Miscellaneous desk
< May 1	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 3 >

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 2[edit]

Social interaction and money[edit]

Isn't it terrible to think that all social interactions are stained by money? Even if you want to go to church you have to perhaps buy a bus ticket...Is there any place where money is not allowed? A hippie community or similar? 217.168.3.246 (talk) 00:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's Burning Man. -- BenRG (talk) 01:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Start from Barter then go to Gift economy Lisa4edit--71.236.23.111 (talk) 08:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I wouldn't say that it is a terrible thing that almost anything costs money. That guarantees that you have to do some form of productive work before you have fun. In the the countries that I know (US and Europe) there is always some way of obtaining some money (charity, scrapping metals, McJob or any other menial job).SaltnVinegar (talk) 12:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The whole point of the capitalist labour market is that there aren't as many jobs as workers, otherwise there would be no competition. So, potentially through no fault of their own, there are some people who are simply unable to find employment. Ninebucks (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, some people will not be able to find a real job, but they would be able to obtain some form of money (not necessarily cash in the hand), take care of a dog, volunteer for food, listen to a free concert at the park, and much more. SaltnVinegar (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could always just try to persuade everyone whom you would otherwise pay (the bus driver, for example) that they should just work for you without staining the interaction with money. --Sean 15:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly communities where money is unnecessary within the community, mostly religious ones. The communities themselves usually use money to interact with the rest of the world, but within the community the social interactions should be 'unstained' by money.

Of course you could also question whether interaction with money is always a 'stain'. Is money necessarily bad in itself, or just the way it is used? Even our most famous quote on the subject, in full, reads "For the love of money is the root of all evil." DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The premise of this question, like your earlier question about the unfairness of competitive advantage in relationships, is deeply flawed and broken. Since when are "all social interactions ... stained by money"? You give the impression of having one supersized chip on your shoulder. I hope you can get rid of it; but you don't, in my view, help yourself by trotting out these nonsense assertions. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO that is exactly the flaw in your mindset. You are starting from the assumption that everything costs money (false!) and that money is a stain (false!). If you take the bus for free someone else is paying for you. And how would you feel working for free? In my opinion that is a stain. On the other hand you do help yourself expressing these nonsense assertions, since it can be analyzed by a third party. SaltnVinegar (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TANSTAAFL. Thank goodness. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 09:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The second link is broken.

Who Wants to be a Millionare?[edit]

Does the government have enough money to give the whole entire world of people a million dollars? If not how much more money would the government have to collect before giving the whole entire world population of people got a million dollars? Just an interesting question that I thought and I became curious.

Thank You

Always

Cardinal Raven

Cardinal Raven (talk) 04:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven[reply]

The Government? The Government? What? Many governments don't actually have any money at all, running permanently in debt in a fashion that is, apparently, the foundation of modern capitalism. Or something. In that sense, they could just run up more debt and withdraw as much money as they wanted. In fact, if they control the mints they could just print out enough dollars to give everyone a million. This would probably be simpler if they were the government of a country whose currency was called the dollar but worth very little, as the mints would be geared up for printing notes for large numbers of dollars. In practice, printing enough money, or withdrawing enough money, would probably destabilise the economy and result in many people having much less money in real terms than before they were given a million dollars. And the distribution costs of giving every person in the world (more than 6 billion people) at least one note would be startling. 79.66.2.176 (talk) 05:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If everyone suddenly received a million dollars, inflation would probably be a nightmare, everything would suddenly be incredibly expensive, and the value of a dollar would likely be very little. Useight (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to answer your question in the most simplistic possible way: the bill would come to about six thousand trillion dollars; the United States government (which I assume has the biggest budget in the world) spends about 3 trillion dollars each year, borrowing much of it. Short answer: no. --Sean 15:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all, "the government" isn't really definitive universally. No one government controls the entire world. And if the US government wanted to give everyone a million dollars, they could, because they're the ones who make the money. The problem would be inflation. This is because the more of something there is, the less valuable it is. This is the reasoning behind taxes. The goal is to not introduce more money into the economy, it's to keep it constant. Ziggy Saw dust 16:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The US government could give everyone a million dollars? ^{[citation needed]} please. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they could. They printed more than 8 billion notes last year, and could just as easily start printing million-dollar notes and distributing them to anyone who asks. Perhaps using them as Coke bottle labels would be an effective technique to get them to every person on Earth. --Sean 16:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the admin issue. If a bottle of coke is less than a million dollars then everyone would start buying coke insanely until the price is driven up to (just) more than a million dollars and at that point using this as a distribution method would be pointless because you'd need a million dollars before you buy your bottle. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sean, Then they would be in the position of having to Buy the world a coke. It would be an interesting problem getting precisely one copy of the million dollar bill to everyone on Earth. It'd be hard enough to do in "1st world countries." APL (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raven, assuming they don't cheat by printing new money, where do you expect them to get the money? APL (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Money tree. Solves everything.71.142.208.226 (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven[reply]

Money doesn't have to physically exist any more, they could give out quite a lot of their $1,000,000s by just adding that much to each persons bank account, which just involves typing a different number into a computer. Although, I suspect someone would still need to give a big pile of gold to each bank, for some reason.HS7 (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperinflation might make interesting reading. --Carnildo (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1 million US dollars for each and every person on earth would require 6500 trillion US dollars. If all the money in the world was added together from all sources (including cash, stocks, gold reserves, private bank accounts, etc.) and converted to dollars I strongly suspect it would easily exceed 6500 trillion US dollars. Of course, if you were talking about giving everyone 1 million Zimbabwean dollars, it would only cost the world a total of about 25 million US dollars :-) Astronaut (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've established that the money exists (or can be printed) but it would not be possible to get it to every human on the planet. Electronic bank transfers won't work either (as at 2001, there were 17 million South Africans without bank accounts [1]). Zain Ebrahim (talk) 23:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currency "is a unit of exchange." Let us suppose that just you and me exist in the world, Raven, and I have a lovely orange tree grove, and you have a lovely herd. Well, you get mighty thirsty, so you say, "Gosh, Ironmandius, wouldn't you be so kind as to let me have an orange?" And I say, sure, buddy old pal, help yourself. But then I say, "Gosh, Cardinal Raven, I have a craving for steak." If you decline, I later have reason to decline to give you any further oranges, and THEN we develop a barter system. Otherwise, you've already agreed that an orange and one of your flock are exchangeable. We can call it barters, dollars, or moomooloos, but my orange and your cow are both worth one of them.

So then the next day passes us by, and you say, "Gosh, golly, you know that cow I gave you? That was an awful lot of meat, and you can eat for a week. But I have used up my orange, and want more." Now, either you re-price your cow, I re-price my orange, or we cease to do trade. But I want meat, and you want oranges, so we will eventually trade (of course, in the real world, lots of people have cows and oranges, so if we don't come to something vaguely approximating a fair trade, I just go to someone else, and you go thirsty)

If I suddenly said I had 5,000,000 moomooloos instead of the 5 oranges I actually have, what's stopping you from saying you have 7,000,000 moomooloos for the one cow you have? No matter how many moomooloos we print, there are only so many oranges and cows that we can be trading with them. It is my sincerest hope that someday economics will be taught using Ironmandians as currency -- Ironmandius (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anzac[edit]

Have any World War soldiers died on Anzac Day? My grandfather was one and he died this Anzac Day. Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 05:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see [2][3] for examples. There were lots of veterans and only 365 days in (most) years. Therefore there is a 1 in 365.25 probability that any expired veteran died on Anzac Day. Rockpocket 06:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it would be exceptionally unlikely that any day exists on which a World War veteran has not died. As above, the odds are 364/365 that one vet didn't die on a particular day. Boost that to 1000 (dead) vets, though, and only 6% of the time will a vet not have died on a particular day, though the odds that any one such day exists are much higher. Jump to 10000 vets, though, and the single-day odds have plummeted to 0.0000000001% - a virtual certainty. Go to a million vets, still well below the true number, and it's 1 preceeded by 1200 zeroes. — Lomn 14:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind though that as with births, it's unlikely the distribution of deaths is actually ~1/365.25 for every day. I suspect for example that the death rate is higher in the winter then the summer, except perhaps in nothern parts of Australia. Similarly the death rate may very well be higher on Anzac day for vets (or in general around the Christmas/New Year period) due to the 'excitment' (if that's the right word) on that day, perhaps factors like overindulgent of food or alcohol or tobacoo and perhaps the disruption that occurs on any public holiday. Of course, none of these factors will affect the the odds enough that you're likely to see a day without a death if you're talking about 10k deaths Nil Einne (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the "ladies"[edit]

What is the origin of, when someone says something like "I'm good with the ladies", the word "ladies" being spoken in a deep and sexy tone?Makey melly (talk) 09:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've always assumed it was in reference to Barry White, the baritone "Walrus of love", who would would give spoken introductions and interludes in his songs in a similar tone. See Barry White#Musical style. Isaac Hayes had a similar style, parodied by Chef from South Park. Rockpocket 16:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Public Transport[edit]

Which is the largest metropolitan area, town, village, hamlet and/or city absolutely without ANY public transport of any kind?

Which is the largest metropolitan area, town, village, hamlet and/or city absolutely without ANY private (for example taxis) or public transport of any kind? Please give an explanation of your conclusion in regards to private transportation. Thank you.68.148.164.166 (talk) 09:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)68.148.164.166 (talk) 09:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously there has to be some kind of private or public transportation, i.e. roads, if not governmentally maintained, then there has to be a space between the buildings that you can walk through at the minimum. Ziggy Saw dust 13:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The town in which I live, on the order of about 1000 people, does not have a taxi company located within its boundaries. Yet shuttles are available for the elderly to get to various places in the nearest city. Also taxis, will come out here to pick people up to go to the airport, the mall, etc. Would this live up to your definition of not having public/private transport? If so, the largest city is probably one that is very close to a major city, a suburb, which has a large population but just doesn't happen to have a taxi/shuttle service located within that town/city/etc. Dismas|^(talk) 18:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does not having any private transport include not having cars, because then it might be Sark, although I think I remember they have a tractor there, so I'm not sure if that would still count.HS7 (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what you mean by "any." There are many American counties that have more than 100,000 people, yet have no scheduled, fixed-route public transit. However, they receive federal and/or state public transit funds, so they use the money for "on-demand" transit services, which is basically like a public taxi service. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the U.S., Arlington, Texas "is the largest city in the United States not served by a comprehensive public transportation system." --Bavi H (talk) 03:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feminism and childrens' surnames[edit]

(Note: this question may not conform to the acceptability guidelines so delete at will.) I have a question relating to Double-barrelled names. Don't the couples consider the impact it will have after 3 or 4 generations when they become 8 or 16 barrelled? Based on my definition of "fair", the only option would be to toss a coin for the first child and alternate thereafter. Has this been known to occur? Do any feminist groups propagate this? I do realise that siblings with different surnames may be weird. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have a friend whose name is Percival Oliver Woodworth Smith-Stern-Wallace-Vanguard-Proctor-Jones-Westington-Gamble-Wales-Cobbler-Whitman-Kinville-Devinton-Robinson-Miller-Goodman...he hates his parents... Ziggy Saw dust 13:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nobility have been double-barrelling for a lot longer than feminists have been around. As the article states, they tend to abbreviate (i.e. not mention some of the surnames).

I think it's assumed that descendants will drop as many surnames as they feel is necessary. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that triple-(or more)-barrelled surnames were prohibited. And that when an individual may potentially have more than two surnames, they (/their parents) must simply select two surnames from those available? Ninebucks (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That could only be a local legal thing though. I've looked and haven't found any such restrictions in the US or UK systems. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Ranulph Twisleton-Wykeham-Fiennes is generally known as Ranulph Fiennes. SaundersW (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Spain and Latin America, everyone has two last names, taking one from their mother and one from their father. (So in one family the father would be Jose A B, the mother would be Maria C D, and the son would be Felipe A C.) This could be a way to resolve the problem. 140.247.225.117 (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a viable solution because I'd still have to decide whether to give my child my father's or mother's surname. It looks like a coin toss is inevitable. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a tradition in some areas in the U.S. to give the firstborn child/son the mother's surname as a middle name. In Sweden you have an option between modern or old naming a son would be (Father's first name)-son, a daughter would be (Father's first name)-dottir. If your father was named Gent Johanson you could choose to be Zain Johanson or Zain Gentson. BTW I've met a lady from South America who has 4 surnames with a "di" in the middle. Lisa4edit (talk) 06:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've always wondered about the parents of Leone Sextus Denys Oswolf Fraudatifilius Tollemache-Tollemache de Orellana Plantagenet Tollemache-Tollemache. Surely they could have taken pity on him, presumably having suffered the same surname problem themselves, and christened him Dave? -- Ka renjc 11:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the article on the unfortunate Leone: his parents deliberately inflicted the name on him. SaundersW (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My favorite long name is Juan Vicente de Güemes Padilla Horcasitas y Aguayo, 2nd Count of Revillagigedo, though I don't know how much of it is "double barrelling". Pfly (talk) 07:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

other countries[edit]

This is from the language desk but I wanted to know the answer cause this wasn't a question but a side comment: "does Toronto have a problem with "extreme national" groups, like the BNP in London? I here a lot about racism in the UK, USA, and Australia but not much from Canada."195.194.74.154 (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would hesitate to say a definite "no", but I would say that it is not nearly as prevelant as in the UK. Canada, especially Toronto, is hugely diverse and an enormous fraction of the population are immigrants or children of immigrants, which makes it really hard to get a "send them all back where they came from" movement going. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be the Heritage Front. However, for various reasons, neither Canada nor the US has a real political party dedicated to racism that actually runs for office and wins seats and what not. Mwalcoff (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, that's because it's a two-party system, and, like Kodos said, voting for a third party is considered "throwing your vote away", which prevents the establishment of any serious third party. That being said, there are certainly grounds for calling the Republican party racist. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto doesn't have any mainstream groups like that, but casual racism is as prevalent as everywhere else. I think there are occasionally religious rallies against homosexuals though, if I am remembering correctly. Bizarrely, though, there used to be a white supremacist group, the Northern Alliance, active in London, Ontario. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Clayworth: Britain, especially London, is hugely diverse and an enormous fraction of the population are immigrants or children of immigrants. I don't know the exact figures, and I don't want to start a multi-cultural pissing match, but I doubt the difference between the UK and Canada is that significant. In any case, "send them all back" attitudes are rarely logical, and the logistical difficulties in doing so would probably never cross the minds of the people who expose such opinions. @Mattbuck: The UK suffers from just as much of a two-party system as the USA, the difference is, that our constituencies are smaller, and so, occassionally, strongly locally based candidates get elected, (a man from Kidderminster (a foul town that I hold an eternal vendetta against) once got voted to parliament solely on the issue of saving his local hospital - such a case would be unthinkable in Washington DC). However, ultimately, I think the ultimate reason as to why fascism is so weak in Canada compared to the rest of the Anglosphere, is probably just due to how dang nice y'all are!! Ninebucks (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The US Vice President's title[edit]

After office the US President is still called "Mr President".

Does the Vice President also keep his title?. Is he "Mr Vice President"?

No! Of course not. If he's no longer in office he's called Mr or whatever he was before (lord, sir, etc)Makey melly (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RogueTrooper42 (talk) 12:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed a trend toward calling former Presidents "President ______". The Daily Show did it with Jimmy Carter a week or two ago and I remember hearing Bill Clinton being called President Clinton recently as well. Recury (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supplying references rather than opinions is useful when answering questions on this reference desk. Former_Presidents_Act and [[4]] indicate the terms are "former president" and "former vice president" but not President or Vice President as these are reserved for the incumbents. This convention is often ignored by the media Mhicaoidh (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, but we still don't have a reference. The Wikipedia article is unreferenced, and the external link it presents is to some BrainBank, who cite nothing at all. The actual "Former Presidents Act" says nothing about the title, unless you mean that the mere fact that it has "Former" in the title means something. I'm still looking. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is difficult to find a good solid reference! I take section f of the Former Presidents Act to be the terminology for such people; "As used in this section, the term “former President” means a person, (1) who shall have held the office of President of the United States of America, (2) whose service in such office shall have terminated other than by removal pursuant to section 4 of article II of the Constitution of the United States of America; and (3) who does not then currently hold such office" But I agree its not definitive as to form of address Mhicaoidh (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea if this bears any similarity to the practice in the US, but in Finland, once you've become the president, you're always the president -- you retain that title. However, the president currently in office is officially called the President of the Republic (of Finland) to distinguish them from the former presidents. Therefore, Tarja Halonen will always be a president, but she won't be the President of the Republic after her term ends in 2012. I think this is the distinction a lot of the US media types are effectively making, even if it's not an officially recognized one. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

crystal skull[edit]

A long time ago I was told that there was a crystal skull (like the ones featured on SG1 or Indy Jones) that was in some mueasum somewhere. The main thing about it, according to the teller, was that no cutting tool could cut it. Lazers, knives, diamons etc. Nothing. Is this a true story or are they full of crap?Makey melly (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article crystal skull suggests a little of column a, a little of column b... - Eron^Talk 16:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be confused with Damien Hirst's For the Love of God. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A) Diamond is (or at least, was) the hardest substance known. B) Diamonds routinely have serial numbers etched into them using lasers. Now draw the correct conclusion to your question. ;-)

Atlant (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading about something like that in a book about supernatural stuff, e.g. aliens, ufo's, ghosts, etc.. The only difference was that the one I heard about was made of some kind of metal... Ilikefood (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

service charges for food and beverage[edit]

what resorts or hotels that are 4 or 5 star in the united states include service charge in the bill as many as i can get and the % percentage

Avril Lavigne b-sides[edit]

Why are so many of Avril Lavigne's songs, the so called b-sides, not on any of her albums, DVDs or singles? They don't seem to have ever been officially released, and instead just float about on youtube etc. Where can I buy / download these tracks? xxx User:Hyper Girl 17:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well a look at B-sides suggests that these are songs you wouldn't expect to find on the album/main feature, but that may be available elsewhere - say on an EP or a Single. I know when I was young Blur (Band) used to do 2 versions of the same single with different B-sides - I used to buy both just to get their b-sides. I suspect your best place to look is either her official site, iTunes Music store, or perhaps something like Amazon if the artist has released an album of b-sides. ny156uk (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are not very good. Ninebucks (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I object to that Ninebucks. They are not "shit" - in fact I though some of them were better than the songs on her album, which is why I was surprised to find they hadn't been officially released. After a little research I found that while most of them are not on her albums, DVDs or singles they appear on various charity albums such as this and this. xxx User:Hyper Girl 12:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chilling soft boiled eggs[edit]

Is it safe to chill soft boiled eggs? Heegoop, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course! Do you mean will they become solid? Fribbler (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on whether you're going to use a fridge or liquid nitrogen. :) Zain Ebrahim (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are worried about Salmonella They are found on the shell of the egg, so whether the center of the egg is fully cooked or not shouldn't make a difference. --Lisa4edit (talk) 06:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect; salmonella can be within the body of an egg. Our article at chicken egg flip flops on the issue, but the reference cited here states explicitly that salmonella has found a way to infect the ovaries and thence can be found inside the egg itself. In any event, there's no problem with chilling soft-boiled eggs; it would be much worse to leave them out on the counter. Matt Deres (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that info. Mine was obviously out of date. Sorry. Lisa4edit (talk) 07:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 May 2