Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

March 21

Religion

Do you have an accurate % of how many people are Catholic in the U.S.A.? Thank you and God Bless you, Father Jason Joseph Asche —Preceding unsigned comment added by Father Asche (talk • contribs) 05:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Religion_in_the_United_States#Christianity says 23.9%. StuRat (talk) 05:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Note, that is people that identify as Catholic. Not all of them will be practising Catholics. If you want the percentage of people that actually attend a Catholic church service on a regular basis, we'll have to do more hunting (the values differ depending on whether you ask people how often they go to church or ask churches how many people attend!). --Tango (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Such a caveat should not be restricted to Catholics, though. Many Protestants also are "only on holidays" churchgoers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This page[1] gives a figure of 65% practicing to 35% non-practicing. More data here[2]. Alansplodge (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. I didn't restrict it, I just didn't consider protestants relevant to the question. --Tango (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Any truth to reports of Chinese people making cooking oil from sewage

I want to know if there is any truth at all to certain websites on the net suggesting that Chinese people in China consume food make from cooking oil which is created from raw sewage. For example this url

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/31712/

122.107.207.98 (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It's probably true that a certain amount of cooking oil is recycled in China (which is what that article is suggesting, it's not oil "created from raw sewage"). To what extent the particulars of the article - that oil is harvested from sewers, that oil is recycled in such large quantities, or the level of health risk - are true I couldn't say. How much credit do you give the sources (eg the Epoch Times)? FiggyBee (talk) 13:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)That sounds bizarre. There are two possible re-interpretations. One form of cooking gas is methane, which can be extracted from sewage or manure, a process known as biogas. Another is the more general cycle of nature: farmers may use night soil to fertilise their crops, which might include plants from which vegetable fats and oils derive, sunflowers for example. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Or, y'know, you could have actually read the article he linked to before "reinterpreting" the question... FiggyBee (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

what about this url? http://www.recordchina.co.jp/group.php?groupid=40648&type=1 122.107.207.98 (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a gamer url talking about it. http://gbatmw.net/showthread.php?tid=13428 122.107.207.98 (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

We need some perspective on this. We in the West drink water (tap or bottled) that was flushed down the toilet by others. It's just properly processed to remove contaminants then returned to the rivers and lakes (from which it is drawn back out for people). The same can be done with oil. The differences are that some of the oil is 100% recycled by humans, while water is not, and the water treatment methods we use are better at removing contaminants that those used by individuals in China. Rather than stopping this process, they should have the government regulate it, so the oil never goes into the sewers, and is properly decontaminated, before being reused. Also note that we have a similar issue in restaurants in the West, where the same vat of oil can be reused for long periods, accumulating contaminants. Perhaps a system to continually decontaminate the oil and reuse it would be better. StuRat (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The oil is being recycled from waste, but not human waste. Based on press reports by government sources from China (and not from anti-government sources like the Epoch Times, which is affiliated with the Falun Gong), the current scandal is about unscrupulous merchants who siphon the oil from kitchen waste, purify it and re-sell it as cooking oil. Some say that one in ten restaurant meals in China is cooked with recycled oil. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

There was a scandal in Britain a few years ago when the French were discovered to be feeding chickens human sewage. It put me off eating chicken for a while. 78.149.193.98 (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Life of Moreshwar Ramchandra Kale

Please help me find biography of Moreshwar Ramchandra Kale. He had a lot of Sanskrit works but I can't find his biography. Thank you. --ธวัชชัย (talk) 13:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Israel and the Palestinians

What exactly are the issues between the Palestinians and the Israelis that no matter how many people try to help solve the issues, they are still where they were years ago? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.76.14 (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article Israeli–Palestinian conflict has many linked articles to help you get a full view. Remember, the Reference desk is not a forum for airing debate.--Wetman (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The Palestinians assert that the territories (West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights) are occupied territories and demand that Israel vacate them so that they can form a new nation called "Palestine." The Israelis assert that the territories are annexed into Israel and that the Palestinians have no sovereign right to the land from any persepctive (historical, geopolitical, religious, etc.) I don't think anyone's been able to help solve their issues because the media spins the issues and very few people are informed about the history behind the present state or really care about the issues. (And as suggested by Wetman, this question will likely develop into a big mess because it's controversial -- but I think I outlined the basics pretty simply.) DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's just the West Bank and Gaza Strip which are in dispute. Both the Jews and Palestinians claim the whole of Israel/Palestine. StuRat (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

On what basis would the Palestinians claim the entirety? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

On the basis that they were living in it before being expelled by force of arms. DuncanHill (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) On the basis of Muslims having had control of Israel/Palestine, from 630 AD - 1918 (with the exception of short periods during the Crusades), from the conquest by Mohammed to the defeat of the Ottoman Empire during WW1. See Palestine#Islamic period (630–1918 CE).StuRat (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

1) Israel has yet to expel Palestinians from their land en masse. Arab nations have, however, expelled Jews numerous times.

2) Your argument would be valid if a) the Palestinians actually wanted to just live where they have lived for many years and b) Israel was not allowing them to do so. But the Palestinians don't just want to maintain their private property but demand a sovereign nation on land that "was their sovereign territory" -- but that's based on the false premise that there was ever a Palestinian sovereign territory to begin with. The claim that "Muslims lived there and so other Muslims can by proxy demand the land returned to them" (read "the other group of Muslims") doesn't possess any validity.

I just don't understand your argument -- do you deny these historical realities? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I pass no judgment on the validity of the claim, but simply state that this claim has been made (that "historically Muslim controlled land should remain so (or be so restored)"). StuRat (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Validity of claims is apparently overlooked by the uninformed majority. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's our place to discuss that here, since that would lead to a debate. The nature of the claims is a factual matter, but their validity is a matter of opinion. StuRat (talk) 03:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, first of all no Palestinian group claims the Golan heights as Palestinian. The Golan heights belong to Syria. Secondly, I think we must conclude that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not merely a conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, but involves a lot of other, international, interests. The conflict could be settled quite rapidly, if the U.S. stopped propping up the Israeli warmachine and if Arab neighbouring regimes would end their hypocritical attitude of denouncing Israel in rhetoric whilst allowing oil exports to Israel in practice. --Soman (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It could also be settled if certain countries stopped openly vowing to destroy Israel and stopped conducting suicide bombings and the like. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

@baseballlbugs; no, on the contrary. The position that the conflict could only be ended by first enabling a sense of 'security' amongst the Israeli polity is the same as wishing perpetual conflict. The sense of security is elusive, and can never be obtained on forehand. Trust is something that is built in process. There are numerous examples (for example, almost all of Europe) were previous mortal enemies are now happy neighbours. It is acheived through normalization of relations. In this case the ball is in Israel's court. They can withdraw from the occupied territories, and thus change the dynamics of the conflict. Such a move would enable a peaceful solution to the conflict and in such a context whatever rhetoric that might come out of Tehran would be just as irrelevant as Gaddafi's statements on dissolving Switzerland (see the other thread above). --Soman (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the real problem is that each side says the other started it and won't back down from their repsective positions. In fact, Israel and Egypt settled their differences, and Israel pulled out of the Sinai because they no longer regarded Egypt as a threat. The "he started it" mentality is what fuels this situation, and what has always fueled it - and until that mentality changes, the fighting will continue. The bottom line of what you're saying is, "We'll stop the suicide bombings if you'll surrender." Would you trust the word of someone who said that to you? I certainly wouldn't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

No, that is not what I'm saying. Even if there would be a peaceful settlement of the conflict, there would still be spoilers on both sides. But gradually such elements could be marginalized. The notion that people turn into suicide bombers for sheer fun (or by some abstract philosophical reasoning) lacks material basis. Once Palestinians are able to live normal lifes as human beings (without sieges, humiliation, blockades, curfews, check-points, arbitrary arrests, etc.), suicide bombings will be a historical phenomenon. We have to recognize that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an asymmetrical conflict. Israel has the possibility to withdraw and end the occupation, the Palestinian leadership lacks such options. The Israeli side is highly institutionalized, on the Palestinian side there are various different armed actors. If one group ends rocket launches from Gaza, another resumes it. Only when there is a viable Palestinian state, there will be a Palestinian side that can be a partner for mutual security. In short, peace and justice must preclude security. (edit conflict, responding later to query below) --Soman (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"...peace and justice must preclude security" ? I think you mean "prelude". To "preclude" means to "prevent". StuRat (talk) 04:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes of course, English is not my first language and such mishaps are quite frequent for me. --Soman (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)(Freudian slip?)

No problem, I just wanted to make sure you weren't misunderstood. StuRat (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

@Soman - why would Israel withdraw from land that it captured while defending itself from belligerants? The other countries attack Israel during the War of Israeli Independence and when Israel defends itself and does such a good job that it captures land in the process, the countries say "just kidding -- let me have the land back now"/ DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Peace? Unless peace is attributed some sort of value in itself (and given prominence over arguments of national pride, etc.), any sort of solution of the conflict gets quite remote. From that line of reasoning (i.e. never give up land that was conquered in war), I would say that you are not particularily interested in a settlement of the conflict. Moreover, if you see the 1948 capture of Palestine as a war of defense, then you will have serious difficulties understanding the opposite side of conflict. So, the question perhaps is to ask whether the Israeli majority at this point actually want a peaceful and just 2-state solution. After all 90%+ vote for pro-war parties. In such a scenario, there are two ways of viewing the issue: 1) either we sit down an wait for the Israeli public acheive a moral awakening and to turn around and see the benefits of ending the inhuman occupation of the Palestinian territories or 2) we organize pressure on all fronts (political, economical, cultural, etc.), calling for boycotts, divestments and sanctions, that Israel cannot be a full member of the international community as long as occupation persists. In the case of bringing down Apartheid in South Africa, option 2) worked. --Soman (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said, each side justifies its behavior by saying it's the other side's fault. Until that mentality changes, nothing will change. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The the validity of your elaboration rests on the assumption that the Israelis were at fault in the War of Independence. Perhaps there's no precedent (and that may very well be the issue) but Israel captured the territories in a war in which they were attacked. So land captured by the Israelis is not, for instance, similar to land captured by Germany in its conquest to a priori overtake other nations. And there was no capture of Palestine -- Palestine has never existed. The land belonged to the Ottomans and then the British and then it was either given over for the future State of Israel (which was declared and formed) and to Jordan. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the vast majority of the world's disputes, from international hostility to that argument with your neighbour about the size of his tree, could be sorted if you just sat them down, strapped some logic to them, and asked "But what's the point, really?" Vimescarrot (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Ask yourself how the ongoing Israel situation has helped solidify and strengthen the resolve of all three major groups involved in the struggle, namely Christianity, Islam and Judaism. The answer to that question is also the answer to the question, "What's the point?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

DRosenbach's first answer above is unfortunately mainly incorrect. When it comes to the formal, legal, settings, there is complete agreement, including Israel, that the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights were militarily occupied by Israel in 1967. Israel would like to annex them, but has never squarely come out and formally annexed any of them, although one can make arguments concerning Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. The official representatives of the Palestinians for decades have recognized pre-1967 Israel and supported a two state solution with a state of Palestine based on the West Bank and Gaza with a capital in Jerusalem, with the aim of a future unification of Palestine and Israel through peaceful means.John Z (talk) 11:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

But the Palestinians were offered the Gaza Strip and the West Bank and rejected this offer! And one can perhaps waive the lack of formality employed by Israeli as a display of political submission to a greater power (USA?) -- with Israeli relying on de facto rule for the past 43 years. Even if you reject such a proposal (which I admit is merely a possible explanation of the reality and not an attempt at political wiggling, if you will), Israel (as you have said) has considered unified Jerusalem as its capital for "the past 42 years". How then can Palestinian settlers (because that's what they are, in essence) demand "restoration" of "sovereign" territory that never existed in the first place?

And on your second point, that "the official representatives of the Palestinians" did or did not do something -- has there ever really been an official representation? Even when Yasser Arafat was involved, there would be terrorist attacks and Arafat would bemoan his lack of control over the terrorist entities perpetrated by those over which he had no control -- but a lack of control would suggest that he was not the official representative after all (See September 1993). DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Obviously it should be given back to the Canaanites, from whom it was originally taken. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Kabul Times

Is there anyway to find an archive of the english language newspaper, the Kabul Times, later called the Kabul New Times, from the 1970's and 80's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.229.178.175 (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

WorldCat indicates that there are microfilm copies in various university libraries. That's probably the best option out there. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

fishing sector of Canada 2

what were the main issues and controversies of the fishing industry of Canada? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.175 (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Some links were provided for you three days ago. If you have more specific questions that the links did not answer, please be specific. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I meant to say that in the fishing industry of Canada, were there any controversies being faced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.19 (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

If you google canada fishermen dispute there are many links. The second one is about flounder. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Uganda-Tanzania War press conference

Hello. Apparently, during the Uganda–Tanzania War, the president of Uganda, Idi Amin, (who was a former world champion), challenged the president of Tanzania (Julius Nyerere) to a boxing match, in order to settle the dispute. I believe he did so in a press conference, according to here. That page quotes this bit "I am keeping fit so that I can challenge President Nyerere in the boxing ring and fight it out there, rather than having the soldiers lose their lives on the field of battle."

I've seen this reference in a few other places, too. I'd like to see the transcript of the entire press conference, or the entire address. I can't seem to find archives of major Ugandan newspapers at the time, and it's missing from the NY Times archive. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. Llamabr (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently the quote was from Bob Astles in a phone call to reporters.[3].—eric 21:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to the Ledger article. I hadn't seen it. Though the way I read it, however, is that the author of the article received it as a quote during a telephone call. I still believe that it was announced at a press conference, which makes me think that there's a transcript, if not an audio or a video version of it somewhere. Llamabr (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

more[4].—eric 21:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, I read that the same way. In fact, it's the same quote, which makes me think that this author got it from the same wire service as the previous one. In this one, he goes on to say that he'd do it with one hand tied behind his back. That makes me think there's a full transcript somewhere. thanks again, Llamabr (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, i was able to find a bit more, but i think it was a prepared statement and not from any public remarks. The blog you linked was probably mistaken in saying it was a press conference—as well as mixing up the chronology some. Amin announced the annexation of Kagera 1 November and offered to negotiate a peace at the same time. Nyerere rejected negotiations at a rally 2 November, calling Amin a "barbarian" and comparing him to a snake. The phone interview with Astles came on the 3rd and was a response to Nyerere's comments.

Astles (phoning from Kampala and speaking to reporters in Nairobi) stated that Amin had spent the 2nd "in the battle zone" and had flown back to the State House at Entebbe that morning where he began "basketball exercises" and dictated the following statement:

I am keeping fit so that I can challenge President Nyerere in the boxing ring, and we fight it out there rather than soldiers lose their lives on the field of battle. There is a saying in Africa that when elephants fight it is the grass that suffers.

That might be the whole of the prepared statement, the rest about Ali etc. Astles recounting their earlier conversation.—eric 06:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

As a minor correction, Amin was never a 'world champion' boxer. He was a champion of Uganda for a time (as his article mentions), and I believe had won British Army boxing titles, but (despite the British Army serving around the world) these would only have been open to British Army personnel and cannot be considered 'world championships' in the usual sense. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 22:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Why was France so weak militarily during WW2?

Never really understood this. Were they also weak during WW1? I'm assuming it might be because they lost the Napoleonic Wars, but that was a long time ago relatively speaking. ScienceApe (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

In 1939, the French had almost a million men under arms, with 5 million trained reservists. However, the strategic thinking was still First World War, with massive defenses all along the border. In the end the Germans invaded through an unexpected route, captured Paris within a couple of months, and simply left the bulk of the French forces in their dust. FiggyBee (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Our article Military history of France is a featured article. France has a long history of having one of the very best militaries in Europe. Specific to WW2, you want Battle of France and the enormous article Military history of France during World War II. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The Oxford Companion to World War II says that the French army in 1939 was "regarded by many as the best in the world, heavily armed, well equipped and led by highly acclaimed veterans of 1918... it was the German superiority in the operational deployment and use of tanks and planes that made these comparisons in retrospect look irrelevant."--Pondle (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

If one does a comparison between German and French military strength in 1939, do remember that France in 1939 also had a vast colonial empire that stretched across every continent on earth. Large parts of the French military were stationed outside of metropolitan France, not at its land border with Germany. --Soman (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Vast, but mostly rather sandy. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The main problem with the French Army in 1940 was one of poor morale and poor leadership. Gamelin's HQ didn't use radio or telephones for fear of espionage and was famously described as a "submarine without a periscope". There was no planning for a German breakthrough and stunned inaction when it happened. The British commander "Tiny" Ironside picked-up his French counterpart Billotte by the lapels in a vain effort to get something done. Alan Brooke was astonished that Gamelin's successor Weygand was more concerned about his career than the defeat of France. The Allies had a clear numerical and material superiority (on the ground anyway), but lacked the co-ordination, aggression and initiative that the Germans showed from top to bottom. Alansplodge (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• It's not unreasonable to say that France wasn't weak - it just wasn't conceptually prepared to fight a modern mechanised war. The French army, to all intents and purposes, fought one battle and lost it. This would not have been a knock-out blow in 1914 or 1870, but the unexpected speed and mobility of the German army meant that the French army was unable to recover from its defeat in that battle; the country collapsed within a month, and the army effectively ceased to exist. Had it had a chance to recover - had it stalled the German advance as in 1914 and begun another "long war" - we would not remember it as "weak", just as having been caught off balance in May 1940. Shimgray | talk | 19:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the "not a knockout blow" statement; see Battle of Sedan (1870), from which France never recovered during the Franco-Prussian War. Nyttend (talk) 03:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The pacifist mood (also prevailent in the U.K. and the USA) and the "socialist" agitation and successes in the years before 1940 must have played a role? The "reactioinary" caste did perhaps not want to fight and die for a France it saw as half-communist. But the famous english historian of France, Richard Cobb, gives examples of French bravery in his memoirs.--Radh (talk)

News orgs using "Mr. Obama"

I thought the US president was always referred to as "President <lastname>"; I thought it was improper to the point of rudeness to refer to him as "Mr. <lastname>", especially during his presidency. In fact, I thought it continued to be the correct way to address him even after he left office.

I've noticed more and more news agencies referring to our current president as "Mr. Obama"; often they use "President Obama" early in the story, and then use "Mr." (often multiple times) later on.

Have they done this with previous presidents? In particular, did they often refer to the previous president as "Mr. Bush"? I can't remember ever seeing it, but I tended to pay less attention to stories about him

Ralphcook (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Certain news outlets, including the New York Times, have a specific policy of using Mr. (or Ms., etc.) and the surname. They did follow this with Bush and with other leaders such as Tony Blair. I don't believe it's "generally" considered rude to use a president's surname + Mr.--达伟 (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec's)This is a matter of house style. On the front page of today's New York Times, we have Obama referred to first as "President Obama" and later as "Mr. Obama" in each article concerning him, as well as "Speaker Nancy Pelosi" first and "Ms. Pelosi" thereafter. More casual media might drop the titles. (The NYT always use titles, except on the sports pages. Rarely will one see Willie Nelson referred to as "Mr. Nelson" elsewhere.) PhGustaf (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

If you were speaking with him face-to-face, and you didn't have any prior relationship to justify any other familiarity, it would be expected of you to address him as "Mr. President", but that doesn't apply to reporting about him. —Akrabbim^talk 23:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The protocol for conversations with the Queen of England is to address her on first meeting as "Your Majesty" and as "Ma'am" thereafter. Applying that in this case would yield "Mr. President" and "Sir". The more formal title at goodbye time would seem appropriate. If I recall, that's how they did it on West Wing. PhGustaf (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's from West Wing that I got my sensitivity to it; the only time I remember President Bartlet being referred to as "Mister", it was meant as an insult, spoken by a (retiring) Supreme Court Justice, and he was sort-of-gently corrected to "Dr. Bartlet." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralphcook (talk • contribs) 02:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The first time I can recall the American press using "Mr." in lieu of "President" was with Richard Nixon, and I wouldn't be surprised if it predates that. And I aslo recall some commentators raising the same question as the OP, that it implied a lack of respect for the office. The OP is also correct that "Mr. President" continues to be used once a President has left office, as with other high officials such as "Senator". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The BBC has done this for a very long time. Searching their "on this day" section (which reproduces verbatim an historical report, juxtaposed with a later "in context" reflection) refers to Nixon as Mr here and here, Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev as Mr Brezhnev here, and FDR as Mr here. They also refer to German Chancellor Angela Merkel as Mrs here (not as Chancellor Merkel or Dr. Merkel) and no-one ever seems to call Gordon Brown "Dr. Brown". Conversely, the American habit of addressing British Prime Ministers as "Mr Prime Minister" or "Prime Minister Blair" is both grating and wrong. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 23:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

No one would call Brown "Dr" because he sensibly doesn't use it himself. In the UK it is generally looked on as a bit pompous for non-medical doctors to use their title unless they have an educational or clerical career. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Which is weird because the vast majority of medical "doctors" do not have doctorates of anything, whereas the non-medical doctors do. If anyone is more entitled to use the title, it's the ones who have actually done the hard yards and actually are doctors. In medical parlance, it means a registered medical practitioner regardless of their actual educational attainments. It's analagous to architect, dentist, lawyer etc - yet nobody ever refers to "Lawyer Smith" or "Architect Jones" or "Dentist Brzezinski", do they. But "Doctor Hoffmann", ah, that's different. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Although, in the US lawyers do use a postnominal "Esq.". (In Britain, "Esq." or "Esquire" after a name is equivalent to "Mr." or "Mister" before the name, albeit a little old-fashioned.) --Tango (talk) 11:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That really surprises me, Tango. I'd have thought "Esq" was as completely unknown in modern-day USA as it is in modern-day Australia. It appears only in reference books and old stories here, never in practice. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Spammers frequently use 'Barrister' as a title in their begging letters. --ColinFine (talk) 08:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

"Mr. Hoover" was widely used (31,000 Google News archive hits) to refer to FDR's predecessor. "Mr. Coolidge" was widely used for his predecessor. Etc. I did not find it used for George Washington at Google News archive, but perhaps the papers from 1789-1797 are not adequately represented there. Edison (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Washington, when not addressed as "President Washington", was addressed as "General Washington". His immediate successors were addressed as "Mr. Adams" and "Mr. Jefferson". —Kevin Myers 03:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC).

Just an interesting side note on that: In July 1776, just as the Continental Congress was declaring independence for the US, the main part of the revolutionary army was in New York City, and the British began arriving with a huge fleet to dislodge them (which they did: see New York and New Jersey campaign). Hoping to negotiate an immediate surrender, the British commander, Lord Howe, began by sending a letter to George Washington -- who refused the delivery because it was addressed to "Mr. Washington" and not "General Washington". In other words, "If you won't even recognize that I'm not part of your empire any more, we have nothing to talk about." (Source: 1776 by David McCullough.) --Anonymous, 19:25 UTC, March 22, 2010.

Washington's efforts in NYC didn't go all that well. A book on the history of the Empire State Building and its location has a section titled, "George Washington shlepped here". Regardless, wasn't it Washington who came up with the subdued title of "Mr. President"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

(Some OR here): As a journalist, I have had to deal with people commenting to me about this very issue for years. Strictly speaking, according to the AP Stylebook, one uses a title and full name on first reference, and surname only [my emphasis] on subsequent reference. That is the listed journalistic style for all names; there is no exception for the president or any other public official. The use of "Mr." is actually an attempt to be more courteous than calling him simply "Obama." Frequently during the George W. Bush administration, we were accused of being Democratic sympathizers because we said "Mr. Bush" instead of "President Bush," even though proper style would have been just "Bush." Now the same journalists are tabbed as pro-Republican when they equivalently say "Mr. Obama" instead of "President Obama." ... At least, that's what many reporters do. As for me, I go strictly by-the-book and write just "Obama" and "Bush." — Michael J 23:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

According to Mr. President (title) and Title of Nobility Clause, the issue arose with Washington and it was soon decided that "Mr. President" would be best. I can see how this could easily slip into Mr. [surname]. Personally, I always thought the use of "Mr." for the president came from an early desire to make a break from European-style titles--especially after Mr. Jefferson became the first non-Federalist president; and even more so after Mr. Jackson stomped into the White House in his muddy boots. But my quick search seems to suggest that "Mr. President" was, from early times, considered the proper form of address. Pfly (talk) 09:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Death penalty law wording

In the states that have it, how do they make an exception for the prison workers who throw the switch so they won't be charged with murder, or in the case where there are multiple switches and nobody knows if theirs was the one that did it, attempted murder, since they knew theirs could be the live switch and they threw it anyway? Do they simply not define the act of throwing the switch as murder, even though obviously it results in the person not living any more as a direct result of their action? 71.161.59.39 (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Throwing the switch or otherwise participating in a legal execution is not murder. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

What if I at home hooked someone up to the same exact system they have and threw the switch? I'm interested in how they word their making it legal for them to do it.71.161.59.39 (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow. Legal executions are legal. They are not murder. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Murder is the unlawful taking of life. Executions are the end product of a legal process. Hence, executions are not murder. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That's the pith. Is there a written definition of lawful execution in the books of the states that have it? The part on the books that differentiates a state where the death penalty is allowed and a state in which it isn't, how do those states come out and say "we can legally perform executions" on the page of the law books?71.161.59.39 (talk) 23:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You may want to familiarise yourself with the idea of common law before asking where in the 'law books' something is. Not every legal provision is necessarily codified. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Surely the ending of a human life at the state's hands is statutory. That's what I'm looking for and would like to read.71.161.59.39 (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Capital punishment has existed at common law for a long, long time. It's the abolition of capital punishment that requires a statute (or at least an amendment). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

In the US, executioners obtain a execution warrant. Our article says: "This protects the executioner from being charged with murder." Staecker (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Side discussion

::Does this question sound vaguely familiar? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC) No. Staecker was answering a question, not asking one. And no offense, but he gave a better answer than you did. ScienceApe (talk) 06:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC) No offense, but you're missing the point. A few weeks ago also, an IP was raising questions about capital punishment that presupposed certain things that weren't true. As long as it doesn't devolve (again) into a moral discussion about executions, things will be peachy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC) I understand. Well, whoever it was a few weeks a go wasn't me. My core interest was in how the switch guy is covered, which Staecker answered. 71.xxx and 20.xxx is me. The only reason I haven't joined yet is I don't know what to make my name. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC) If that was your point, you should have replied to the original post, and not Staecker's comment. Didn't sound like he was trying to get into a moral debate. Sounded like you were jumping to conclusions. ScienceApe (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC) I was asking Staecker if it sounded familiar. You jumped to a conclusion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC) No, because I didn't draw a conclusion, I made a suggestion. ScienceApe (talk) 08:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The first thing to note is that there's nothing special about capital punishment in this respect. When a suspect is arrested, when a criminal is punished by imprisonment or by a fine, the police officer or criminal officer or court officer carrying out such duties is still doing something that would be illegal if not for the proven or suspected crime that justifies them. Since we were talking about executions, I looked at the law in Texas and found Title 2, Chapter 9, of their Penal Code, in which section 9.21 reads:

PUBLIC DUTY. (a) Except as qualified by Subsections (b) and (c), conduct is justified if the actor reasonably believes the conduct is required or authorized by law, by the judgment or order of a competent court or other governmental tribunal, or in the execution of legal process.

(b) The other sections of this chapter control when force is used against a person to protect persons (Subchapter C), to protect property (Subchapter D), for law enforcement (Subchapter E), or by virtue of a special relationship (Subchapter F).

(c) The use of deadly force is not justified under this section unless the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is specifically required by statute or unless it occurs in the lawful conduct of war. If deadly force is so justified, there is no duty to retreat before using it.

(d) The justification afforded by this section is available if the actor reasonably believes:

(1) the court or governmental tribunal has jurisdiction or the process is lawful, even though the court or governmental tribunal lacks jurisdiction or the process is unlawful; or

(2) his conduct is required or authorized to assist a public servant in the performance of his official duty, even though the servant exceeds his lawful authority.

So this part of the law is a general rule that takes precedence over the section that says if you kill someone it's murder, and the section that says if you imprison someone it's kidnapping, and so on. (Other sections of Chapter 9 cover things like self-defense.) Other jurisdictions can be expected to have similar laws. --Anonymous, 19:52 UTC, March 22, 2010.

The general idea here is Hobbsean - i.e., that when individuals prove themselves incapable of proper moral restraint, the state (in the collective defense of its people) is entitled/obligated to exercise moral constraints over them, up to and including execution. An executioner is not acting as an individual any more than a soldier is: he is acting as an extension of the state. In fact, the use of multiple switches, executioner's hoods, guns with blanks in firing squads, and etc, is specifically designed so that each participant can believe that it was not his individual act which carried out the state's will. Whether the state has a right to execute its citizens at need is a difficult question, on which you will find reams of philosophical discussion. but currently it is a well-established practice in many nations. --Ludwigs2 20:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution says you cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Implicit in that statement is that executions, incarcerations and confiscation can all be acceptable under the law. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Aha, when in doubt, go right to the source and ask the horse. The statement in execution warrant which reads, "This protects the executioner from being charged with murder", has been in that article, uncited and unchallenged, from the second edit that occurred, in November of 2002. While the warrant authorizes the execution, that's just part of a legal process. To say that it "protects the executioner" is original synthesis, as the executioner is not going to act until he has that warrant authorizing him to do it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this a real photo of Hitler?

[5] Looks like a painting, maybe, I'm not sure. It certainly doesn't look like him and his posture is weird. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

If it's a painting, it might be based on this[6] which looks like a legit photo. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This site says it's "Hilter with the children of Nazi dignitaries on his birthday"[7] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'll be darned. It appears to be a legit photo.[8]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Neither of Quest's links works for me, but the original post looks like a badly colorized photo to me, by the way it includes every pastel known to man. StuRat (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a still from a B-movie about an evil babysitter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

In the article Goebbels children, it says "Hitler was very fond of the children, and even in the last week of his life still took great pleasure in sharing chocolate with them". I recall other sources saying that he would get on the floor to play with visiting kids. Alansplodge (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

looking at the second image (which is obviously a photo - you have to refresh the page to get it to load), I think the first image is a painting based on the photo that tries to correct that fact that Hitler's face is hidden in the photo. the painter tried to rotate Hitler's upper body backwards and added a full-frontal face, but the head looks jutted out because the neck in the photo is bent downward. or it could be a modern colorized cut and paste job, I suppose, but notice the differences in hitler's hand positions (which would be difficult to achieve), and look at the face of the girl in the blue bonnet, which has the classic 'Norman Rockwell' too-smooth, rosy-cheeked look. lousy painter, though - why would anyone who wanted to paint hitler in a positive light like this give him an expression like he's suffering from a horrid attack of gas? can anyone find a picture that the painter might have used to copy hitler's facial features? maybe something with him saluting troops or giving a public speech - that artist captured that 'thousand-mile stare' that public speakers sometimes get. --Ludwigs2 21:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I suspect they are both photos of the same event, almost certainly the same photographer. One is either colorized or was created with very poor quality color photography (something that would be fairly primitive even for WWII). I don't see any reason to think the first is a painting other than the colors being off (which is more an argument for it being colorized than painted). --Mr.98 (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

There is almost no one in the acting or "TV" or movie bussiness that looks real on the set. But to get that Doll like look it takes about three inches thick of makeup, Fake tans, and clothes there Studio picks out for them to wear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 23:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

March 22

Height and weight of Hitler

The above thread about the colorized picture of Hitler has me wondering, how big was he? The picture makes him look rather frail and skinny. He also doesn't look that tall. The link says that the photo was taken during his 50th birthday celebration. Though, judging by his posture, I'd put him probably 20 years past that. Dismas|^(talk) 00:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler's health doesn't give either (bar saying he gained weight as he aged); any amount of unreliable sources Google finds put his height at 5'8" or 5'9", but I can't find anything reliable. Given all the things allegedly wrong with him (in Adolf Hitler's health) it'd be no wonder he'd look old. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 00:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

According to this[9], Adolf Hitler weighed 175 lbs and stood at 5'9". But yes, he does look frail in that photo. And the weird part is that this is from April 1939 before Parkinsons and the weight of the war took its toll on him. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That would make him just about my size. Interesting... Dismas|^(talk) 01:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't have any desire for world domination, do you? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Desire? Yeah. Motivation? No. Dismas|^(talk) 02:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Being a dictator is a stressful job. I wonder if he liked that hat because it made him look taller. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

They saved Hitler's height, see Heightism#In politics. meltBanana 03:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Lil Rob

I heard Lil Rob died is it true? they said he died from lung cancer does anybody Know if its true —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.105.49 (talk) 08:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The article indicates that some users are trying to post a death date, but it's getting reverted due to unreliable sources. Probably the best bet would be to google ["Lil Rob"]. If he actually has died, it would likely pop up early in the list. And if so, see if any major news sources have it, or only blogs and other fly-by-night stuff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The first story that comes up is this one[10] which addresses this internet rumor and denies it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI, the page is now semi'd in order to keep most of the yokels away from it until this false rumor dies out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

US health care reform - pre-existing conditions

I understand that the health care reform bill that just passed in the US includes a provision to prevent insurance companies withholding cover from people with pre-existing conditions, but I can't find any explanation of precisely what that means. One news correspondent on TV said it's to do with being cut off after you get ill (does that really happen?), others seem to think its to do with applying for new coverage. Which is it? Also, are the insurance companies required to cover treatment for that pre-existing condition or just for other conditions that arise after the coverage is taken out? --Tango (talk) 12:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Basically when you applied for health care in any state that allowed pre-existing conditions, it asked you to list all of your health conditions that you were coming into the health care with (diabetes, cancer, whatever), and these would be used to assess your risk and whether they'd let you in to their plan and your premium if so. Now the trick here was that if they let you in and you are then diagnosed with cancer, if they can establish that you had the cancer before you applied for health care (whether you knew it or not), they could drop you from the health care plan, saying it was pre-existing and undeclared in your initial application (and had lawyerly ways of insinuating that you should have known about it even if you didn't) and thus violated the agreement you made with health insurance company, and thus they could terminate the agreement. Yes, this happened, and not infrequently. Additionally, if you did actually declare your cancer in your application, it would either be rejected or result in impossible premiums. So it's at the nexus of the two things you describe: it's about the application process, but it's also about how the application process gets invoked in disputing later conditions.

Even supporters of the health care status quo generally thought this was a particularly dastardly business practice (and counter to the very idea of insurance), and in many states it had already been outlawed, but it was not uniformly so. See Pre-existing condition for more details, statistics on public opinion, various state laws, etc. It was one of the more egregious examples of something that makes good, capitalist business sense (drop the expensive ones if possible), but is considered by most to be at worst morally repugnant, at best counter to the entire purpose of health insurance. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

They would also deny coverage to cancer patients who developed cancer well after they were insured, on the basis of them having "lied on their application, making the contract void", if they didn't report some minor thing, like teenage acne years ago. And I agree that unrestricted capitalism leads to some horrid practices in health insurance. StuRat (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Incidentally, this exact trick (although not for cancer coverage) was dramatized in the most recent episode of the TV series The Good Wife. --Anon, 19:57 UTC, March 22, 2010.

Right, I had forgot that part. Yes, any "undisclosed pre-existing condition" could be the basis for denying later coverage, even if it was not the real reason they were denying the coverage. There are also some really ugly definitions of "pre-existing condition," famously treating domestic violence as a pre-existing condition. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - that is a very useful description of the status quo. The article you linked to is rather unclear, though - it uses terminology without defining it (it is probably commonly used in the US, but I'm not familiar with it). For example, what do phrases like "Maximum pre-existing condition exclusion period" mean? Likewise, the rest of the headings in that section. Do you know what the recent bill will actually change? --Tango (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The exclusion period is how long you have to wait before signing up for health care. I think it's meant to make it so that if you are dying of cancer, they can wait to see if it really crops up. The idea from the business standpoint is to limit people who buy healthcare just when they are sick. (Which makes sense in an ideal world—you don't want healthy people not paying into insurance rolls, only to sign up when they get sick. In a less ideal world—one in which health insurance is tied primarily to employment, and out-of-pocket costs for insurance are extraordinarily prohibitive—it is problematic.) "Look back" is how much time prior to your plan starting you have to declare/they can look for preexisting conditions (so if it is unlimited, they can go back forever in your life; if it is six months, they have to find things prior to that). Permanent exclusion is about whether the health care plan can ban covering certain pre-existing conditions entirely—just because you have a pre-existing condition does not mean that you can't get healthcare, obviously—otherwise nobody would ever be able to change insurance carriers. This is I think primarily in reference to pre-existing conditions you have declared, and they don't prohibit you from joining the plan. (Just because you have health issues doesn't mean you are automatically rejected.)

The bottom of the page discusses the recent bill's reforms (some of which existed in individual states already—Massachusetts, for example, had already banned most of this pre-existing condition stuff). I'll admit that some of these is insurance-ese to me, but the gist is that pre-existing conditions can no longer be used as a basis for denying or canceling health insurance.--Mr.98 (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Evolution and redemption

My question is about two groups of people.

• Some people believe in biological evolution and survival of the fittest.
• Some people believe in the fall of Man and theological redemption.

Where can I find population figures regarding the intersection set, that is to say, regarding people who believe in all of those things? (I used "figures" in the plural, in order to accommodate different times and different places and different surveys.) -- Wavelength (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholicism, and Charles Darwin. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Your first category needs some careful definition to be useful. 'Belief in evolution' can mean a lot of things. 'Does evolution ever occur' is answered yes by most people, even those who believe that the earth is only 6000 years old. On the other hand 'did all life come into existence solely through a process of natural selection' is answered no even by a lot of people who accept science's conclusions about the fossil record and have no particular religious beliefs.

Your second category is very much a statement of Christian doctrine. I think you can safely say that believers in your second are synonymous with Christians (someone who knows more about islamic theology than me might want to correct me there).

If, purely for simplicity, we take your first to include anyone who accepts that the earth is millions of years old and that significant new species have arisen during that time, we can make some deductions.

Creationism gives some figures for those who agree with "Human beings are descended from earlier species of animals". The US figures say that 40% agree, with 20% unsure. Christianity by country says 78% of the US are Christian. Assuming that all the creationists (and unsure) are Christians, that means 18% of the population are Christians and believe in evolution, and 20% are Christians and aren't sure. The US is unusual in how many creationists it has, so let's take the UK as another example. Following the same steps we find that nearly 50% of the population believe in both Christianity and human evolution. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You need to be careful with statistics here. There is no necessary contradiction between 'fall-of-man/redemption' beliefs (essentially theological arguments about the nature of human consciousness) and evolutionary theory (biophysical arguments about the evolution of physical traits and characteristics). any conflict here comes form relatively small groups who insist there is a conflict, either by arguing that the theological argument about consciousness must be interpreted as a literal biophysical description, or by arguing that the theological argument is pure poppycock. Darwin himself had no problem hanging onto both thoughts simultaneously, and Gregor Mendel (purported father of modern genetics) was a priest. There are and always will be people willing to make silly arguments in order to gain sociopolitical advantages. The real core of this dispute is philosophical: Abrahamic faiths say that man was designed in the image of God; evolutionary biologists say that man evolved from monkeys; few people on either side are willing to think that God is a Monkey (or even one of the Monkees). It's a confusion that will work itself out over time, in spite of all the political gnashing-of-teeth. --Ludwigs2 20:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think something has been lost in Ludwigs2's statement above. I am neither a scientist nor a theologian, but I have some difficulty with the statement that "evolutionary biologists say that man evolved from monkeys". I understand monkeys and human are supposed to be descended from a common ancestor, and not one "evolving" from the other. (If god were a monkey, god would then have a common ancestry with humans, which may satisfy theologians, but I doubt it.) Bielle (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The notion that "man evolved from monkeys" is a common oversimplification. Man and ape are both considered primates, so they presumably would have a common ancestor somewhere along the way. That would also have been a common ancestor of other now-extinct hominids such as the Neanderthals. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, humans are apes, though that term itself is a bit fuzzy. Both apes and Monkeys are of course primates, and share a common ancestor about 40 million years ago. Of course, things are muddied by the fact that old world monkeys and apes are actually more closely related to each other then old world monkeys are to new world monkeys. Oh, the joys of taxonomy. Of course, to a creationist, I'm just spouting evolutionist rhetoric. Buddy431 (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No-one here has said there is a contradiction between those beliefs. The OP is asking how many people believe both - implicit in that is the assumption that it is possible to believe both. --Tango (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It most certainly is possible to believe both, and many do, as Clayworth's computations show. Where it can get interesting is the claim by some Christian sects that it is not possible to believe in both, for the simple reason that Darwinian evolution clearly takes a very long time to occur, whereas the Bible is "literally true", so the only way evolution can occur is by the direct hand of God, which in their assumption would be instantaneous. In my church, we were taught that the Adam-and-Eve stories were "symbolically" true, rather than "literally" true. That's another way to get around the apparent contradictions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, they're right - creationism is not compatible with evolutionary biology (it's compatible with evolution, but not with evolution as the origin of species). I guess the issue is over whether you count people that don't believe in biblical literalism as Christians. Most people do, but there are some that hold onto a stricter definition. --Tango (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, my point was a statistical one (or rather a methodological one): we can't really assert claims about belief in evolution by looking at statistics on religion. the debate is being carried on by some very small minorities which big axes to grind, and each minority is going to claim a lot more representation than they actually have. most people have never made the original sin of conflating scientific and religious beliefs, and so their answer to survey questions is probably not easily interpretable. You get the same result when you do research on product price comparisons: Such research invariably shows that people do not make logical price comparisons when they shop, but most such research admits that most people aren't even trying to make logical price comparisons (preferring to use brand-name heuristics or other decision strategies), so the value of the research is limited. --Ludwigs2 22:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping that someone would find one or more pages (in Wikipedia or elsewhere) which already had the figures from surveys already conducted. I did not anticipate that someone would use other figures as preliminary figures from which to calculate the desired figures. The results of such calculations do not necessarily follow logically. For example, if one half of Americans are female and if one in 100 Americans is a nurse (hypothetically), it does not follow logically that one in 200 Americans is a female nurse. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Fascism and obedience

A slogan of Mussolini's fascists was "Believe! Obey! Fight!", and I also recall a translated speech of Hitler's where he talked ranted about obedience.

Yet the idea of fascism seems to be about forcefully taking power over others. So how did fascists square this with obedience? 78.149.193.98 (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I've linked the article, which would be a good starting point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hitler didn't rant. He is widely acknowledged as an excellent orator. Just because you disagree with what someone is saying doesn't mean they are ranting. --Tango (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Most of the news clips of Hitler focused on the end of his speeches, where he was speaking loudly, with great passion, gesturing; and the audience was shouting with him. That part might be considered a "rant", especially without a translation. As I understand it, the way it actually worked was that Hitler would come onstage and stand there silently for a minute or so, gazing over the crowd, getting a sense of their mood, getting their attention and anticipation. Then he would start talking softly and calmly, slowly working up to the frenetic ending that the news clips showed. He wasn't a ranter, he was a seducer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

In the fascism article that is linked to above I find the following:

Fascist states pursued policies of social indoctrination, through propaganda in education and the media, and through regulation of the production of education and media material. Education was designed to glorify the fascist movement and inform students of its historical and political importance to the nation. It attempted to purge ideas that were not consistent with the beliefs of the fascist movement, and taught students to be obedient to the state.

While it doesn't actually answer the question, it may, to an extent, confirm the premise of the question. Bus stop (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The scary part comes when you ask yourself how different it really was from your own primary school education. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Do as I say rant, not as I do. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Fascist ideology owes a lot to a peculiar reading of German philosophy (people like Heidegger and Neitzche, and other authors I can't ever spell correctly). As I understand it, the fascist ideology was puritanical socialism. basically, the world is filled with corrupt ideals obeyed by a sheep-like populace and maintained by manipulative political figures (read the first few chapters of "Thus Spake Zarathustra" to get the right impression), and the only way for a man to liberate himself from this was to turn his back on the corrupt social forces and band together with others in adherence to a moral ideology. Obedience wasn't subservience in the Nazi lingo - obedience was the only path to liberation and what we would call self-determination. it's basically the same logic as "Dress for Success" taken to a homicidally philosophical extreme: conform to 'correct' social standards and society will reward you.

in other words, obedience was promoted as the first step in the path to personal realization. --Ludwigs2 22:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Fascism qua fascism (as distinguished from Nazism, which is something of a variant) is a fundamentally collectivist philosophy, not an individualist one. It is about the strength of collective entities (for Italian fascism, this is the state; for Nazis, this is the race/Volk). Individuals only flourish in a fascist model when acting in the name of the state. An ideal fascist state is coordinated in order to support the will of the individual who truly embodies the will and interests of the state (the leader). (The obvious problem with this that someone raised with democratic values would put forward is, "How do you know who really embodies the will and interests of the state?") --Mr.98 (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

So the fascists believed that the only right and proper thing to do was to obey the boss figure, and that people who did things like thinking for themselves or taking the initiative were being willfully disobediant and had to be put down? 92.29.120.231 (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, fascists in a philosophical sense are idealists. They believe that there is basically one right answer at all times. That happens to be the answer espoused by the leader in their cases (which of course is tautological... is he the leader because he has the right answers, or are his answers right because he is the leader?). If you don't have the right answer, you are wrong, and there was no tolerance for many differences of opinion. Now that does not always mean execution. But it does imply negative consequences. To a true fascist "thinking for yourself" is just a cloak that wrong people use in order to justify their wrong ideas. "Taking the initiative" was generally discourages under the German model—the "coordination" of power meant that you would be expressing the direct will of the Fuehrer only if you were doing what you were told to do. Going outside of that will just showed that you were wrong (because the Fuehrer is never wrong). --Mr.98 (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I just also want to add that my answers here are in terms of how a fascist would self-justify in philosophical terms (based on a course on the philosophy of fascism I took a long time ago now). In practice of course fascists in Italy and Germany were like many other politicians, but had greater political power. They forced out their enemies and those who threatened them. They were a pretty successful form of self-organization from the standpoint of taking over a country (running it in war, not so much). They were fairly ruthless and did not spend their time debating fine philosophical points about who was correct and who was not. Fascists are hardly unique in this respect, but the particularly linearly hierarchical nature of their systems allowed for it to be fairly streamlined. In practice even this was more complicated (organizations vied for power and could be played against each other in some situations, for example). --Mr.98 (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The article definitions of fascism discusses different interpretations of the term. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

In the 1950s the Frankfurt School social theorists Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer came up with the concept of the 'Authoritarian Personality' - someone with a need to submit to authority figures, who is aggressive towards those they see as 'different'.[11] Most fascist movements were essentially opportunistic and based on demagoguery and the appeal of the 'strong man' who claimed that he could solve his country's problems, as long as he was given unswerving loyalty.--Pondle (talk) 00:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

One of the points that other posters have overlooked is in the origin of the word "fascism" -- which comes from the Latin fasces. These were the symbols of authority that the officials of the Roman Republic were vested with: when presented with a law-breaker, they could have him beaten with the rods in the fasces, then executed with the axe. In short, it is an expression of law and order -- which is one of the characteristic themes of Fascists. Be a good boy, follow the laws, & eat your vegetables, & you would be considered a good Fascist. Unless you were found guilty of a political crime. ;-) -- llywrch (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Why pay banks to lend to the Fed when the largest risk is they aren't lending to their customers?

Is there any actual advantage to paying interest on bank reserves [12] when the largest risk is underwater commercial real estate [13]? 208.54.14.104 (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The advantage is obviously to the banks. This was a provision rushed through Congress using extortionary rhetoric at a time of crisis by hundreds of Wall Street lobbyists (and major campaign contributors), former Goldman Sachs CEO, Hank Paulson, and by Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve System, which is essentially owned and, to a substantial extent, controlled by its member commercial banks. It is a handout to banks at the expense of every other holder of U.S. currency (in that the money supply is increased and therefore reduced in value relative to a shrinking GDP or a GDP growing very slowly). Marco polo (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

A decidedly insider point of view: [14] NByz (talk) 03:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

More accurately, interest on bank reserves is compensation aimed at encouraging banks to hold higher levels of reserves, thus (it is hoped) reducing the likelihood of their needing an expensive taxpayer-funded bailout. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that hope is grounded in reality? Isn't a bank allowed to lend a certain multiple of its reserves? If that multiple is re-deposited as additional reserves, isn't that akin to an individual kiting a check, and more importantly, doesn't that increase the risk of exposure if the banks other assets decline in value, nullifying the benefit of larger reserves? 99.56.137.254 (talk) 09:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Generally, a bank is allowed to lend out everything but the fraction that is required as a reserve (ignoring various capital requirement schemes like Basel II). Thus, it's assumed that, with profit maximizing financial institutions, anything not held in reserve will be redeposited (see Fractional-reserve banking), expanding the money supply to approaching R*1/RR (R = total bank reserves, RR = the minimum reserve ratio; see Money multiplier. Fractional reserve banking (also referred to as "Multiple Deposit Expansion") does indeed increase interconnectedness and the risk of the financial system. It's unavoidable, under our current system. An alternative would have to involve creating "classes" of money. (Class one money, for example, could be deposited and lent out. When it was lent out, however, it would have to turn into class two money, which could be deposited but not re-lent out. Something like that). Schemes like paying interest on deposits, some would argue, is a way of creating proper incentives - and giving central banks more control - in a monetary economy such that we live in. NByz (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that banks have used such control for their chartered purposes of facilitating commerce as opposed to enriching executives at the expense of the remaining vast majority leading to increased poverty because of the conservation of scarce resources? 99.56.137.254 (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well the idea actually would be to take a little bit of that decision-making power away from the banks and give it to the central bank (the Federal Reserve). With this tool, the central bank would be able to control the money supply more directly (specifically, it would be able to more effectively take money out of circulation by encouraging excess reserves). An integrated, efficient and competitive banking system is highly correlated with economic growth (efficiency) and, though a western-style central bank system certainly draws its critics (this is somewhat a side note, but Political positions of Ron Paul is a delightfully well-cited and thorough article), it just seems to work well enough. Many economists would say that ideas of income distribution (equity/equality) are a separate matter and perhaps ought to be addressed through the tax code and the welfare system. High executive pay could be handled through a British-style super tax [15], if thought appropriate, for example.

Interestingly and additionally, the Dodd plan, currently in the news, tackles some of the problems of interconnectedness by creating an oversight council that can declare a financial firm (even a non-bank) "integral to the financial system" and therefore put it under the supervision of the Federal Reserve (think AIG, Lehman Bros), require all financial firms with more than $50 billion in assets to pay into a special rainy day fund (for future bailout purposes) and creates a supervised bankruptcy process designed to be as painful as possible to equity holders and long-term creditors while limiting defaults in many short-term or money markets through which systemic risk is spread.

In response to DOR (HK), there are more effective ways of reducing the likelihood that banks will need an expensive taxpayer-funded bailout. These ways include 1) tighter regulation, 2) breaking up large banks so that none is "too big to fail", 3) eliminating perverse incentives that enrich individual bankers for taking on risks. These policies would clearly have been in the interests of taxpayers and the general public. However, they would have limited profits and compensation at big banks. Instead of enacting policies that would have offered more certain protection for the public, our financial leadership pressured Congress into approving a policy that gives free money to banks. This policy in fact comes at the indirect expense of taxpayers and others by increasing the purchasing power of banks and bankers relative to other firms and individuals. In concrete terms, this preserves the privileged access of bankers to the best real estate and amenities of New York City and London (among other things) and keeps these things unaffordable to people from less favored economic spheres. Finally, by failing to address the root causes of the risky behavior that put the financial sector in need of a public rescue, and by leaving the implicit government guarantee in place, this policy allowed banks to keep playing essentially the same game with free money and made it likely that they will need an even more expensive taxpayer-funded bailout in the future. Marco polo (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

My statement on the purpose of paying banks interest on their reserves was not intended to endorse, or even hold up as efficient, the practice. Like a reference work, it is just a statement of fact. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Paying interest on bank reserves gives the Fed more control over short-term interest rates. In addition, it gives banks more incentive to hold reserves, as opposed to, say, using sweep accounts to put customer assets in money market funds. The link given above by NByz gives much more detail. John M Baker (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I've read the link, but the statement about reserve interest giving the Fed more control over short-term interest rates appears to have been proven false in practice, because the Fed originally had to adjust the rate sharply downwards, and has not adjusted it since, leaving interest rates relatively distant from the Fed's stated targets. You realize that money market funds used to pay for commercial paper, right? When will banks weigh the amount of interest they are losing from customers against their 0.25% reserve interest? The fact that the latter is zero risk seems to be affecting their ability to maximize profits. Do bank shareholders have a case? 99.27.201.226 (talk) 11:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The post from 99.27.201.226 raises a number of issues, which I'll try to respond to.

• 226 suggests that the statement about reserve interest giving the Fed more control over short-term interest rates appears to have been proven false in practice. There are actually two issues here. First, the Fed's current target federal funds rate is 0 to 0.25%, so there is no issue of needing to do anything to place upward pressure on the rate. However, the Fed will one day increase its target rate, so having an additional tool to control rates will again be relevant. Second, even before the Fed lowered its target rate, the fed funds rate traded under that target after the Fed was paying interest on reserves. NByz's link suggests that this was because, during that period, investors in the fed funds market were institutions that were not eligible for interest on reserves. This tells us that paying interest on reserves is an imperfect tool and will not alone be sufficient to maintain interest rates at a target rate. However, an imperfect tool is still a tool. The Fed normally uses a variety of imperfect tools in tandem in seeking to effect its policy goals.
• 226 notes that money market funds used to pay for commercial paper. I'm not sure what his point is, but yes, they do so still.
• 226 suggests that banks are failing to maximize profits because they are investing their assets in Fed reserves instead of lending them to customers. During this still-difficult period, and the far more difficult period of the recent past, banks sought to minimize risk and to rebuild their financial positions. If earning interest on Fed reserves had not been an option, banks would have invested assets in the fed funds market or other low-risk alternatives. The bank's choice to increase reserves at the Fed, therefore, is not a decision not to lend more to ordinary customers, because the bank has already made that decision. The Fed's still quite low rate of interest on reserves, then, is not impeding ordinary lending.
• If banks thought they could make more money by lending to higher-risk customers, they would do so. Actually, they've been doing just that, for one group of relatively high-risk customers: Banks have enthusiastically turned to the risky but highly profitable credit card business during this period. For other loans, however, banks generally have insisted on much higher credit standards.
• 226 asks if bank shareholders have a case. If the question is whether a bank shareholder is right in thinking this, that will depend on the facts of the particular case; it is not obvious in the abstract whether a particular bank should be lending more or not. If the question is whether bank shareholders have a legal case against banks that are not doing more lending, then the answer is that that would be a very difficult case for shareholders to make. John M Baker (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the very thoughtful response. I guess it boils down to this: If banks collectively aren't willing to refinance real estate (commercial or residential) then that will cause drops in consumer spending which could hurt bank profits to an extent similar to if not greater than expected risks from the loans, or the write-downs they would need to eliminate downside risk. So they have to weigh the risk of allowing the economy around them to fail against expected returns, in order to perform their fiduciary duty of trying to maximize profits. The zero risk options they have, including reserve interest, seem to skew this judgment towards economic destruction by hoarding. Sure, banks will get 0.25% from taxpayers, but don't bank charters state that they should lend to facilitate commerce? Is the Volcker rule about that? And there may be reason to believe it's also a politically motivated judgment: central bankers are now dominated by the political party out of power, so do they have a political motivation for seeing less consumer employment recovery? And what about executive pay bonuses -- do they cause write-downs to be resisted out of proportion to their long-term effect on banks' bottom lines, and thus their shareholders? Can FASB accounting standards address the imbalance better than shareholder class actions? 99.27.201.226 (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

How much income equality is optimal?

I've recently become familiar with http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk which presents evidence that about a dozen separate quality of life measures are more highly correlated with the Gini index of income equality than economic (GDP) growth. That makes sense, but growth is very important for things like sanitation in the developing world, competition, technology, etc. Canada seems to be advanced in these respects, with Mexico trailing.

I would like to find a reliable discussion of the optimal quantity of income equality in the developing and industrialized world. Firstly, does the most appropriate amount of income equality depend on how developed a country is? 208.54.14.40 (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. Under capitalism, for there to be an incentive to work, you must let people who work harder get richer. This promotes an increase in total wealth, however, it also leads to an inequality of wealth. And, while an increase in total wealth helps with something like infant mortality, the inequality in wealth actually hurts it. So, what level would minimize infant mortality ? (I just picked that as one measure, but we could use others).

Rather than take a theoretical approach, I propose looking at infant mortality rates around the world, and then looking at the inequality rates in each nation (Gini index). This should give a good indication of what level of inequality is ideal, at least for that measure. You could then repeat this study looking at another measure, like life expectancy. Then it would be a matter of weighting the different results based on which measures you think are the most important, in order the come up with the ideal level on inequality overall.

You compared Canada and Mexico, but Canada and Mongolia might be a better comparison, since they have a similar Gini index, but Canada has far more per capita income and wealth. Note that I'm assuming a more or less zero-sum-gain between wealth and inequality. That is, I'm assuming that when one goes up, the other goes down. If this is not assumed, then the problem becomes much more difficult to solve. For example, if the inequality of wealth is too severe, total wealth may also suffer, due to violent revolutions that this level of inequality will spawn. Also, an uneducated and unhealthy workforce may result, even in times of peace, and this workforce won't be very productive. So, we may find that there is also a certain Gini index that leads to maximum growth. Now, whether this same Gini index is also ideal for the health of the population, or not, might be more difficult to determine. StuRat (talk) 03:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think that there's any one single invariable number (measured according to the Gini index or any other method) which marks the boundary between a healthy society and a sick society in all cases, ignoring the detailed specific context of each society. Furthermore, sometimes inequality of wealth can be at least as important as inequality of income (in the statistics of the United States, for example, it's very noticeable that the difference in average wealth between white families and black families is not leveling out anywhere nearly as rapidly as the difference in average income between white families and black families is leveling out). In simplistic broad-brush terms, if there's such a marked degree of inequality that a society is effectively polarized into two classes of "peasants" and "lords" (or whatever terms the two may be called by), and there's only a very small middle class between the two extremes, and only a very tiny chance that a "peasant" will ever be able to become a "lord", then that's a very strong disincentive for people to try to achieve new things. On the other hand, if taxes on high incomes are so confiscatory that people will see very little direct personal benefit to themselves if they significantly increase their pre-tax incomes, then that can also be a disincentive to economically productive innovations... AnonMoos (talk) 05:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The Equity Trust’s solution for reducing inequality: more progressive income and property taxes; more generous benefits; higher minimum wages; more generous pensions; running the national economy with low levels of unemployment, (contradicting previous solutions, IMHO); better education and retraining policies; and the bargaining power of trade unions. No indication how to (or who) will pay for all of this.

I’m going to disagree with StuRat on his point that inequality in wealth hurts infant mortality, with an example. Two groups of people in the same society, A and B. A’s income goes up by 779%, and B’s income by 594%. In both cases, it would be nonsensical to posit that B’s infant mortality rate increases. Sure, it might not improve as much as A’s, but that is a whole different idea, and one that does nothing to encourage efforts to reduce inequality. (By the way, the case is a real one, and it represents urban and rural China, 1990-2008. Infant mortality among both groups fell during the period as their income inequality grew worse.)

As for the Canada-Mongolia (or, Mexico) comparisons, one has to assume that the legal systems, crime rates, infrastructure and a whole host of other things are identical before one can come to the conclusion that income inequality reduces infant mortality. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

To consider the effect of inequality, you must find a case where inequality changed and every other variable stayed the same. In the case of China, which you used, obviously total wealth has also improved dramatically (no doubt due to China ditching communism and moving to capitalism). Now ask yourself, had the wealth of those above the median income gone up, and those below gone down, would that improve infant mortality ? No, because there are far more people below the median, and those above were likely already getting good health care and nutrition, anyway. StuRat (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

By low levels of unemployment contradicting previous solutions, do you mean the balance between employment levels and inflation? Can that balance be addressed by reducing the money supply at the top brackets of steeply progressive income taxes? Don't more progressive income taxes themselves pay for more generous benefits, etc.? 99.56.137.254 (talk) 07:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

To be honest income equality is a bad measure (on its own) of welfare. It's all well and good to divide the pie up equally, but if it's a really small pie everyone's still gonna be doing pretty badly. You would be better looking at the median income as well as the lowest quartile and perhaps some measure of poverty (beware that poverty lines are normally constructed relative to average income, not some objective measure). To go back to your question, what do you been by optimal? If you asked an economist what is the optimal level of income equality they would probably say "whichever level maximised GDP growth". It also depends on the way governments spend money. A high taxing and spending country with highly unequal income levels may provide better outcomes for the less fortunate than a low taxing and spending country with far more equal outcomes. Simply correlating outcomes and the gini co-efficient doesn't help you understand why those outcomes have come about.Jabberwalkee (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

To the questioner: the correlation of all those quality-of-life variables with the Gini index doesn't mean that the increase in the Gini index caused increases in those measures. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, so the question becomes, does increased quality of life cause income equality, or do the two share a common cause? The book The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better goes in to detail about how, for example, income inequality can lead to problems with higher education and health care affordability, quality parenting (e.g., who can afford babysitters), and other factors which suggest that chain of causation travels from income equality to quality of life. 99.56.137.254 (talk) 09:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Before you can work out what is optimal, you need to work out what you want to achieve. What are your priorities? Happiness? High life expectancy? Low infant mortality? Peace? Freedom? Global influence? Chances are, you want a balance of all those things, so the question becomes how do you weight them. There is then the issue that inequality is not directly controllable. You have to change other things (tax structures and benefit structures are the obvious ones, but education has a big impact too, as do various other things). Those things will affect more than just inequality. That makes it all very complicated and I doubt there actually is a unique optimal level of inequality for most reasonable weightings of priorities. --Tango (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think with extreme inequality (feudalism, Czarist Russia, banana republics of various sorts) you get violent revolution, and with enforced equality (various attempts at socialism) you get a Handicapper General situation. That suggests there is an optimum somewhere, and it would be interesting to draw a graph comparing social unrest to inequality level in various societies through history. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

There may be an optimum of a sort, but it's unlikely to be something which can be validly expressed as one single abstract number, independent of all the particularities and specific characteristics of each society. AnonMoos (talk) 01:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't probably very helpful, but I remember one Economics professor from my past mentioning and emphasizing that the tradeoff between efficiency and equity necessarily required some sort of value judgement and though Economic theory could certainly help with quantifying or estimating results, it could say nothing of substance about at what rate one ought to trade off against the other. NByz (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

One other point I should mention, is that there's a difference between the optimal level of inequality for best quality of life now, versus at some point in the future. Imagine that we were able to achieve absolute equality of income and wealth right now, via redistribution of wealth, without violence. In the short run, this would likely improve all measures of quality of life. However, as there would be little incentive left to work in such a society, in the long term the economy might collapse and quality of life would go down with it. So, we might find that more and more inequality is desirable, the further out we look, until we reach some equilibrium level. Just what that level is, or how many years out you have to look, I do not know. StuRat (talk) 03:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I notice that we here on this site, together, are working pretty hard to write a high-quality encyclopedia that is clobbering professional ones, without getting paid a nickel. So the incentive must come from some other place. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, some people will be incentivised to do some things out of altruism. You would still see an enormous drop in productivity, though, unless you did something to force people to work. --Tango (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

StuRat, there is no point in asking what if questions in this context. What happened in China, happened. That’s enough to discredit the notion that increases in inequality must necessarily harm the less well-off. As for 99.56.137.254’s question about progressive income taxes, such levies serve to transfer wealth from the more wealthy to the less wealthy. I should also point out that The Spirit Level compares rich countries to rich countries, not rich to poor or middle-ranking. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, no change is guaranteed to either increase or decrease quality of life, if you can also include other massive changes at the same time. But, the fact remains that increasing inequality, without simultaneously increasing wealth (or making other changes), decreases average quality of life measurements, such as infant mortality. Hence the original Q. StuRat (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Politics

Politics: Who was the last Republican president to balance the budget? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.237.69.212 (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

According to this source, the last Republican president under whom the Federal budget was not in deficit was Dwight D. Eisenhower, exactly 50 years ago in 1960. (I have not bothered to link to a source showing the deficits under Ford, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II, but if you do the research, you will see that they ran deficits every year they were in office. The last president of any party under whom the budget was not in deficit was Bill Clinton.) Marco polo (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Those were budget balancing within a given fiscal year, of course. The last time the U.S. was out of debt or nearly so was around 1920. United States public debt has a good overall history and also a number of links to related articles, including one showing debt levels during administrations since WWII. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, true and unrelated. Deficits aren't debt (yet). DOR (HK) (talk) 06:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Although the questioner implies that it's the president who can balance the budget, the modern process is better understood as a joint effort (or battle) between Congress and the president. And for the two branches to achieve a balanced budget, factors outside their immediate control often play a major role. In The Federal Budget: Politics, Policy, Process (rev. 2000), Allen Schick concluded that Clinton had "little to do" with the underlying reasons that allowed for a balanced budget "on his watch" (particularly a booming economy and the end of the Cold War), but that it made political sense for him to take credit for the achievement, since he would have gotten the blame had it gone otherwise. —Kevin Myers 08:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the parties in control of Congress are as important as the president in determining the budget balance. As it happens, Clinton balanced the budget during a time when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. However, George W. Bush failed to balance the budget even though he had the benefit of a Republican House from 2001–2007 and a Republican Senate from 2003–2007. It's true that GWB's first years in office were during a recession, when it is difficult to avoid a budget deficit. The same excuse cannot be made for the six years from 2003–2009, during most of which he enjoyed a Republican majority in both houses. I would also point out that the last Republican president to balance a budget, Eisenhower, did so when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. Marco polo (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Clinton and the Democrats raised taxes in 1993 before the Republicans gained control of Congress the following year. Of course there is endless political spin on both sides about how that affected the economy in the years that followed, but as a zeroth order approximation, deficits are when expenditures exceed revenues, so increasing revenues may have had something to do with decreasing/eliminating the deficit. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking for a book I read about five years ago

I can't remember anything except the plot. A man was expelled from a city for practicing "wild magic" (as opposed to regular magic). He escapes the subsequent manhunt with the help of a unicorn, and he must promise celibacy for 1 year in exchange. Outside, he meets his sister, elves, and other things. (Here's where my memory gets vague). There is discussion of the elves and humans joining forces in advance of some menace or another... Ring any bells? (The book is first in a series.) Mxvxnyxvxn (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Googling "wild magic unicorn" finds The Outstretched Shadow. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 23:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That's it! Thanks. Mxvxnyxvxn (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Charles Manson

Has charles Manson ever lived in or near to Lyons, Oregon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Averybound (talk • contribs) 22:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

According to the article, now linked, Manson was born in the midwest and stayed there until he moved to California. His mother once lived in "the Pacific Northwest", but not with Charles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You know, I'm always curious what the parents of people like Manson, Dahmer, Bundy, and etc think about the whole thing. did anyone ever do an interview with Manson's parents? --Ludwigs2 03:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of one. I recall seeing interviews with Bundy's mother and with Dahmer's parents. They were as perplexed as anyone about why things turned out as they did. I think Bundy came from a broken home. Dahmer is the puzzler. As I recall, they said he had a sadistic bent even when he was five years old - killing animals and dissecting them, stuff like that. I don't think there was any suspicion that his parents were abusive. He just had some weird genetic bent, apparently. As with H. H. Holmes, perhaps. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

http://www.wowessays.com/dbase/af5/dtb172.shtml suggests that the parents of terrible criminals are often poorly skilled at parenting and/or unable to obtain affordable parenting support facilitation. 99.56.137.254 (talk) 12:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

also, I just noticed that his next parole hearing is scheduled for 2012, the same year that the Mayan calendar ends. coincidence? I think not! --Ludwigs2 03:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

They should grant him parole just as the earth is breaking apart. That would be a little joke on the old guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

March 23

mining industry in Canada

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

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

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

You could also search the archives of the Hill Times [16]. They specialize in reporting on issues and controversies in key Canadian economic sectors. --Xuxl (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Housewife

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The whole idea of a "stay at home mom" (SAHM) is practically unknown in some countries, for example Denmark. There a SAHM is very lonely, and so are the children, since there are no other SAHM's or children in the neighborhood to socialize with or play with, like in the "olden days". Once the rather long maternity leave (which applies to both parents) is over, they are back to work: "Altogether parents are entitled to 52 weeks paid maternity leave." [17] It's a rather interesting fact that few men use it. This is likely because, even though job security is very good there, leaving work for too long can have a very negative effect on a career, depending on what profession one is in. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Health Care Bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OFEX stock market, UK

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

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

what qualifications can you get overnight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can sit many high-school-level exams in England without study ([[A levels], GCSE, BTech, etc), but you typically have to apply 2-4 months in advance.[18] I suspect most exams will have some requirement to register in advance, if only so they know how big a hall to book and how many invigilators to employ. Most exams are only held infrequently e.g. once or a few times a year. Another possibility is civil service exams, found from New York[19] to India[20]; but again there may be preliminary exams or a requirement to show existing qualifications, and these may only be held once a year. --Normansmithy (talk) 11:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Name the fallacy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indigenous people of the United States

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Longevity of political systems or forms of government

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Australian aboriginals probably lived in essentially the same way for 40,000-70,000 years (Prehistory of Australia) until the arrival of Europeans. But other hunter-gatherer groups probably lived in similar ways for much longer. Here's an article saying a fairly modern society with division of labour existed with homo erectus 750,000 years ago. [21].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marahasta

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

— Dadra_and_Nagar_Haveli#Portuguese_Era

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

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

Violin Sheet music for "hey soul sister" by Train

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

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

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

March 24

Health care law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

procrastination trick

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

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

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

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

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

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

Break Even

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

This sounds like mathematics. Well you have

FC = fixed Cost

MC = Marginal Cost (per item)

SV(price) = Sales Volume for each price

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

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

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

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

So we have

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

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

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

One more time with passion

This sounds like mathematics. Well you have

FC(vol) = Fixed Cost

MC(vol) = Marginal Cost (per item)

SV(price) = Sales Volume for each price

vol = SV(price)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Date

When was this made? 300 BCE?[22]174.3.113.245 (talk) 07:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

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

fund for ferry crash victims

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

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

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

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

developement of criminal law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spoke Zarathustra

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

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

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

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

--Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

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

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

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

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

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

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

Architecture Copyright

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

death penalty and insanity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 25

Arab world mineral industry

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

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

minerals Canada

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

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

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

Obama

Resolved

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

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

---

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

I've reinstated this question because it appears to have been asked in good faith. However, it's not really a Reference desk subject - the Illinois Lottery could provide the data, not to mention Snopes [23]. Acroterion _(talk) 03:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Currency manipulator

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

is it true that...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Racists everywhere?

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

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

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

Skin lightening cream is massively popular in India [24]. Not sure if that means they're all racists, but if so they are at worst frivolous racists motivated by vanity. 213.122.7.193 (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. Recess appointments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Executive recess appointments in the U.S. can only serve for up to two years without needing to be confirmed by the Senate.[25] [that's a PDF file, you may need to rename it from .cfm to .pdf to view it after downloading] However, controversial recess appointments usually have a pretty good chance of being reconfirmed. Time heals controversies. 99.27.201.226 (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

bankruptcy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Incubus ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

citation help

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

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

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

citation help

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

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

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

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

"Book Within a Book" Title

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think he's referring to the Red Book of Westmarch. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Psychopaths

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

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

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

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

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

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

passport notation

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

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

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

March 26

Meyer Lansky never went to trial because...?

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

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

Can a professional not be humane also?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dying so that someone else may live

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

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

A remarkable wall full of ceramic panels, the "Memorial to Heroic Self Sacrifice", can be seen in the City of London, in a tiny green space called Postman's Park. It details ordinary people who gave their lives in the attempt to save others, mostly in the second half of the 19th Century. I doubt whether many had self-sacrifice in mind when they acted, but all must have known that they were putting themselves into danger. Full details on this site[26]. A new plaque was added in 2009, the first for more than 70 years.[27] Alansplodge (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Surely bomb disposal squads put themselves in harm's way at least once a day to clear unexploded ordnance, and those who die have died so others can live? See [28] --TammyMoet (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Scottsboro Boys

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

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

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

Response to inflationary pressure of full employment

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

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

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

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

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