Miscellaneous desk
< November 17	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 19 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 18

internet joke origin

In various places I've seen a joke/troll where someone posts to a helpboard with "I accidentally the whole thing!" (sic) Does anyone know if this is a reference to a particular origin (like a TV sketch)? AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far it is a thinly posted wannabe internet meme [1] but I'm sure this posting will help spread it. It would need to be far funnier to qualify as a joke. Edison (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even original but just a re-take of the old Alka-Seltzer ad, "I can't believe I ate the whole thing!"? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 04:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Dramatica has a surprisingly useful explanation. Of course it is forbidden to link to it, but search for "I accidentally X". Adam Bishop (talk) 08:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And suddenly I understand the perspective of authoritarian dictators who suppress freedom of speech :(. The reason we don't allow direct links to encyclopedia drammatica articles is because it would ruin our little project, wikipedia. Kind of like the reason China doesn't allow you to talk about what happened at Tiananman square. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.75.250 (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more to do with the amount of trolling that occurred with ED links. Certainly a lot of the articles are very useful and informative for this kind of thing, though - they're just not very encyclopedic in the classic sense of the word! ~ mazca ^t|c 18:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, understand, and agree with that reasoning. It's also exactly the same logic (ie based on the undesired result for the project) that China uses to crack down on people who talk about Tiananman square. I'm NOT talking about links on article pages: I'm talking about here at the reference desk or any other discussion (TALK) pages. It's EXACTLY the same as not allowing web sites to link to pictures of Tianman square. I mean, exactly the same. I don't disagree with it here at Wikipedia, I just have suddenly understood the reasoning that authoritarian dictators use, or authoritarian regimes like China, and it makes me feel very dirty. 79.122.75.250 (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I would never have thought to look something up in Encyclopaedia Dramatica. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does indeed come from 4chan. ;)Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 01:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The dramatica article notes that most people are familiar with the "whole coke bottle." Indeed. You can see the (actually really funny) link here (a jpg). (See also here for the punchline.) zafiroblue05 | Talk 07:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United States National Debt

United States is in debt about $10,617,806,584,635.27. I know that printing out more money from the federal reserve and handing it out in our country would decrease the power of the dollar. But why don't we just print out more money and give it to countries who we are in debt to? (Japan ($580 billion), China ($390 billon) and the United Kingdom ($320 bilion) Would the same problem of decreasing bang for the buck occur. Or would it be a different problem because it is overseas? This would at least reduce our debt by 1 trillion 290 billion. What are the problems with doing this and is this even legal/ethical? Thanks for any serious answers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.126.152 (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Printing and internationally distributing a currency would have the same inflationary effect. More of a currency in circulation makes it relatively less valuable regardless of who holds it first. Inflation is like a tax on everyone else who holds money.NByz (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is an important principle of international markets, if you increase or decrease the price of a commodity anywhere, it affects the price everywhere else. In this case, the commodity is dollars. For another example, look at oil. The argument has been made that the US should drill more wells to lower US energy prices. However, since that oil goes on the international market, it would lower oil prices in China just as much as the US. StuRat (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it wouldn't lower prices by much at all if you check out Arctic Refuge drilling controversy Nil Einne (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Think of it in terms of demand and supply. If the supply of something (in this case US dollars) increases with the demand being unchanged, the value of the thing decreases. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 06:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note as well that a large campaign to print money to get out of debt would likely depress the value of the U.S. dollar much further than simple dilution would predict. Currently, the U.S. dollar is widely seen, accepted, and employed as a reserve currency — a reliable store of value backed by a large, stable economy and a sound financial system.

Attempting to print its way out of debt would lead to a worldwide loss of confidence in the soundness of the U.S.' dollar, a flight to better-managed currencies like the euro, and a plummeting value of the U.S. dollar on international markets. Countries that have been actively propping up the value of the U.S. dollar (especially China and other Asian markets, who wish to see their export goods remain affordable to U.S. purchasers) would likely cease those activities, not wishing to see their investment squandered. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which would reduce the extent to which people with to lend the US money, which would increase the cost of borrowing for the US, which would end up with them having more debt and printing more money and they would rapidly spiral into hyperinflation. --Tango (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

primates

it's common in statistics in both human and primates ,,,the clue is that it has to do with their limbs ..what's the answer..if anyone knows the answer please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.24.99.211 (talk) 06:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbs? 81.187.153.189 (talk) 07:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Digits? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Left handedness? --Sean 13:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Percentage of population that have solved the P vs. NP problem? 83.250.202.208 (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They walk upright...sometimes? Adam Bishop (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest opposable thumbs or something to do with the dna/gene commonalities. --KizzyB (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arm to leg length ratio comparisons? There is probably an official name for it. They're good for determining the habits of primates, i.e. arborial versus terrestrial... 152.16.15.23 (talk) 02:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going with opposable thumbs. Tezkag72 (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Short fingers?

I want to learn a musical instrument just for the fun of it but my friend says my fingers are probably too small to play the piano or guitar. My index finger is about 6.5cm long (2.5"), my middle finger is 7cm (2.8") and my thumb is about 5.5cm (2.25"). I know having long fingers helps a lot with playing instruments but are short fingers really an impediment? --Candy-Panda (talk) 07:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe keyboard things require a wideish span between pinkie finger tip and thumb tip. Plenty of instruments may not (woodwind, percussion, brass). There's always the theremin among other things. I remember something about a musician who tried stretching their hands mechanically and ended up wrecking them, but can't think of the name. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was Lizst :) 194.80.32.9 (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was Robert Schumann, in fact.--Diniz (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My fingers are only about 1 - 2 mm longer than yours but I play the guitar without too much difficulty in that respect. The most I can stretch my fingers is from the 5th fret with my index to the 10th fret with my pinky but I haven't been hindered by my short fingers yet. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have stubby fingers but I can play guitar well enough. You might not be able to play songs by people with long fingers, but you don't need long fingers to form all the basic chords. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The harmonica requires no great length of fingers. --Psud (talk) 09:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia de Larrocha has tiny hands. Maybe she struggled with some of Rachmaninov's compositions (whose handspan was legendary), but it certainly didn't stop her from becoming an exquisite pianist. Michel Petrucciani, one of the greatest European jazz pianists ever, had to overcome all sorts of difficulties (though he never perceived them as such, and though, to be fair, his hands look normal-sized on pictures). Django Reinhardt came up with new fingerings, and continued to swing hard on his guitar, even after two of his left hand's fingers were paralyzed in a fire accident. There are plenty of examples. I recommend learning the instrument that appeals most to you, not the one that best fits your physical measurements. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Scriabin, who wrote the greatest piano music in history, had very small hands with a span of barely a ninth. That meant that he was unable to perform some of his own music, but from the accounts of people who heard him play and the piano roll recordings that exist, it's safe to say what he could play he played brilliantly. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Scriabin, who wrote the greatest piano music in history - hmmm, I think that's slightly debatable. Let's just say he wrote some great music. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take some of the blame, for my weasely "one of the greatest ... ever". Soon after typing, I reconsidered this and thought yeah he's one of the greatest ever out of a pretty large set of greatest ever. I guess I was under the influence of listening to some clips on youtube while thinking about this question and Petrucciani's remarkable and far too short biography. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd second the guitar. I have very short, stubby fingers, and there are a few weird chords I have to work around (like, say, E2) but mostly you can work out most of the basic chords. The tuning of a guitar means that you can play 2 full octaves in a 5-fret space, even for my short fat fingers. You could also look into smaller stringed instruments, like Ukulele or Mandolin. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Playing keyboard instruments used to require long reach - but many modern electronic keyboards have keys that are considerably smaller than piano keys. It's just a matter of finding the right instrument. Also - how about a trombone - those things should be easy on the fingers! SteveBaker (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I 2nd the idea of getting an electronic keyboard. You can turn the disadvantage into an advantage by getting a smaller, less expensive keyboard. In particular, I'd expect models made in Asia (Yamaha, for example) would be designed for those with shorter fingers. If they are still too big, try a version designed for children. They may be the cheapest yet. StuRat (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore - with the ubiquity of the MIDI interface, you can take a relatively cheap keyboard who'se "feel" and spacing happen to suit you - and hook it up to an industrial-strength synthesiser bank full of hideously expensive professional gear. SteveBaker (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gak! Maybe I'm a purist but I think playing electronic keyboards (even those with weighted keys) is an awful sensory experience, and I think almost all pianists agree with me. I wouldn't go this route!! Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I think your just fine! My mom can play both and her finger hights are the same! -Warriorscourge (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smaller hands are an advantage on some wind instruments, such as flute. --S.dedalus (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Long fingers can certainly be helpful for some instruments (I can stretch from the 5th to the 14th fret on a guitar, so things like bass come easy for me), but short fingers do not necessarily impair people. I know guitarists of all fingers lengths, and many have short, stubby fingers and can play circles around the big-handed ones. It's just a matter of practice and perseverance, and if you really work at it, there's no reason for smaller fingers to stop you from becoming a good (if not great) guitarist. --69.146.230.243 (talk) 03:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Suzuki method somtimes uses instruments designed for very young people with hands much smaller than yours. Phil Burnstein (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, use the Suzuki method on a Yamaha keyboard. With that combo there's snow way you'll have any trouble. :-) StuRat (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

This reminds me of watching some movie in which Jeff Goldblum played a pianist and noticing that, when shown in close-up, the pianist's hands looked like a child's compared to Goldblum's. —Tamfang (talk) 01:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like they used an oriental pianist. There must be some aspect of Chaos Theory which states that, if you fail to provide a physical description to casting when hiring a double, they will cast the person who least resembles your actor. StuRat (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want something in the string family and are worried about reach you might also consider a Appalachian dulcimer. You can even build one yourself. They're portable, not everyone has one and you can put it on top of a piano to make it sound real grand. With an electric pick up you can even play in a band, just as you would with a guitar. The drawback is that you'd have to write your own riffs, because most of what's available for dulcimer is folk or country like. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 08:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British ads: what do they mean?

If an ad for a room says "English speaking", do they mean "native speakers of English" or "fluent speakers of English"?

In an ad for a job, what is considered an "honours degree" (if you have a foreign degree)? Is that your first degree or only a degree with good grades? 80.58.205.37 (talk) 12:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the first question, 'English speaking' certainly does not mean 'native speakers of English'. It could mean 'fluent speakers' but more probably means 'speaks enough to get by'. As for your second question, where is the job precisely? In English universities, and honours degree is simply a non-terrible (but still potentially pretty bad; not 'good grades' by any means) first degree, while in the Scottish system, an honours degree requires a fourth year of study. Algebraist 12:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer. The job is in an institute for further education. The description said: "You will need a Honours degree in Social sciences, Health Studies or a related subject". 80.58.205.37 (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's explained in British undergraduate degree classification, but if your degree is not from the UK it won't really apply, and you'll have to show if your qualifications are enough to be equivalent. The institute may be familiar with degrees frrom other countries and be able to give their opinion. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read that article, but it has no reference to recognition of foreign degrees. --80.58.205.37 (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An honours degree is a 3 or four year undergraduate degree with any grade above a bare pass (in a nutshell). Just rephrasing what Algebraist said really. AlmostReadytoFly is correct in saying that if you don't have a UK degree you are going to have to have a way to show your degree is equivalent. dougweller (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. That would be enough to be considered as job applicant. What about "English speaker"? Are these people, who are offering the room, some sort of Londoner rednecks? Or they just want to come well along with their potential roomies?--80.58.205.37 (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When considering degrees from outside the UK - it'll make a HUGE difference where you come from. Almost any full degree from a "real" US university will work - but a "granted in recognition of your life experiences" piece of order-by-mail "degree" is worthless - somewhere between those limits will be the "DeVry" type of degree. On the other hand, if you are from a country with less well known institutions - then there might be some issue. The answer is to call them up and ask - I'm sure you'll get a quick answer. As for the 'room' ad - I'm sure they just want to make sure that you speak English well enough to be understood. There is no reason to require a perfect accent and impeccable grammar - they just want to be sure they can interact with you reasonably. (Unless of course these are evil racists trying to find a reason not to rent their room to people whom they don't deem suitable for reasons that would be illegal were they to spell them out in detail!)... SteveBaker (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Canada, an honours degree is the four-year version of the basic undergraduate degree (i.e. Bachelor's), in contrast with the standard three-year program. Not to be confused in any way with graduating "with honours". I did the first and certainly didn't do the second... :-) Matt Deres (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not correct for my university when I was there. An honours degree typically took 4 years and a general degree also typically took 4 years. There was a 3-year degree, called a pass degree, but I believe it was really intended as a fallback for people who tried the general program and couldn't quite pass all their courses. As well as requiring you to take more credits, the honours degree also required higher marks than the general degree, and for some courses you had to take a slightly harder version. --Anonymous, 00:02 UTC, November 19, 2008.

At the University of Victoria in Canada (I make the distinction from two posts above), a social sciences honours degree and regular degree are both 4 year degrees and require the same number of credits. An honours degree requires an additional "thesis" in each of the third and fourth years. In economics there are also two courses that are required that would only be optional in a regular BA.NByz (talk) 01:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would think it far more likely that they are foreigners who only want to live with English speakers because they want to improve their English. Most British people are either left-liberal anti-racists, or live in fear of being subject to false accusations of racism by the rabid liberal-left, and would therefore never risk saying such a thing. Innocent foreigners from less PC countries might well say it though. Abberley2 (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second oldest organization in the world

So, for completely inscrutable reasons, me and my mate were discussing what the oldest organization in the world was. Pretty quickly it became obvious that the Catholic Church wins, hands down. So, then, naturally, the question became: except for the Catholic Church, what's the oldest organization in the world? Is there one that even comes close? Any that crosses the millenium-mark?

(Organizations, for the purpose of this question, is loosely defined as some sort of centrally organized group of people who identify as part of it, with some sort of coherent structure. Like, "Islam" doesn't count, because it doesn't have a consistent structure or clearly defined leadership or hierarchy (unlike the Catholic church, which has a pope, with cardinals working for him, governing bishops, etc. etc. You can draw a chart, basically). It's just a bunch of people that believe in the same thing, not an organization per se. Also, no governments, royal lines of succession, semi-mythological organizations (I'm looking at you, Bavarian Illuminati!) or families. Think companies, clubs, sects, those sorts of things). 83.250.202.208 (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may not qualify, given your restrictions, but China can be traced back to the Bronze age (at which time the RC church and the papacy were still a way off). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that doesn't count. Countries aren't really "organizations", are they? 83.250.202.208 (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that China counts - but then you'd have to count the dynasties separately, and few of them lasted more than four hundred years, if I recall correctly. Jørgen (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese central state bureaucracy was established in the Qin dynasty in the late 3rd century or early 2nd century BC and continued in some form certainly till the 1911 revolution. I'm not sure if any of it survived that and the subsequent communist takeover to the present day. (There were certainly periods during that time in which the bureaucracy was in abeyance, when China had no central government, but new dynasties typically took over the old system, so I would say it was at least as continuous as the church in Rome.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maltelauridsbrigge (talk • contribs) 12:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can make the answer come out to be "The Catholic Church" if you constrain the 'rules' enough - but your constraints are pretty arbitary. The jewish faith has been around a lot longer - they have pretty consistent sets of laws and some sort of hierarchy. Excluding nations is pretty arbitary since the Catholics behaved much like a nation for most of their existence. (The "Holy Roman Empire"?!) SteveBaker (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(PITA EC!) Hinayana Buddhism has a central belief in the words of the Buddha, who came 500 years before Christ. There may be many sects, but they all believe essentially the same thing, and I am sure you would be able to find a sect that goes right back to the Buddha himself, if you really looked.--ChokinBako (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we adhere to your rules (a bit loosely), I suggest that the "family" / "tribe" / "clan" far predates the RC Church. It would even predate our species and may not even have changed all that much from a pride of lions to the dysfunctional family of the Simpsons. It is, of course, not a "human made" cooperative entity, but neither is the RC Church, to believers. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Holy Roman Empire wasn't a case of the Catholics behaving much like a nation. It was a case of a weird kind of monarchy pretending to be holy and Roman and an empire, none of which were true. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you guys are missing the point of the OP. There are certainly belief systems older than the Catholicism, but what about as an organizational structure? I think we get off task when we just name random stuff that is older than Catholicism, without focusing on the idea of an "organization". I would discount China because the modern China really bears no connection to the historical state as an "organization". If the oldest means "furthest continuous backwards from today", then modern China really only exists since the 1940's. No state in Europe is as old as the Catholic Church is either... And while families and tribes and clans are TYPES of organizational structures, this is about the specific organization, not merely the type of organization. Can we point to a tribe or clan with a coninuous unbroken organizational history dating as far back as the Catholic Church? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the oldest organisation ever to exist is the roman kingdom/republic/empire. Rome was founded as a kingdom in ca. 800 BC, and the eastern half of the roman empire survived untill 1453 when it was conquered by the ottomans. That's over 2250 years. Hinduism can trace it roots back about 3,500 years, though that's not as organised as the catholic church or the romans were so I dunnno if it counts.--Patton 123 20:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EC with Jayron) Earlier answers aside, I think your answer of the Catholic Church is a perfectly reasonable condition. There's more to an organization than a common goal or belief system; you need some kind of consistent bureaucratic framework, IMO. The Jewish faith has obviously been around a great deal longer, but has there been a central, bureaucratic body that provided some kind administration or something? I'm genuinely asking, but I don't think that's so. My first thought for second place would be Japanese royalty, which has continued in unbroken succession for more than a thousand years (at least back to AD 270 (Emperor Ōjin) and possibly back to 660 BC (Emperor Jimmu)). Perhaps they deserve first after all. Matt Deres (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the history books of the bible the jews hae had some form of leader for msot of their history bar their time in egypt, between judges, kings and simple natural leaders.--Patton 123 20:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but countries (like the Roman Republic and the Roman and Byzantine Empires) are a different thing though! There's lost of countries that are dirt old (some version of "Sweden" has existed for at least 1900 years, and possibly way, way longer), but that's not the same thing. There's a bunch of land on Earth, it tends to get divied up and ruled by people, and when those people die, new people rule it instead. The borders grow and they shrink, but the nations themselves can live on for millenia without much effort. It's not the same thing. 83.250.202.208 (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a ruler in each occupied country I am familiar with, for as long as it has been continuously occupied. There have been numerous "regime changes." The history of the Roman Catholic Church is the history of the Papacy. Haven't there been similar externally imposed "regime changes " and internally imposed changes in the "form of government" in the papacy, so it is no more a "continuous organization" than the government of China was for longer periods? Symmachus in 502 took away the right of laymen to elect a Pope and restricted eligibility to higher clergy, a radical change in the form of government as dramatic as a change of dynasty in Egypt or China. In the 10th century the Pope was appointed by local Roman noble families, another drastic change equivalent to a change in the form of government in a country. In the 11th century Henry III took on himself the right to appoint the Pope, another change which should restart the clock. The clock should start again in the 14th century, when the Popes for 70 years did not reside in the see of which they were supposed to be Bishop, previously a definition of the Pope as Bishop of Rome, but in France. If the Roman Catholic Church's longevity is judged by the standards we would apply to Egypt or China, then it is 730 to ~~1406~~ 1506 years old. Edison (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the Middle Ages when various different factions decided they could appoint their own popes, there was often more than one. The church has since legitimized some of them so it looks like there is an unbroken succession, but it was certainly not that clear at the time. "The Catholic Church" as we know it now really isn't any older than the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century, and you could probably argue it is less than 50 years old, after the Second Vatican Council. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on guys, it's the New World Order! -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 22:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at this I would think that some of the construction trades may well be older than the CC. Though I couldn't be sure how much "organisation" they have/had. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about the Sri Lankan Sangha? The Sri Lanka article describes it as having a "largely unbroken lineage" since the 2nd century BCE. Is it an unbroken organizational structure? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia, who ruled Ethiopia until 1974? He traced his lineage back to King Solomon. Seems as likely as the current Pope having an unbroken line of predecessors in one unvarying organization dating back to the apostle Peter. Edison (talk) 07:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about the Althing? This springs to my mind... --Ouro (blah blah) 11:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other Christian Churches are at least as old as Rome. The Syriac Orthodox Church possibly dates back to Saint Peter; see the lists List of Patriarchs of Antioch and List of Syriac Orthodox Patriarchs of Antioch which form a chain from 37 AD; however it has moved from Antioch to Damascus, so it doesn't have the same fixed geographical focus as the Roman church. The Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria apparently dates back as an organised structure to 190 AD; the List of Coptic Orthodox Popes of Alexandria goes back to Mark the Evangelist in 43 AD, though the church presumably had no formal structure at that time. It seems to have persisted in Alexandria through all invasions, empires, and upheavals.--Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue the Imperial House of Japan qualifies as an organization. Its founding was in 660 BC which would make it much older than any Christian organization. —D. Monack ^talk 03:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are looking for non-political organizations, then this might fit your bill Incense Route. The specific organizations trading on that route have not been preserved by name, but I bet there were some. (dromedaries united?? ;-) Also the artisans that built things in Egypt weren't slaves as some thought. I assume they were organized in some fashion, since the workmen's village they dug up was grouped by trades. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 09:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish priesthood ("Kehuna" - see Kohen) dates itself back to Aaron. It has some elements of being an "organisation" (rules, membership etc) but has had no governance since the institution of the High Priest fell into disuse. --Dweller (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it me?????????????

This year in June, I took my wife and my mother-in-law to Tenerife for 2 weeks in a wonderful hotel on a half-board basis. Yesterday, I contacted the Edinburgh based carrier for a quote for 2009 - same hotel - same weeks - same board basis - and discovered to my horror they have increased the pice by ----------40%. So I asked whether they were aware of the international credit crunch - the collapse of Excel and Zoom airlines - the British recession v Depression etc., etc. The operator thanked me for my call - and put the phone down. Today, I went shopping around all the competitors' branches and was SHOCKED to learn that all of their 2009 holidays had significantly increased in price over 2008. So - is it me??? Or are people spending their savings NOW as against waiting for them to collapse during some as yet unseen but feared crisis? 92.21.226.176 (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you said - collapse of airlines means less planes available to travel on means more demand means higher prices. Food costs have increased, fuel prices too. It all adds up. Add in soaring inflation rates... -mattbuck (Talk) 21:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(editconflict) Despite current economic conditions, there are still many many people who have money to spend. A quick look at the article Tenerife suggests that it is a wonderful place for a vacation. (You were there - is it?)

I expect the chances are good to excellent that the tourist businesses of Tenerife know that they will still be able to attract guests, despite major rate hikes. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm informed that sterling has lost 25% of its value in the last few weeks. That sort of thing would tend to dent your ability to purchase a foreign holiday. I'm with the operator. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't say, where you're from, or what currency the increase is in, but that could be a huge part of it. Imagine you're paying in pounds.

Let's assume that last year your vacation cost 1 pound and this year it cost 1.4 pounds.

That works out to 1.42euros then, 1.64euros now. That's only a 15% increase not a 40%.

(Assuming you bought the tickets on the 18th of November in each case. And assuming my math is right. )

APL (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the currency devaluation is likely to be the biggest chunk of this - but also, the strategy that a business takes when custom dips down is not NECESSARILY to drop prices. If their prices were already cut to the bone - then cutting them further means they're now losing money instead of making a profit. An alternative strategy is to put your prices UP on the grounds that loyal customers will come anyway - so the reduction in numbers of customers is outweighed by the profit per customer. This works especially well in service industries because they can shed a lot of unskilled workers and save money there too. So perhaps these people know their customers and have figured out that increasing their prices pushes their profits up - not down. SteveBaker (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My biggest issue isn't with the resort's price but with your last sentence. What leads you to believe that A) people are spending their savings "NOW" just because a resort's price for 09 went up and B) the crisis is not "as yet unseen". Tell all the people who have lost their jobs and/or their homes in the last year that the crisis is unseen. Dismas|^(talk) 22:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - I am so genuinely sorry - I hadn't realised that Wikipedia was so heavily populated by unemployed Wall Street Bankers (as were). I am in the UK - and do you know - despite the crash - I still have a choice - and do you know what else - I also have the cash? - I have decided therefore that I I I I I am in control - NOT the bankers or the travel agents - so do you know what? I am staying at home next year. And the USA - Spain - Greece - Australia - Cruises - and Israel - can all get stuffed. I shall be relaxing in my OWN country - God Bless Us All. 92.21.226.176 (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry we were unable to confirm your bias. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We'll miss you here in the U.S. (though the Tenerife article tells me the U.S. does not include this vacationer's paradise). I don't think "the bankers" are in control (cf. Citigroup deciding it can get by with 50,000 fewer employees), and I know from working in the travel industry that the travel agents aren't, either.

Since I knew there'd be fewer cranky people there, I just checked airfares from New York to Tenerife. For a Dec. 2 departure, they ranged from $665 - $900 (which is a 35% swing). For a July 2009 trip, the range was from $1,422 - $1,763 (a 24% swing for that date, but essentially 100% higher than December). Why, I have no idea -- maybe Tenerife's more popular in July (supply and demand, not conspiracy). Maybe the airlines are pessimistic ("predictions are hard, especially about the future). Maybe the farther out people book, the likelier it is that they'll cancel (this is generally true for travel not dependent on a specific holiday like Christmas). --- OtherDave (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you buy plane tickets well in advance, you typically get them for a moderate price. If you buy them just a few days before the trip, the price is typically higher. However, if they can't fill all the seats, the price may plummet right before the flight. StuRat (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's totally cool if you want to want to blow off Les États-Unis, because the joint will still be full of Brits looking at price tags, saying "No, really?" and buying half the store. Maybe that'll be a third of the store now that the pound has dropped a little. God Bless the British Tourists, Darkspots (talk) 12:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One thing no one's mentioned yet is the influence of the oil price. Many airlines buy fuel in bulk for their anticipated needs over the next few months and maybe even a year. Since your holiday last year, the oil price has risen to record highs and even though the oil price has since fallen again, the price the airlines paid for their fuel is still the older higher price. Astronaut (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]