Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 November 16

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.

November 16

Fail.

<removed discussion. The reference desk is not an advice column> --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

?Just Curious

I have a dictionary it is old i just dont know how old! It is called the new german english dictionary published by David McKay! If any 1 knows anything about this please respond back i have searched n searched n found nothing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.54.39 (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You searched? I copied and pasted "new german english dictionary published by David McKay" into Google and the very first hit was:

Herbert, F. C. & L. Hirsch; A New German - English Dictionary: General Use

PHILADELPHIA, 1940C

Published by DAVID MCKAY COMPANY

I strongly believe that 1940C means that it was copyrighted in 1940 - which would be very close to the actual printing date. -- kainaw™ 01:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Gay Right movements

Hello Wikipedia,

I have a theory that gay rights typically develop by initially regressing (often significantly) before surging forwards.. Whilst this is certainly the case in the uk, where the passage of section 28 both galvanised the gay community and , with time, appauled a fair section of the straight one, i wonder whether its more universal. I would guess that a similar thing happened after the stonewall riot in the states but (at last my question!) is there any evidence for the same thing happening now? After 8 years of Bush, literally culminating in the passage of proposition 8, is there any evidence to suggest that actually support for gay marriage (especially in other "blue" states) has increased as people realise just how pissed off the gay community is? I've been following the protests and feel a little bit excited. am i being naive?

Thanks,82.22.4.63 (talk) 01:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Polls suggest that opposition to or support for gay rights (among heterosexuals) in the United States varies substantially between generations. That is, older people are more likely to be opposed to gay rights, while younger people are more likely to be sympathetic. I think that this is partly a matter of growing up with neutral or positive depictions of gay people in the media and partly of greater exposure to gay people as more gay people have come out over the years. Exposure to gay people may lead heterosexuals to find that they are not disturbing or dangerous.

Now, this is certainly OR and unencyclopedic, but I have been involved in the gay-rights movement in the United States for more than 25 years, and I don't think that you can generalize or theorize about rights regressing before they advance. Instead, I think that there has been a gradual advance with periodic setbacks. Also, I think that Proposition 8 is not exactly the culmination of 8 years of Bush. Bush is actually extremely unpopular at the moment—the most unpopular president for as long as the popularity of US presidents has been measured—and the support of Bush and the Republican Party for anti-gay policies should, other things being equal, make those policies unpopular. Finally, I'm not sure how gay protests against Prop 8 are affecting public opinion, if at all. While they may be empowering for those who take part, I doubt that the protests will change anyone's mind, though they might make the Mormon Church think twice before taking such a visible role in backing anti-gay laws. Marco polo (talk) 03:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Your theory may mirror that gay rights activism swells in participation by being confronted with significant failures. I just posted an article on the Save Our Children campaign of 1977 and 1978 that has since been identified as a motivating factor for many gays to become politically involved. I imagine the passing of Proposition 8 in California and Amendment 2 in Florida will do the same. However, opposition to gay rights also increases at the same time. There are some patterns, but not a lot. Gay rights activism only started in 1969 with the Stonewall riots. Before that, it was a different approach called Homophile activism that was much less confrontational. The 1977 Save Our Children campaign was the first challenge to the new activism and the small advances made since 1969. --Moni3 (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The comment about the Mormon Church "think[ing] twice" seems a bit out of place here. The claim that the Mormon Chruch, or even Mormons in general, caused Prop 8 to pass is a canard. Latter-day Saints (the more correct term for "Mormons") were a small part of a broad coalition that worked to pass Prop 8. In some states (e.g. Massachusetts) these efforts fail. In others, (e.g. California) they succeed. Regardless of failure or success (or opposition or protest) however, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints unless directed otherwise through revelation, will continue to defend traditional marriage as it currently does. Kingsfold (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Employment by small business in Jamaica

Hey, I used to be an occasional contributor to the RD and now need some help myself. I'm trying to find out what portion of the Jamaican workforce is employed by small business. I'm not picky as to the definition of small business, and while I'd prefer as recent statistics as possible, I recognize that that may not be possible. Any help would be appreciated. --Ybbor^Talk 01:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, perhaps the Small Business Association of Jamaica would be a good place to start your research? Maybe if you contacted them directly, they could point you in the right direction... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Also have only a contact to offer :) The Statistical Instutite of Jamaica only seems to have general employment figures (eg employed versus unemployed by age and gender) though they also have a chart of Employment in Large Establishments, by Major Industry Groups - perhaps you could guess that those not employed in large establishments are employed in small ones and combine the two to get a rough estimate. I don't know how much self-employment would throw that off. They also have an email contact for data requests. WikiJedits (talk) 02:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what my ethncitity is.

I was born to a Welsh-Italian mother (fully Italian), and a Welsh father. But my father has also of Armenian descent, and the man that impregnated the sister of me was from Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlokwittaka (talk • contribs) 02:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried contacting your ancestors or their governments? Louis Waweru  Talk  03:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you feel a strong attachment to either Welsh, Italian, Armenian or Swedish culture? —Tamfang (talk) 04:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

One's sister's ethnicity is not necessarily identical with one's own, so it sounds like you have no basis for including Swedish as one of your options. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The ethnicity of one's sister's babydaddy would seem to be less important than the ethnicity of the sister herself. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That makes you Welsh-Italian with some Armenian ancestry from your father's side. If you live in the say, the UK, then you'd be a Welsh-Italian Briton (or whatever your resident country is). Agree with Adam Bishop about your sister if you mean she has a different father. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I took it to mean his sister's boyfriend...even though that doesn't really make any sense. Now that I read it again I'm guessing English is not Mlokwittaka's first language. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think yours is the best guess. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You are whatever ethnicity you want to be. Seriously, concepts such as "ethnicity" and "race" are really only relevent in terms of your personal relationship between you and the culture you live in. For example, my ancestry is about 3/32 Native American and 29/32 French Canadian, and yet I really wouldn't consider myself anything but American. Yeah, there's a few French Canadian bits knocking around in my cultural heritage (a few recipes in the recipe box, mainly) but I really don't self-identify with any culture except the American one. Do you feel a stronger connection to where you live or where one of your parents are from? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think the action of "self-identification" seals questions of ethnicity, any more than it does questions of sexuality. I can "self-identify" as much as I like but it is not in my gift to repudiate objective assessments of my ethnicity, which it is of course possible to make. My father was Welsh and my mother was English, therefore my ethnicity is Welsh/English. I can say that I feel English, because I feel a stronger connection to England than I do to Wales, but that doesn't make me English. I am certainly not whatever ethnicity I want to be. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Except, what makes a Welshman different from an Englishman, beyond arbitrary location of birth, and the arbitrariness of your parent's location of birth? I mean, you are just as likely to find Norman French, Scandanavian, Brythonic and Goidelic Celt, etc. etc. in your ethnic background as either a Welshman or an Englishman. It is entirely your relation to your culture that matters. Lets say that you consider yourself to be Welsh-English. Lets say you marry an English woman. What are your kids? Let's say they each marry another Englishperson. What are THEIR kids? Let's say you find that a great-great-great-great-grandfather of yours was a Spaniard. Does that make you Spanish-Welsh-English? What if that great-great-great-great-grandfather had an Arabic grandfather? Would that make you an Arabic-Spanish-Welsh-Englishman? You consider yourself Welsh-English, so that is your ethnic group. I generally put "French-Canadian" on the U.S. Census form, but I could also put "American" or "French" or "French-American" or "Canadian-American" or "Canadian" and be equally "right", from a legal standpoint. It IS all about self-identity; any other measure is just sillyness. See also One-drop rule for the rediculousness of where this goes wrong... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't dispute the complexity and even arbitrariness of ethnic groupings. What I object to is the notion of self-identification itself, which seems to me to be the height of selfishness. If you self-identify as (insert type of ethnicity or sexuality here), then you are basically saying that the only person who can make those definitions is you yourself. You are sticking two fingers up at all the societal norms and conventions that have evolved over time. Myself, I prefer to abide by those norms and conventions, and allow myself to be defined by them. Where will it end? If I walk down the street in an elephant costume and declare to anyone who cares to listen that I am an elephant, does that make me an elephant? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 18:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it makes you an idiot, because an "elephant" is not an arbitrary classification as different from "human". Ethnicity, however, is entirly arbitrary. What makes one group different from another is entirely dependent on cultural context, and there are no objective means to measure it. Even when genetic studies are done, they arrive at this conclusion, for example, showing that it is impossible, from a DNA perspecitive, to tell the difference between a Greek and a Turk, or between a Palestinians and Jews, and yet no one would deny that these are 'distinct' ethnicities given their cultural context. Likewise, in America, the Sioux, the Navaho, the Mohegan and the Cherokee are all considered one "ethnicity", yet are as far apart culturally as are the English, French, Russians, and Greeks. However, you will find that most national governments use self-identification as the only method for gathering "ethnicity" data, because its the only method that works. See the U.S. Government's position, which states "The categories are designed for collecting data on the race and ethnicity of broad population groups in this country. They are based on social and political considerations -- not anthropological or scientific ones. Furthermore, the race categories include both racial and national-origin groups." Also see this official US Census description of "Race": "Race is a self-identification data item in which respondents choose the race or races with which they most closely identify."

As long as you assume people aren't going to be intentional assholes about it, and aren't just going to lie to make a point or be otherwise obnoxious, it works rather well, since ethnicity is ONLY defined in the cultural context; only the individual can decide how they relate to the culture, and most people will make an honest assessment of the situation.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Saying "You are whatever ethnicity you choose to be" is a rather extreme position, nonetheless. It verges on doublethink as far as I'm concerned.

I could choose to describe myself as Chinese if I wanted, but that wouldn't make it true. Malcolm XIV (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not "whatever ethnicity you choose to be" it's "whatever ethnicity you idenitify with, giving an honest assessment of your own situation." Again, if I asked you to be honest about your ethnic background, you wouldn't say you were "Chinese", you'd give whatever cultural definitions are important for you in defining your relationship to the culture you live in. Again, you could be an asshole and say "I'm a Klingon", but that's not what self-identification is about. Self-identification is not about whatever whim you choose to have, its about how you relate to your culture. You can't assume people are going to be obnoxious, and again most aren't. For one person, having one Italian grandparent may be siginficant in describing their own ethnicity as, say, Italian-American, but for others they may feel a closer cultural connection to their another part of their cultural heritage. I can't tell you what your own situation is, and as long as you are honest about it, there's nothing wrong with you self-identifying... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I misquoted you. What you actually said was You are whatever ethnicity you want to be, which you now appear to be retracting. Malcolm XIV (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You didn't misquote me, I spoke imprecisely. I increased the precision of my original statement with details, which should have provided the context for the discussion. The fact remains still that with the arbitrary nature of ethnicity, the most accurate system is still self-identification... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that ethnicity is mostly self-identification up to a point, as long you're free to do this. In another context you can be overruled by society's perception, or cultural context (eg, 2005 civil unrest in France – if you are a migrant in the banlieues, the projects or "ghettos", you might think yourself French and equal, but others may not be so tolerant of that). So, it's contingent still, Julia Rossi (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

On fate: are we a function of the universe?

"These are the things that hydrogen atoms do when given 13.7 billion years."

That is what I heard Brian Cox say in a TED talk he gave a few months ago. He was picking up random objects and saying that, over and over. I found that to be very intriguing. I took away from the concept that the big bang happened, the laws of the universe turned on, billions of years passed playing out those rules, and they continue to play out today.

I can deal with the concept when it applies to non-living things, but what stumps me about that idea is when life comes into the equation. Since we're all made of the same things that non-living matter is, and the same laws of nature apply to us...then wouldn't we just be a result of this big bang seed? Meaning even our actions, and thoughts...

Essentially, I'm very curious to know what science (or not) has to say about free will. Not just for rational beings but for the universe as well. In other words, is our universe playing out a predetermined fate? And if so, are conscious beings somehow separate from such a predetermined universe, or is this WP:RD just what happens when you give hydrogen atoms 13.7 billion years? Would there be a universe that evolves to look at itself and ask questions in an attempt to understand it? Louis Waweru  Talk  03:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

See fatalism and determinism. In my opinion it is a pretty useless philosophy (and certainly not science). Quantum mechanics pretty much says we don't live in a strictly mechanical universe. The result is that one would expect, given enough time, some sorts of complexity to emerge, but there's nothing to guarantee one specific form of it. So we rewind the universe and set it up again. Do we get the same thing? We get stars, planets, sure. The same stars, the same planets? Probably not. Do we necessarily get Earth, and you and me talking on the internet, right now? Probably not. Do we get life somewhere, complex structures doing complex things? Sure. I like to explain complex probabilities to undergrads like this: taken from the moment of your conception and your roommate's conception, what are the odds that you would be roommates at this institution? Phenomenally long odds. But what are the odds that you, if you came to this institution, would have a roommate here? Basically 100%. The specific roommate is not important, the statistics of their improbability are meaningless. Whether something is probable or improbable depends on how you demarcate the problem. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a very brief note on free will and fate that is usually overlooked... Fate does not preclude free will. If I know you are fated to choose to eat Fruit Loops tomorrow for breakfast, that doesn't mean you lost free will. The choice is yours, it is just known what your free will choice will be. So, it is rather simple to have a predetermined fate that includes free will. As for conciousness, the entire question of "Do we exist?" has been around for thousands of years. Do we really exist? If we exist, are we what we think we are? Are we really thinking? What is real? You can't answer these questions with science. Science is based on our perception of what we believe is existence. Philosophy is where you go for circular arguments about what it means to exist. -- kainaw™ 04:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That's what compatibilists say, anyway. — DanielLC 16:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not what Brian Cox was talking about. If you leave a piece of bread sitting around, it'll get moldy. If you prick me, I'll bleed. If you order something online and pay by credit card, the item will arrive in the mail some time later and your credit card bill will show the charge. These are statements of the predictability of the world, and they're not at all what philosophers are talking about when they talk about "determinism". Cox is saying that a large enough amount of hydrogen, left to its own devices, will eventually produce stars and galaxies and all the heavy elements, and probably life—but not the same pattern of stars and galaxies, and certainly not every little detail of human history. It's not quite correct, since it has to be the correct concentration of hydrogen and there was a lot of helium too, but it's still interesting to think about. -- BenRG (talk) 10:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all...I haven't abandoned this question. It's just a huge can of worms...still sorting through the articles. The determinism article is very cool, lots of fun idea in there. Though it looks like I won't be able to really understand where these wikilinks lead unless I have a few years of physics under my belt. Do you guys think that's the case? Louis Waweru  Talk  16:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It just takes the will to learn. And it depends on the degree to which you want to understand them. Bell inequality and the EPR Paradox are pretty complicated and they both play into the quantum interpretation of determinism. But the basic points are not that hard to grasp with a little prep work and some clear exposition. (Unfortunately Wikipedia is not always the greatest source of either of those things. But that's why we have the Ref Desk, no?) If you want to really understand the math and the philosophy at a level at which you could really make sense of the nitty gritty details, yeah, that takes a lot of work. Systematic training is not the only way to do it, but it's the most common way. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

See also the anthropic principle which says that of course the Universe came out exactly the way it did; if we believe the laws of the Universe to be both exact and universal, it couldn't turn out any other way... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the anthropic principle applies here, not in the way you are using it. It is not an argument for determinism. It is an argument about the epistemological problems with asking certain questions. And we know the laws of the universe are not exact (quantum mechanics is statistical). Asking whether the final product would be exactly the same given the same exact starting conditions is not the same thing as asking whether the starting conditions could be different, which is what the anthropic principle usually governs—we have no reason to think the starting conditions could be different, but we have good reason to think that even with the same starting conditions the results would not be exactly the same. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

near collision with another flight

I saw on a video description on YouTube one of the ill-fated 9/11 flights nearly collided with a Delta Airlines flight. Is this true?72.229.139.171 (talk) 09:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

UAL 175 missed Delta 2315 by approximately 200 feet about 10 minutes before it crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center. — Lomn 20:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Paradox

<moved from the science desk>

Don't know if this goes here or not, but it refers to the question of "immortality" of an organism above. (Will bump it to humanities if not.) Re the Theseus paradox: in the article I noticed a "road-sweeper character Trigger states that he's had the same broom for 20 years. But then he adds that the broom has had 17 new heads and 14 new handles." Part of its proof of being the same broom is a photo beside the owner. If Washington's renovated axe changed hands, would it then be a different axe? Thanks, Julia Rossi (talk) 09:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Philosophy isn't science, and the ship of Theseus and related stuff is philosophy. But a short answer: it depends on your definition of sameness. You consider yourself the same individual you were as a child, but over the course of 20 years or less you've been completely rebuilt. The axe is the same axe after changing hands because it would seem wrong to you or I to consider it to be a different one... And that's what it comes down to - if you would call it the same one, it's the same one, if you think it isn't, it isn't. You may think the sweeper's broom is not the same one he started with, he may think it is the same, so for you it's different, for him it's the same. You only need reasons for holding your opinion of sameness when trying to convince others, or if others are depending on the answer. --121.127.209.126 (talk) 09:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It may be worth pointing out that Only Fools and Horses is a comedy and Trigger was always saying stupid things, that was the point of his character, he was the only one that considered it to be the same broom and only because he was an idiot. There was no attempt by the writers to seriously suggest that is was the same broom. --Tango (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Not only does your body get rebuilt continuously, there is also less of "you" in "you" anyway [1]] Nevertheless everyone would probably describe themselves as a human being. @Tango At what point of e.g. replacing bits on an old junker of a car does it cease to be the same, then? 76.97.245.5 (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

There isn't any kind of a paradox here - it's just a lack of words within our language to describe various kinds of sameness. If we had a word that meant "thing which has had all of it's parts replaced but which at no time has been replaced in-toto" - then the so-called paradox would evaporate. Trigger is not incorrect in saying that it's the same broom - he's merely using one of the many meanings of the word "same". This variation of the meaning of the word also happens to be one that people are not good at thinking about. It's very unlikely that even one of the atoms that was in your body when you were born is still in there - but I'm sure you'd say you were the "same" person. Does that make you as stupid as Trigger? This lack of linguistic rigor causes all sorts of real world trouble. For example, in most US states, an "antique car" is one that is more than 25 years old. Antique cars are exempt from many kinds of roadworthyness and environmental laws - but an antique car, for which every single part has been replaced with modern parts is still an antique car. SteveBaker (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say there are some atoms still in your body from birth. Perhaps some calcium atoms in your bones. This might be less likely in women who have breast-fed, though, as that tends to leach calcium from the bones (which may, or may not, be replaced later). StuRat (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Can the paradox be extended or limited by its association with someone or something (such as the car having a time-linked category or resemblance) or say, a human who has to prove their identity to a third party though they "know" they are the same physical/biographical person they've always been? Maybe this has already been answered in some way, but there seems to be more to it. Am thinking of what the metaphorical "fingerprint" of a thing's sameness/continuity might be. Is there a word for it?

Not sure if there's a term for it, but the important part to me is if a unique pattern remains from the original. In the case of a person; the DNA, fingerprints, appearance, voice, and a large portion of the brain structure remains of the original person even after most or all of the cells have been replaced. The same is true of a city, which will likely retain many of the same roads, buildings, etc., even if the people have all been replaced many times. In the broom example, however, there's no characteristic unique about the original which the modified broom also has. Thus, the resulting broom after all the modifications is no more like the original than it is like any other broom of the same design. StuRat (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You are not entirely correct. There is some degradation in DNA over time, fingerprints (at the very least at the microscopic level) do not remain exactly the same, voices do not remain exactly the same. In short, the "sameness" in pattern you observe is only an approximate sameness. The only difference between your examples and the broom is that the broom's "lack of sameness" is occurring at a more readilly noticeable level. Wikiant (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure but I think the point is while approximate, the "sameness" is still sufficient that your fingerprints are more like your old fingerprints then probably anyone else's fingerprints. Also partly true with your voice. Even more true with your DNA (baring identical twins or clones). On the other hand, I doubt it's true for the broom, I suspect I could easily find a broom which is more similar to the original broom then the current 'version' of the old broom of at the very least, the difference between at least one other broom and the old broom, and the current version of the old broom and the old broom would be the same Nil Einne (talk) 07:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is the point. The pattern remains sufficiently the same, even after the components have been replaced, for a person to be identified later, especially if DNA is used. This is not true in the case of the broom, where there would be no way to tell which is the broom with all the components replaced. StuRat (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but one fact was hammered into my head in school: after your brain is done growing, you never get any more brain-cells. The brain-cells you have stay there for life, they don't regenerate. If there was one part of the human body that was associated with identity, it would be the brain, no? So the ship of Theseus paradox wouldn't really apply to people, because what makes you you (i.e. your brain) never changes. No? 83.250.202.208 (talk) 12:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but if you take it down one level, if you could "tag" the individual molecules and atoms in each brain cell (like water molecules, proteins, DNA, stuff like that) you would likely find that over time, they would all get replaced with new molecules. Water is and other molcules are constantly entering and leaving the cells, molecules break down and are repaired or replaced, etc. etc. This is EXACTLY the Theseus Paradox in the sense that the individual brain cell may remain unchanged as a larger object, yet every part of the brain cell is changed over time... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

In a way this is a non-person incarnation of the question of personal identity. Some people would say that same body means same person. Same mop parts means same mop, and this is not the same mop. The other position seems to be similar to Locke's Memory Criterion: If you can remember this mop being the same mop at some indeterminate point between the original mop and this mop, and at that time you could recall the mop at that time as being the same as the original mop (or a mop at a further indeterminate time where you could do this all over again) then the mop has maintained a consistent identity transitively, as in Thomas Reed's "gallant officer problem" solution. This mop has parts of the mop at time N, at time N the mop had parts of the mop at time N-1 and at time N-1 the mop had some of the parts of the mop at time 0. 69.210.56.62 (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

That seems a strange way to define "sameness", resulting in some odd results:

1) If you go to pick up your mop in the broom closet, but grab another similar mop, by this definition that IS your mop, since you think it is.

2) If identical twins pull the old switch-a-roo, and you believe they are who they claim to be, then they really are. This leads to the result that each twin is one person to those they fool and a different person to those they don't. So, each twin is simultaneously a different person.

I think I'll stick with a more objective definition of "sameness". StuRat (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

financial management

what is financial management ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.239.4.12 (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You might wish to read Managerial finance and Corporate finance. Financial management leads to both. Parker2334 16:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Marx quote on Schopenhauer

Can anyone find a quote by Marx on Schopenhauer in which he defends him from the attacks of contemporary philosophers, and states agreement with his ethics of "Caring for others"?--Gary123 (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The extensive Marxist Internet Archive doesn't have any quotes by Marx on Schopenhauer. It does have two quotes by Engels, firstly: "What prevailed among the public since then [1848] were, on the one hand, the vapid reflections of Schopenhauer, which were fashioned to fit the philistines..."[2]; and secondly "Our second-rank poets are scarcely readable after one generation. The same is true of philosophy: beside Kant and Hegel we find Herbart, Krug, Fries and finally Schopenhauer and Hartmann."[3]. In other words - entirely hostile. Warofdreams talk 10:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Patent

I found in The chemical news and journal of physical science, William Crookes, London vol. 23, in 1876, that a patent was given to « J.L. Petit, Birmingham, Warwick, Novembre 28, 1874 ». Please, how must I understand « Birmingham, Warwick » ?? Many thanks in advance. --Égoïté (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

'Warwick' is presumably short for Warwickshire, the county which Birmingham was in at the time. Algebraist 17:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Has Birmingham moved into another county since then ? :-) StuRat (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

In the early 19th century (especially before 1832), Birmingham was known as not really fitting into the traditional administrative structures very weell, since it had relatively recently greatly increased in population at a location near the meeting-point of three different counties; it was rather notorious that Birmingham didn't have any representation in parliament, despite being one of the largest cities in the UK. Today it's part of the "metropolitan county" of West Midlands (county)... AnonMoos (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Many Thanks, --Égoïté (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth mentioning that county-level boundaries in England these days change a lot more frequently than people in some other places might be used to. It's almost surprising to find a place that hasn't "moved into another county". (Okay, I exaggerate, but still.) --Anonymous, 05:17 UTC, November 17, 2008.

Such a situation is sometimes confusing for, say, Americans. It is often taken that both U.S. States and U.K. Counties are "first level divisions", and so must behave in the same manner. However, U.S. States are a "bottom up" organization, are semi-autonomous, and the U.S. is a Federal system. U.K. Counties are "top-down" administrative divisions, really have no local autonomy to speak of, and the U.K. is of course a unitary state. Another way to put it is that Counties in the U.K. are a creation of the national government and exist solely for the purpose of administration; thus their boundaries and existance is largely up to the whim and needs of that government. In the U.S., the states are self-organized entities (to a point...) and operate like little "mini-countries" with regard to handling their own internal affairs. The U.S. national government (by the U.S. Constitution) is only responsible for interstate relations and foreign relations. Such an analog does not exist in the U.K. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

There have been territorial disputes between US states, though. See the Toledo Strip War. StuRat (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Those disputes only back up the above analysis. These disputes show that the individual states consider their own territories to be somehow sovereign in some fashion... In the UK, if the national government wants to move a border between counties, or create a new county out of whole cloth, they just do it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

What's the problem? Think of British counties as analogous to US counties. Although the latter have not been altered in a long time (so far as I'm aware), if Sacramento were to decide to divide San Bernardino County or merge Alpine with El Dorado, I doubt the legitimacy of the act would be seriously questioned. —Tamfang (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Birmingham was historically part of the county of Warwickshire, whose county town was (and still is) Warwick. In 1974 it and the towns surrounding it - Wolverhampton, Walsall, Dudley, Sandwell and Coventry - were conflated into the county of West Midlands. This administrative county was abolished quite recently (2001 IIRC) but the postal region of "West Midlands" remains. ChrisRams 88.108.144.235 (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

As our article on West Midlands (county) states, it ceased to have a county council in 1986, but still remains as a metropolitan county. Some services are still delivered by county-wide agencies, such as the West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive or West Midlands Fire Service. Warofdreams talk 14:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Do such agencies answer to the Crown, or have locally elected boards, or what? —Tamfang (talk) 07:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive says "Policies and budgets for the Executive are set by the West Midlands Passenger Transport Authority (WMPTA) made up of 27 representatives appointed from the seven West Midlands metropolitan district councils. The Authority has ten councillors from Birmingham, three councillors each from Coventry, Dudley, Sandwell, Walsall, and Wolverhampton, and two from Solihull." The district councils are elected locally, but I don't know how they decide which councillors become members of the authority, or how many from each council.--130.88.47.42 (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Good enough, thanks. I didn't think of district councils. —Tamfang (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Why were lots of houses built during the 1930s slump in the UK?

In the UK, semi-detached houses built in the 1930s are very common. Yet the 1930s was a period of economic depression, so why were so many 1930s semis built? Who paid for their construction? Who bought them? By contrast in the current much more modest economic downturn, comparatively few new houses are being built or sold. Thanks. 78.151.145.226 (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Lots of council houses, many as a result of slum clearance programmes. There were two interwar acts of Parliament, in 1919 and 1930, which encouraged, and compelled, councils to built new housing. Of course there were lots of private houses built too. The 30s weren't doom and gloom for everyone, and some parts of the UK did not experience much in the way of a slump. This page has some interesting statistics on interwar housebuilding. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it was mostly private housing I was thinking of, since I have spent many years living in the good old archetypal 1930's private semi. I understand why coucil housing was built due to government command, I'm still puzzled why so much 1930s private housing was built. The article you link to makes the interesting side point that the bigger houses, including bigger gardens, resulted in more gardening and less escaping to the pub to drink. Maybe, with the abolition of Parker Morris Standards and the horribly small houses on tiny plots, the reverse trend has already established itself. 78.151.145.226 (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The simple answer is that the depression was never uniform throughout Britain. Places like central Scotland, the north of England and South Wales; places dependent on traditional heavy industries and coal mining were seriously affected, yes. But the South of England, in particular, went through a boom period in the mid to late 1930s. Lots of new light engineering and other service industries developed at a time when prices were falling and incomes rising. Hence the boom in private building. You should read Orwell's novel Coming Up for Air, which gives some insight into this in the character of George Bowling, the 'ten-pound-a-week man.' Emma Dashwood (talk) 07:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the 1930s semi detached housing estates around London were constructed when the new electrified railways (in particular the Metropolitan Line to the North West and the Southern Railway commuter lines to the South East). These railways allowed people to work in the centre of London but live in a leafy suburb that was well connected to their work. 62.25.96.244 (talk) 12:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

There was a great deal of ribbon-building along the new arterial roads. I.e. semis stretched out all along the roads, one row deep. We ought to have an article on ribbon building. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

We do (although it needs work) - see ribbon development. 15:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Because there was "nowhere for the market to go but up"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.195.51 (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Shipping cost, cheapest prices

Hello, I just saw this eBay page and was wondering how much it would cost me to ship a 24-inch CRT TV from Colorado to Texas. The UPS website calculator says it will cost upwards of USD 140 ... Does the rate go up that quickly between a 15 inch and a 24 inch? Does the eBay seller get a discount that I am not eligible for? Thanks. Kushal (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you are comparing a 15 inch LCD monitor and a 24 inch CRT monitor. CRT screens are over twice as heavy as their LCD counterparts. A 24 inch CRT monitor can weigh in at just over 80 pounds. Whereas a 24 inch LCD monitor weighs in at 23 pounds. As of 23:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC), the UPS website shows that an 83 pound package would cost about $60 to ship via Ground. Carnth (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

How many divorced Indians are there in India?

How many divorcees are there in India? What is the divorce rate in India? Sonic99 (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's a start. [4]98.227.90.212 (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I've improved the above link here: [5]. It states that there's a 1.1% divorce rate in India. Hmmm, since there's only one India, and it's now divorced from Pakistan, wouldn't that be a 100% divorce rate for India ? :-) StuRat (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Montesquieu/Diderot Impacts

How did Baron de Montesquieu and Denis Diderot impact social equality, democracy, human rights, constitutionalism, and nationalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.166.189.137 (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you ask: How did Baron de Montesquieu and Denis Diderot impact social equality, democracy, human rights, constitutionalism, and nationalism? Merde, I have completely forgotten the answer to this brilliant question of homework. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)