Humanities desk
< February 5	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 7 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities 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.

February 6

rate of margin growth or decline

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

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

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

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

Agent of the Queen?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christopher J. Alden

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

Different terms for different houses of bicameral legislatures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Golden Nymph

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

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

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

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

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

updated funds total from charity telethon

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

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

Causes/motivations of boasting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why was the Salvation Army anti-union?

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

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

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

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

barrak obama born in kenya???

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

what would happen of barrak obama born in kenya

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

History of attitude toward farting

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

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

Our article Flatulence humour (to which 'Fart joke' redirects), instances works by the 5th century BC Greek playwright Aristophanes. The article's talk page has a link [1] to a BBC report of a University of Wolverhampton study of ancient jokes that claims a fart joke on a 1900BC Sumerian clay tablet as the oldest known joke in the world. My suspicions are that farts have been found humorous for at least as long as humankind has been human, and that (contrary to our Humour article) humour itself predates humanity and some non-human animals exhibit humour. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 12:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Books critical of Marxism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-question. ╟─Treasury Tag►secretariat─╢ 17:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Closed as drivel descending into chat-room territory. ╟─Treasury Tag►secretariat─╢ 17:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Duke Of Lugo

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

I googled ["duchy of lugo"] and only a few items came up. This one might be useful:[2] As noted in the link above, there is a Spanish city named Lugo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hermann, Margrave of Brandenburg-Salzwedel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

origin of wilton ct. phone number prefix - porter 2

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

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

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

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

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

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