Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 October 25

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.

October 25

Question About GDP, Net Domestic Product, National Income Etc.?

We don't do your homework for you, though we’ll help you past the stuck point.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Can I please get some help on this set of problems? I don't fully understand this topic so if your can show your work so I can learn, that'd be greatly appreciated. 1. Gross Domestic Product Expenditures Approach: 2. Gross Domestic Product Incomes Approach: 3. Calculate Net Domestic Product: 4. Calculate National Income: 5. Calculate Personal Income: 6: Calculate Disposable Income: I included the table with the data in the the link below. https://imgur.com/a/XM8YR So... you want us to do your homework? --Golbez (talk) 04:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Everything you ever needed to know: Gross domestic product. DOR (HK) (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Why am I here?

There's a funny little meme around the question, 'Why am I here?' The question gets repeated 4 times, each time with the emphasis on a different word. WHY am I here? Why AM I here? Why am "I" here? Why am I HERE? I'm trying to learn the original source of this little 'framework for reflection' so that I can use it with attribution, instead of without. Thanks if anyone can point me to an original (enough) source. It's not an easy google, as there's lots out there on the subject of 'why am I here' (and I'm not collecting wikipedia opinions on that question, heh heh).

Possibly the BBC sketch in 2016 celebrating Shakespeare's 400th? See [1] [2] Course, the sketch could be a riff on the meme too. Am mentioning it, even though it's a guess, in case using the Hamlet version with attribution would solve your problem. 70.67.222.124 (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

A question asked out of curiosity: why is it significant that there is emphasis on a different word each time it is said? Bus stop (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Bus stop:See Stress_(linguistics)#Prosodic_stress for an explanation of why the difference in stress makes these in effect four different questions, each eliciting a different answer. μηδείς (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Where have you come across this meme? When I try Googling "why am I here, why am I here, why am I here, why am I here" I get 4 hits, none of which give any hint of putting the stress on a different word each time. --Antiquary (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm also curious. My usual go-to for this stuff is Know Your Meme, but they don't seem to have it and looking for why am I here and why am I here meme in Google is not bringing up much. Of course, memes come and go all the time anyway - that's part of the charm - but it can be very hard to get attribution for creation because of their anonymity and speed of dispersal. Matt Deres (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I believe the OP is using the word "meme" not in the "funny picture with text" usage, but in the older, more formal usage as defined at meme, that is a "unit of cultural exchange". Which is to say he means its a concept that gets passed around from person to person, rather than a funny picture you post on social media. --Jayron32 11:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi I am the OP. Indeed, I didn't mean the current little photo memes. I picked up the 'why am I here' x 4 idea somewhere in a workshop or seminar, sometime ago. Or in googling around at some point. I know I didn't make it up. I'd like to be able to use it without stealing it, if the credit can go to an identifiable source. But if we can't find it, we can't find it. WHY can't we find it? Why CAN'T we find it? Why can't WE find it? Why can't we FIND it? Why can't we find IT!

(All I found was definitely not the invention, but here goes anyway) In the prologue of Rabbi Pete Tobias's book Why Am I Here? (with the emphasis on 'here') (2012) the author describes a scene as a student at Leo Baeck College in the 1980s: A teacher writes the words "Why am I here?" on the blackboard, and points out that it's an ontological question, if the emphasis is on "why", but an existential question, if the emphasis is on "I". Whereupon the author (then-student) wisecracks "and if the emphasis is on 'here', it's a geographical question."

Maybe adding philosophical keywords etc. to your search might help find something more original. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

And you might find something worth finding like The Simpsons Why am I here?. Dmcq (talk) 12:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Roe v. Wade

What is the formal status of this ruling? A statute, a decision, a ruling? Or something else? How does it relate to an amendment, and is it one? Ericoides (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

It states there is a constitutional (via 14th amendment) right to privacy which extends to someone getting an abortion; therefore it is the law of the land until such time as the constitution is amended or the supreme court overturns itself. --Golbez (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

It is formally a Decision of the US Supreme Court. Statutes are laws passed by a legislature, and rulings (depending on how the term is used) are specific findings in court proceedings (such as that a certain remedy be applied in an individual instance), whereas decisions are the comprehensive majority finding of the entire court, supported by an opinion written by one or more of the justices, sometimes with concurring opinions written by an other justice or justices who agree with the outcome, but who might differ in their reasoning sufficiently enough that they want it recorded. μηδείς (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@μηδείς, thanks. Ericoides (talk) 06:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Ericoides, just so you don't walk away with erroneous incomplete information, Medeis, is incorrect was unclear in their distinction between "rulings" and "decisions"; I think Medeis may have intended to say "findings" where they said "rulings", which would render the statement more or less correct. It breaks down like this: "findings"= generally applied to specific conclusions made by a court; "decisions"=generally refers to the published opinion in its entirety, but can be more narrowly used as a synonym of the holding of the majority opinion, and; "ruling"= the broadest of the terms, which can be applied to any formal conclusion arrived at in a case, so long as it was a part of the holding and not dicta.

Anyway, Medeis' broader point is accurate. Roe v. Wade is a Supreme Court ruling, and in that sense it represents an exercise in common law. But it's not just any such exercise; by and large, the Supreme Court is empowered to rule on the propriety of a state statute only where it bears on a constitutional protection--and in that regard it is empowered to strike down all or part of a statute. Outside of conflicts with the state and federal constitutions, courts generally are not empowered to decide whether a law is appropriate; they merely determine what the statutes require in individual cases. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Please go back and read what I actually wrote, Snow Rise. I said "and rulings (depending on how the term is used)" which obviously implies it is a broad term as you have 'corrected' me. (For example, a ruling that someone was in contempt of court would be neither a finding nor a decision.) My purpose was not to write a law dictionary, but to answer the OP's question succinctly, which I did. μηδείς (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

You're right, Medeis--on parsing your statement a second time, it is clear you are not defining "ruling" as a narrowly and absolutely as I perceived it the first time, and I can understand where my "erroneous" might have seemed an excessive description (as a a matter of courtesy, I have adjusted the wording above). Nevertheless, I think the extra detail is useful to the OP, insofar as their question is one essentially about the nomenclature of different representations of legal authority. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that defining finding is helpful, thanks. μηδείς (talk) 00:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Roe v. Wade has additional information as well. --Xuxl (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Not to be confused with this:[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Some wag once said that "Equity varies with the length of the Chancellor's foot". Jurisprudence is an art, not a science, and it is routine for decisions to be overturned by a higher court on appeal. To minimise the problems courts usually have an odd number of judges. Dissenting judgments are a feature of the system (but not in the EU I believe). See, for example, paragraphs 243 - 283 here:[4]. 92.8.218.38 (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

A very constructive interpretation has been put on this word "findings". Back in the long hot summer of 1976 the Sporting Life discovered that the Horserace Totalisator Board had been adding bets into its pools after the results of the races had been declared. Margaret Thatcher announced that a judge would conduct an enquiry and "his findings will be published". What was published was the last few words of the report where the judge, Mr F J Aglionby, wrote "My findings are ..." and listed the laws which the Tote had contravened. M Ps asked Thatcher "Will a copy of the report be placed in the House of Commons Library?" She replied "No - a copy will be sent to the Minister and the chairman of the board (Woodrow Wyatt) and no further copies will be made available." [5]. We now have the Freedom of Information Act 2000 - maybe some enterprising sports journalist will ask whether the report is still extant (it's unlikely to have been thrown away) and request to see it. 92.8.217.52 (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the Judge found that "The Tote's transmission procedures did not involve any breach of any statutory provision or of the common law". The Tote did admit, however, that its action had been ultra vires its statutory powers (i.e. it had no legal authority to do what it did). Others were more trenchant: the affair was known as the "Carlisle cock-up" [6] and "Despite incontrovertible evidence of fraud and tax evasion no one was ever prosecuted for one of the biggest ever racing scandals" [7]. 31.52.216.36 (talk) 00:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)