters are insecure, and try to show off to compensate, while the less boastful feel secure, so no need to show off. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 07:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

:::Reminds me of the Post-it note caption: "Those of you who think you know everything are annoying those of us who do"! --TammyMoet (talk) 10:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Insecurity. You won't feel like boasting unless there's a matter of some contention floating about. 11:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

One of my favorite New Yorker cartoons sums up how I feel about it. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not a problem I've ever had. Live with it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Why was the Salvation Army anti-union?

The wiki article states "They were also involved in union-busting actions: Salvation Army bands would show up at union actions and attempt to bring down the union activities with hymns and music.This in turn led the Industrial Workers of the World to create their own lyrics set to popular Salvation Army Band tunes, many of which remain in that union's "Little Red Songbook."

Does anyone know why the SA was so anti-union? Was it because of their doctrines and ideology? Or were they simply paid for their services? What specifically did they object to about unions? IS this still their position? --Gary123 (talk) 06:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the reference given? It seems to be a specific time-and-place thing (Spokane, 1908) which has been blown up into a generalised statement in the article... FiggyBee (talk) 07:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Even so, the Salvation Army is a pretty conservative organization, and conservatives in general oppose unions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

barrak obama born in kenya???

hello this is dr hursday. it seems there is a very strong correlation between people who do not like obama and people who are questioning the issue of whether or not he was born in usa that is to say that almost all of the people who question his origin of birth are opposed to him political or that there are not people who think obama is great president and also want him to verify location of birth. since this is the case it makes me think this is not even the issue they are concern about in the first place that is they do not really care if someone is born in kenya and president but only that they do not like obama but if this is the case why not just say they do not like obama for the reasons and not the kenya thing. i do not understand why they make a big deal out of an issue they would not have if a politician they like is in president seat in same situation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr hursday (talk • contribs) 08:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Some people think that if he were born in Kenya, then he would be automatically ineligible to be president (which isn't necessarily true). For some others, being a "birther" expresses their disquiet with what they consider to be Obama's "foreignness" -- and with certain individuals, it's a way for them to channel their basic underlying bigoted racist resentments into a somewhat publicly acceptable form. Meanwhile, the only major-party 2008 presidential candidate who was not born inside a U.S. state was McCain... AnonMoos (talk) 08:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course, Hawaii is not "really" part of the "really real" US... ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Just as the Territory of Arizona wasn't really an authentic part of the United Genuine States when Barry Goldwater was born. That must be the real reason that he lost 3-2 in 1964. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean that Dwight D. Eisenhower was part of the "conspiracy"? AnonMoos (talk) 09:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. Ike was born in Texas, which, with monument valley and parts of Alberta, forms the core of the really real US. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

However, he signed the bill which admitted Hawaii as a state of the union... AnonMoos (talk) 10:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

...or so THEY want you to believe! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, the Democrats who'd just carried Congress and the states by a landslide in 1958 weren't going to let those true-blue Harry Bridges Eisenhower Republican votes from Hawaii into the Union before they'd made sure that those surefire-Democratic votes from Alaska had got in first. (I'm not joking.) But for Eisenhower's true political rôle, read The Politician by Robert W. Welch, Jr., available at your local American Opinion bookshop. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The folks who think that are the same ones who think Sarah Palin is the future of the GOP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

As has been discussed by philosophers in antiquity, it is sentiment that precedes reason. These people distrust Barrack and his birthplace seems like a convienient rallying point for their igorance and prejudice, or as it seems to them, their righteous indignation. Vranak (talk) 11:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

So that's why Madonna flew back to the US to have her kids - so they wouldnt grow up with an inferiority complex because they could never be President. 78.146.77.179 (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

If Madonna is like me, she knows that despite all its flaws, the basic spirit of North America is preferable to anywhere else, so it's where you want to give your kid the best start. Of course I could just be biased, having lived here all my life. Vranak (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Bias may be one thing, but have you ever even visited another country? If not, you may lack information, too.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed I have sir! Last December I went to the UK with an extremely positive attitude towards that country and I left vowing not to return for at least five years. I was so appalled by the capital that I extended that to twelve years. There's just something about the old world that doesn't sit right with me. Everything is built, proverbially and literally, upon the rubble of two thousand years. Vranak (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest you complement 4 weeks of winter in the UK with 4 week in May in Italy? You know that people who could afford it used to flee the English winter as far as Egypt - and at the time when the steam engine was high-tech?  ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

What part of "old" had you not previously understood? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 11:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought that old might suggest greater refinement, but at alas, it appears in England at least that things are done the old way not because it is best, but because nobody knows any better. Vranak (talk) 12:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course, you should remember that London is practically a different country to the rest of England: I wouldn't want to live there. Otherwise: person-prefers-the-culture-they-grew-up-in shock :-) It's hardly something to base any sort of objective judgement on. I found American's inability to queue properly extremely stressful, but that doesn't tell you anything about the relative merits of the two cultures. 86.179.145.61 (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That's because a queue consisting of one person is another of those pesky non-existent concepts. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

As with the optimistic guy standing on a soapbox who tells his audience of one, "Form a circle!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I should also state that my unrealistic expectations were based upon the observation that English musicians are the best in the world. I assumed best musicians, best country... stupid, I know. Best corned beef sandwiches, definitely. Vranak (talk) 03:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

what would happen of barrak obama born in kenya

this is hursday again what would happen if obama were discovered to have not been born in usa this is hypothetical i do not believe this to be the case but it wouldnt seem very reasonable to have vice president take over because of location of someones birth but yet the constitution states person must be born in usa to be president but does not say what should be the case if a person elected and is currently president is found to not meet one of the requirements? also why is this even a requirement at all if someone like madolin albrite who was bork in uk was who the people of usa wanted to be president or the governor of california they are prohibited on a basis of national origin but discrimination based on national origin is prohbited by us law and employer who discriminate on basis of national origin can be sued that is if a company advertised an open position avalible only to person who is born in us that company would be sued. can someone sue us for violating own law with regard to office of president? (Dr hursday (talk) 11:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC))

First off, the U.S. constitution requires that the U.S. president be 35 years old and a "natural-born citizen" of the U.S., and within the law of the United States this constitutional provision completely overrides and supersedes all age-discrimination and national-origin discrimination provisions. Second, if Obama had been born in Kenya, he wouldn't get automatic citizenship by Jus soli, but he could very well be a U.S. citizen anyway, depending on the exact details of the laws in force at that time... AnonMoos (talk) 13:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The writers of the Constitution wanted to ensure that the President would be American-born and not outsourced to a foreigner. One of the British King George's, for example, couldn't even speak English. (We have occasionally had a President who couldn't seem to speak English, but that's another story.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Or English without a teleprompter, but that's even another story. (Wink.) Kingsfold (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You're probably referring to George I of Great Britain, though those claims were not true, at least later in George's life. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The answer is, unfortunately, "nobody knows what would happen, exactly, if this were to be discovered". It has never happened before, and there is no law or Constitutional provision that addresses exactly what is supposed to occur. A similar undefined Constitutional situation occurred in 1841 when President William Henry Harrison died after a month in office, and, although the Constitution defined a Vice President and said that the President's powers were supposed to "devolve" on him, it was silent on whether the VP would now be the President. John Tyler resolved the dispute by simply taking the oath of office and stating he was the President. Congress was apparently impressed by this and passed a law verifying he was President; future successions were performed in the same way, but it wasn't until 1967 that the presidential succession was actually codified into law. Anyway, if it were discovered that a given President was constitutionally ineligible, it's not certain what would happen. If I were a wagering man, I would bet that the machinery to kick out the sitting president would be via Congress using its impeachment power — and hence there would be a significant chance the President's party would rally to his side on a technicality and he would remain president. (Much as Bill Clinton committed perjury but his party stayed by him, claiming a technicality, and didn't vote for impeachment.) On your other question, yes, AnonMoos is correct that the US consitution trumps ordinary US laws. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Federal discrimination laws have little or nothing to do with running for office. It's the people who decide who to elect, not private employers. And the people are free to vote for or against someone, for any reason whatsoever, including bigotry. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The original poster wasn't really asking about that. He was inquiring about a prohibition on certain classes of people being unable to run for office, which is indeed suspect in America. If the age minimum for running for President were a matter of Federal law rather than the Constitution, then I think the age prohibition might be ruled unconstitutional under equal protection. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

There are obvious reasons why the founding fathers set certain minimum standards in the Constitution for ages and citizenship of various federal elective offices. And even if it were an afterthought passed by Congress, I doubt a discrimination lawsuit would fly. Let's suppose a 10 year old walked into the offices of Microsoft and applied for an executive position, and then sued when he was rejected, on the grounds of age discrimination. That wouldn't go far either. There is already perfectly legal age discrimination built into the law. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Your Microsoft example doesn't offer any light on the subject; election to public office is a broader thing than getting hired at a corporation. If we instead modify my proposed situation such that the 35-year-old age limit were a mere federal law rather than part of the Constitution, and a 10-year-old ran for President, I might agree that the majority of SCOTUS would rule that it's unreasonable for a 10-year-old to demand equal protection for the purpose of being elected President; but the number 35? It's arbitrary. Why not 40? 18? I think the 35-year-old minimum had to have been in the Constitution or it would have been struck down by now. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It's mostly a kind of quasi-classical influence, I would assume; a period of five years was an ancient Roman/Etruscan "lustrum", and 30 years was the earliest a man could be appointed to the office of Quaestor in ancient Rome, which carried with it admission to the Roman Senate. If you go backwards one lustrum from 30, you get 25 (which is a few years after 21, the "coming of age" birthday in traditional Common Law), while if you go forwards one lustrum from 30, you get 35 (which is conveniently half of the Biblical "three score and ten"). I'm speculating here, but several individuals in the 1787 Constitutional convention would have been well-aware of such Classical parallels... AnonMoos (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It's never come up in the US, but there was a surprisingly similar parallel case in Canada: O'Donohue v. Canada. The head of state of Canada is required by the Canadian constitution (specifically, the Act of Settlement 1701) not to be a Roman Catholic. O'Donohue sued saying this was contrary to section Fifteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, also a part of the Canadian constitution. Marnanel (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

When you said "head of state", I first thought you meant the prime minister of Canada, but no. In effect, a Canadian was trying to override the rules of succession of the British monarch, and of course the court said, "Nope. Not gonna happen, eh?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Technically, they were trying to alter the rules of succession of the Canadian monarch. Currently, that happens to be the same person as the British monarch, but this does not have to remain the case. 86.183.85.88 (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And actually, it probably wouldn't make any difference at all. One can confer natural-born status on to one's children if one is a citizen oneself. Ann Dunham was a U.S. citizen, so Obama is a natural-born citizen from birth, even if he were born on the moon. Also, no one wants to remember that of the two major presidential candidates in 2008, the only one who is confirmed to have been born on foreign soil was John McCain, who was born in Panama. --Jayron32 03:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, don't confuse the birthers by presenting facts. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't call myself a "birther," but doesn't "natural-born" mean "born within the boundaries of the country"? I don't believe you can "confer" natural-born status. Children of citizens are also citizens, but that doesn't necessarily make them "natural-born," in my understanding. I'm asking this sincerely. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Kingsfold (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't call myself a big fan of John McCain, either, but he was born at a U.S. Naval Station in the Panama Canal Zone. The PCZ was U.S. Territory until 1979, and as such, was within the boundaries of the United States. Secondly, from what I understand, U.S. military installations are considered U.S. soil, wherever they may be. The argument over where our President was born might be silly, but bringing John McCain into this is even sillier. Kingsfold (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

We have an article Natural-born_citizen. People born abroad to U.S. citizen parents are not necessarily automatically excluded, but a serious legal scholar (Gabriel J. Chin) has conducted a detailed analysis concluding that McCain may not actually have been a U.S. citizen when he was born... AnonMoos (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

History of attitude toward farting

Since when did farting start being seen as or associated with being funny, stupid, etc.? Who or what led to modern attitude toward farting? It must have started some time by someone in the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.120.162 (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It certainly pre-dates The Canterbury Tales. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Our article Flatulence humour (to which 'Fart joke' redirects), instances works by the 5th century BC Greek playwright Aristophanes. The article's talk page has a link [8] to a BBC report of a University of Wolverhampton study of ancient jokes that claims a fart joke on a 1900BC Sumerian clay tablet as the oldest known joke in the world. My suspicions are that farts have been found humorous for at least as long as humankind has been human, and that (contrary to our Humour article) humour itself predates humanity and some non-human animals exhibit humour. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 12:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

For once Uncyclopedia has a sillier article and Britain's got (if you can all it that) talent. "It's all right, in fact it's a gas" (Video).Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the most famous "flatulist" to the crowned heads of Europe; Le Pétomane! Alansplodge (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the pinnacle of French culture! 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I watched a documentary on humor when I was a kid. I believe it had one of the Monty Python guys narrating it. All I really remember is one quote from it. There is only one universal joke which every culture of the world finds funny - the fart. -- kainaw™ 21:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Books critical of Marxism

Please suggest me some books which are explicitly dedicated to criticism of Marxist philosophy. I have some books by Richard Pipes, but they documents communist atrocities in general. --Defender of torch (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This classic is as delicate as I can find: Animal Farm by George Orwell. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The Open Society and its Enemies by Karl Popper is what you want our article is both too short and very unbalanced, a good idea to read Popper's The Poverty of Historicism as well. DuncanHill (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, DuncanHill. --Defender of torch (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Animal Farm is not really a critique of Marxism per se; Orwell himself was a socialist. It's a critique of Stalinism. Marnanel (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Marxism is not a synonym of socialism. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Tell that to Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Ann Coulter, et al., who would readily agree that liberal = socialist = communist = Marxist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Very true. (More to the point, tell that to Bakunin.) Let me rephrase: Stalinism is not the only form of Marxism. Animal Farm is a critique of Stalinism, and not a critique of Marxism in general, towards which there is no evidence (to my knowledge) that its author was unsympathetic. Marnanel (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you won't find any true critiques of Marxism. You'll find a number of credible (and a ton of non-credible) critiques of Marxist derivatives like socialism, communism, collectivism, and etc - not to mention the big uglies like state socialism and stalinism - but Marxism itself is largely immune, because Marx never really defined it in positive terms. Pure Marxism is merely a social system that lacks any significant class distinctions - not that dissimilar, actually, from idealized free market capitalism ala Adam Smith. People always forget that Marx wasn't outlining a new political system; he was meta-analyzing political systems in general and critiquing a particular aspect of capitalism in specific. --Ludwigs2 20:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, Marxism is a theory that 1) provides systematic critique of capitalism as a political economy and 2) offers prescriptions and predictions regarding the demise of capitalism. Criticisms of various applications of Marxism (e.g., Stalinism, Maoism, social democracy, etc.) are not the same as a critique of Marxism as a theory. That said, you will find many people who have critiqued aspects of Marx's thought, particularly its reliance on a dialectic method and the flawed conclusions regarding social change (i.e., the demise of capitalism) that this method produced. However, I have yet to see a convincing refutation of part 1) of his theory—his devastating critique of capitalism. Marco polo (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have found an excellent book which notes the Marxist source of fascism. The book is Marxism, Fascism, and Totalitarianism: Chapters in the Intellectual History of Radicalism. However this book is not a criticism of classical Marxism. In google book search, I have found some scholarly books dedicated to criticism of Marxism - Why Marxism?: the continuing success of a failed theory, Marxism: is it science?. But the problem is that the books are out of print. --Defender of torch (talk) 03:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that the author of your first books, A. James Gregor, is considered kind of nutty. He's an old right-winger, rabid anti-Communist, now a rabid Libertarian. I would argue (from my brief experiences with him) that he hates Marxism more than he hates (Italian) Fascism (he finds the Fascist arguments about the primacy of the state to be basically correct, whereas he finds the Marxist argument about the primacy of the class to be totally fallacious... to his credit he makes a very clear distinction between Nazism and Fascism). Anyway, just putting that out there... he's an odd duck, and I personally would take anything he writes on Marxism more than a few grains of salt. His writings on Italian Fascism are very good, though. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Leszek Kołakowski, Main Currents of Marxism. Three volumes of tough philosphical stuff, but you probably won't need to read anything else. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, "the author's intellectual and personal odyssey largely explains his interpretative stance, although nowhere does Kolakowski sink to the level of hackneyed anti-Communism one might well expect from an intellectual prohibited from publishing, stripped of his teaching post, as well as his public personage. More often than not, intellectual honesty and scholarly luminescence pervade this massive study, originally published in English as three separate volumes by Oxford University Press in 1978. As a critical study of Marxism it was unprecedented and remains largely unsurpassed, from the contradictory theoretical origins of Marxism in both Enlightenment and Romantic thought, to the genesis and demise of Communist regimes. As an intellectual historian, as well as a philosopher, Kolakowski treats Marx with considerable respect for his remarkable theoretical accomplishments, while also demonstrating how aspects of Marx's work later contributed to the ideological perversity and political gangsterism that came to characterize Stalinism." — Kpalion^(talk) 10:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thank you Kpalion. --Defender of torch (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia, includes criticism of Marx's economic theories. Peter jackson (talk) 11:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Raymond Aron is another classic, particularly about the political aspects of Marxism. The Opium of the Intellectuals and Democracy and Totalitarianism are two accessible books of his. --Xuxl (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The Abolition of the State: Anarchist and Marxist Perspectives by Wayne Price

if I knew of an easy way to get FREE money ...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Non-question. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 17:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

---

If I knew of an easy way for me to get free money without having to do any work for it, other than agree, and there were NO downsides or drawbacks either for me, or for anyone else, wouldn't I be doing it? 84.153.231.27 (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You're asking us to answer a question about what you would be doing in some hypothetical situation? --ColinFine (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you'd be emailing me to tell me how to do it. :)--Jac16888^Talk 15:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Remember The Matrix Reloaded? The Architect tells Neo that the first version of the Matrix was a disaster because they made everybody happy. I think your situation would be similar to that. Able to spend freely on whatever you liked, everything would lose its flavour, having come too cheaply. Moreover, a person's true self wants to become perfected -- morally perfected -- and without any hardship that might become impossible. It may be a greater curse than you could imagine. Or I could be entirely wrong and you would be pleased as punch. There's some food for thought though. Vranak (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

What the hell? Read WP:NPA why don't you! Reminding people of Matrix Reloaded, honestly what a horrible thing to do--Jac16888^Talk 15:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right. Nothing that profound could have come from the sequel. It was Agent Smith in the original. Vranak (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Seriously though, if there was such a way to get money, it wouldn't stay secret long, eventually everyone would do it, resulting in Inflation, prices go up, value of money goes down, not a good situation--Jac16888^Talk 15:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"Send me a dollar, and I'll tell you how I make money." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if the OP means "shouldn't I be doing it". I smell a Nigerian scam. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I AM SULEMAN BELLO, THE AUDITOR GENERAL OF AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK HERE IN BURKINA FASO. DURING THE COURSE OF OUR AUDITING, I DISCOVERED A FLOATING FUND IN AN ACCOUNT OPENED IN THE BANK BY MR JOHN KOROVO AND AFTER GOING THROUGH SOME OLD FILES IN THE RECORDS I DISCOVERED THAT THE OWNER OF THE ACCOUNT DIED IN THE (BEIRUT-BOUND CHARTER JET) PLANE CRASH ON THE 25TH DECEMBER 2003 IN COTONOU (REPUBLIC OF BENIN). Vranak (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ms. Bellows, thank you for your note, and may I extend my condolences. Enclosed please find a high-priced ($1.75) sympathy card personally signed by a random selection of citizens I found wandering around Cermak Road talking to themselves. They share in your grief, and eagerly await your donation. Please send to the following Swiss Bank account number: [redacted for security reasons]. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Closed as drivel descending into chat-room territory. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 17:48, 6 February 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.

Hi guys, I think you are misinterpreting my question. I meant it as, like here is a sketch of a mathematical proof; is it correct? What I meant to prove (sorry that I wasn't more explicit) is that I don't know a way to do the above (get some free money no downsides etc).\By the way I don't kmnow why anyone is reading "limitless" or "for everyone" into the question, it's not about everyone, just me.

Here is my question again: is it correct reasoning on my part to suppose that I must not know of any way to get some (say $5000) of free money with no special work (just say a phone call or something) or downsides for me or anyone else, based on the fact that I am not in fact getting this money? Essentially, the single important part of the syllogism is "if i could, necessarily I would". Is that true? Is it necessarily true that if I knew how to get some free money (say $5000) with no downsides, I would do that, and that I don't do that, is proof that I don't know of any way to do that?

So, to recap: I'm not in the process of getting some free money. Is that proof that I don't know of a way to get some free money without any downsides for me or anyone else? Mind you, it would be nice to have some money.

In other words, as I stated: If I knew of an easy way for me to get free money without having to do any work for it, other than agree, and there were NO downsides or drawbacks either for me, or for anyone else, wouldn't I be doing it? Isn't this proof that I don't know any such thing? Thanks for an real,legitimate answers. 82.113.106.193 (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it proof that you know of no such method? No. You could be insane, for a start, in which case all bets are off. And some people just like to work for their money. Some might say that's the same thing... Vimescarrot (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I presume you are asking if you conjecture is valid like "I think therefore I am"? By concidence, people pay into my checking account about $5000 dollars a month without me doing any work for it. The important point is that while it is difficult to get paid free money now, it is much easier to get paid free money many years in the future. Business people and investors do this. 78.146.77.179 (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

You seem to be referring to the law of contrapositive: in simple logic, "if A then B" has the equivalent truth value of "if not-B then not-A." So "If I knew how to do X, then I would have done it" is equivalent to "If I didn't do X, then I don't know how." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.20.186.22 (talk) 04:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

TANSTAAFL. Peter jackson (talk) 11:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Duke Of Lugo

Where is the duchy of lugo located?174.3.98.236 (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I googled ["duchy of lugo"] and only a few items came up. This one might be useful:[9] As noted in the link above, there is a Spanish city named Lugo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

There was a Duchy of Lucca, Lucca is a cognate of Lugo (they both render in Latin as "Lucus"). So maybe that is what you are looking for. --Jayron32 04:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hermann, Margrave of Brandenburg-Salzwedel

Why is he numbered the second and third and sometimes not at all? No other Margrave Hermann of Brandenburg exist before him. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

http://fabpedigree.com/s022/f650804.htm Woogee (talk) 06:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Why are you just giving me another source that gives another version of his name? Who says that is reliable as this site or the German Wikipedia and the English articles List of rulers of Brandenburg and Waldemar, Margrave of Brandenburg-Stendal?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine, I won't answer your questions any further. Do your own damn research. Woogee (talk) 08:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

How far did you answer it in the first place? I don't have to take this crap from you. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 08:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy, I'm sorry you received a less-than-helpful answer to what was a reasonable question. I looked for Hermann and his family on Wikipedia and elsewhere, and I too cannot see why there should be ambiguity around his numbering. Most off-Wiki sources I found just call him Hermann (occasionally Hermann I, rarely another number). If I were starting an article about him, on the evidence I have found so far I would call it Hermann, Margrave of Brandenburg-Salzwedel and would expect any name change from this to be supported with reliable sources. I would also amend the Hermann III redlink in Waldemar, Margrave of Brandenburg-Stendal. Regards, Karenjc 13:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Karenjc. It's not like I really need to know. I just want to be sure. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Painting where the national spirit teaches a slave child to read?

Does anyone know of a Painting where the national spirit teaches a slave child to read? I think the national spirit was something resembling Liberty or Columbia.

Also what is the name of the painting where an aristocratic youth is being taught how to farm by a farmer. I think its from the 1700s.

--Gary123 (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Displaying_the_Arts_and_Sciences —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.20.186.22 (talk) 04:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

origin of wilton ct. phone number prefix - porter 2

origin of telephone number prefix "Porter" in Wilton CT. Location of family estate

Porter on N. Ridgefield Road ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesa2 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The "POrter-2" prefix was in use by 1961. "PO2" would be "762," which does show up commonly in the town today. Google book search just shows that in the state's history, the "Hart Porter Homestead" at 456 Porter Street in Manchester CT was a stop on the 'Underground Railroad which helped escaped slaves reach freedom. Otherwise maybe a Porter was an owner of the phone company when numerical prefixes were established. Genealogy sources show lots of folks named Porter in the early history of the state. The local phone company and the local historical society would be good sources for information. Edison (talk) 04:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It's simpler than that. The Bell System distributed a list of recommended names for telephone exchanges, chosen to be easily understood (and, presumably, unoffensive to anyone). As you see at that link, Porter was simply one of the recommended names for the digits 76. (The others were Poplar, Rockwell, Roger or Rogers, and Southfield or Southfield.) --Anonymous, 08:22 UTC, February 7, 2010.

There not always was a random assignment of exchange names to towns or areas of towns. A Los Angeles Times article says that exchanges were often named for the street on which the telephone exchange building was located, or for locally significant names, such as the following which were in New Orleans at one time or another: "CAnal, BYwater, TUlane, CRescent and UPtown, for instance. Edison (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

And then there's the most famous phone number of this type: PEnnsylvania 6-5000, which is STILL the phone number of the Hotel Pennsylvania in Manhattan. --Jayron32 03:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

February 7

Flight 180

A friend told me that since the 2000 film Final Destination, Airlines stopped using 180 as a number for flights, is it true? --190.50.97.182 (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say no. Maybe they did for a brief period of time after the film, but a Google search shows a flight for American Airlines 180, scheduled for Sat Feb 06, 2010, from Los Angeles(LAX) to New York (JFK). This info was found here. -^Avic_ennasis @ {{subst:CURRENTTIME}}, {{subst:#time: xjj xjF xjY }} / @ 01:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

And I was on Air Transat flight 180 last year. --Anonymous, 08:15 UTC, February 7, 2010.

Flight 191 is the one that would make me a little nervous. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

An example of magical thinking? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I said nervous, not petrified. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey! That was my Air Transat flight number in the other direction on that trip! --Anon, 23:52 UTC, February 8, 2010.

Well, you lived to tell about it. That's a good thing. I would venture a guess that very few flight 191's have actually crashed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Wealthy village in Rajasthan desert India

I read about a small village situated in the Rajasthan desert of India. It is located within the state of Rajasthan and it seems to be about one and a half hours’ car ride from the border with the state of Uttar Pradesh. This village is inhabited by very wealthy people. The houses in this village are magnificent large villas with their own private swimming pools, and its inhabitants have televisions and expensive cars. However despite extensive research I have been unable to determine the name of this small village, or even its location. Can any user please assist me? Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 10:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Jaisalmer perhaps? (Don't believe everything you read.)--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. However from Google Maps one can see that the journey from the the border of Uttar Pradesh to Jaisalmer is of about 12 hours duration. The small village I am looking for is much closer to the Uttar Pradesh border. Simonschaim (talk) 08:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

book publishing

If I wanted to send some work to a publishing company, what address would I need? Would it be that of their closest branch or of their main office, or would they have a specific submissions address? And then, can I find it on the internet?

148.197.114.158 (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, just find their website, and click on "contact". In my experience, few publishers have regional branches, though the larger ones might have a liaison office in other countries.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

However, before sending any material, look for and study their submissions policy which will almost certainly be included on their website (or which they will communicate to you on request). Any given publisher will have various rules about what sort of subject material they are prepared to consider, how it should be formatted on the page, and in what forms (printed and/or on disc, what file formats, etc) it should be put. While some publishers accept unsolicited material direct from unknown writers, others only consider material submitted through a professional Literary agent.

Material not corresponding to a publisher's submission guidelines will probably be returned unread (or destroyed), wasting your time and money. They do not impose their rules to be mean, but in part to control the unmanageably large volumes of unsolicited and unsuitable material they would otherwise receive, in part to enable them to deal more efficiently with material they do consider, and in part to avoid would-be writers claiming that their ideas have been stolen and used by the publisher's published authors (a not-infrequent occurrence). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You likely know this already, but: If a publisher asks for money to publish your work, run away. A legitimate publisher with interest in your work will give you money, not the other way around. PhGustaf (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with 87. There is an enormous yearly book called the Literary Market Place that contains a ton of publisher addresses for submissions. It's around US$300 so usually one goes to the library to skim through it and cull all the likely publishers. Note that many publishers don't accept e-mailed or web-submitted submissions, and still prefer having their slush pile entirely composed of snail mail. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably because many people prefer to read book-like documents in hard copy rather than on a screen. I know I do. To have to print out every such submission would impose an intolerable printing cost to the publisher. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Typo in Bold

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatero

Some of the main actions taken by Zapatero admnistration were the Spanish troops withdrawal from the Iraq war, which resulted in a long term diplomatic tension with the George W. Bush administration, the increase of Spanish troops in Afghanistan,

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I have made the correction to the above article. Next time, please feel free to click "edit this page" at the top of any article, and you will be able to correct any typos or other errors. Don't worry if you make a mistake - there are many people here who will be happy to help! -^Avic_ennasis @ {{subst:CURRENTTIME}}, {{subst:#time: xjj xjF xjY }} / @ 21:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

February 8

Meaning of CDT 00120

This is in reference to the ADA (American Dental Association) CDT (Current Dental Terminology) coding system. Many online references describe this code as "Periodic oral examination." This article] in Dental Economics is the only source I could find that provides anything more than the name. I'm trying to find out whether this code describes a procedure which must be performed by a dentist, or whether it is permissible to charge for it when performed by a hygienist. Ma^t_chups 04:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Find relatives of Miguel Rebeiro in portugal

Am trying to find lost relatives of my great grandad in Portugal.His name was Miguel Rebeiro. He immigrated from Portugal(don't have the date) to Ghana where he married a local lady. He had children,one named Ama Mansama who he later took with him to Portugal. He never returned to Ghana. But I know I have relatives in Portugal. Can you kindly help me trace them. Am ever so grateful. Wishing all the best in this endevour —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.23.190 (talk) 07:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This isn't something Wikipedia can help you with directly, but there are plenty of websites devoted to genealogy that may be useful. GenForum hosts a Portugal genealogy message board here where you can post queries, and there's a free Portugal mailing list at RootsWeb here. I am not familiar with where and how Portuguese national records are kept, but if you ask on one of those two sites you will probably find someone who can advise you where to look further for material about your great grandfather and his family. Good luck with your search, Karenjc 13:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Where do Mennonites live in Canada

Hello. I would like to find out which Canadian provinces have a Mennonite population and the size of the populations. There is an article here on Mennonite but it isn't specific. The Statistics Canada site is driving me mad. (http://www.statcan.gc.ca). Please help. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.134.250.140 (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a list from 1991; the numbers are probably different now but the relative sizes should be the same. As you can see, most of them live in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and BC. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Adam. I really appreciate it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.134.250.140 (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to make sure you realize that the article referenced above includes all Mennonites, not just the Old Order Mennonites, which is what some people mean when they say "Mennonite". If you are looking to be more specific there are large concentrations of Mennonites (both Old Order and others) round Waterloo, Ontario. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

bridges

In a design for a bridge crossing water through which small boats accoasionally travel, would a 1:10 slope up and back down work, or would that be too steep? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.197.114.158 (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean is a 10% grade ok for the road bed? Usually roads try to keep the grade lower then that, but having said that, I do know of smaller roads with grades of 25% or more. If it is a railroad bridge, that might be too much, since rails are more susceptible to large grades. A walking bridge would not be much of a problem for that grade. Googlemeister (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That depends on what kind of traffic, and what kind of speeds that traffic would be doing, over the bridge. At one extreme, Interstate Highway standards says that the maximum grade for an interstate highway in the US is 6%. This document (for New Zealand local governments) sets the limit for their roads at 1:8 (12.5%). This document talks about grade considerations for wheelchair users, which sets 8.33% as the maximum, and requires a handrail for anything steeper than 5%. Even if your proposed bridge isn't open to the public (or otherwise isn't subject to road or footpath legal requirements for your jurisdiction) you might consider what the capabilities of your projected users are. If it's a footbridge, and you successfully cater for wheelchair users, then surely you'll also be fine for walkers, cyclists, pram and pushchair shovers, and skaters. On the flipside, the Grade (slope) article shows some terrific grades. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 17:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps off topic, but as the data above indicates that 1:10 is a bit steep: I assume you've considered the option of a swing bridge or a bascule bridge? You do say the traffic is occasional. It is not uncommon here (the UK) for canals to utilise swing bridges, and the canal traffic is a bit more than occasional, I'd say. Maedin\^talk 17:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The UK at least has a lot of "humpback bridges" which have a very steep grade, but since they don't rise very high the length of grade is very short. It means vehicles don't have trouble climbing the grade, but long vehicles can ground. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

As someone said above, it really depends on what sort of traffic is expected on the bridge. The grade isn't the only issue, either; you also have to consider the vertical curvature where the upgrade and downgrade meet. For high-speed traffic this would have to be pretty gentle, and as DJ said, even for low-speed traffic a sharp vertical curve can be a problem with long vehicles. --Anonymous, 23:59 UTC, February 8, 2010.

Marxism, communism, socialism, whatever it is called question

So I was thinking here, in the style of economy where basically everything is owned by everybody, how would some jobs get done? I mean to take a modern example, it might be quite easy to fill certain jobs because that kind of work would appeal to a great deal of people, but where would the janitors, and coal miners and toxic waste cleanup people come from without economic incentive to fill those jobs? Would people be forced into those jobs? But by who since true communism or whatever it is called would not have a government either? Googlemeister (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You're talking about true stateless communism, the endpoint of Marxism. If memory serves, Marx and Engels didn't discuss this subject rigorously, but only famously said that the state would "fade away". Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

restricting ourselves (for the moment) to 'true' or 'stateless' communism: where did you get the idea that there wouldn't be a government? The problem with government (in Marxist terms) is not that that it exists, but that it gets co-opted to serve the interests of a particular class (as an example, some modern Marxists have fun pointing out how the US government goes to the ends of the earth to protect the interests of major corporations, but can't even pass a health care bill that would protect average citizens). a pure marxist society would obviously have some system for making collective decisions - I have no idea what that would look like, but there's nothing in Marxism against it.

with respect to 'dirty, dangerous, difficult' jobs: again, Marxism would not be a system without remuneration, but any remuneration in pure Marxist society would be based on the value of the labor. in any socio-economic system sanitation work has a very, very high value (if you've ever been in a city during a garbage strike, you know what I mean). The reason sanitation work is avoided in capitalist societies is that it is constructed as 'menial' labor (a class based distinction), and no one wants to be classed as a menial if they can avoid it. In a class-free society that stigma wouldn't be there, and sanitation workers would get significant social rewards for doing a job that everyone in society recognizes as vital. --Ludwigs2 18:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

In the Soviet Union I believe that you could be simply assigned to a job. I presume that is how essential but unwanted jobs would be done. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I heard an hour-long interview on NPR with a woman who lived in East Germany under Erich Honecker, and she explained at length how training and employment worked. When she was in her early teens, she took an aptitude test which gave her an array of training options for H.S./College. Based on her aptitude test, she had several options, of which she chose a "hopitality" track, where she trained to work in the hotel/travel industry. She had hoped for a job working in a hotel or travel agency. However, when she graduated, there were more trainees in that job pool than open jobs, so she ended up working as a janitor; essentially unskilled labor, since she had no other training for anything else. She ultimately had no say in her employment options; based on the results of her aptitude test, she was basically assigned a training track, and then once she was trained, the government assigned her a job she was expected to perform her whole life. Again, she had no say in that at all. Her biggest problem was the over-specificity of her training; she probably had the intelligence to do any number of jobs, but she was untrained for them because her training was very specific, and ultimately a dead-end when it came to her actual job prospects. In the end, she ended up working in a hotel as a desk clerk, but that came in the 1990s after reunification. --Jayron32 19:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Similar things happen in the west: you get a degree in Media Studies or something similar, fail to get a job, then have to do menial work you are over qualified for, and are too poor or too proud to get another degree in something else. 92.26.29.37 (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

yeah... the Soviet Union was a stalinist single-party system that's about as far from the ideal of pure Marxism as you can imagine. This is a bit like citing British colonialism as an example of Smith's free market economics. --Ludwigs2 19:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Much of the British Empire was acquired by private capitalism and in order to further trade, i.e. the free market. You might want to choose a different simile. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll choose a different simile when you show how the British interaction with native peoples in India, Africa, and elsewhere was a product of the free market. or are you suggesting that market forces convinced Africans to sell themselves into slavery? --Ludwigs2 21:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that your comment implies you don't know very much about the subject. I read "Memoirs Of A Slave Trader" by Theodore Canot recently, someone more American than any other nationality, and it described how the local Kings willingly cooperated with the slavers and sold enemies and people considered wrongdoers into slavery for money or goods. The continental-European or American slavers bought the slaves from the Kings, who readily delivered them to the coast themselves. The author also described how difficult it was to get past the British warships who, (with great bravery and risking their own lives) did everything they could to stop the slave trade and led to the author giving up his business. Extremely regretably and to our shame, the British did play a big part in the trade befoe it became illegal in the British juristriction (which included the Atlantic Ocean). See Triangular trade, Arab slave trade and Barbary corsairs. The articles say the figures are between 11 and 18 million people by Arab Slave Trader, 9.4 to 14 million in the Atlantic Slave Trade, and 0.8 to 1.25 million by Barbary Pirates. 89.240.202.189 (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Much of what became the British Empire was originally privately held by British companies. The East India Company, the Hudson's Bay Company, etc. And a company buying and selling slaves for profit is still free-market capitalism. They have a product and a market, don't they? Adam Bishop (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Since you're asking about stateless communism, you might be interested in knowing how a bunch of anarchists have answered this question: it's section I.4.13 of the Anarchist FAQ. Marnanel (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

We had a very left wing teacher at our 1970s Comprehensive school; he argued that society could work like a Kibbutz with people rotating through jobs every few weeks. He couldn't explain what would happen when the street sweeper became the heart surgeon and I'm not sure he was serious. In WWII Britain, every tenth(?) man was concripted into the coal mines (the Bevin Boys) instead of the armed services. It wasn't very popular; most would have preferred to be shot at apparently[10]. Alansplodge (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Your suspicions that he was parodying have merit. But if he was serious, for that concept I have this to say in rebuttal: College of Coaches. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah! If only we'd had Wikipedia then (and a computer to read it from). Alansplodge (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs, you seem to have forgotten the motto of Communism: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Peter jackson (talk) 11:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It's always seemed to me that capitalism focuses on the first half of that, and socialism on the second half. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Marx was very inspired by the improvements of technology in the Industrial Revolution and one of his ideas was that improvements in technology would make all jobs much easier and less time consuming. Hence low-status jobs like cleaning could be done by machines that would remove most of the unpleasantness.

It's also worth noting that many people are willing to clean their own homes, cars, etc, without renumeration, far beyond what is minimally necessary for hygiene, some people volunteer to pick up litter in public places, and some people even claim to enjoy cleaning (just not all day every day). --Normansmithy (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

There are few Kibbutzim left that truly follow the original idea of Kibbutz, without deviation, but on them, yes the crappy jobs are happily shared out among the members on a variety of bases, whether taking turns or people specialising in them. As theoretically there is no social kudos from doing a better or worse job, it helps. In practice, most Kibbutzim will buy in local labourers to fill some horrid jobs, especially as there's often a seasonal shortage of hands. --Dweller (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In The Dispossessed the author suggests that in a society with no money for status,the willingness to do dirty,hard or dangerous jobs would confer status and I could see this.hotclaws 19:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to be proud or ashamed?

If we are just a product of the circumstances - social, historical, whatever. If there is no free will, a criminal and a hero are the same, just in another circumstances.--ProteanEd (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

See our Determinism article, which mentions many philosophers through the ages that have discussed the subject. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

also, check out nihilism, which argues something fairly close to what you've stated here. --Ludwigs2 18:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Read both. And how do we escape the despair of nihilism? Or the indifference of determinism? Are criminals and heroes the same? --ProteanEd (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, there's also Fatalism. The answer to your last question will be answered "no" by those who don't believe in determinism, and either "yes" or "no" by those who do. There are determinists who aren't idle fatalists. I notice that, disappointingly, the "ethics" paragraph in our determinism article is too brief, and uncited. Anyway, you're going to have to go to the philosophers to get any satisfaction for your question, and they're probably a better source than us. Personally I recommend Slaughterhouse Five. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Escape? If you're asking for spiritual advice, I'll point out that the major failing of determinism and nihilism (and related philosophies like existentialism) is that they collapse physical experience into an intellectual abstraction. it's one thing to breathe, which we do most moments of every day. it's another thing entirely to think about breathing as an abstract concept: such thoughts will lead to the recognition that there's no 'reason' why we breathe or continue to breathe, which leads in turn to fears of death, angst about meaninglessness, paranoia about whether one is breathing 'correctly', philosophical meanderings about the relationship of breath to the greater cosmos... The only reason people do 'wrong' in the world is because they convince themselves (as a matter of intellectual abstraction) that they are doing 'right', and the only reason other people think it's wrong is that it violates their (intellectually abstract) preconceptions of what is right. when you see through your interpretation of the experience to the experience itself, the kind of despair you're talking about has no place to connect.

put another way, you have pretty much as much free will as you decide you have. If you decide you don't have very much (which is what most people do) you're a chump of circumstance, which may or may not work out well or you. If you decide you have a lot, then even bad times won't get you down because you'll make the best of them that you can. --Ludwigs2 19:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well-stated. Someone deciding they have no free will is a cop-out. It enables them to blame someone else for their failings, rather than taking responsibility. Want proof of free will? Decide which letter on the keyboard you're going to hit next. Is someone forcing you to hit a particular key? No, you're choosing to. That's not to say there won't be different effects from hitting different keys. But actually hitting the key is your own responsibility and decision. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

But see Laplace's demon. I recommend the thread end, before we replicate 3,000 years of philosophical debate. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

We need not concern ourselves about theoretical things for which there is no evidence of existence. Regarding replicating 3,000 years of philosophy... aw, c'mon, there's plenty of disk space. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you get it. The demon isn't a thing, it's a posited ability to predict the entirety of the future based on a complete knowledge of the situation right now. Mark Twain wrote: "When the first living atom found itself afloat on the great Laurentian sea the first act of that first atom led to the second act of that first atom, and so on down through the succeeding ages of all life, until, if the steps could be traced, it would be shown that the first act of that first atom has led inevitably to the act of my standing here in my dressing-gown at this instant talking to you." We are but slaves to the atoms of the moment, unable to perform any actions, or even generate any thoughts, that could not have been foreseen millions of years ago. I type here on the Humanities reference desk because the billiard balls making up the universe have collided in such a way that I type here on the Humanities reference desk. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

if that's what you choose to believe, then c'est la vie. I choose otherwise. of course, you'll feel obligated to say that I can't choose otherwise, and I'll feel a definite urge to laugh at you, which I may or may not choose to do. --Ludwigs2 00:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like just another concept of what God might be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That's why I suggested it was spiritual advice. people underestimate the extent to which ontological discussions are both physical and spiritual. for instance, both the random gene model in evolutionary theory and the clockwork universe idea in physics were advanced (at least in part) because they explicitly nullified religious assertions about the presence of God in the world. Nihilism did the same - it was originally an effort (following Hegel and Neitzche) to create a secular/philosophical conception of morality. intellectual history is a fascinating thing... --Ludwigs2 07:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Writer of book (or article) falsely reporting Iraq War atrocities by US troops

We once had an article about a US soldier, or claimed soldier, who wrote such a book or article. As I recall, his work was initially met with great acclaim by the media but was later debunked. Does anyone recall his name? Thanks, CliffC (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If it helps to jog anyone's memory, I recall there was at one point a photo of the writer in uniform – the photo was also debunked, due to some sort of mismatch (maybe the hat?) with the proper uniform for his claimed branch of service. --CliffC (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've reposted this from the archives, perhaps someone thought my added comment was an answer. --CliffC (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, excellent -- that's the guy. I might have had him confused with someone else as far as the uniform oddities, but that's the name I remember. Thanks, CliffC (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

chinese lending

I am having trouble finding the exact date the U.S. first borrowed money from China. Will you please help me? Stu Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.164.76.35 (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't think there has ever been a "loan" in the sense of a direct government-to-government request for money, but China has bought a significant number of U.S. Treasury bonds (partly in pursuit of its own self-interest). AnonMoos (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"partly"? Why ever would Chinese investors (government or private) buy US T-bills for any reason other than their own self interest? Investors buy US bonds because there's a huge market in them, because they're AAA rated, and because the investors want to diversity their investments out of their own and related economies; all prudent investment goals. Beyond that buying US bonds helps shore up US demand for Chinese products. All entirely, and openly, their obvious self interest. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 19:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that AnonMoos meant "in pursuit of its own self-interest other than simply making money". DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I've not found a reliable history of Chinese ownership of government T-bills, but China (where "China" means both the large government sovereign wealth fund and private owners) owned USD 790 billion in November 2009, up from 585 billion in September 2008; that latter article says "China’s ownership of U.S. government debt has doubled since July 2005", so you can put the July 2005 figure at around 290 billion. In general, this NY Times article says China has been increasing its ownership of US debt (which includes T-bills and mortgages from Fannie-Mae and Freddie-Mac) since the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis (the NT Times article says 1998 rather than 1997). -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

To expand on this a bit more. When we say that "China owns the U.S. debt" we don't mean that China and the U.S. made a direct dealing whereby China directly offered and the U.S. sought a loan like you would go to the bank and get a car loan. It doesn't really work that way. Instead, the U.S. offered United States Treasury securitys on the open bond market. These are no different than the bonds that any private company may offer to raise capital. Anyone could have bought those bonds, indeed many people and banks all over the world buy US Treasury securities; maybe your grandmother used to buy you U.S. Savings Bonds: its the exact same thing, but on a MUCH larger scale. Basically, China (meaning both the Chinese Government and individual and corporate investors based in China) purchased US Treasury Bonds as investment vehicles, just as individuals and corporations do in the U.S. --Jayron32 19:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

And to expand on that a bit more, the Chinese government may be buying these bonds at auction, or may be buying them on the open bond market from random people around the world who happen to want to sell them that day; if the latter, the US government doesn't actually receive any money from China at all. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that the questioner understands by now that the United States does not go to China, hat in hand, asking for a loan. As for when China first bought U.S. debt securities, in effect lending money to the United States, I would think that this must have happened by the 1940s at the latest, though at nowhere near the scale of China's present-day holding of U.S. debt. I have not been able to find a reference to support my supposition, but the establishment of the Bretton Woods system in 1944 made the U.S. dollar the world's reserve currency. Even before 1944, but certainly after 1944, central banks held U.S. dollars or U.S. dollar securities as part of their foreign reserves. A key function of a central bank is to hold foreign reserves to help facilitate trade, among other reasons. Typically central banks, such as the Central Bank of China or the People's Bank of China, prefer to hold foreign-currency securities (i.e., debt) in their reserves rather than cash, because securities yield interest. It is hard to imagine that the central banks of China during the aftermath of World War II did not hold some U.S. debt. Marco polo (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

However, if that was the case, it would have been nationalist China. I assume the questioner had in mind mainly the PRC... AnonMoos (talk)

China (PRC) first purchased US T-bills in March 1985, and has been a regular buyer ever since. The total purchased as of Nov 2009 was $2,308 billion. However, that number does not include any purchase made through third parties (e.g., London dealers) or any sales. Over 25+ years, China has bought (same caveats as above) about 1% of all US T-bills and agency paper issued.

Why would the Chinese government buy T-bills? First, they are not our enemy; we’re not at war, not even a cold war, so there is no ideological disincentive. Second, T-bills are the most liquid high-rated financial instrument in the world. Third, once China’s purchase of T-bills (and, a whole lot of other stuff called agency paper) reached a volume where it was capable of moving the market, it was enormously discouraged from stopping (or even slowing) its purchases, as the knock-on effects would be devastating to China and the world economy. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

legal routing number on check

I received a check in the mail suppose to be a Grant check, but when I tryed to cash it they would not because of the name of the bank and then I took it to my bank and they could not find the bank name or routing number. How could I find out if this is a real check or not? The name of the bank is US Bank out of Minneapolis, MN 55480, routing number is "092005411", is there such a place or bank? Please let me know what I can do if anything.

Thank You, DuAnn Goode <email removed to prevent spam> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.61 (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Your bank would know this far better than anonymous people on the Internet like us. I googled "092005411" and what comes up is many pages of warnings about counterfeit money orders and checks. You will have to believe your bank on this one. Sorry you were scammed. How exactly did it occur? Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you have to send the "Grantor" money in order to get the suspect check? Edison (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If so, the scammers have probably cashed it by now, but it could be worth trying to stop the payment somehow. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused by your question. Did this grant cheque arrive totally unexpectedly, like a random stranger just sent it to you? If so, it could easily be a scam or fraud. On the other hand, if you were expecting this cheque from a legitimate source of grants (ie. you made an application to the government or some charity), I would contact them for more information about their bank. Astronaut (talk) 05:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I don't know about routing numbers, but could there be a misprint on the cheque? I also found several US Banks in the Minneapolis area including their corporate headquarters. Visit http://www.usbank.com/ for more info. Astronaut (talk) 06:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It is unlikely to be a misprint, I'm afraid. It appears you have been scammed by the "Greendot grant aid scam". It works like this: you receieve a cheque, supposedly an advance on a grant, from someone claiming to be a grants administrator. You send them a "commission" (usually around $400) via the Greendot money transfer service, and they send you the balance of your grant (usually several thousand dollars). The cheque is a fraud and will bounce or be cancelled, the grant doesn't arrive, and your $400 has gone for good. The routing number 092005411 is linked repeatedly to this fraud, although the bank ID varies. The signatory on the cheque is often named Marilyn Ritchie. There's info out there on this scam, although some on forums Wikipedia doesn't like, so I won't link. Google "greendot marilyn ritchie grant scam". I'm sorry you've been targeted, and I hope you have not lost money. Karenjc 17:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't find that scam covered in wikipedia. Seems like it ought to be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It would come under advance fee fraud, and particularly the subsection about fake cheques. Karenjc 22:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible qualification to claim title of Emperor

Thinking in terms of qualifications required to hold a title would a good definition for Emperor be the person who within a specified period of time was the first person to reduce to minimum form the greatest number of valid logical equations, which had the greatest number of variables with the greatest number of states? (Similar to how one might define of the final winner in a Chess championship such as Big Blue, or whatever the last Chess playing computer winner was named, that had won against all other players.) 71.100.8.16 (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Emperor of what? Adam Bishop (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The Universe, or at least as far in that direction as control over it from Earth might extend. 71.100.8.16 (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears that you don't need to rule over an empire to be called an emperor, as in the case of the Emperor of Japan. --Kvasir (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I reckon a monarch can call itself whatever it wants to. In any case, in 1941 it was an empire, as FDR referred to in his speech about having been attacked by "the Empire of Japan". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Japan is considered an empire because the Yamato (the imperial family) conquered lots of little kingdoms to unify the country. Nyttend (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Emperor of Japan is so titled because the title was directly chosen to emulate the Chinese title Huangdi, which is translated as Emperor because of the similarity in status of the Chines Emperor versus the predecessor Chinese kingdom and the subject kingdoms as that of the Roman Emperor.

By contrast, the title granted by the Chinese emperor to the ruler of Japan is merely Wang, or "king". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hasn't this already been automated (at least for binary logic)? Besides, philosophers apparently only aspire to be kings, while mathematicians are satisfied with princes. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

...and for polyvalued ( Many-valued might be the better term since poly-valued could suggest that more than a single state of the same variable could be valid at the same time. You tell me. ) logic here? 71.100.8.16 (talk) 06:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

So here's the long and short of it. In English, the word "Emperor" has two contexts:

• In a European context, there is only one Emperor: the Roman Emperor. For most of history, every legitimate claimaint to the actual title of Emperor, or a varient thereof, has a connection to the Roman Emperor. This claim has been divided multiple times over history, but they all usually claim a thread back to Rome. Consider the following claimaint threads:
• When Rome divided into the Eastern Roman Empire and Western Roman Empire, it essentially created two Emperors, and all Emperors connect to one or the other. There was the Western/Latin/Catholic Emperor thread and the Eastern/Orthodox/Greek Emperor thread. Lets follow each of these:

• The Western claim basically disappeared after Odoacer deposed the last legitimate western emperor. The next realistic claimaint to that title was Charlemagne who established the Frankish Empire. Through him, the Holy Roman Empire gets its claim to the title of Emperor. When Napoleon officially disbanded the HRE, he got to claim himself as the head of the French Empire (since he was replacing the last legitimate Western empire with himself). Napoleon III based his claim on a French Empire through Napoleon I's claim, and then, via the results of the Franco-Prussian War, when Napoleon III was deposed, the Western claim passed on to the German Empire. Through all of this, the Hapsburgs maintained their claim to the Western title, so Austria and Austria/Hungary also maintained the title of Emperor, even after the HRE was officially ended by Napoleon. After WWI, the west finally decided to end the entire charade, and the Roman Empire in the West was put to an end.
• The Eastern claim evolved from the Eastern Roman Empire to the Byzantine Empire (which is a modern term, the Eastern Roman Empire never stopped calling itself that, so as far as they were concerned, there was no functional change). At various times, when Constantinople fell, the claim was divided or shifted to other claimants. For example, when the crusaders sacked the city, they established the Latin Empire. When the Ottoman Turks seized the city in 1453, the claim devolved to the Empire of Trebizond (as direct descendants of the Byzantine Emperors) and to Moscow, which seized the title of "Third Rome" as the last bastion of eastern orthodox christendom, the Dukes of Muscovy took the tile Tsar, from "Caesar" or "Emperor". So, the main eastern claimaint was the Tsar of Russia, which also basically expired during WWI (or more properly the Russian Revolution).
• By the 19th century, there occasionally sprung up some states with absolutely no claim to the Roman Empire title, but with European connections. The two off hand I can think of are the Empire of Brazil (basically a continuation of the Kingdom of Portugal-in-exile after the Napoleonic wars) and the two Mexican Empires.

• So that's the story for Europe. Elsewhere in the world, the term "Emperor" is more liberally applied to monarchs in other cultures whose states operate something like the Roman Empire did, or occupied the same sort of Hegemony over their part of the world. Thus, we have things like the Chinese Emperor, the Japanese Emperor, the Aztec Emperor, etc. etc. Since these cultures had absolutely zero connection to Rome, the term emperor is used somewhat poetically; the term has a different meaning in these contexts than it does in the European one, and isn't a direct translation of Emperor, instead its just the term we use in English as an analog to the local term of "Highest possible ranking monarch" for that culture. --Jayron32 04:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Not so fast, Jayron32. Victoria also laid claim to be Empress of India, albeit iirc this was forced on her by one of her prime ministers. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As I stated, the title was occasionally used in the 19th century by European rulers over their non-European possessions. See my cites for the Empire of Brazil and Empire of Mexico above. Though I did not mentioned it specifically, the use of the "Empire of India" title by the British Monarchy certainly fits right in this category. I may have missed a few other such 19th cnetury usages, my naming of the Empire of Brazil and the Empire of Mexico was not intended to be comprehensive, merely representative, of the odd 19th century usage. --Jayron32 05:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Your response is excellent. Its reader friendly yet detailed enough to surpass Monarch Notes (tiny pun intended) but surely the Roman title is qualified on the basis of something like military power or gold reserves or legal system or some religious belief as grounds for making the claim which the title represents. What I am asking is whether the basis I have suggested would make a better basis for the title than anything, anywhere in the past, future or present and if not what that other thing might be. (Please consider writing a book if you have not already done so.) 71.100.8.16 (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Not really. Every title has an historical context; the term Emperor was not invented out of whole cloth to refer to just any ruler of a multinational state. It is used often that way in a modern context, as I stated above, somewhat poetically. But in terms of its historical context, the title Emperor has a very specific usage, just as do terms like King and Duke and Count and Sherrif and various other titles. Generally, even in a modern usage, these have retained some of their historical context (in the U.S. the Sherrif is the top law-enforcement officer in a County (Shire) and so, the term is very close to its original meaning from England, "Shire-reeve"). I mean, you can just to call anyone anything you want. LeBron James is "King James", Edward Kennedy Ellington was a "Duke", Joshua Abraham Norton was an "Emperor". --Jayron32 16:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Babe Ruth was a Sultan, Rogers Hornsby was a Rajah, Mr. Aaron was the King of Slam, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

And Mr Bob Geldof is commonly but mistakenly referred to as Sir Bob Geldof. He's no more a real Sir than Count Basie was a real count or Duke Wayne was a real duke. . -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

See Imperator for the origins of the title. FiggyBee (talk) 10:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

February 9

Extant Mayan And Aztec People

We have extant mayan, incan, and aztec people, right?174.3.98.236 (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

People descended from them anyway (e.g. Maya peoples). "Only" their civilizations were wiped out. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The category "Maya" is still in use. There are various ethnic groups that are still called Maya, though they speak a variety of different languages. The terms Inca and Aztec are not used as labels for peoples today. In fact, neither term was used as a label for peoples at the times of the empires we describe as Aztec or Inca. The dominant ethnic group of the Aztec empire referred to itself as the Mexica people. They were a subgroup of the Nahua peoples. There is no longer a distinct group that identifies as Mexica, but there are people today who identify as Nahua. The Inca Empire was named after the title of its ruler, the Inca. Its people, and their descendants today, were/are the Quechuas. Marco polo (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Democratic socialist countries ranked at 2nd and 3rd highest GDPs in the world

According to List of countries by GDP (PPP) per hour worked. Does this mean that contemporary economic theory (that unbridled free-market capitalism is best) is wrong? 89.240.202.189 (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

There are quite a few contemporary economic theories (Keynesianism, for example, which is now very much in vogue again, does not hold that unbridled free-market capitalism is best). But any economist would also quickly point out that GDP is not necessarily the best way to measure economic strength, and that the particular metric you've picked GDP per hour worked, gives very different results than, say, List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal), or List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita. Picking the correct metric is pretty essential to drawing the right conclusions. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Picking the correct metric is pretty essential to proving whichever economic theory you like. DuncanHill (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ on the OP's assumptions. There are many contemporary economic theories, but if the simplified version of economic theory taught to school kids can be seen as broadly representing mainstream consensus, then that view is definitely not in favour of unbridled free-market capitalism, at least here in Australia. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

unbridled capitalism is seen as destructive in almost every context (the exceptions being some radical right-wing perspectives that tie it in with US economic hegemonization and the suppression of third world populations). General academic consensus is that capitalism needs to be moderated by various systems of regulation for he health of the greater society. the extent of such regulation varies across different perspectives, of course, but no scholars that I know of argue for a regulation-free system. --Ludwigs2 07:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If anyone ever gets around to actually practicing unbridled free-market capitalism, and somehow also manages to collect sufficient data over a useful period of time (how in the world would that work?) so as to enable economists to determine the relative strengths and weaknesses of such a system vis-à-vis 'real world economies, I’d be thrilled if someone would drop me a note on the subject. So far, the only candidate -- and, their data collection is crap -- is Somolia. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

as the old economics joke goes, capitalism is based on the idea that everyone will try to maximize profits and minimize costs. therefore, the ideal capitalist is a professional thief. --Ludwigs2 09:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Funny you should mention that. Richard Armour once wrote that financier John Pierpont Morgan "was known by his initials, J.P., in order to distinguish him from Henry Morgan, the pirate." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

From an American perspective, it is considered a necessary admittance for individual liberty that the government holds constituted power through its departments, and that the federal government oversees and administers the states. In similar ways, the market under the influence of the same ideology, stemming in what I'd call individualistic liberalism, demands control. Keep in mind that economy and the nature of states is a fluent evolution, never still and not tomorrow what it was yesterday. Norway, ranking high in standard of living and GDP through work, is doing well in comparison to its contemporaries. My answer: There is no wrong or right, except for at a given time in a given situation. America may have functioned rather well early on, when it was a young republic and the laws were still crafted. Today, however, most will recognize there are legislative difficulties. It is not my intention to discuss American politics, but the parallel to the financial market is that today, Norway might do well. In a few decades, it may not at all, and its policies demand to be altered. Their contemporary economic theory is sufficient for today, but may not in the future. I beg attention to the fact that the future is uncertain, and what we see as a pinnacle of civilization (liberalism and free market, most notably) today may not at all be what we are evolving towards. If a country under one economic model is not doing well, then it should either alter its situation or alter its model; until then I guess it is "wrong". 77.18.3.47 (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Look at the data. The list is badly flawed by not representing the entire world. It omits a great many countries, including the entire Middle East. --Dweller (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, neither Norway nor France are "socialist" in any but the US talk radio sense. They have working market economies with a reasonable (larger than the US) state influence. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That is because Americans appear to define "socialism" as being what Eurpeans would call communism. 92.26.29.37 (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Explain the concept of music licensing for online broadcasting to me

I need to understand why Pandora Radio is not available in Canada. According to the company, this is because, "In the USA there is a well understood payment mechanism and fee structure for webcasters - one license and one set of rates for all webcasters and all rightsholders. In most of the rest of the world we are required to negotiate terms separately with each rightsholder."

I don't really know what they're talking about. Can someone take this back to square one and explain it to me in the "for dummies" version? Thanks. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that I've never heard of this before, so all I'm saying is my interpretation of their words; I'm not giving you anything based on a knowledge of music licensing. In other words: webcasters (online broadcasters, such as Pandora Radio) have negotiated with the rightholders (people who own the copyrights to the music you want to listen to) to create a system for paying royalties (fees for using their copyrighted material) that seems to apply to most or all US rightsholders. However, this has only been negotiated under US law; because it's not made to work under other countries' laws, it can only be used in the USA, so they have to make separate arrangements with the same rightsholders to use the music in other countries. Apparently Pandora hasn't made arrangements with rightsholders under Canadian law, so they can't make it listenable without infringing copyright. Does this make sense? Nyttend (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That much I get. What I don't understand is what is meant by "a well understood payment mechanism and fee structure for webcasters - one license and one set of rates for all webcasters and all rightsholders." This seems to result from a particular piece of U.S. legislation, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. How does that law make Pandora Radio possible? How would Canada have to change its laws to make Pandora available there? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Canadians would have to pass legislation establishing a statutory license for the sort of content required by the webcasters. It probably has this sort of thing in place for traditional radio. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

See Copyright collective for the general situation which applies to ordinary broadcast radio (don't know how digital radio is different). AnonMoos (talk) 06:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here's the deal: it all started with the PERFORM Act, a bill passed to regulate the use of streaming internet services to play music. In early 2007, the Copyright Royalty Board in the USA decided that the fees for these services would not only increase, but be retroactive to 2006!. A consortium of music copyright holders called SoundExchange pushed the higher rates, and negotiations with 'net streaming services did not go well. Some congressfolk tried to overturn the decision, but failed. After some rather unpleasant negotiations, SoundExchange agreed to postpone the deadline. Pandora was one of the services having the most trouble, as they weren't a typical streaming service and had no "normal" music distribution off the Internet either. Right into late 2008, pure Internet streaming was still being negotiated. It took the Webcaster Settlement Act of 2008 to finally get negotiations on the ball. It wasn't until mid-2009 that an amicable decision was reached.

The upshot of this is, I'd say Pandora is waiting until Canada's media & government settle on fees before deciding to allow streaming there, to make sure they can afford it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Transport with horses in China

What kinds of carriages or travois or similar implements drawn by horse did the Chinese use throughout history to transport goods or travel? Thanks for any help 87.111.102.157 (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This site is pretty useful. I found the most useful information was from the third paragraph down. Chevymontecarlo (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Prussian East India Company

Reading the tabloids this morning, I became aware that a plate on the Antiques Roadshow, valued at £100,000, was designed by the Prussian East India Company for their founder. The world/internet seems to have nothing on this insitution. Only a few German such firms exist, all for Africa and not the Indian subcontinent. Did it really exist, and was just very quiet? Or is somebody here mistaken? - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Aha. Found the answer on Christie's, here, it seems they were only around for 6 years and had 7 ships. Explains the lack of information about them. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Our German colleagues have an article on the company: de:Emder Ostasiatische Handelskompanie. Marco polo (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

How much of the US's wealth due to its natural resources per capita?

America is about five times the population of for example Great Britain, yet it must be hundreds (?) of times the size, with consequently hundreds of times the natural resources. How much of the US's GDP is due to having much more natural resources per capita compared with smaller more crowded countries? 92.26.29.37 (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Do natural resources include forestry? Does the profit from oil refineries and steel works count?
Sleigh (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, why not. 92.26.29.37 (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)An interesting article to look at is List of countries by GDP sector composition. It doesn't list size of the economy from natural resources, but does include numbers for agriculture, industry, and services. Interestingly, a higher percentage of the UK's GDP is in agriculture and Industry (presumably where natural resource development is counted) than the US, suggesting that their natural resources are a proportionately bigger part of their economy than the U.S. economy (something that is surprising to me, for the reason you listed in your question). Based on that alone, I'd say the answer to your question is "not much, if any". I'm sure you can find a breakdown of different countries' GDPs by more specific sectors, which would probably give you a better idea. And of course, my answer doesn't take into account historical resource use, which probably has influenced the current sizes of the economies, even if it no longer makes up a significant portion of the economy. Buddy431 (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The figures for Agriculture are 1.0% and 0.9% - not a big difference. Makes me wonder what they do with all that land in the US. I suppose the answer is that agriculture must be more intensive in the UK - fertilisers and machinery - as a result of the higher cost of land. 92.26.29.37 (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the land in the US isn't suitable for farming. Out west you have the deserts of Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and California. Then there's quite a bit of mountainous land in the Rockies and the Appalachians. And let's not forget the swamps in Florida. Alaska, which is more than twice the size of Texas, doesn't have much of a growing season either. Dismas|^(talk) 21:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Where did the iron ore for battleships come from?

During World Wars I and II, Germany was still making lots of things like tanks, submarines, battleships perhaps. Where did the iron, and before that the iron ore, come from to make them? It would have been difficult to get from abroad then. And now, lots of metal things such as cars are manufactured, yet I've never seen any trainloads of iron ore moving about. They just magically appear as a finished product. 92.26.29.37 (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The article Swedish iron ore during World War II has some information on that. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

PS: Some of the rest would have been mined at Eisenerz. The demographic figures given in the article would indicate its importance during the Third Reich. See also Noric steel for the place in Roman times. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

So if the Swedes had stopped iron ore exports, then Germany would not have been able to continue with the war. That makes Sweden friends of the Nazis and not neutral. 89.240.205.46 (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

In terms of 'why you don't see it' things like Ore-bulk-oil carrier and Freight trains and the section on 'heavy duty ore traffic' give you an indication of what form of transport is used. Put simply unless you happen to know what's in a tanker or a freight-train (or for that matter a truck) you'll have little idea of the cargo inside. Iron-ore does appear, however, to be primarily transported by big carriers like oil-tankers and the like. ny156uk (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

oops and also Bulk cargo. ny156uk (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)