Humanities desk
< May 18	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 20 >

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.

May 19

Will they ever lower the drinking age in Las Vegas and the rest of the united states from 21 to 19 or 18?

I mean drinking age in most of Canada is 19. Shouldn't America be fair to it's young people who are 19 and 20 and give them the freedom to drink? Neptunekh2 (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My crystal ball is not working at the moment, so I'm not sure. :-) Also, your definition of being fair to 18-20 year olds may not be the same as everyone else. I do find it humorous that you can be pressed into military service and die for your country, but can't come home and have a beer afterwards. CBS 60 minutes has an interesting article about lowering the drinking age. Although, since the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, the NHTSA estimates that a legal drinking age of 21 saves 700 to 1,000 lives annually. Since 1976, these laws have prevented more than 21,000 traffic deaths. Just how much the legal drinking age relates to drinking-related crashes is shown by a recent study in New Zealand. Six years ago that country lowered its minimum legal drinking age to 18. Since then, alcohol-related crashes have risen 12 percent among 18- to 19-year-olds and 14 percent among 15- to 17-year-olds (62).* Clearly a higher minimum drinking age can help to reduce crashes and save lives, especially in very young drivers. - ref from NIAAA

* (62) Kypri, K.; Voas, R.B.; Langley, J.D.; et al. Minimum purchasing age for alcohol and traffic crash injuries among 15- to 19-year-olds in New Zealand. American Journal of Public Health 96:126–131, 2006. PMID: 16317197

Given that supporting a lower drinking age would also seem to support more deaths on American roadways, I doubt any movement will come close to actually lowering the drinking age. ^Avic _ennasis @ 03:53, 15 Iyar 5771 / 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm always amused by people who wish for "fairness" to young people, when in 2-3 years you aren't going to be young anymore (assuming this is an 18 year old lamenting not being 21). Seriously, wait till you are in your 30's. I've had shits that seem to last 3 years. Isn't it odd that the young seem to define "being treated unfairly" as "not getting to do whatever I want whenever I want to." If that's the case, life is a whole lot less fair to adults. I haven't been able to live that kind of "fairness" since I was about 18. It only becomes less fair the older you get. It's unfair enough, it'll drive someone to drinking, even...--Jayron32 05:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OP has a userbox on their page stating they are 27. :-) Young at heart? I advocate for teen rights on some issues despite being well outside that category myself. ^Avic _ennasis @ 06:16, 15 Iyar 5771 / 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Who's advocating for MY rights as a 34-year old then? Cuz teens will have all the same rights I do (as pitifully few as they are) in a short few years anyways. Why all the fuss? --Jayron32 06:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

The major line is drawn at 18. When you are younger than 18 is when the issues really arise. A 15-year-old being harassed (outside a school setting where teachers/staff would hopefully intervene) has no legal recourse for this harassment other than through their parents, who sadly may not care enough to take action. Whereas an 18-year-old is a legal adult and can file a police report and get a restraining order, for example. In the case of parental abuse that can sometimes be hard to prove, a 16-year-old who leaves home is a run-away and a delinquent, whereas an 18-year-old is free to leave as they choose. In both cases, waiting a "few short years" can be very harmful. I'm sure there are better analogies, but none come to mind. ^Avic _ennasis @ 06:41, 15 Iyar 5771 / 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that abuse and neglect and the legal recourses therof are serious issue. They also have nothing to do with the OP's question. The right not to be verbally assaulted and the right not to be abused or bullied or things like that are quite apart from the right to drink alcohol or drive a car or any of the other things the young claim are "unfair" when enforced against them. --Jayron32 02:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - I was replying to you, not OP. You asked "Why all the fuss?" about getting all the same rights you have now, instead of waiting. Your statement seemed to me a little broad, as opposed to just the right to drink, so I gave examples of other rights and their usage. :-) I apologize if my wording or point was misunderstood - I can't always properly convey my meaning. ^Avic _ennasis @ 03:03, 17 Iyar 5771 / 21 May 2011 (UTC)

There's an interesting cultural bias shown here, in simply accepting that society MUST define a minimum age for drinking or buying alcohol. In parts of Europe, particularly non-English speaking parts (so not likely to be well represented here), such a rigid concept does not exist. Some countries see it as a personal and family matter to decide when kids drink, not something for society to legislate on. I wonder why a country generally so strong on personal liberty as the USA is at the other end of the spectrum when it comes to alcohol. I don't think arguments about the road toll, while probably valid observations, are really the basis of this philosophical difference. HiLo48 (talk) 07:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think that's the basis for the higher age - Just that if you were to suggest a lower drinking age, one of the main arguments your opponents would use is "What are you trying to do - you want to kill those kids?!" ^Avic _ennasis @ 08:49, 15 Iyar 5771 / 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Another idea that comes to mind for Vegas, specifically - the legal age to gamble is also 21, so it's unlikely that a lower drinking age would affect the city much, as you still have to be 21+ to get into any casino, and by extension, any casino's bar. Though I have no idea how many bars might be separate from casinos there. ^Avic _ennasis @ 08:52, 15 Iyar 5771 / 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Note that while the drinking age in the US is legally twenty-one, it is in many cases practically much lower. I choose not to drink, going with the theory that it isn't worth it in the off chance I do get caught, but I have certainly had plenty of opportunity to do so, and I have known a great many who do. It seems to me to be a rather pointless and counterproductive ban, but I've only got another three months to go. Falconus^{p t c} 10:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And it's worth mentioning, to me at least, that I will become drinking age not by turning twenty-one, but by moving to Europe. Falconus^{p t c} 10:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion - At 18 you should be given a choice: apply for a driver's license or apply for a drinker's license, but not both. I suspect this would be a difficult decision for most American teens. Blueboar (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Germany, the drinking age is 16 for some forms of alcohol, like beer, whereas the minimum age to get a drivers license is 18. (IIRC) This always seemed a better option to me - let the person get used to alcohol effects on their system before giving them a chance to get behind the wheel. Although, I believe getting a DL in Germany is difficult/expensive anyway - I believe you need 25-45 hours of driving instruction, plus 12 hours of theory. ^Avic _ennasis @ 16:28, 15 Iyar 5771 / 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Given that the current presidential administration doesn't think adults should be allowed to decide whether or not to buy health insurance, it's unlikely that it would support allowing 20 year-olds to make decisions about alcohol. User:HiLo48 wonders, quite reasonably, "why a country generally so strong on personal liberty as the USA is at the other end of the spectrum when it comes to alcohol." A main reason, I think, is that libertarian ideas about personal liberty are, to a surprising extent, now seen as dangerous, radical, irresponsible, or old-fashioned by many political leaders and opinion makers. See recent elections for examples. —Kevin Myers 14:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's very charitable to describe the U.S. as "a country generally... strong on personal liberty". Witness the current marijuana laws, as one of many examples. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of starting to merge with the monster thread on the Misc desk, what I always find surprising are the the very young ages at which Americans can legally start to drive motor vehicles. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That goes back to the days when the average American lived on a family farm or ranch... older children needed to be able to drive the farm/ranch vehicles. Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about that one. As far as I'm aware, no license is needed to operate any vehicle if it's driven only on private property. I know of 14 year-olds who help out on the farm using vehicles sometimes. Perhaps this was so they could drive to the city/farmer's market on behalf of their parents? ^Avic _ennasis @ 16:28, 15 Iyar 5771 / 19 May 2011 (UTC)

But you have to get the equipment to the fields - often miles away on public roads. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some people believe that the drinking and driving age requirements should be switched. Aacehm (talk) 11:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, some states did experiment with lowering the drinking age to 20 or 19, back in the 1970s. They soon realized the lack of social benefit to that change and reinstated 21 as the minimum age. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. history of alcohol minimum purchase age by state, National Minimum Drinking Age Act. There were many states that were just fine with a lower drinking age until the Federal government strong-armed them into raising it to 21. Buddy431 (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I pointed out, a number of states lowered the drinking age in the early 1970s. Illinois, in particular, dropped the age from 21 to 19 in 1973, then raised it again in 1980. As further noted in the linked article on the uniform drinking act, states that did not raise it or restore it to 21 faced cuts in their highway money. You can call that "strongarming" if you like, which is also the way they got the speed limit lowered to 55, but nonetheless the states did have a choice, and they chose to raise the drinking age. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not, largely, because of the "lack of social benefit", as you imply, but because the federal government threatened to take their money. Buddy431 (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the history behind that federal act, as discussed in National Minimum Drinking Age Act, you will observe that my observation on the matter is correct. :0 ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finance: Fictional bank account scenario

Several works of fiction have used this concept: someone has some money in the bank, they disappear for some reason for a very long time, and when they return the interest has made them wealthy. Example- Futurama, in which Fry spent 1000 years frozen in which time his account has grown from 93 cents to $4.3 billion. My question is, wouldn't they (the bank) declare you dead after you were missing awhile and keep your money? Do they really have to let it accrue interest as long as they stay in business and you are missing?Thedoorhinge (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that varies by state/government laws. As an example, I had about 20 dollars in a old bank account in Ohio that I forgot about. They sent me a letter 11 months after my last transaction, telling me that under Ohio law, if there was no activity (I.e., deposits/withdraws, et cetera) after 12 months, all funds in my account would automatically pass to the state. Specifically, the Unclaimed Funds department of the Ohio Department of Commerce. (The law that allows for this is Ohio Revised Code, Chapter 169, if your curious.) According to Ohio's DOC website, "Every state and the District of Columbia have an unclaimed or abandoned property laws." So, at least in the US, I would say it's unlikely. ^Avic _ennasis @ 04:11, 15 Iyar 5771 / 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The concept of a bank or any other private commercial enterprise declaring one of their customers dead is fraught with enormous obstacles. They do not have the resources or expertise or authority or legal right to investigate the private lives of their clients in order to make such a declaration. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 05:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if you really were dead, there would be no chance of you actually going to claim the money, they would never have to give you it and so all they would have to do is keep some record of what you would have, if you ever came back, right? They wouldn't actually lose any money from that, unless you turned up one day years later and proved you really were still around?

Meanwhile, my sister was given £10 around the time she was born, it was kept in a bank account for her for years, and it was still there when she was finally allowed to go and get it, by which time it had built up to the quite impressive sum of £17.148.197.121.205 (talk) 07:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the United Kingdom, money in abandoned bank accounts (those with no customer activity for 15 years), has in recent years, been claimed by the state, and will apparently be used for charitable purposes. [1], [2]. --Kateshortforbob _talk 09:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't think that's true – the articles are talking about potential government plans, but there would need to be an Act of Parliament passed before seizing people's money became legal, and as far as I know, there hasn't been. ╟─Treasury Tag►Regional Counting Officer─╢ 09:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I don't think it's come in yet. I was under the impression one could still get one's money back if it was requested, on the assumption that few ever would be. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also remember that the heirs of the account owner have a claim on the money if the person is declared dead. In the US, most unclaimed or abandoned property laws have provision for this. Blueboar (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the largest impedement to the general scheme will be that interest paid on deposits is outstripped by price inflation, meaning that the purchasing power of your $4.3 billion after 1,000 years is less than the 93c at year 0. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone can come up with an earlier and more prominent example, I think the canonical example in fiction must be from The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, in which after dining at Milliways, a restaurant that serves dinner in the last moments of the dying Universe, you manage to pay the enormous bill by traveling back to your own time and depositing one penny in a bank account, then allowing compound interest to build it into the mountain of cash necessary to pay the tab. Similarly, in The Age of the Pussyfoot, a firefighter from the early 2000s is placed into a medical coma until a few hundred years later when the tech is sufficient to repair his burned lungs; when revived, he has a quarter of a million dollars ... but unfortunately, because of inflation, this is only enough for him to live on for a couple of days. Anyway, two ways around this problem, if that's what you're looking for, are (a) to pass a law creating a government department that knows about all this, and making it the custodian of the money, which is what must have happened in Pussyfoot; or (b) to form a corporation as the legal owner of the money, and the time traveler is the owner of the corporation. Because of corporate immortality, the bank wouldn't ever be able to declare the account holder is dead. (A disadvantage of the latter is that corporations have to pay annual fees and file certain reports, and over the thousands of years, paying mortals to do this does add up.) A possible (c) might be to purchase US government bonds instead, though the government might pass some law with no objections that thousand-year-old bonds would not be honored. I recommend option (b), if possible, because the corporation's director can react to world conditions as time goes on. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the ultimate origin is the rather well known 1914 short story "John Jones's Dollar" (which I have little doubt that Adams was aware of), in which the deposit of one dollar in a bank in 1921, to the credit of a direct descendant in the fortieth generation, eventually leads to universal socialism throughout the solar system. Deor (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That story brings out some quite interesting economic assumptions. It's all in constant dollars, for one thing - inflation was something that wasn't widely thought about in 1914 - but there's also not much net improvement. We're told that after 900 years the trust would own "practically all the wealth on Earth, Mars, and Venus", nomininally $332 billion, and the total estimate for all the value of the solar system in 2921 was about twenty times that, six trillion or so.

The GDP of the UK (GB/I only, not the Empire) that year was ~£2.45 billion - approximately $12 billion - and the GDP of the US was ~$36.5 billion, per the datasets at eh.net/hmit. The figures quoted here let us estimate a ratio of US/UK GDP to world GDP, giving something on the order of $140-190 billion as world GDP in 1914. Either there'd been some fairly drastic deflation, or our interplanetary society of a thousand years hence wasn't a particularly well-off place... Shimgray | talk | 23:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Sleeper Awakes is even earlier than 1914.. .AnonMoos (talk) 06:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, an increase from 93 cents to $4.3 billion in 1,000 works out to an interest rate of 2.25 percent, compounded annually. Nowadays, you'd be lucky to get a 1% interest rate, which would give you just 19,492.01 after 1,000 years. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The dialogue in that episode of Futurama does state the interest rate. I was quite surprised they went to the bother of actually calculating the correct total after a thousand years of interest, but then the DVD commentary does suggest Matt Groening is quite a geek. Astronaut (talk) 09:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really any bother. It takes about 3 seconds with a pocket calculator. --Tango (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've invaded the ref-desk archives to add a link to this relevant article. Deor (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The history of Vaageshwari Maatha temple in Rajasthan

I found the below statement on Yellapu

"The history of Vaageshwari Maatha temple in Rajasthan reveals the story of Vellapus."

I had searched for the history of the temple but could not get any information on that. I appreciate if you get me the history of Vaageshwari Maatha temple in Rajasthan...

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.154.176.44 (talk) 06:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about Rajasthan, but a google search for "vaageshwari maatha" -wikipedia yields almost no results, which might indicate either it was invented by a Wikipedia editor, or it's misspelled, or it's really obscure and not notable. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name the book

Hi there, I'm searching the title of a book I've read some years ago (less than 20). The hero (who was the narrator I think) was forced to share a room with a other boy (maybe in a boarding school) who was obnoxious. Among the thing I recall, was the fact that he was using oil from canned sardines against acne. He was also using mnemonic to remember thing but misremembering them like HOUSE instead of HOMES for the Great Lakes (and another one about the Boston Tea Party). It was annoying for the hero, but turned to help him, as he was able to pass exams thanks to the mnemonics.

Even though I read it in French (as I am French), I am quite sure it was an American novel.

Thanks in advance Pleclown (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it illegal for the police to carry a backup gun ?

The reason I am asking this question is because someone said to me once that a)it was made illegal (I assume they were talking about America or somewhere in America) and b) the reason was that there were occasions when a police officer could plant that weapon.Scotius (talk) 14:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the specific jurisdiction... each state has different gun laws (and even some cities). However, in the States and localities that do allow backup guns, the backup would be registered to the officer in question (so planting it would not be a good idea... the officer would be incriminating himself) Blueboar (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many novels have the police using what they call "throw downs", which are unregistered, untraceable hand guns, in order to "prove" the police were right to use their own (registered) weapons because they were under threat. That's fiction, though. Bielle (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it's not just fiction. The New Orleans police department, with deep corruption and a record of violence against citizens, around the time of Hurricane Katrina, was infamous for carrying such guns, known by the code term "ham sandwich". This was documented on an episode of Frontline (U.S. TV series), named Law and Disorder, first aired August 25, 2010 (season 28, episode 16). The relevant portion of the program is between (47:00) and (50:00). This episode is available for free, as a streaming video: [3]. StuRat (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is "no, at least not everywhere". As Blueboar wrote, in the US, the law on this is not consistent and uniform across the whole country. Actually not only every state and city, but every police department has its own regulations on whether the police can carry multiple weapons. I looked at the Los Angeles Police Department manual (click "Table of Contents" on that mostly-blank page to proceed) and section 610.20 discusses backup weapons; they define a "backup weapon" as an additional weapon that's carried in a concealed manner. The police can also use their personally owned handgun as their primary or backup weapon, as long as the weapon meets the LAPD's specifications and it's registered with the department. As far as your planting theory — if an LAPD officer were to carry a backup firearm that was not registered, like the "throw downs" that Bielle mentioned, that would be a violation of these regulations ... but I don't know if possessing such a weapon is a criminal act also. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just remembered that they also said something about that as its illegal far a citizen in America to carry a concealed weapon than the police, FBI, etc that wears suit or civvies while on duty may also be bracking those same laws. I was thinking that there may be laws that that exempt them, seeing that they are police, FBI, etc. Scotius (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, our article Concealed carry in the United States says, "48 states have passed laws allowing citizens to carry certain concealed firearms in public", although the circumstances under which concealed carry is allowed vary from state to state. Pais (talk) 11:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it depends on the circumstances - for example, AFAIK, Concealed carry of a firearm is prohibited in all 50 states when entering a courtroom. Most states have an exemption for law enforcement personnel, using language such as "No weapons permitted unless you are a law enforcement agent on official duty." The key point there is "official duty" - a cop who is off-the-clock and just wants to go watch a trial in a court would not be allowed to carry a weapon, and hence could be breaking the law. ^Avic _ennasis @ 14:59, 16 Iyar 5771 / 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Alcohol in candy

While working on the papers of U.S. Senator Birch Bayh, I found that many people wrote to him in 1971 about a proposed bill that would have permitted 3.5% alcohol in candy. Does anyone know where I could find more abAout this bill? I've Googled <"h. r. 7785" candy alcohol 1971>, but I can't find anything. 129.79.34.83 (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After a few tries that yielded nothing, I googled "h.r. 7785" 1971 and the first link I get is to a web page describing a book or pamphlet called "Confectionery amendments to the Food and drug act", which sounds like it's what you are looking for. Adding the magic word confectionery to the above search yielded four results, including this page from Johns Hopkins, which claims to have the book online if you have a login. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice sleuthing, Comet Tuttle. If this is any help to the OP, your IP address appears to originate from Indiana University. It just so happens they have a hardcopy of the book in their Auxiliary Library Facilty. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a book so much as a set of Congressional hearings. It includes the text of the bill and discussions of it between the subcommittee and various witnesses. If you have access to Lexis Nexus Congressional through your university (which is likely), you can get it very easily online. Incidentally is 8.5% by volume, not 3.5%. The hearings are only 30 pages long. If you can't access them easily, leave me a message on my talk page with your e-mail address and I'll send you a PDF of the transcript. (An amusing exchange from it: Mr. Carter: "You don't think youngsters would be damaged or hurt by eating this delicious confection?" Mr. Kuykendall: "I think all he would get, if he ate 32 pieces of this stuff, is a bellyache, Dr. Carter.") --Mr.98 (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Major Dundee questions

Tunes in film Major Dundee

Hello, wise people ! Recently our french "TV Arte" broadcasted a restored version of Peckinpah '65 film Major Dundee, & this awakened among those who had seen it long ago (as well as on the WP french article) some questions like : when Dundee's troop exits Fort Benlin, each faction of the command singing its own distinct song , the blue ones singing "John Brown's body's..." , some other "My darling Clementine", but what do the grey ones sing ? It seems familiar to me, the words begin with "Oooooh I wish I were ..." , & I wonder if it is not associated with J.E.B. Stuart's banjo-man ...Thanks a lot to you beforehand, t.y. Arapaima (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Oh, I wish I was in the land of cotton..." which you can listen to here. Someone familiar with the film may be able to confirm if this is correct. Alansplodge (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Entertainment Desk is the proper place for this type of question. StuRat (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Ask and ye shall receive" Alansplodge (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"My cup overflows", thanks Alansplodge !Arapaima (talk) 07:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Howitzer in film Major Dundee

Hello wise people ! (this question is related to the one just above). As far as a french amateur (me) can assert, weapons in this film seem fairly well represented & not at all anachronic for 1864 : classical GI muzzle loaders, new Henry repeaters, big double barreled shot-guns ( in the first scene) , Colts etc...About the "baby howitzer" Lt Graham brings back, can you tell me what it is ? Conic shape, modern design, brass, estimated caliber about 10 mm, carriage (I think) a little too long for a howitzer, seems technically coming from our Napoleons...Thanks a lot beforehand, t.y. Arapaima (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a brief shot of this gun in action here - after about 1:30. It seems to be a studio mock-up because at the point of firing (if you freeze-frame), the muzzle is out of alignment with the rest of the barrel! However, a likely candidate for the gun it's supposed to resemble is the M1841 Mountain Howitzer. Very interesting combat with some French Chevau-légers. Did anything like this really happen? As the French cavalry were amongst the best in the world at the time, I think they would have given this American rabble a bit more of a contest. Alansplodge (talk) 17:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks +++ Alan for the charge footage, very impressive. Am making some research about any french-union frictions on the Rio Grande in 1864, & let you know on your talk page as soon as possible . Cheers, Arapaima (talk) 08:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Site of "Fort Benlin" in film Major Dundee

Hello wise people ! (question related to the 2 ones above) . Have you any idea about where "Fort Benlin" (even if it is fictitious : I could not find any such fort, neither any famous Benlin, in WP...) is located ? Dundee points on the map a Sand River Crossing, 30 miles away from Fort Benlin, where he sends Lt Graham to intercept and "borrow" guns from a supply train "going from Denver to Sante Fe, where the 2cd California Column is garrisoned" ( BTW, I thought the California Column had made its grand hike in 1862, April-August...Did a "2cd" California Column stay in Santa Fe ?...) . And it took 11 days riding (200 miles in all ? towards the south-west? ) to the Dundee column to get to a point "50 miles away from the border, & 86 miles away from Fort Davis"...Is it enough for a triangulation ? Thanks beforehand, t.y. Arapaima (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why people with no needs would network with people with needs

This isn't an opinion question. I just want to know some objective and logical reasons, given human psychology, why someone with a job with which they are satisfied and are negligibly in need of anything career-wise would bother to network with someone who needs their help and doesn't have anything at all to offer in return. If I need you but you don't need me for anything, why would you bother with me? If anything, I would think that since some companies offer an employee a cash bonus when a referral is hired, that selfish motivation is what makes the gainfully employed person exert some effort for the person in need. The person in need himself isn't giving the employed person the money, but they are the means of the employed person getting money from the company. Barring that, at the core, does it absolutely depend on altruism? 20.137.18.50 (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The people with "no needs" are in that position because they're better people than people "with needs". If you want to be rich very quickly, just become a better person. You will soon have all the opportunities you can handle, and even more, but because you're a good person, you will say "no" to opportunities that are beyond you. In other words, whatever your skills, you will be maximally able to use them. Part of being a better person is being friendly and interested in other people. I hope this answers your question. 188.156.14.134 (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, there are more motivators in life than pure self-interest and greed. HiLo48 (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Thanks 188 and HiLo48 for your responses. I can see how the "good" feeling the person with no need gets by feeling like they are doing the person in need a favor is their reward. As said here, "It was known that once [Mahatma Gandhi] settled in a village he would immediately begin to serve the needs of its people. When a friend inquired if his reasons for serving the poor were purely humanitarian, Gandhi answered, 'Not at al(sic). Rather,' he said, 'I am here to serve myself only, to find my own self-realization through the service of others.'" I wonder if anyone has rigorously studied the likelihood of one to help another as a function of the socioeconomic gap between the two. I haven't seen too much outside of fictional movies where a high level manager or CEO becomes the mentor of a poor person. It would seem to me that in most cases, a person would be most likely to help another person a few notches below them (if helping others for its own sake has value to them). 20.137.18.50 (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gandhi was spot on. Being of service to others is NOT, repeat NOT about self-sacrifice, self-denial, duty, "what a decent person would/should do", or any other such notions. It's about getting at least as much yourself from the transaction as you give out. If you're not getting something, nay a lot, back from doing whatever you do for others - and that something is self-defined and is almost never monetary - then the whole thing does not work and cannot be sustained. You will burn yourself out, become bitter and twisted, and then become unavailable to help anyone else. That's where it won't work for you. And the recipients of your service will know you're not helping them purely as a natural expression of who you are, but out of some sense of duty, and nobody wants that sort of help. So it won't work for them either. Lose-lose is not the way to go. Win-win may sound trite, but it really is the only way that actually works. In anything. Gandhi knew and practised this better than almost anyone, which is why he is so revered around the world. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that's why they shot him. My Libertarian friends refer to that approach as "enlightened self-interest", and likewise say that that approach is the most productive; the win-win, as you say; the core philosophy of the book I'm Ok, You're OK. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Freudian concept of the superego is that we sometimes do things just to feel good about ourselves. In an evolutionary context, this might have developed so we help out the group, which tends to have genes in common with us. Thus, helping them survive helps out genes survive, and therefore those egalitarian genes are passed down. The idea of karma also holds that you will be rewarded "by the universe" for good deeds and punished for bad deeds. In a religious context, good deeds may lead to heaven (see Golden Rule). There's also the pragmatic approach, that helping others may make others more willing to help you, at some future point when you need it (if somebody needs a kidney, would you be more willing to donate to Ghandi or Osama Bin Laden ?). StuRat (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The Freudian concept of the superego is that we sometimes do things just to feel good about ourselves." No. No, it is NOT. Not even close. Please don't make things up.76.218.9.50 (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have a whole article on altruism. There is also altruism (ethics) which is related. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The questioner is thinking short term. While I might need nothing career-wise now, you never know when you might need those network contacts in the future. I keep networking, so I don't need to start to build one from scratch when I actually do need my network. It's selfish, but it does help others at the same time. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might also wish to consider the concept of social capital. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What an unusual article. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? How so? --TammyMoet (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The volunteers answering questions here at the Reference Desk qualify, by the way. None of us need you, but we're all helping you out. If there's a benefit for us, it's related to the social capital concept whose article TammyMoet pointed out. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since I both ask and answer many Q's here, I may be a good example of this. StuRat (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional Rights and religious Freedom

What are the constitutional rights and religious freedom in Canada? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.155.52 (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have the right to read the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (of which I'm embarrassed to say, I'm wholly ignorant). Clarityfiend (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, no high school politics class? It's in Section 2. There are some more links to follow from that article. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The charter came in after my salad days, you young whippersnapper. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extraterritoriality

I'm trying to find some sources about non-countries which have extraterritorial status of one sort or another, particularly the International Bureau of Weights and Measures and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. Does anyone know of any books or academic articles which discuss these bodies' extraterritoriality? Thanks. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 22:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Unhelpful bickering not answering the question asked. —07:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The Knights of Malta have received diplomatic recognition by ~~several~~ many countries, and several of their buildings are considered to have equivalent status to a foreign embassy by the Italian government. The International Bureau of Weights and Measures has no such recognition, so I'm not sure what the comparison is. AnonMoos (talk) 05:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The International Bureau of Weights and Measures does have extraterritorial status, as even a quick glance at our article on it (which I linked above) and an even quicker Google search would quickly tell you. Thank you for your 'help'. ╟─Treasury Tag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 07:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, it is not a state-like body, and does not have diplomatic recognition as if it were a state, so the usefulness of a comparison with the Knights of Malta is somewhat limited. AnonMoos (talk) 07:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you read my question? It wasn't about diplomatic recognition. It wasn't about comparison. I'm trying to find some sources about non-countries which have extraterritorial status of one sort or another, particularly the International Bureau of Weights and Measures and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. Does anyone know of any books or academic articles which discuss these bodies' extraterritoriality? Do you know of any sources, or are you just interested in engaging in (incorrect) quibbling? ╟─Treasury Tag►draftsman─╢ 07:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the Knights of Malta buildings receive extraterritorial status in pretty much the same way that any foreign embassy in any country does. However the International Bureau of Weights and Measures HQ receives extraterritorial status, it's a fairly sure bet that it's not because it's treated as a state-like entity given diplomatic recognition... AnonMoos (talk) 07:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? My question made the statement that both organisations have "extraterritoriality of one sort or another" which is true. And then it asked if anyone had relevant sources or books they could point me towards. Bickering over non-issues is not helpful. ╟─Treasury Tag►pikuach nefesh─╢ 07:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese economics, American debt

I'll start with the questions, then follow with my current understanding: Q1: What does China give the U.S. when it purchases U.S. debt? what does the U.S. receive? Q2: What purpose does holding so much foreign debt achieve for China?

At first I assumed that China returns goods and services for U.S. debt, but I figure the proportion of Chinese GDP created by the government is rather small, and I don't think private enterprises are happy to receive T-bonds for real products. So I'm a little confused about how China "pays for" the debt? Certainly they aren't handing the U.S. renminbi?

Regarding the second question, I've often seen it mentioned in an offhand way that holding so much debt is a strategy for controlling China's domestic inflation. I'd be grateful if someone could explain the mechanism by which this works, or explain the real reason they hold so much debt if inflation control is not the actual reason. Thank you! The Masked Booby (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As to the first, my understanding is that the Chinese buy US debt using some of the large amounts of dollars paid by US firms to Chinese firms for their products. As to the second, buying debt is a non-inflationary way (from the Chinese perspective) to spend the dollars amassed as a result of the US/China trade imbalance. Perhaps the best way to understand why it helps to control inflation is to consider what happens if instead it is injected into the Chinese economy, e.g. as wages or as government orders for products or services ... any of those would increase the Chinese money supply, which tends to be a cause of inflation. (Crudely, people in China would have more cash and hence there would be more demand for product, and a commensurate increase in prices, assuming that production - supply - cannot be ramped up to mop up the increased money. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious (and already stated answer) to Q1 is money, cash, greenbacks and their digital equivalent. For Q2, the main reasons the People’s Bank of China (PBoC) holds large amounts of US Treasury bills and Agency paper are (a) to prevent the trade surplus from boosting the money supply to the point of generating inflation; (b) to maintain a cushion so as to be able to purchase imports even if there are insufficient export earnings to generate hard currency; and (c), to maintain economic independence, i.e., to not have to go hat-in-hand to the IMF and accept their terms in the event of a balance of payments crisis.

By the way, the money held in the PBoC is just like your own money in Citibank: it is your money, not the bank’s.DOR (HK) (talk) 07:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 May 19