Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013 May 14

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.

May 14

An inspiring movie in the 60's

As a young teenager back in the early 60's I watched a movie which I did enjoyed a lot. It was in English and was centred around the time when cavaliers were around. I can vaguely remember the story centred upon a man who appeared to be fightnig for justice against a corrupt establishment and he was helped by a beautiful lady who was somewhat linked to the ruling elite. After many escapades the man was caught. At this point I can't remember much of the plot as I was with my girlfriend at that time. However, I seem to recall that the man's twin brother (obviously played by the same actor) appeared on the scene and who appeared to be well heeled and well attired. There were further action and a court case? the twin who was incarcerated was sentenced and put to death. But the ending of the movie showed a very happy lady joyfully hugging the twin who was supposed to have been hanged, crying 'I can't believe you are you, and you are alive!' (or something to that effect). Apparently the other twin had exchanged places with his condemned twin brother so that he could be free and united with his beloved. I know this is a big ask, but I hope somehow, somewhere in this world, someone would have seen this movie too, and maybe remember the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hiew (talk • contribs) 07:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know the answer I'm afraid, but I want to hear more about what you were doing with your girlfriend which made you miss the film :) --Viennese Waltz 09:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Two long shots: The Man in the Iron Mask (1939 film) or The Corsican Brothers (1941 film)? --Viennese Waltz 10:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

There's definitely no trial or noble exchanging of places in The Corsican Brothers (1941). In fact, one brother tries to do in the other. The plot of The Man in the Iron Mask also has the brothers at each other's throat. Also, neither film is set in England. The closest match I can come up with is a film version of A Tale of Two Cities, with Sidney Carton being very noble indeed, but again no trial and no England. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Have to sign off now, but you could try browsing List of actors who have played multiple roles in the same film. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I realize that neither of my suggestions fits the description, but I thought I would mention them anyway as they seem to be the only swashbuckling films about twins. Also, he wrote "in English", not "in England". --Viennese Waltz 12:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Cavalier would mean England almost assuredly, although it's not impossible the OP is using the word incorrectly and means knights or cowboys or some other type of rider (as the word comes from the french for rider, and is similar to the french word for knight, and may well be related to these concepts in most romance languages). 64.201.173.145 (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think he's using it in a non-country-specific sense to mean swashbuckler, but we'll find out if he ever comes back. --Viennese Waltz 15:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• How about The Prisoner of Zenda? There is also The Prince and the Pauper, but the former seems more likely. Looie496 (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• A Tale of Two Cities. --Onorem♠Dil 14:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd missed Clarityfiend's response. I'd think it almost has to be at least an adaptation of some sort for the story. --Onorem♠Dil 14:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks all for the suggestions. I am afraid none of them fits in. Yes, the film was in English though not necessarily had any connections to England. It was definitely European in setting with temperate looking flora. The period costume suggested an era akin to The Three Muskeeters i.e. with swashbuckling duels and cavalier attitudes. The rendering of the actors hair seems to suggest that the film was made in the 50's or early 60's. One of the most memorial scene I can recalled and which had the movie audience laughing was when the newly arrived twin walked hesitantly along a corridor (with his back to the camera) towards what appear to be a dead end and the camera then panned right to have him emerged from the another side looking sheepish. I can also recall a scene where fighting took place around a huge made make earthern or concrete mound that was shaped like a skull (or maybe my imagination ran riot at that time). I wish I had concentrated more on watching the movie but my girlfriend had other ideas - like exchanging saliva. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.41.193.62 (talk) 04:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

One-child policy

Am I right in understanding that if the one-child policy, which I understand is in used in some Asian countries, was to become world-wide, it would eventually lead to the extinction of the human race?

The way I see it, if a woman is only allowed to have one child, then each generation is half the size of the previous one, as men can't have children. And that's not accounting for infertile women, women who choose not to have children, women who can't find a mate, or women who die before childbirth. Even if we relax this policy to allow one child per family and allow women to remarry, the number of women who remarry will still be less than the number of men altogether, which will also lead to each generation being smaller than the previous one.

So am I right in understanding that in order for the human race to survive, at least some women must have multiple children? JIP | Talk 17:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

To maintain population levels (not taking into account immigration and such), there must be as many births as deaths. If every family of two had only 1 child, there would eventually be not enough children to have more children. See Population stabilization and the various links therein for more details. Mingmingla (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The replacement rate is somewhere just over 2.1 children per couple; the .1 to cover sterility/early death/homosexuality in some children. μηδείς (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• (I'm retracting everything I said here, I'd forgotten that humans aren't self-pollinating :)No to your last question, at least conceptually. You're forgetting grandchildren. Humans are not semelparous; we do not die after reproduction. In some situations, a single child per couple could sustain the population at viable level. Consider if every woman had a child at age 15. Then woman A would be a grandmother by 30, a great-grandmother by 45, etc. Since A's first daughter will also be a grandmother when A is 45, there are potentially many humans added to the population at the time of A's death, and the population would grow. Population dynamics is a very rich topic, and it cannot be summed up so simply. Note that the replacement rate quoted by Medeis makes several assumptions to get there. UK replacement fertility rate is 2.075, but it would go down substantially if they started having babies younger. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • • Rather decent of you, Semantic. μηδείς (talk) 01:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Given the retraction, I am happy to say never mind. Yes, when I said "somewhere just over 2.1," and mentioned reasons why some children won't reproduce I was mentioning several of those assumptions. But a population that halves every generation is going extinct, no matter how slowly or quickly it wants to do so by postponing or front-loading childbirth. Replacement rate cannot drop below 2.0 no matter what.μηδείς (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• If every woman had a single child and there was no sex selection of babies, the human race would go extinct in approximately a thousand years. However, it would take a couple of hundreds just for the population to drop back to the level in the year 1900 -- so the problem is not one of vast urgency. Looie496 (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that there's an absurd assumption in the question. That assumption is that such a policy would be maintained as population levels dropped. The very reason for such a policy is to prevent overpopulation, so, once this is no longer a problem, the policy would be eased or eliminated. Also note that exceptions to the one-child policy exist, and there are also those who don't comply, and these affect the numbers. StuRat (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that a) the one-child policy in China is not enforced in lightly populated rural areas, especially among non-Han indigenous populations. b) Because of concerns over sex-based discrimination, the policy allows many families to have a second child if the first is a girl (though if you have two girls, tough luck) b) Violations of the one-child policy require the violating family to pay a fine. This means that rich people get to have larger families than poor people, as a practical matter, and may thus be seen to represent a sort of economic eugenics. So there are ample opportunities in China to have more than one child, according to the Wikipedia article and sources it cites, only about 1/3rd of China is under the strict one-child limit. --Jayron32 19:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the policy is not so much a case of "you're not permitted to have more than one child", rather one of "if you do exceed your quota, you will have to pay a fine". For many, this is a real barrier, but for others, not. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

For poor people it is a real barrier. For the rich, not so much. That's why the reference to Eugenics, in that it allows China to alter its demographic makeup by limiting the ability of its underclasses to reproduce while allowing the rich and powerful to do so. --Jayron32 21:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Problem is, there's always some group at the bottom of the ladder. They become the nouveau pauvre. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You've got it a little backwards on eugenics. Eugenics is about attempting to improve the gene pool. Actual implementations end up being classist for various reasons. The policy you are talking about is not about trying to improve the gene pool, it is about trying to limit overall population growth. Its actual implementation also ends up being classist for various reasons. But that shared classism does not make it eugenics. They are their own, separate things even though they may have classist dimensions. (Similarly, a regressive tax structure can be classist, as well, but it is not eugenics just because it is classist.) --Mr.98 (talk) 13:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

A system which would eventually kill off the poor and leave only the rich, is big trouble. There has to be someone around to do actual work. So it's not likely to be allowed to get to that point. There will always be enough poor folks kept around to prevent the rich from having to get their own hands dirty. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree - it wouldn't do that. The likely consequence is a reduction in the number of the poorest people - and a redistribution of the wealth of the very rich into multiple children - and if the fines are stiff enough - more income for the state that can be invested in construction projects and other things that will provide more income for the poor.

Imagine a couple who are worth (say) a million dollars who break the law, pay the fines and have four kids - then the kids stand to inherit $250,000 each - which results in one very rich family becoming four merely comfortably off families, and in the generation following that, a dozen or more people in the middle classes. If the original millionaires could only have one child, then two people's life's worth goes to one child who will therefore be even richer than either of the two parents individually were - and then if rich kids marry rich kids (as is often the case) - then you get richer and richer family empires as wealth gets consolidated into fewer and fewer hands.

The reverse happens with poor families, where one child gets all the benefits from two parents instead of the family vegetable lot and the four goats being split amongst two or more children. When poor kids marry other poor kids, combining the vegetable lots and goat herds of two sets of parents greatly improves the prospects of families in the next generation and pushes them out of poverty and into the middle classes.

So over the long run, allowing the rich to have more children is going to tend to even out the differences between rich and poor - not accentuate them.

The problem is in the short term - where one child has to look after both parents into their old age - which is easy for rich children - but difficult for the poor. But in a one-child society, allowing richer people to get away with having more than one child doesn't hurt the poor people to any degree whatever - even in the short term. It's also unrelated to Eugenics...it's quite the opposite in fact. SteveBaker (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

No, reducing poverty is a noble goal. However, the question becomes how to reduce poverty in a way that is just. There are all kinds of possible solutions to getting rid of poverty, but breeding out the poor people doesn't sound to me like a terribly moral way to do it. It's picking winners and losers based on accident of birth. If you get born poor, fuck you, you don't get to have the same rights as those who had the good fortune to be born rich. You could save the step of waiting a few generation, and just shoot all the poor people in the head. That'd get rid of them too. The question is not whether or not the elimination of poverty is a universal good, the question is how to accomplish that task in a way that is just and fair and right. The reason that it is related to Eugenics is that it involves the use of breeding to "weed out" societal undesirables. True, it doesn't use genetics as the deciding factor, it uses socioeconomic status. But the process and results are the same. You're picking winners and deciding who gets to breed and who doesn't. Doesn't sound to me like a very equitable way to run a society. --Jayron32 17:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's not moral - but that wasn't the question. There are plenty of immoral things that will work anyway. I argue that forcing poor people to only have one child and allowing rich people to have more children - whilst highly immoral, will none-the-less be effective in reducing the disparity between rich and poor over the long run. Shooting a bunch of poor people still leaves you with a bunch of poor people - but adjusting the relative birth rates should (in principle) result in all people - rich and poor alike heading towards the middle classes. The problem (aside from the undeniable moral issues) is that in the short term, it's a total disaster...as the Chinese are discovering. SteveBaker (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

No, killing all of the poor people leaves you with no more poor people. That's what happens when you kill someone. They stop being people and start being corpses. It solves the problem. --Jayron32 19:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Problem is, poverty is a relative thing. There will always be those who are less affluent than others, no matter what assets they have in absolute terms. That's what I meant by my reference above to the nouveau pauvre. In a world full of millionaires, those with the least will still be considered "poor". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is true, but there's a distinction to be made between "less than the richest people" and "not enough to live a happy life". The goal of civilized society is to eliminate, through just and moral means, the second group. Not having as much money as the richest people is not a problem. Not having enough money to afford nutritious food, quality education, sufficient shelter, and good healthcare is a problem in any society. You're conflating two unrelated issues. Sure, we have no reason to ensure that the sufficient are all made rich. But we do have a responsibility as a species to see that the insufficiencies are fixed. --Jayron32 23:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I would note while there may be some support for eugenics among various people in China, and even some clear cut government policy in this regard, the idea of the one child policy being intended as some sort of social eugenic policy in favour of the rich or to eliminate poverty breeding is unclear and doesn't seem that well supported as the intentions of the majority of the designers (although it's possible perhaps even likely that it did occur to some and some of those in charge of implementing and enforcing it do support such goal). For starters, as you mentioned there are various exemptions which don't seem to fit such a goal.

More significantly, if you read various documents about it, our article for example, it seems clear that the intention is not that the rich are allowed to have more children because they can afford to pay the fines. Rather it's supposed to be a policy that everyone embraces and accepts. The trouble is what happens when you don't? You could do some of the stuff did under Mao etc in the past and send such trouble makers to a reeducation camp. You could take away the children and raise them elsewhere. You could force sterilisation (which according to numerous reports does happen). There are many possibilities, most of them likely unpalitablity or at least considered problematic to the designers. A fine may have seemed the best way to try and give the policy some teeth without becoming too controversial or causing other problems. The parents are also supposed to support the children fully which would seem fair because one of the reasons for the policy is to reduce the strain on various services.

Even then, the pressure on the local governments and other agencies tasked with enforcing the policy has resulted in numerous rather controversial actions. Note that the fine is apparently generally partially tied to income. (There are of course many areas in the developed countries which rely on fines as the primary means of enforcement. E.g. minor driving offences. I don't think most designers of such systems, even in the many countries where they're not tied to income were intending the policy to make it okay to violate these laws if you're rich. Of course such problems are the reason they're tied to income in some countries and they implement other things like a demerit system or the threat of jail time.)

Our article does mention 'Some of the offending officials did not face penalties,[76] although the government did respond by raising fines and calling on local officials to "expose the celebrities and high-income people who violate the family planning policy and have more than one child'. In otherwords, theoretically there is still supposed to be social pressure against even rich people violating the policy and I strongly suspect it was a key part of the plan. And it's worth remembering that at the time the policy was formulated and first implemented, Deng Xiaoping Chinese economic reform was only just being implemented so the role of the private sector was small. And the naïve belief that the people would do what the government told them was probably still fairly strong. (And as our article says the policy was and is still intended to only last one generation.)

The other problem, as highlighted by the part before quote where it mentions a number of people don't seem to have paid the fines/fees is one common to many countries particularly developing ones. Whatever the high level policy makers may decide, it ultimately falls on low level bureaucrats to implement (and in China given it's geographical size and government design, local officials) so corruption and incompetence means your plans will get distorted and may fail.

In other words, although the proof is in the pudding, so by no means am I defending the policy and as our article highlights there are numerous questions about other options which don't seem to have been well considered as well as the general question about human rights and fairness and as I said earlier there are some eugenic parts of the policy and plans; we also have to be careful not ascribe motives which may not have been there, at least for the original designers of the overall policy. (It's of course possible, perhaps even likely that a many or even of the people involved would have considered the poor-rich divide as a likely outcome. Particularly those who have continued to refine and support the policy in later years. Some may have thought it acceptable. That doesn't necessarily mean it was their intention.)

Nil Einne (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

With a world population of 7 billion and an average generation time of 20 years, the idealized math says we'd have 33 generations or 660 years before going extinct. But that assumes that every woman has exactly one child that survives to procreate. The true rate would be faster than that - especially in the last few generations where fragmentation of the population across the globe and the random nature of how many boys and girls are born would greatly hasten things. 500 years is a more realistic number.

But it's worth noting that we'd be in deep trouble long before extinction. As long-lived animals, the elderly depend on the youth to a greater or lesser extent to support them. If there are twice as many old people as young (and that's a very generous number!) then our health-care systems, farming, you name it would collapse in just a couple of generations. The problems we're entering into as a result of the aging of baby-boomers would be chicken-feed compared to a fully enforced global "one child per woman" rule. Add to that the biasses inherent in some cultures to demand boy children, then the problems with an excess of males in the population can make things spiral out of control even faster. This phenomenon is already noticeable in both China and India.

Clearly there are far too many humans on this planet right now - but to get that down to a sensible number, you have to make the decrease happen very slowly.

SteveBaker (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It is in no way clear there are too many people on earth at this point, and if you assert there are, you ought to point out which ones are the ones you think shouldn't be here. μηδείς (talk) 00:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem of caring for the elderly in a one-child-policy system is covered by the 4-2-1 phenomenon; the Wikipedia article is pretty stubby, but the concept is also discussed in more detail in the one-child policy article. --Jayron32 21:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't tempt me! :-) If I'm stuck in traffic on a freeway, I can say "There are far too many cars on this freeway" without having to point out which cars shouldn't be there. Clearly all cars on the freeway have as much a right to be there as I do - but just as clearly, there are still too many of them. Same deal with overpopulation. I can't imagine how you think there aren't too many people on earth. We're very clearly stressing the planet in many ways - over-fishing the oceans, eliminating animal habitats, essential wetlands and rain forest by over-farming, instigating global climate change by burning too much fossil fuel, consuming too much water from rivers and lakes. Having enough food and water for 7 billion humans requires more resources than the planet has - period. If there were (say) just one billion humans instead of seven billion - we wouldn't have a problem. So it's quite plain that there are too many of us. But I don't deny that everyone has just as much right to live as any other. So it's unreasonable to ask that I point out individuals or groups who "shouldn't be here". Given that we agree that everyone who is currently alive is entitled to continue living, the only humane way out of this problem is to reduce the number of children we have in order to allow the population to decrease to a level that the planet can continue to support. Alternatives such as massed killings, wars, large-scale suicides and so forth are not considered morally acceptable. We need to find ways to reduce our global average birth rate from something like 3.1 per woman (what we have now) to well under 2.1 - and keep it there for a few hundred years. One-child-per-family is a bit aggressive. Two-children-per-family (if enforced, worldwide) is better. SteveBaker (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, you're also trapped by your perspective. You can say "right now, on this freeway, there are too many people driving". One solution is "get rid of some cars". Another solution to realize is that one freeway is not the whole earth, and that there are lots of freeways that are lightly driven. To scrap that analogy and come back to the topic at hand, there is no evidence that there are now too many people. There are lots of people who have a shortage of resources, but it is not abundantly clear that there is a global shortage of resources, or just a local shortage created by inefficient systems or bad local politics or whatever. It's a logistics problem, not a total resources problem. For the freeway example, if we could find a way to get more people to live and work in less populated areas with excess freeway capacity, you could reduce traffic in the big cities, without necessarily causing unreasonable traffic in lightly populated areas. If we could find ways to better distribute food and shelter and energy and clean water, it would solve the problems we have without requiring us to reduce the current population. --Jayron32 17:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Restricting people's reproductive freedom is not morally acceptable either. There is by no means universal agreement that the earth has "too many" people. Larger concerns are overconsumption in some areas of the world, and distribution barriers in other areas. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

@Bugs: It's naive to assume that there will ever be "universal agreement" on anything - there are still people who think that the earth is flat or that they have invented perpetual motion machines. But just as global climate change has overwhelming scientific support, so does the idea that the earth is close to (or actually, somewhat past) breaking point (the two are clearly related). Check out Human overpopulation - it has good references for the claim that the earth's ecology is breaking under the strain, and very few that say that it's all OK. If you read it with an open mind, it's hard not to come away with the idea that there are far too many people here on this tiny planet.

@Jayron: As you say, the answer to the freeway problem is "Build more freeways" - but the analogous solution for earth: "Build more planets" ain't so simple. It's also very rash to assume that we can allow the population to increase further by doing better logistics. Better logistics would have helped 50 years ago...but all we have now is worse logistics. I was at an IKEA store in central Texas recently who were selling bottled water from Norway. Smoothing out the supply versus demand geography entails shipping product longer distances - and that increases costs and causes us to burn more fossil fuels doing the shipping. Inefficient systems and bad politics are even harder to fix than the population size!

SteveBaker (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I say again: Restricting people's reproductive freedom is immoral. And there are not "too many people". I recall something that was said when Paul Ehrlich wrote his book The Population Bomb - that the idea came to him when he was in India, surrounded by people of a different skin color than his. People who stress over population growth often want to restrict someone else's freedom. If you don't want kids, then don't have them. But don't try to tell others what they can or can't do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Does that freedom extend to unregistered IPs too? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 12:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure. IP's are just as free to be fruitful and multiply as anyone is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say it was "moral" or "immoral" I didn't even say that we should do that. I'm certainly not saying that people from one demographic or race or geographical location should be singled out to make a population reduction. What I *am* saying it that there are too many people for this planet - and either we reduce the number by some means that we devise or we suffer the severe consequences...which will ultimately produce at least the same human population decrease - but in a way produced by mother nature - not by human choice. This will doubtless mean that the privileged in the 1st world countries will do better than those in the rest of the world...but not because we chose to do it that way. As for "If you don't want kids, then don't have them" - my wife and I considered this carefully and had just one child - I consider that the moral thing to do in an overcrowded planet. I'm not telling anyone to do anything - merely pointing out the indisputable facts of the impending doom that failing to decrease our population will inevitably bring.

"The Population Bomb" was a very bad book...poorly researched, not grounded in science at all. But it's instructive to see why it went wrong. For example, it predicted a disasterous famine in India - which didn't come to pass. People were going hungry, not because there wasn't enough food - but because governmental corruption was failing to distribute it properly. India went on to fix the corruption, and malnutrition rates more than halved from 90% to 40%. But the problem is that you can only fix corruption once. Once it's fixed and you double the food supplies, you've managed to postpone the worst of the malnutrition, but there still isn't enough food - and if the population doubles again, they'll be right back where "The Population Bomb" predicted. Sure, you can fix ad-hoc problems and stave off the problem of overpopulation for a while - but if you don't find a way to stabilize (and somewhat reduce) the population - you're just inevitably going to run into trouble in another generation or so.

The trick is to figure out why people want so many children and arrange that they don't need to do that. It's immoral to forcibly sterilize people after their first child - but it's not wrong to arrange for people to be confident that they'll be cared for in their old age without needing four children to support them. SteveBaker (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

@SteveBaker, I'm quite afraid I never said the things you've said I've said that you are arguing against. Please reread my previous statements on the matter, and craft an argument against what I did say so I can respond to it. I have no means to respond to arguments against things I never said or even implied. --Jayron32 12:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I guess I did somewhat misunderstand your reasoning. I'll think on your response a little more. SteveBaker (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

According to Demographics of China, the population growth rate is currently around +0.5% / year, with 1.5 children per woman. That tells you something about how the Chinese policy and its various exceptions have played out in practice. Since 1.5 children per woman is still below the replacement rate, China's growth should eventually turn negative (assuming no further changes in policy) once the cohort from the population boom years (e.g. 1950s - 1960s) start to die off in earnest. Dragons flight (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "I can just say" is what is called flatus vocis (verbal diarrhea). What is relevant is either saying, if there are too many people, I should die (in which case, who's stopping you?) or other people should. μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

641 tested recipes

I have a recipe book that was printed in 1954, Is this something anyone would like to have — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlealabama (talk • contribs) 18:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC) It is a Sealtest Kitchen recipe book — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlealabama (talk • contribs) 18:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Amazon.com shows 22 used copies for sale, starting at $0.01 (plus $3.99 for shipping). Looie496 (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Contact an organization like Freecycle http://www.freecycle.org/ and offer the item. Most libraries will also take and then resell used books in good condition. μηδείς (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I just discovered http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cookbook:Table_of_Contents recently that is free and handy.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The user seems to be trying to give one away, not find one. μηδείς (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

PICTURE

Here's one!

I searched up a picture of the lanco hills skyline but i dont know if its legal to use it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilan123 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

If in doubt, it probably is not - i.e. it's copyrighted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure where Lanco Hills is, but in the US copyright is now assumed automatically unless explicitly renounced or otherwise forbidden as with federal government documents and works. μηδείς (talk) 01:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's at least one that can be legally used (inserted at right). Looie496 (talk) 02:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)