Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 July 31

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.

July 31

Neo-Hittite Kingdom of Patina

this article talks about the Neo-Hittite Kingdom of Patina and its capital city, Kunulua. There are no mentions of either in the Neo-Hittite article. Does anybody have any idea as to whether any of the kingdoms mentioned in the article are related to this kingdom/city? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

They are mentioned in our article; see Syro–Hittite states#List of Syro-Hittite states, fourth bulleted item under "The southern, Aramaic, group includes". Deor (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Japanese scales

Which note is the root of the Hirajōshi scale? The article gives three different interpretations, but they're all modes of the same interval pattern. Why do they all correspond to the In scale? --108.206.7.65 (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Philiosophical Articles/Essays/Works Arguing in Favor of Absolute Bodily Autonomy?

Does anyone know of any philosophical works that argue in favor of absolute bodily autonomy using an argument other than the law, common practice, tradition, or popular opinion? All of these arguments are fallacious and thus I'm wondering if there are any works arguing in favor of absolute bodily autonomy (with no exceptions) using arguments other than the ones I mentioned above. Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly sure what you mean by "absolute bodily autonomy", but as I understand it Murray Rothbard argued from an axiomatic approach for total ownership of one's self and property. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

By absolute bodily autonomy, I meant refusing to allow someone to use someone else's body (including organs, blood, and bone marrow) without the other individual's consent in any circumstances, even when the second individual made the first individual dependent upon him to survive (such as by infecting him with a kidney illness). Futurist110 (talk) 05:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The word "allow" is problematic there (since you can still be autonomous and allow someone to use your body). Anyway, if we substitute "force" or "coerce" for "allow", then yes, that is what Murray Rothbard and also Hans-Hermann Hoppe argue. Hoppe's argument is; "self-ownership is a presupposition of argumentation, thus a person contradicts oneself when one argues against self-ownership. The person making this argument is caught in a performative contradiction because, in choosing to use persuasion instead of force to have others agree that they are not sovereign over themselves, that person implicitly grants that those who one is trying to persuade have a right to use their body in order to argue." 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Musical scales

Why are pentatonic and heptatonic scales so much more common worldwide than other scales (e.g. hexatonic)? --108.206.7.65 (talk) 03:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Are they? The scale database in Scala (program), [1], lists 192 five note scales, 608 seven note scales, and well over a 1,000 twelve note scales (the database includes scales using any tuning, not just equal temperament, obviously, or there would only be one twelve note scale). If you meant why are five note scales used more often than others, again--are they? I would guess seven note scales are more frequently used. Pfly (talk) 10:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

For the standard pentatonic, I believe the reason most often given for its popularity is that it makes music easy, in the sense that there is no combination of those five notes that has major dissonance. You can experiment on a piano: you can mess around on the black keys (which form a pentatonic scale) however you like, and nothing you do will sound really terrible. For heptatonic the story is probably more complicated. Looie496 (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Oops, for some reason I was thinking hepta- also mean "five". Looie is right about the standard pentatonic scale being basically dissonance free. As a kid I first played around with improvising on the piano by fiddling with pentatonic scales. The seven note scale thing is definitely more complicated. There's a little history as Diatonic scale. I think in Western music you can trace scale pattern logic back to ancient Greece at least—two tetrachords with the lowest and highest notes being octaves of each other results in a seven note scale. There are other historical factors though. Pfly (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

C played with D is a dissonance. C played with B is a dissonance. That's 2 out of 7, or 24%. Not quite what I'd call "no major dissonances" or "dissonance free". Dissonances have been given a bad rap, but no composer would ever do without them. They're the salt and spice for what would otherwise be a bland dish of musical creamed chicken pulp with white sauce. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think both Looie and I were saying the "standard" or "major" 5-note pentatonic scale is basically dissonance free / has no major dissonances. Starting on C the standard pentatonic scale is C D E G A. The "worst" dissonance is the major second, which C and D is an example of. Whether a major second is dissonant or not is a subjective question, of course. It's certainly less dissonant than a minor second or a tritone. I don't find major seconds very dissonant, so I said "basically dissonance free". I suspect Looie said "no major dissonances" for similar reasons. But I definitely agree that "major" dissonance is extremely important in music (obligatory link to Consonance and dissonance). Perhaps both of us were wrong to assume "pentatonic scale" implied "major pentatonic". After all, the term "pentatonic scale" just means "five note scale", there are many pentatonic scales other than the standard/major one, some of which are quite dissonant. I noticed the OP has edited pages like Hirajōshi scale, which is about a pentatonic scale with "major dissonances"--and it is apparently in equal temperament. In other tunings pentatonic scales can be exceedingly dissonant. In short, all this is why I asked whether it is actually true that pentatonic scales are more common (they aren't according to the Scala database). I'd also question the claim that the standard/major pentatonic scale, or any/all equal tempered pentatonic scales are more commonly used than other scales. I'd be less skeptical of the claim that 7-note scales are the most common / most used, although I'm not sure how one would determine such a thing in the first place. Finally, I'd point to our pentatonic scale page, but it needs work, especially the lead and with regard to this topic--the lead makes that claim about lacking "the most dissonant intervals", but with a big "citation needed". The heptatonic scale page isn't too useful on this topic either. Pfly (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

PS, I don't have Scala installed—and it's hard to install on a Mac—but looked through the scale files to find two examples of dissonant, non-equal tempered pentatonic scales, for what it's worth—the "dimtetb" scale ("pentatonic form on the 9/7") and the "chin_pipa" scale ("Observed tuning from Chinese balloon lute p'i-p'a"). The five pitches of the "dimtetb" scale are (in frequency ratio notation): 9:8 major second, 9:7 septimal major third, 14:9 subminor sixth, 7:4 harmonic seventh, and 2:1 octave. The "chin_pipa" notes (in cents): 145 neutral second, 351 neutral third, 647 (no name for this pitch, its about a quarter tone below a perfect fifth), 874 (no name, vaguely near a "Pythagorean diminished seventh), and 1195 (a slightly flat octave). Those two pentatonic scales are quite dissonant! Anyway, anyone interested in the inner workings of scales might want to take a look at Scala. Pfly (talk) 02:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Countries ruled by one royal family

Besides Japan, has any country had only one royal family in its entire history? --108.206.7.65 (talk) 05:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to use a broad definition of "family" (including proven relatives and all that), then the United Kingdom (which existed since 1707) would probably work. Futurist110 (talk) 05:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

If you're not restricting yourself to parent-to-child succession, there is an indirect line of descent through all English monarchs from William I covering all monarchs of England, Britain and the United Kingdom to Elizabeth II; this can be traced back even further with the descent of Elizabeth II from Egbert of Wessex, first king of England. But since the European royal families are closely interrelated the same is probably true of all of them. The concept of a royal family or royal house is rather artificial; it depends on how tightly you limit the relationship between each monarch. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The Netherlands likewise has had only one royal family, that is if you ignore Napoleons brother, who was installed as a puppet king during the French occupation of the Netherlands.

I might note that the first statement is true of Japan only if you use a similarly broad definition of "family" as would permit William the Conqueror and Elizabeth II to be described as one "family" - Emperor of Japan#Succession has a more detailed description. --10:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - in the medieval period, at least one Japanese emperor was forced to abdicate to be replaced by a distant cousin, an event which would have marked a new dynasty for a European throne. There was also the practice of emperors adopting perspective candidates to the throne, thereby leapfrogging the succession list - this would not (as far as I know) have happened in Europe. Alansplodge (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

According to our article, the Monarchy of Denmark is the oldest in Europe. Oda Mari (talk) 09:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

However, the present House of Glücksburg has reigned only since 1863, when Christian IX acceded. Alansplodge (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Cumulative Total Number of People Killed in the Name of Religion Throughout History?

Does anyone have reliable statistics as to the cumulative number of people killed in the name of various religions throughout history? Futurist110 (talk) 05:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

No. We don't even have reliable statistics for people killed in modern wars (see e.g. the debate about the Lancet surveys of Iraq War casualties), much less for historic conflicts. And then the definition is very unclear. Did the crusaders "kill in the name of religion"? Arguably yes. But their opponents, also arguably, killed to defend their homelands, with a religious component creeping in over time. And so on on countless occasions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Which is suprising considering the fact that people can estimate how many people have been ever lived on this planet?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

No, not really. It's typically easier to answer better-defined and more general questions than to answer more ambiguous and more specific questions. That said, I bet there are serious error bars on "the number of people that have ever lived", not just from the estimation process, but also from unclear definitions. Who counts as "people"? All Homo? All Homo sapiens? All Homo sapiens sapiens? All humans since the development of behavioral modernity? All humans since the advent of civilization? And what counts as "have ever lived"? Up until modern times, most people died in their very early childhood. Do they count? What about stillborn babies? The only thing that keeps these errors somewhat in check is that human population has been growing very much, so the influence of the earlier questions is not very large. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on that. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Both the Crusaders and their Muslim opponents killed in the name of their religion. This is in contrast to someone like, say, Hitler, who killed in the name of pseudoscience or Stalin who killed in the name of Communism. Futurist110 (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I quite disagree with nearly everything you say in this sentence. It's much to simplified. Stalin killed some people in the name of communism, but also a lot of people in the name of the defence of the Motherland. And why do you think that the average inhabitant of palestine fought the crusaders for purely or mostly religious reasons? Note that e.g. Damascus had been, on and off, allied with the crusaders until the disastrous Second Crusade - do you think they had a religious epiphany when the crusaders decided to attack them? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

For a WAG estimate, the cumulative human population is estimated at around 100 billion, so let's say 1% of those were killed for religious reasons, to arrive at a total of 1 billion killed for religious reasons. StuRat (talk) 07:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I doubt 1% were even homocide, let alone homocide on the basis of religion. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, cause of death give 2.84% for "Intentional injuries" (but presumably not including suicide since it has it's own category. Violence also has it's own category to confuse matters further.) 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Nope, 1.28%. Violence included suicide so that had to be taken off the figure to get homocides only. Unless you're including people who killed themselves in the name of religion...

So anyway, of the 1.28% of people killed by another person, I doubt fully 1.00% were killed in the name of religion. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Those figures are for the year 2002, not historic averages. The rate is certainly far higher during major wars. StuRat (talk) 09:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's see...in 2002 we had Sierra Leone Civil War, Algerian Civil War, Somali Civil War, Burundi Civil War, Ethnic conflict in Nagaland, Insurgency in Ogaden, Nepalese Civil War, Republic of the Congo Civil War, Second Congo War, Second Liberian Civil War, Ituri conflict, Second Chechen War, Second Intifada, 2000–2006 Shebaa Farms conflict, Operation Defensive Shield, Ivorian Civil War, Insurgency in the Maghreb (2002–present) and of course War in Afghanistan (2001–present). 101.172.42.165 (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

None of which, even totaled, come even close to the deaths in WW2. StuRat (talk) 09:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Does it matter? Very few of the deaths in wars are attributable to religion. I think it's pretty safe to assume that 2002 was a fairly average year for war i.e. not particularly peaceful and not particularly violent. If you look at the List of wars by death toll and take the sum of the upper estimates of dead for all wars over 1,000,000 million killed, then add a further million for every listed war with less than 1,000,000 killed and then double it you get about 1 billion, which is your estimate just for people killed in the name of religion. 101.172.42.156 (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The Taiping Rebellion which killed around 20 million Chinese was by far the bloodiest war which can be blamed on religion (and its causes were more complex than that); there have been very few significant wars motivated by religion (distinct from nationalism or race) since the 17th century, when populations were far lower and casualties therefore fewer. The Thirty Years' War, which was partly caused by religion but also by other tensions, killed something like 8 million (including plague deaths and other civilian casualties) in the 17th century, the 16th-century French Wars of Religion 2-4 million, and the Crusades 1-3 million which included Christian-on-Christian violence like the Siege of Constantinople (1204) (see List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Very few wars can really be ascribed to religion. Most are really down to fear, hate or greed (often with a good measure of stupidity), even if religion is the banner used to justify them. Here's a terrific example of fear, hate, greed and stupidity at work in the name of religion: Fourth Crusade. --Dweller (talk) 10:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Fear, hate, greed, and stupidity often come from one's religious beliefs, though. A current/modern example would be conservative Christians using the Bible to justify their homophobia and opposition to gay rights. Futurist110 (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, fear, hate and stupidity can come from religion (though is by no means restricted to religion), not sure about greed though, I know of no religion that promotes or causes greed. Fear and hate, however, are not always bad things. I'm sure Americans fighting in WWII hated the nazi ideology, and if that motivated them, great. I am not convinced however, that fear, hate and stupidity are major factors in the starting of wars. The leaders are usually not stupid and will only wage war if they have a good chance of benifiting from it. The main reasons leaders start wars is love of power, fame and wealth. Fear, hate and stupidity are then of course used to motivate the soldiers, e.g. in the medieval period both crusaders and mujahideen were promised heavenly rewards for fighting and were told to hate unbelievers. However, from the fact that the pope and the kaliph did not personally fight in the wars, it can be gathered that they themselves were more worried about earthly pleasures and used religion mainly as an means to increase their power. - Lindert (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Zara and Peter Phillips

According to Anne, Princess Royal, her children have no titles due to her husband never having one given to him. If she wanted to, could Anne give some sort of title to her children anyway? Dismas|^(talk) 10:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, only Parliament can confer titles, since the Queen had to ask Winston Churchill to grand her husband the title Prince. But apparently, the parliament has no control over who is worshipped as a god. 101.172.42.156 (talk) 11:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what was going on with the Duke of Edinburgh's case, but I think the Queen usually decides on titles for the royal family herself, although she probably consults her ministers. It is definitely not Princess Anne's decision, though (although I think it was at her request that her husband wasn't given a title, so if she asked the Queen may well be willing to grant some titles now). --Tango (talk) 11:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you're right. It's her decision who gets titles. She was just treading carefully because the other commonwealth nations might object to his title including them under "other territories" or some such. 101.172.42.154 (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hm. She gave him "the dignity of a Prince of the United Kingdom", I believe. I never thought of this before, but do (other) members of the RF also have the title "Prince/ss of Canada" &c? —Tamfang (talk) 09:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that if either Peter or Zara Phillips really wanted a title, he or she would ask Grandma for one ... the Queen would consult Parliament (and Parliament would probably approve the request) ... and the Queen would grant one. The real question is whether either of them would feel the need for a title ... after all, titles are fairly empty honors these days. Blueboar (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it really a matter for Parliament? I know MPs do sometimes have things to say about honours and titles, but are there any actual laws about these things? I thought it was a matter for the Queen; however, except when dispensing honours within her personal gift, she only ever acts with the advice of her government (= Prime Minister). The governments of the 16 Commonwealth Realms can effectively veto honours for members of the Royal Family (because they're not just the UK's Royal Family but that of 16 nations) - but they usually have no objections. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Parliament definitely aren't involved. The Prime Minister might be, but definitely not Parliament. --Tango (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Titles are granted through the issuance of Letters patent which are one of the few royal prerogatives that may still be exercised. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 00:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It was pretty well reported at the time that Princess Anne's children would have no titles because that's what Princess Anne wanted. But finding a decent source for this, 30 years later, is proving more difficult. This forum is quite informative. This site also confirms my assertion. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

As I misunderstand it, honours within the royal family are strictly a matter of Royal Prerogative, while most honours outside the family are always (in practice) given "on advice", i.e. as instructed by the Prime Minister. (Exceptions include the Order of the Garter, the Order of the Thistle and the Royal Victorian Order.) —Tamfang (talk) 09:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

is there a world in finance/economics for "intrinsic" demand?

Let's say that I am making a crown for an exacting king, the total project value is $500,000,000 - it's huge. Well, it calls for a particular gemstone in one place, something that is only semiprecious like a ruby.

Now, it could be the case that "intrinsically" I don't give a shit if I have to pay $80,000,000 for any ruby of any size - I'll take it, to meet the requirements. But in fact I wouldn't ACTUALLY pay that much because of the fact that others are making it available CHEAPER.

So in a world where my only option is to pay $80,000,000 or not receive the gemstone - I would still pay that much. but in the actual world my demand isn't nearly as high due for any particular ruby because of the others that are on the market.

By comparison, if the crown did NOT specify "ruby" that it HAS to be made from, then if my only choice is an $80m ruby or no ruby, I choose "no ruby" and put something else there.

So here are two cases with a high intrinsic demand a low intrinsic demand. Another example would be debt: let's say you absolutely have to borrow $3000 for a week not to lose your business that is worth $800,000 and with many orders about to come in. Your "intrinsic" demand might be up to 1000% annual interest rate (which is 19% in a week, the $3000 plus 19% - however that week is enough for you to not go under until you recive the funds that are coming in, which far more than pay for that money. Or you have customers and you can immediately within 3-5 days flip any amount of borrowed money up to $8,000 into twice as much, due to your customer's demand.) So here are cases where your "intrinsic" demand is for money at a cost of 1000% interest rate provided you can account it on a prorated daily basis and pay it off immediately at any time.

Nevertheless, your ACTUAL demand isn't for 1000% interest rate, since you can get an unsecured credit card in addition to the ones you have at a much more reasonable rate - and so you would use that; and you do. So you see, here is an example of a high intrinsic demand that is met by a lower supply. Nevertheless if the choice were not to borrow money or borrow it at 1000% interest rate you would use the latter due to the fact that it's still free money for you since you're out of stock and would have fantastic margins if you weren't. what in fact happens is you do borrow the money, at a far lower interest rest, sell the inventory, and pay off the lower interst rate.

my question is what we call the intrinsic demand? The actual demand is fueled by your other choices. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 13:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

here is another example. Obviously the intrinsic demand of nearly every person in America for air is at least $100 per month (in fact far greater), as every person breathes every single second of every day. But as that air is free, the actual demand is at $0, since any amount of demand is met by supply (outside air) at a price of $0. Water is not the same. if people could "drink" from the air iteslf as easily as they can "breathe" from the air itself, then demand for bottled water would fall sharply. Because the "actual" demand is falling. the intrinsic demand is still high - it is just being met elsewhere. Another example of this is if you google "water mafia" for some cities in the world where houeshold water is very expensive. it shows the intrinsic demand that is there when you cut off alternatives. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 13:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Graph illustrating consumer (red) and producer (blue) surpluses on a supply and demand chart

Perhaps you could summarize all that down into a precise question, it would help us to answer you. None the less I will try,

if you look at the graph I added you will see that a portion of both parties, suppliers and demanders, are willing to pay more/demand less than the market price. These people luck out the most, and have the largest economic surplus (the price they would be willing to pay minus the price they have to pay). The economic surplus for goods like food and water are massive for consumers as you have noted. 65.95.22.16 (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The red line does not accurately any intrinsic demand curve, for example for air (which is easily $500/month or easily more than a mortgage, but for which unlimited demand is met at a supplied price of $0.) So I don't thin kit would be accurate to draw a consumer demand curve anywhere above $0 since - DUE to the response to the present supply - there is none.

What I mean is this. "There is large high-priced demand for a cinema TV from Apple that costs at least $1500" is not true if, in fact, they could not sell any TV's at a high price because the demand for large cinema TV's is met elsewhere. So, there is a large INTRINSIC demand for a high-quality TV but a small ACTUAL demand due to the market conditions. As far as Apple is concerned it just sees that nobody is buying it. There is no way to know what the "intrinsic" demand would be if not all that competition. The competition changes the nature of the demand.

Maybe I can put it this way. There is a large high-priced demand for any sweetener that is low on calories - dieters would happily pay $0.05 or $0.10 per single tablet that they can sweeten their drink with to help them successfully diet - but due to the large number of such sweeteners on the market in fact no consumer has ANY demand at that price - $0. Just because they know that the price is too high.

This isn't actually consumer surplus and I can illustrate it as follows. Suppose there is a shortage of all sweeteners in the market. A consumer will still NOT buy one at $10 because they will prefer to wait for the 'real' price to reappear. So, it's not that the demand was met by cheaper supply: it was not. Rather, the demand was INTERRUPTED and PREEMPTED by the knowledge of the cheaper supply. A consumer might not use any sweetener for a month and then go back to buying the regular low-priced sweetener, rather than pay the $10 for a box of sweeteners. Whereas, if there WERE no low-priced sweetener undercutting the demand curve, any dieter would consider it a tiny expense to add $10 to their diet and exercise program per month. So you see the very KNOWEDLGE of the cheaper supply undercuts the demand curve. Likewise, the person might wait for two years to complete the crown and deliver it due to the very KNOWELDGE of how much a ruby is worth, even though if that knowledge didn't exist, they wouldn't think twice about paying the $80m to complete their crown to specifications. (for example if the specifications called for a one-of-a-kind object in the kingdom, or any kingdom, and which that costs that much.) So really we are talking about a situation where the intrinsic demand would be much higher but it is interrupted by the market conditions and market knowledge. I'd like to know how to talk about this intrinsic demand, which might never show up as actual demand. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is another example. People might have a practically unlimited demand for actual get-rich-quick schemes (over double their money in a few months or less), i.e. any of their savings. But because that is "too good to be true", their actual demand is literally $0. No consumer will invest a penny into savings schemes that return more than 100% in a few months. So what's going on? There is almost unlimited intrinsic demand, but market conditions make actual demand a quantity of 0. It doesn't matter how compelling the case is or what the guarantees would be; no one would even look into it. So this is another example of a huge difference between the intrinsic demand and the actual demand - and this is not because any of the actual demand is being met!! So we are talking about something fundamentally different from the demand curve pictured, and fundamentally different from consumer surplus. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Just think about it. If I could somehow guarantee you a 100% roi on your money, hell, (this isn't serious, this is how scammers talk:) it could consist of you safekeeping actual physical money and getting to keep some of it, your intrinsic demand for the conditions described would be as much of your savings as you can free up, whereas DUE TO SCAMMING your actual demand is "no fucking way." So you have high intrinsic demand for a 100% roi small-investment scheme, but 0 actual demand for it. see? we are not talking about your supply/demand curve at all. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

so what I'm getting at is the "MARKET EFFECT" on demand. The market for scamming drives down demand for "too good to be true" investment to almost $0, despite what the "intrinsic demand" might be. Likewise, the used car market might drive down demand for used cars, despite what the intrinsic demand might be. Not even to your best friend would you pay anything like your intrinsic demand for a used car. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, perhaps you want utility - the value of a good to a person. The utility - or intrinsic demand - is not affected by market price, my utility for air, rubies, sweetners, etc is fixed - besides diminishing returns. If the price is lower or equal to my utility than I will purchase the good. My demand for a safe loan from a respectable bank is X, my demand for a risky loan from thumb breakers is Y. If The price ox Y is lower than the price of X by more than the price of possibly having my thumbs broken, I will go with Y, if not than I go with X. 65.95.22.16 (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Right - "Utility" sounds a LOT better for what I'm talking about. Are you the other IP (84.3.160.86) too? If not, can they confirm as well? Is this standard usage? (e.g. talking about the "utility price" of something.) Thanks. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The "utily" article links to "indifference price" which to me sounds like what I'm looking for. (THough I can't follow the math that comprises nearly the totality of this particular article). 84.3.160.86 (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The article the OP is looking for is Willingness to pay. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read everything you have written (please be concise!) but I think you might be asking about price elasticity of demand. That's how much demand (which refers to the number you want, not the amount you pay, by the way) changes as the price changes. In your situation, your demand is very inelastic - it doesn't change much when price changes a lot (you always want one gem, regardless of the price). --Tango (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Willingness to pay sounds like it could be the one, but it's a very short article. Would a person's "willingness to pay" a monthly charge for air be $0 - as they get it for free - or some token antipollution tax amount, or $500+? The article is unclear. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 07:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It may vary from person to person but I strongly suspect that for most it would be 100% of their net worth. The article essentially deals with this "the willingness to pay to stop the ending of one's own life can only be as high as one's wealth". If you want more details I'd try a google search or consult a first year economics text. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 08:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

"Philosopher" is a honorific title he gives to himself after he has possessed necessary characteristics and decides to call himself as such, do you agree?

the ref desk is not a debate forum, sorry
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
According to some sources to classify a philsopher he should classify himself/herself to be like one, for even if he is perceived as a philsopher by the masses yet he does not for himself then he is not, as I know certain persons who refused to be called a philosopher even if they are assumed to be likewise, thus anyone can call himself a philosopher, but not everyone can, for having the desire to call oneself as such requires the craving to know something in a philosophical point of view, for one needs to satisfy the title he gives to himself, as none can have the conviction of calling himself a painter even if he likes to if he doesn't have the passion in painting, therefore anyone not everyone can call himself a philosopher only after he attained the state of the desire to search for truth for only then shall he have the conviction of calling himself a philosopher, for the moment that he has that conviction he is already a philosopher, which may or may not be motivated in the academe. Do you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.194.239.26 (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC) "The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead." --Mr.98 (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC) :No. Even if someone has a passion for painting, if he hasn't painted anything, he's only a painter to himself. And if someone creates paintings and has become famous for them yet still insists on being called a blacksmith, well... that's his problem. :P -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC) It is clearly noticed the respondent entirely missed the point and made his argument less relevant shown by the below predicaments; the statement posits that for one to have the conviction of calling himself a painter he should have the passion for Painting, which is a satisfying notion, but what is done by the respondent is to separate the concepts which are inseparable for this specific claim, which then is his mistake such that- “Even if someone has a passion for painting, if he hasn't painted anything, he's only a painter to himself” The moment that you have passion it is inseparable with the action, for one can never be said with passion without action to fill thereof, how can you say that you have passion for painting, but you do not paint, then how can the passion be substantiated, as saying he has a passion for dancing yet he does not dance perhaps he possess a passion for art collection or watching dances, thus they are one. And other contention- “if someone creates paintings and has become famous for them yet still insists on being called a blacksmith”, As is stated anyone can be somebody but not everyone, anyone can splash different colors on canvas but not everyone has the ability to give aesthetic substance to such. One may paint yet considers himself best suited for blacksmith for he might paint not as his passion, that he cannot give any deepened substance to his chosen colors but as a mere past time, therefore, again, you need the passion and act to satisfy your chosen career before you can call yourself as such and, yet even by doing it but lacking the desire or the passion the act then is unsubstantiated, it is a mere act and there is no conviction of any kind to call himself an artist because there is no passion, for a blacksmith may splash colors unto anything yet without passion he may not continue and adhere to his current profession as a blacksmith because there is no conviction of doing so, he can never have passion without action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.194.243.167 (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC) It was a joke on my part, sorry. Again, the reference desk does not answer requests for opinions. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Death plot against the Princess Alexandrina Victoria

I'm reading a book which tangentially mentions a plot to kill the Princess Alexandrina Victoria so that her uncle the Duke of Cumberland would succeed to the throne. It hinted that the Duke was involved in the plot. Was there such a plot, whether the Duke was involved or not? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Allegedly. The Duke of Cumberland was apparently a very very unpopular fellow. It was known as the "Orange Conspiracy" or the "Cumberland Plot", and allegedly happened during the Duke of Cumberland's tenure as grand master of the first incarnation of the Orange Order secret society (1828 to 1836). Supposedly the members of the Orange Order were trying to make Cumberland next in line for king instead of Victoria. Here's a contemporary 1835 article. A later 1886 article, and a "looking-back" article in 1901 published after the death of Queen Victoria. The latter paper summarizes it neatly. Note however that it's basically tabloid reporting, all of it are probably lies. The Duke was already quite unpopular as it is, even if he did succeed, they'd probably hang him anyway :P But then again, Queen Victoria did get a grand total of seven attempted assassinations, hehe. See also Cato Street Conspiracy, which was linked to the Duke by the 1901 paper. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 20:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Blennerhasset Fairman and Chetwoode Chetwoode? You have to love the names! Thanks for the links. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I did most of the writing on the article on Ernest, and his biographers were pretty unanimous that there was no plot, and it was most likely a Whig claim to make Ernest, a very conservative Tory member of the Lords, look bad.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Spanish Monarch visit Equatorial Guinea

When was the last time that Equatorial Guinea ever got a state visit from the Prime Minister of Spain and the Monarch of Spain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.229.231 (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

According to this, the last visit by the king was 13-16 December 1979.--Cam (talk) 19:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This page lists visits by a number of Spanish cabinet ministers over the years (most recently in 2009) but none by a prime minister. It is possible that no Spanish prime minister has visited the country.--Cam (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Where is Jason Russell now?

I have a hard time finding online what Jason Russell has been doing since March. Apparently an LRA operative deposited to San Diego managed to poison Russell (and called it a "voodoo" spell), causing him to have a public breakdown.

Then after he's been detained and sent to a mental hospital, don't you think since a lot of people are known to continue some form of their cause or another behind hospital walls, Jason would do that too?

But do we know what Jason is doing wherever he's being held, when he gets out, and what he plans to do as soon as he's out?

I wish somebody out here had an update about him. There's been nothing new on Jason since mid-March. --70.179.170.114 (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no reputable basis for those bizarre claims. Looie496 (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

La Malinche

In the Wikipedia article "Triste Noche" it incorrectly says that La Malinche was the mistress of Pedro Alvarado. She was the mistress of Hernan Cortes, as stated in the Wikipedia article "La Malinche." I suspect that some of the other info in the same paragraph in "Triste Noche" may also be incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.113.220 (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You can fix that by clicking on Edit, which is next to the title of the appropriate section, modifying the text and hitting Save. --Immerhin (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The sentence at issue (in La Noche Triste) is probably this: The few women who survived included María Estrada, Cortes' mistress and the only Spanish woman in the party, La Malinche the interpreter, Alvarado's mistress, and two of Moctezuma's daughters under Cortés' care. I read it as counting five women: Maria Estrada (one), La Malinche (two), Alvarado's mistress (three), and the two daughters. Needs clarifying either way. —Tamfang (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

why couldn't a stock trade at 2x its price at every point in history and be in exactly the same position today?

Say that a stock averages 10-15 multiples (price per earnings). Some yeasrs sentiment is lower, it dips toward 10, maybe as low as 7, 8, some years it's higher, maybe it goes up to 17, maybe up to 19. But, there you have it. It makes profit, it does its thing long-term, it grows, for thirty/forty/whatever many years right on through today. it doesn't pay dividends.

Now let's rewrite the story so that everything - every dollar - going through the company happens exactly the same. but it has a better name and is located in silicon valley, or whatever actually we don't need a reason as this is hypothetical, so we just define the story as such - and for whatever reason the story is the same except it averages trading between 20 and 30 multiples. Some years sentiment is a little lower, it dips toward trading at 20 or maybe as low as 16, 15, or 12 times revenue, som years it's higher, maybe it goes up to 34, maybe up to 38. But, there you have it. It makes profit, it does its thing long-term, it grows, for thirty/forty/whatever many years right up through today. it doesn't pay dividends.

is there any material difference between these two stories? or anything that makes my telling of it unlikely. (i.e. that they're "just the same" and dollar for dollar and dip for dip both the hypothetical companies and the stock price behaves in every single way exactly alike.) 84.3.160.86 (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

There are two things that determine the actual value of a company: (1) the ability to pay dividends, either now or in the future; (2) the ability to sell the company as a whole, for cash which is distributed to the shareholders. If the company will never pay dividends, its value comes entirely from its potential to be acquired. In at least one of two situations you mention, the perceived value of the company would not match its actual value. Looie496 (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

But this is what I'm talking about. Obviously 7x earnings and 14x earnings is a difference in magnitude - NOT kind. They behave EXACTLY the same. Let me give you an example. Let's say that Apple, since its founding, has the exact stock-price story it has until now. Except the stock price at any point is exactly 2/3rds of what it is in our world. In this hypothetical world, then, it is now trading at 400 or so instead of 600 or so, and is now at a market capitalization of 381billion or so. It's still competitive for being the world's biggest company. It's still largely speculative. But, there you have it. At every point it is 1/3rd lower than in our reality.

Fundamentally, isn't the behavior of the stock price exactly the same in this alternate reality! Same peaks; same troughs; everything is the same except the magnitude is slightly different. So, what makes it any different? Obviously for tech companies, in your list of 1 and 2, people put value in 2 over 1. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

If the stock price were a third lower, but the business was the same and had the same dividend potential (a dividend paid on selling the company is just another kind of dividend), then it would be a really good deal so everyone would buy it and that would push the price up to the level it really is. --Tango (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The sentiment is precisely the only thing that I am modifying between the two examples - perhaps the company is slightly less sexy or in an industry perceived to grow more slowly as compared with e.g. silicon valley companies. But this perception is a constant factor - the company performs exactly the same but simply has a smaller hype attached to it. So, it's not the the one company is a "steal" because of it's growth-potential while another is a "sloth" (or other slow-moving animal) that isn't going anywhere. Rather, the companies are doing the same thing and doing as well, but at any given point in time, one has a CONSISTENTLY less rosy outlook than the other in the eyes of SENTIMENT only. So, that is what I am changing between these two hypothetical examples, it's my "independent" variable. Are there any dependent variables? Does anything else happen? DO the two stories diverge in any way at any point for any reason? 84.3.160.86 (talk) 00:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me try again. The price of a stock is not simply determined by sentiment, it is determined by the amount of profit the company makes. If sentiment drives the value of a stock down too far in relation to the profit it makes, then a private firm such as Bain Capital will buy up all the stock so that they can take all the profit. Sentiment only comes into play because future profit matters as well as current profit, and sentiment affects the predictions that people make about future profit. Looie496 (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this, but wouldn't Bain capital's valuation also be a question of sentiment? Bain has no special information here. The idea is that, on some inrinsic level, whether you're at 10x multiple or 20x multiple for 30 years doesn't really change anything does it? The former doesn't make you undervalued, the latter doesn't make you overvalued. It depends on future performance, which is unknown. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 07:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Future performance is unknown, but not completely unpredictable. Investors (including firms like Bain) base their predictions of future performance on facts (past performance, trends within the firm, industry and general economy, the firms plans, etc.). If the facts are the same in your two scenarios, then their predictions will be the same. --Tango (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• cough There are other considerations, such as possession or control of strategic industries that ensure capitalism as a whole continues. A kind of "loss leader" if you will, or a kind of collective voluntary taxation amongst capitalists, dependent upon an awareness of the long term costs of maintaining imperialism. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have to be a native born citizen of France to be president?

Do you have to be a native-born citizen of [[citFrance to be (or run for) president there, as you do in the US? I know Jean-Luc Mélenchon ran for president this year even though he was born in the international zone of Tangier, but that might be a special case because it was an international zone.  Liam987(talk) 20:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Our article, Requirements for becoming a president, says that The required personal qualifications for a candidate for the presidential elections are the same as those for any other official election, as set forth in the French Electoral code (Code électoral). A candidate for an election must be a citizen, have attained the age of 18 years, be qualified to vote, not be ineligible by dint of a criminal conviction or judicial decision and have a bank account.

Frustratingly the particular clause which lays this down isn't specified, and I've seen another website which says that the age limit is 23. But both sites agree that you just need to be a citizen of France, and not 'natural-born', which, as we know, can be a troublesome term.

Here is a link to the Code électoral if you want to check it out for yourself. You will need to be able to read French, though. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems odd that a bank account is required. What's up with that ? StuRat (talk) 20:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, they're unlikely to get away with paying him/her cash in hand. - Karenjc 21:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Just cut them a check, it's up to them to figure out how to cash it. StuRat (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Requiring a bank account is an easy way to make sure someone has gone through some basic identity checks. I don't know the exact wording (I don't speak French) but it might also be such that you would have had to pass a basic credit check (does it specify the type of bank account?). --Tango (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If the people want to elect someone whose identity cannot be confirmed and who has no credit history then isn't that just democracy? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If the people want to elect someone who's 3 years old, or a recidivist pedophile, or has lived their entire life in Kazakhstan and knows no French, then isn't that just democracy? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 03:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

How about this for a strange idea: The current laws are in place because the people, through their representatives, have given their approval to them. We know this because there are no campaigns to change the law to permit people whose ID cannot be confirmed to become eligible for election as President. The rules are what the people actually want. I call this democracy. What do you call it? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Even if they want to elect someone convicted for smoking crack cocaine with his mistress ? You'd think this would be considered immoral behavior for anyone other than a televangelist, but apparently not. StuRat (talk) 03:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

About the required bank account. It is a bank account dedicated to his/her political campaign. Campaign costs are limited by law and part of them is reimbursed by the French Republic, if she/he has more than 5% of the votes. (See, in French here) — AldoSyrt (talk) 09:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)