Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 March 3

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.

March 3

Does anybody know where is Pervez Musharraf?

Since he resigned I didn't hear from him. Does anybody know where **he is? (sorry personal opinion)... Thanks all! I read on his article that he is a speaker now travelling through the Middle East, etc. But does he live in Pakistan? Could he be judged?--Maru-Spanish (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted pejorative label at ** on grounds that BLP applies to the Ref Desk, too. // BL \\ (talk) 07:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Like many former heads of state, he seems to be travelling the world. Speaking in California in January[1], Paris in February[2], but the latter was to see a cardiologist, so maybe he should take things a bit easier. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Did Sub-saharan Africa had a Civilization?

Becuase all what civilization needs is:

1. Urban society: Living together in communities.

2. Religion: Beliefs that provide answers to “unanswerable” questions.

3. Literacy: The ability to read and write

4. Government: Having a set of rules, leaders or organization to society

5. Specialization: Using unique skills to benefit all.

6. Social classes: Groups of people with common characteristics.

7. Tool-making: The ability to problem-solve.

8. Concept of time: Understanding of patterns like the seasons, sunrise and sunset or tides can be used to your benefit.

9. Leisure: Recognizing the value of the arts and entertainment.

10. Education/criticism: Striving to improve as an individual or as a culture.

Sub-saharan only had religion, urban society, government, specialization, social classes, tool making, leisure and education.

The only thing it did not have was a "highly developed writing system" so does it still count as a civilization?--arab 01:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TerrorSonghai (talk • contribs)

Part of the problem that happens there is that you have a definition of civilisation that leaves out some cultures which can well be called civilisation, such as the Incas, who also didn't have writing (but did have a system of records through quipu. What you need to decide is whether that definition of civilisation (wherever it came from) is valid, or if you think you can call a subsaharan culture not a civilisation (for example, the Hausa kings, Dahomey, the Zulu empire, etc.). Steewi (talk) 02:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ethiopia counts as sub-Saharan, and it has its own ancient, indigenous, highly developed writing system. It has also historically satisfied all of your other criteria for civilization. Other sub-Saharan African civilizations have had writing systems based on Arabic, which I think qualifies even though it originated elsewhere. From the 14th to the 16th centuries, for example, Timbuktu was a major intellectual center, with such institutions as the Sankore Madrasah. The Sokoto Caliphate was founded by Usman dan Fodio, a scholar who wrote more than 100 books. In East Africa, the Swahili city-states (such as Malindi, Mombasa, Zanzibar, and Kilwa Kisiwani) were also literate. Other sub-Saharan societies had indigenous writing systems with more limited application, such as Nsibidi. Marco polo (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"Civilization?" Nazi Germany clearly had 1 through 10, and were hardly civilized. Some sub-saharan groups likely achieved a higher level of civilization at a less industrial and militaristic level of development than some European groups. Edison (talk) 03:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Call me sentimental, but to me the central aspect of civilization is humane treatment through love. The rest is just baubles and bangles. Wrad (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nazi Germany was undoubtedly a civilization by all other interpretations of the word I have seen. "Civilized" has taken on quite a different meaning; a civilized person is generous, polite, and good-natured, and is not a group of people organized under a leader with a writing system. On the other hand, division of labour, leadership, and relatively advanced arts/science are what most people think of when they hear "civilization". Good human rights is not a requirement.

Ward: your statement is very ironic considering that the first civilizations were based on inequality, in contrast to the earlier egalitarian tribes and clans. By your definition, these tribes would be civilizations while the early city-states would not. --99.237.96.33 (talk) 07:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sub-saharan Africa had numerous "civilizations" which were contemporaneously on par with similar civilizations around the world. Besides the ones already mentioned, don't forget Great Zimbabwe, the Mali Empire, the Songhai Empire, Kanem-Bornu, Kingdom of Kush, etc. etc. Sub-saharan Africa wasn't completely populated with savages until the Europeans showed up, you know. See also Ancient African kingdoms for a discussion of more... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather skeptical about the writing system requirement. The Inca, for one, lacked a writing system, and they still managed to have quite an empire. bibliomaniac15 04:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

All civilisations go around killing non-/differently-civilised people. I doubt that "civilisation" ever connoted love. It could even be one of the criteria: the subjugation of people outside the civilisation. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd question some of those characteristics of "civilization". Writing is only a few thousand years old, and I'd say many civilizations existed before that. As for religion, that's hardly an identifying characteristic, as religion likely goes back to cave man days. I might add other characteristics, too, like agriculture and architecture. StuRat (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that no one has referred to the civilization article yet. "A civilization is a society or culture group normally defined as a complex society characterized by the practice of agriculture and settlement in towns and cities." and "The word Civilization comes from the Latin word civilis, the genitive form of civis, meaning a "citizen" or "townsman" governed by the law of his city." While I am not an anthropologist, this matches my understanding of civilization - that is to say, the only criteria that truely define a "civilization" are your 1) and 4), with 5), 6), and 7) being effectively a background requirement for living in a "city" (versus a "village"). While Merriam-Webster uses the keeping of written records (almost, but not quite your 3) as the key criteria for civilization, the OED does not, instead using the presence of laws and "citizens" (people living in a city, and thereby possessing rights and privileges) as the defining features. I'm not sure where you got 2), 8), 9) and 10) from, although admittedly any group which would build a city with a specialized workforce would likely be in possession of all four. -- 128.104.112.117 (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd wonder about he town part even. I don't think ancient Ireland for instance had much in the way of towns as opposed to villages and yet it satisfied all the other conditions. Dmcq (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Propensity to consume: Economic standpoint of saving and consumption?

In my Economics class my professor either told me that if save increases then consumption decreases or that is save increases then consumption also increases. I have both written in my notes but I know one of them is wrong. This would be an easy-self explanatory question if I know what save means. Does it mean savings as in having more money on hand or physically saving more money and spending less?-- penubag  (talk) 03:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

In a simple model, consumption and investment both consume capital; savings preserve capital for future use. Savings is a potential investment (if the money is saved in a bank it might be lent out) or a potential consumption (if it is put under the mattress for retirement) if it is more likely to be consumed in future.

The marginal propensity to consume is the share of an increase in income that is consumed. If income rises by $100, and $65 is spent on consumption (the remainder being saved or invested), the propensity to consume is 0.65. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

And: 1 - (the marginal propensity to consume) = (the marginal propensity to save) . Which means that each dollar a person gets today either goes to savings or consumption. This makes sense if you think about it in an regular, every day sense. When you receive your paycheck, sometimes you have something to buy with some of the money. Any money that you don't spend, you hold on to, to buy something in the future. Usually in a bank account, but sometimes in other sorts of "investments."

But, of course, savings today is consumption tomorrow.

Any money that you save usually produces interest too. So if you save $1 today in some investment account, you might have $1.05 next year.

Your professor might have been trying to make the point that everything in society that is produced is also consumed (or eventually depreciated away). When you save, you're really just creating more of a special resource called "capital." If the return on that capital (in a perfect market, the "interest rate") is relatively high, savings today might mean more consumption for everybody tomorrow. (see Exogenous growth model, which is more of a second-year thing)

But more likely, the thing you want to remember is that, in any period, income = savings + consumption. If income is held constant, an increase in savings means a decrease in consumption, and vice versa. NByz (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for such a concise answer. I understand it now. -- penubag  (talk) 05:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Bear market and Bull market

Why are they called bear and bull? SYSS Mouse (talk) 04:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Market trend#Etymology notes some speculation as to why these terms are used, but it is unreferenced, and thus of dubious reliability. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

And they didn't have the version of the story I'd heard, that "bear" means people are "bearing" stocks and bonds, that is, trying to sell them, while "bull" was used to contrast with "bear", based on the abbreviation BU for trying to buy stocks and bonds. StuRat (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Electoral tie provisions?

I know that the US government has a scheme for deciding the president & vice president in the event of a tie in the Electoral College. But what if there was a tie at the state level, and the people of the state were evenly split on who to award their electoral college votes to? Does any state have provisions for this event? More generally, can someone tell me of 'any' tie provision for a government election involving more than a hundred thousand voters?

This question is important to me because a rational agent votes according to the chance of his or her vote swaying the election. If states don't have provisions for tied elections, that suggests that no one actually takes the idea of a very close election seriously, and that we only vote for social reasons. --Tigerthink (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have an answer, but I'm intrigued by your view. we only vote for social reasons. Here in Australia, even if the election was not close at all, we individually vote to avoid being fined.

That may be true for you, PalaceGuard, but not for me, and not, I suspect, for a significant proportion of Australians. Just because it's compulsory doesn't mean that many people wouldn't vote anyway. I certainly would. It's also true that many wouldn't if they didn't have to. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

But more generally, isn't voting in an election a bit of an equilibrium strategy situation? Each voter has very little information about the intentions of every other voter in his or her electorate to vote or not. All you can go by is opinion polling. If you see that your party is going to win, and therefore you don't vote, you run the risk of everyone else thinking the same and your party thereby losing? Conversely, if you see that your party is going to lose, then by voting, you are going for the chance that other people won't turn up. All in all, since you can't see whether other people will turn up to vote or not, you can't really assess with any accuracy how valuable your vote is.

Does this have anything necessarily to do with the likelihood of a "close" election? Assuming that everyone in the community thinks the same (faces the same payoff matrix?), en election would never be close: either many people vote or hardly anyone votes; either everyone votes for the Reds or they vote for the Blues. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

But candidates respond to pre-election polls, and the losing candidates will iteratively revise their platforms to get more votes until everyone converges at the center. "Ideally", by election time the vote will be evenly split but it will no longer matter who wins (obligatory link to Kang and Kodos). In practice I don't know if that convergence ever happens—there often seem to be enormous differences between candidates at election time, not to mention that they often have no intention of following through on their campaign promises. But I think that is how it's supposed to work, and it is the reason elections are so often close.

Tigerthink, regarding your last sentence, I don't know about legal provisions for exact ties, but people certainly take close elections seriously because they happen. The 2000 Florida presidential election is legendary. The 2008 Minnesota Senate election is still ongoing with Al Franken leading by less than 0.01%. -- BenRG (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

As to the "more general" question, if the election for any seat in the Canadian House of Commons is a tie, there's no winner. The government calls a byelection the same as they would if someone had been elected and then died. See section 318 of the Canada Elections Act, which is online under canada.justice.gc.ca (sorry, I can't post a direct link). --Anonymous, 06:22 UTC, March 3, 2009.

"The electoral tie, a fashion must for every man. It's reversible, blue on one side, red on the other, and can be worn as a bow-tie if some weird third party every manages to win. And, no matter which side turns out, you're absolutely guaranteed to be sick of it in 4-8 years." StuRat (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if you knew your vote would be the tie-breaker, you'd still be voting for "social reasons" unless you thought that one of the candidates would benefit you personally and directly.

Nothing wrong with that of course. If people didn't instinctively do things for social reasons we wouldn't have a society. APL (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The US Constitution provides that each state legislature be responsible to decide how its electors are selected. For many decades (I'm pretty sure that it's been since the end of the Civil War at latest), each legislature has decided to award its electors based exclusively on the popular vote. However, because of this provision, each state could constitutionally decide what to do in the event of a tie. I haven't a clue what any individual state would do. Nyttend (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

In California, for example, ties are decided by lot. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

USSR invades USA, occupies east coast

I seem to remember this as a graphic novel. Google searching not fruitful. Anybody have any ideas? (NOT Red Dawn, pls--I distinctly remember the eastern seaboard clearly "red"-ed out). Thanks!--75.157.250.4 (talk) 05:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming! Not. Do you have any idea when it was published, or when you read it, at least? Also, was it actually a book-format graphic novel (or trade paperback), or was it a regular ol' comic book? --Fullobeans (talk) 08:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

In Judge Dredd (originally published in 2000AD) the sovietesque city "East Meg 1" (a megalopolis encompassing much of western Russia) poisons, nukes, invades, and (for a time) conquers "Mega City 1", another megalopolis which encompasses the eastern seaboard of the US. The prologue to this was the "Block Mania" storyline, and the war itself is the "Apocalypse War" storyline; BM and AW are published as graphic novels in the UK by Titan, and presumably (by someone) in the US. The AW story regularly featured maps of Mega City 1 being turned red by large invading sov-blok arrows. Mimetic Polyalloy (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Unusual library

(Thread moved from the Language Desk. --Anonymous, 06:25 UTC, March 3, 2009.)

There is a library, in Europe, I think, that is housed in the home of its former owner, who is now dead. It is run as a public service IIRC. The books are arranged into four sections, not by the dewey system, but by an obscure schema that the owner came up with that locates books next to other books that the owner thought would be interesting or useful. I have forgotten the name of the library - can anyone help me with it? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.100.62 (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like the Cotton Library, although that no longer exists. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a pretty impossible question. There are many private libraries that remain in the homes of their previous owners, as libraries, museums, research institutes, etc. And it's not really typical for old/small/private libraries to use an established cataloging system either. --Pykk (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - the Cotton Library is not the one, although that is interesting. I understand that there are many, let me try to be more specific in details. It was organized into four rooms, with a theme for each room that had some sort of visual (a woodcut carving iirc) that distinguished it. There was some notion about the arrangement of the books being its own form of literary art. Thanks, I know it is a long-shot! I am pretty sure it is in continental europe, too, maybe Austria? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.100.62 (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the four rooms, but your description of the associative method of "organization" reminded me of the library of Aby Warburg in his Hamburg house. I believe that his actual collection of books is now in the Warburg Institute in London but that his library has been partially recreated in Hamburg. Deor (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - that is really interesting, and the right line of thought, but the one I am looking for is one house, and it has a website which explains it that I can't find. I appreciate the suggestions, I know I am being infuriatingly vague! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.95.28 (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

There is also the St Deiniol's Residential Library, which is in William Gladstone's old home at Hawarden. Website here. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you might mean the Bodmer Library (in Switzerland), but got its features somehow mixed up with those of the Cotton Library as mentioned above. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Russian novels

Why are there references to "X crossing Y"? Is that something in the Orthodox Church, or is it also Catholic? Also, it's worth noting that X is rarely a priest in those Dostoevsky novels... 203.188.92.71 (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what you are referring to, but "X crossed Y" can mean that Mr X opposed Mr Y, or disagreed with him, or thwarted him. Nothing to do with religion. If X "crossed himself" that would probably be a religious ritual - see Sign of the Cross.DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Plotting graphs? A quote giving the context would help us help you.--Wetman (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if I understand your question, but an R.C. priest X (or a parent) may well make the sign of the cross, typically on the forehead of the person Y. The most common example would be the procedure of baptism. I have no idea if this is also customary in the Orthodox church, though. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I never became a member myself, but I was married in a Russian Orthodox Church, my sons were baptised there, and I attended a number of other church services. I can't say I ever saw one person crossing another, except at baptism. I might have seen the priest cross the forehead of a body at a funeral (the coffins are open, and we all get to kiss the body), but I couldn't swear to it. I never saw it happen in my earlier long transit through the RC church either, except at baptism, confirmation and Ash Wednesday, where in every case the priest (or bishop, in the case of confirmation) would cross the adherent's forehead (with ash on Ash Wednesday). -- JackofOz (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Constance Garnett's translation of The Brothers Karamazov on Project Gutenberg, there's a lot of people making the sign of the cross over other people, for example:

The elder raised his hand and would have made the sign of the cross over Ivan from where he stood. But the latter rose from his seat, went up to him, received his blessing, and kissing his hand went back to his place in silence. (I.II.VI)

"[...] I'm so fond of him. Alyosha, let me give you my blessing--a father's blessing."

Alyosha rose, but Fyodor Pavlovitch had already changed his mind.

"No, no," he said. "I'll just make the sign of the cross over you, for now. [...]" (I.III.VI)

"You--can see spirits?" the monk inquired.

"I tell you I can see, I can see through them. When I was coming out from the Superior's I saw one hiding from me behind the door, and a big one, a yard and a half or more high, with a thick long gray tail, and the tip of his tail was in the crack of the door and I was quick and slammed the door, pinching his tail in it. He squealed and began to struggle, and I made the sign of the cross over him three times. [...]" (II.IV.I)

There are other examples. So I suspect saying "X crossed Y" is another way of phrasing this. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

stanford or havard??

which one is the best university for engineering education(m tech/phd)??

SAMEE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sameerdubey.sbp (talk • contribs) 10:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

if youd like to become a billionaire handsdown stanford. Millionaire, handsdown Harvard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.149.76 (talk) 11:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, neither school has much of a reputation for engineering. If I was to choose the best Engineering school, I would go with Cal Tech instead of Stanford and MIT instead of Harvard, and at that point, your decision will probably be based on non-accademic criteria (location, campus life, suburban vs. urban setting, etc. etc.) --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

whether you prefer it to be sunny all year 'round or under a foot of snow for 3/4th of it... --140.247.243.40 (talk) 14:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Boston's (well Cambridge, axully, but close enough) is actually not that snowy. It's near the ocean, so does not receieve nearly the accumulation of inland New England. New England as a whole, on average, receieve far less snow than other parts of the country, say Upstate New York or the Midwest. While winter does tend to be rather long (probably late october through mid march) it's not all that terrible. Unless you are used to Southern California weather, then it will probably seem like the arctic to you. I have lived in both the Boston area and the Chicago area, and Chicago has FAR worse winters. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty snowy when compared to Pasadena. Or really anywhere else in California, for that matter. The choice here isn't between Boston and Chicago, it's Boston and California. There is quite a contrast. I speak as a native Californian since transplanted East. That Chicago is colder does not affect how cold Boston is. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

In the interest of accuracy, we should probably say "whether you prefer it to be sunny all year round or under a foot of snow for days at a time which quickly compacts to ice because the college kids don't shovel and shortly thereafter melts and refreezes into black ice which then gets snowed on again and then rained on so it turns to a heavy grey slush, which then freezes once more and then melts suddenly during a warm snap which dries out the ground and brings clear, sunny days which make you happy to be alive for about five minutes before a cold front blows in from Canada and brings sub-zero wind chills for two weeks, followed by a week of freezing rain, followed by another snowstorm, after which beautiful spring weather makes the crocuses bloom and a sudden April cold snap quickly kills them, until finally temperatures stabilize for a week or two before giving way to three or four months of sticky heat and thunderstorms, after which a beautiful autumn comes and goes and the process repeats itself, plus or minus six nor'easters." --Fullobeans (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"...or how nasty every other season is except autumn," is what I should have added. "Pasadena — basically better weather all the time than Boston ever gets, except maybe August and September, which are pretty swell." (Don't get me wrong—I think Boston as a city has way more going on for it than Pasadena as a city, and is a lot of fun to live in. Whoo, basically good and reliable public transportation! But the weather...... just miserable. All the time. Except the fall.) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me defend my home city here for a minute. The choice between Pasadena and Boston is a choice between bland suburb and vibrant city. As for the weather, it is a choice between weather (Boston) or not (Pasadena). If you don't like weather and don't mind a bland suburb, go for Pasadena. However, if you don't mind weather and want a more stimulating environment, come to Boston. Certainly, not all of our weather is enjoyable. I don't like it when snow is followed by cold rain that creates deep slush. However, I like most of it. At the moment we are having crisp, cold, sunny days. The sun is all the brighter for the snow on the ground. Soon we will have spring, with fragrant blossoms everywhere, which is a delight after all of those months of cold, though the winter weather has its pleasures. After spring, we get a good hot summer, with some really sultry days, perfect for the beach or a shady spot on one of Boston's Harbor Islands, to enjoy the cool sea breeze. And then the glorious fall. It's all good if you know how to enjoy it. Marco polo (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

But... but... if we generate enough bad PR, we could all be living in $700 one-bedrooms on the red line! And now you've gone and undone all my hard work. --Fullobeans (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Group Decision Making Method

I have a group of 10-15 people that need to make a group decision out of as many options (each person can out forward one option). We have discussed it, but it is hard to come to agreement because each participant tends to pull to its own side, which is understandable because they would want their option to be accepted. As it is now, it is obvious that most vocal side will win, through pressure it exerts on everybody else. I am looking for democratic decision making process here everyone's option will be considered and only most popular option will win, not the option that has best "campaign". I figured I could call a vote but I am unsure how to go about it. Should there be several rounds with elimination of least popular option? Basically, I am looking for established group decision making method, if such thing exists. Does it?

After first decision is made, there will be another one or several more, where previous options might be present, depending on if participant chooses to resubmit it. I know of DKP systems in MMORPGs, I guess I am looking for something like that. Fair way to make most people happy or at least understand that decision was made on sound unbiased foundations.

Am I making any sense?--Melmann^(talk) 10:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

In this situation, I would call for a "secret ballot" vote with the caveat that no one could vote for their own proposal. You could also do a "Top 5" vote, and assign points to each proposal (5 for a first place vote, 4 for a second, etc.). Those votes or a combination of the two may help weed out the "self-vote" problem. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The obvious problem with the secret ballot is that there's no way to actually tell if people vote for themselves, if the vote is really secret. So, I'd go with the idea of having people get two or more secret votes (which can't be identical). Make sure each person writes all their choices on the same piece of paper so you can verify that none of them voted twice for the same idea. You may also want run-off votes, where it comes down to the top two vote-getting ideas. By eliminating many of people's own, inferior ideas, each will then be forced to choose from the between the best ideas. I'd also have everyone submit their initial ideas anonymously, in writing, so that the popularity and public speaking abilities of the authors don't influence the decision. StuRat (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps instant-runoff voting would be a good technique. Or take a look at the many types of voting in the single-winner voting system--Eriastrum (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Source of quote?

"Know your heart, it is your North Star." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.98.141 (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It is the central metaphor of Martha Beck, Finding Your North Star, 2005. See "Finding Your Own North Star". That one's own instincts are the most trustworthy guide is a basic assumption of Romanticism. --Wetman (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Also an important part of Aristotle's philosophy. 148.197.114.165 (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Strategy game

I played an interesting and thought-provoking strategy game on a work-related training course recently and I wonder if anyone recognizes it and can tell me who devised it. Basically, each individual represents a corporate department, with the group as a whole standing for the whole company. Each individual is asked to decide which of two strategies, A or B, to pursue, and to write A or B on a piece of paper which no-one else is allowed to see. The strategies themselves are not part of the game; the point is that there are financial consequences, both for the individual departments and the company as a whole, based on how many departments go for strategy A and how many for strategy B. For example (I may not have got the figures right, but the principle is clear): if every department chooses A, then every department gains $3000 but the company as a whole loses $1000. If fewer departments choose A than choose B, then each department that chose A gains $5000, each department that chose B loses $1000, and the company as a whole loses $10,000. If every department chooses B, then each department gains $1000 and the company as a whole gains $10,000. (I hope this is making sense.)

The game goes through several rounds, with the scores for the whole company being totted up at the end of each round. At the end of some rounds, the company has a meeting in which it can decide collectively which strategy/ies to pursue. What we found was that individual self-interest trumped the good of the company. At one of the 'meetings', we collectively decided that we should all go for B in order to maximise the gain for the company, but in the end one or two people still went for A, thereby gaining for themselves but making the company as a whole lose out. I'm not saying it's necessarily representative of what could or would happen in the real world, but it was still fun to play. Has anyone else come across this game? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like a variation on the prisoner dilemma. --Tango (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

As with most corporate-based strategy games, a part of the problem is scale. Whereas $3,000 may be a lot of money to an individual in the game, any company large enough to be able to afford such group actvities is not likely to be much affected by a $10,000 cost. In a game setting, I'd go for the maximum personal gain, too, even having previously said that I would vote for the better corporate atrategy. I hate everything that playing such games says about a company. // BL \\ (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional reading for the OP are articles such as Game theory and Nash equilibrium, a nobel-prize winning concept. The whole idea of modeling complex human behavior as games like this became something of a hot idea in economics in the 1980's and 1990's and still holds some important ideas across the social sciences. See also brinksmanship for Game theory's application to international relations. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(Assuming you've remembered and explained this correctly.)

All A : $3000 each. (-$1000)

50/50 : $2000 (avg) (-$10,000)

All B : $1000 each (+$10,000)

It's pretty clear that a split is never good, and if your company has more than five departments, than the All-A strategy is the clear winner both overall, and individually.

The only dilemma is for companies with five or fewer departments.

In any case, I'd choose A every time until word came down from the top not to. My department can't do its job without proper funding. It's not like we'd spend that money on pizza parties and beer. APL (talk) 14:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a little unclear what it means for the departments and the company to be making money. Surely if 5 departments each make $3k, then the company makes $15k, it can't lose money if none of its constituent parts has lost money. I think there is some part of this game that I'm not understanding... --Tango (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The Harvard Negotiation Project was using a version of this in 1983, and I was under the impression it was devised by Roger Fisher or (more likely) one of his staffers. However, I don't recall if they specifically claimed that it was an internally devised game. John M Baker (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Valentine's Day as a rest-day

looks like our article does not show whether Valentine's Day is non-working somewhere. is there any country where february 14 is officially a rest day? 85.132.54.5 (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

February 14#Holidays and observances tells me that it's "Communist Martyrs Day" in Iraq, but I don't know whether it's a public holiday. No other countries are mentioned as having a day off on 14 February. This suggests there's no country that has Valentine's Day - as such - declared as a public holiday. And I'm not the slightest bit surprised. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not a holiday in Iraq this year[3]. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It was a public holiday in Lebanon this year, but they were marking the anniversary of the assassination of former Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri; I'm not sure if it's a holiday every year[4][5]. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if it were, it has nothing to do with Valentine's Day. But I wonder why they'd let the whole country have a day off to mark someone's murder (says he, remembering Good Friday). -- JackofOz (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Paleolithic

Where can I find a website that interprets this quote: "It is certain that Paleolithic man never wanted to decorate the cave walls: in the darkness of the cave, with the glow of the lamps, he celebrated a rite of evocation"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.22 (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The article on cave paintings has a section on theories and interpretations and lists Henri Breuil, David Lewis-Williams and R. Dale Guithrie (no WP entry) as anthropologists / archeologists who have engaged in interpreting the paintings. You may check Google, or a local library / bookshop for relevant publications by these scientists. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Athens

How the main ideas or principles of Athenian democracy are reflected in Athenian political institutions and prcatice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.22 (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This sounds so like a homework essay that few Wikipedians will feel at liberty to provide answers.--Wetman (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The article on Athenian democracy is quite extensive and may provide you with some tools for analysis, synthesis and further research. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I did but it didn't say anything about Athenian political institutions and practice. Please, help me.unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.22 (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.65 (talk)

For that you might consult our articles on the History of Athens and Classical Athens. LANTZY^TALK 00:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

why financial charts plotted on logarithmic scale

Removed to mathematics desk. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Answered here. --Tango (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Notable people with illiterate parents

I think it was Napoleon or Mao or someone who said that the way to raise a good army was to start with the soldiers' mothers' mothers. That applies to education as much as to nutrition. The mother of Stalin, for example, was a serf, but surprisingly (or so our article on Ketevan Geladze says) had had access to schooling, and could read and write Georgian (though not Russian); I contend that he would not have come top in his class at school without the explicit example or osmotic effect of having a literate home life. Can we come up with a list of the world's achievers (scientists, politicians, academics, writers, etc.) who were raised by illiterate parents? I need to clarify this: I exclude anti-intellectuals such as Pol Pot, and those who have achieved prominence as the leaders of oppressed and illiterate groups (e.g. Rigoberta Menchu, Malcom X). Let us limit our enquiries to the last hundred years or so, from the time when mandatory education began to be established (geographically variable, I realise). An interesting related question is second language learners, but let's leave that out for now. If either parent could and did read and write in any language (not just laboriously scrawl a signature, but read newspapers, hold down or at least aspire to a desk job, etc.), then that counts as a good example for the child. Who suceeded despite having no such example? BrainyBabe (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, thinking back on my ed psych classes in Grad School, I do remember that we were always taught that the greatest correlative factor for how well a child would do in school was their mother's education level. Regardless of the father's schooling, children whose mother had, say a PhD tended on average to do better than those whose moms had a bacthelor's degree who did better than those whose moms only graduated high school. This does not answer your direct question, but it does confirm the sentiment at the start of the article. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Frederick Douglass is one of my favorite literacy stories ever, but I guess he's excluded. Wrad (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Fidel Castro was the son of illiterate parents, but he learned to read at a Jesuit boarding school. Mao Zedong's father was illiterate, but I don't know about his mother. Kirk Douglas is the son of illiterate Russian Jews from Belarus. Abraham Lincoln's parents were illiterate, as were those of his successor Andrew Johnson. Paul Lawrence Dunbar was the son of ex-slaves, who were not surprisingly illiterate. The ultimate example is probably Shakespeare. Not only were his parents illiterate, so were his wife and children. This fact has sometimes been used by anti-Stratfordians to cast doubt on the authorship of his plays. LANTZY^TALK 19:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not surprising that his wife was illiterate, being as she was of that generally illiterate time. But it is EXTREMELY surprising that any of his children were illiterate, if he was the writer he's claimed to be. As Charlton Ogburn writes in The Mystery of William Shakespeare: "If his failure to have had even one daughter taught to read and write strikes the professors of English as in any way odd they do not confess it". Without getting into a side debate about the authorship of Shakespeare, there's plenty of evidence that the Shakespeare from Stratford was illiterate himself. The Shakespeare who wrote the plays and sonnets - now, that's a different kettle of fish entirely. He was obviously far from illiterate - and even that's a hell of an understatement - but it's not generally agreed exactly who his parents were, because it's not generally agreed exactly who he himself was. That's all I'll say. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of straying into speculative territory, I'm not particularly surprised that Shakespeare's children were illiterate. For one thing, he wasn't exactly a family man. He spent most of his time in London, far from his family in Stratford, so it's unlikely that he took an active interest in his children's upbringing. For another thing, he was first and foremost an actor and certainly didn't consider himself a writer in the current sense of the term. His work existed on stage, not on pieces of paper. Another thing to keep in mind is that he completely abandoned his literary pursuits after retiring. LANTZY^TALK 04:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ben Carson is a leading surgeon in the field of separating conjoined twins. His mother only revealed to him that she was illiterate after she had "supervised" his many years of primary schoolwork with a very firm hand. --Sean 20:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Shakespeare and his family don't count by the criteria I laid out, as they lived long before quasi-universal literacy. Douglass is a former slave famous as a former slave, a liberator of his people. Mao and Castro I didn't realise had illiterate parents, but it is not overwhelmingly surprising given their characters and times. Lincoln and Johnson surprised me. I'd not heard of the others -- Dunbar is a very good example; Carson too, although I can't see any proof (just a passing assertion) of his parents' illiteracy; and Douglas I'm not so sure about. The article says his parents were illiterate Russian Jews, but as "people of the Book" wouldn't the men at least have been literate in Hebrew, and thus his childhood would have had books in the house and examples of people learning by reading? So we've come up with a handful so far, for which I thank you, but any more would be very welcome. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

'People of the Book' carries no implication of general literacy. It merely comments on the fact that Abrahamic religions are based on written texts, in contrast to the pagan traditions they supplanted. But direct experience of the text has never been a prerequisite of belief. If it were, there would be a hell of a lot more infidels running around. It is true that Jewish men have always enjoyed a higher rate of literacy than their Christian countrymen, but never to the point of unanimity. Nor would a knowledge of Hebrew imply literacy: one may be illiterate in two languages. In the Russian Empire, the literacy rate was abysmally low for both Jew and gentile, and Kirk Douglas' father was a ragman, not a rabbi. LANTZY^TALK 16:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(OT) Lantzy is correct about "People of the Book" not carrying an implication of literacy. But "Book" here connotes revealed texts, not necessarily written ones. In the archaic sense, "writing" meant "making words immutable", as contrasted with "spoken", which of course changes with each telling. Hence also the Rabbinic distinction between "Oral Torah" and "Written Torah", or the Ulemaic distinction between religions with a "real" prophet and those without. -- Fullstop (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The Mughals extended the status even to their Hindu subjects, at least intermittently. My goodness, how far from the topic we've wandered! LANTZY^TALK 19:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Using a PhD abroad

If someone has a PhD and travels abroad (for a conference or something similar), how can he use his title? Shouldn't he have his title formally recognized before he can use it?--217.12.16.53 (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Within the EU, all member states are required to recognise the qualifications of all other member states. Elsewhere, it will vary. Some countries won't have any restrictions on who can call themselves "Dr." (the UK doesn't, for example). Others will restrict it, but accept PhDs from other countries automatically (well, I expect such countries exist, I don't have an example). Others will require registration (Germany did before the EU rules were introduced, and I think still does for non-EU PhDs). --Tango (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

A PhD is not like a legal title. It merely states that some university has granted you a doctorate. How much weight anyone (at a conference, say) wants to give to that title is entirely up to them. In practice, they care far more about the institution itself than the country. A U.S. conference, for instance, would be more interested in hosting someone with a PhD from Oxford than one from a U.S institution called "Big Al's House o' Doctorates."

In the end, a PhD is just a title that one institution has decided to give you. In that respect, it's no different than being given the title "Master Mason" from your local Freemason guild. — Sam 63.138.152.238 (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note that Oxford does not award PhDs; it awards DPhils. Malcolm XIV (talk) 23:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not the case in all countries. Some countries do restrict the title "Dr." to only those with PhDs (or other doctorates and perhaps non-doctorate medical qualifications) from recognised institutions. --Tango (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I believe you, but it would be great if there were something about that in the PhD article! Care to add it? ;). Anyway, that aside, at the very least in the U.S. and the U.K. the title "PhD" has no legal meaning, as far as I am aware (although not having one could prevent you from being an expert witness in some cases, I'll bet). So a person could call themselves a "PhD" in those two countries if they wanted, although generally people will only respect that if it comes from an accredited university. — Sam 63.138.152.238 (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Having a degree (or not) is only one factor when the court considers the question of a person's expertise. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be in Doctor (title), although I can't see it mentioned there. A brief mention in PhD wouldn't hurt. --Tango (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Depending on the field that you are appearing as an expert witness for, you may need to be "certified" by a group within your field. For example, in the US you need to be a Professional Engineer (PE) to give expert testimony on engineering matters. A PE requires that you pass a test and have several years work experience and is controlled by an agency independent of your university. So while a PhD PE would be more "expert" then say a BS PE, it's the outside agency that certifies that you've at a specific level regardless of whether you went to Oxford or Big Al's House o' Doctorates.Tobyc75 (talk) 02:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't Germany limit the "Doctor" title to those who received a Ph.D. from a German university, or was that past practice? Edison (talk) 05:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't mean it as legal advice, however, you should take care if you are planning to use your Dr. title in Germany. See here. "Under a little-known Nazi-era law, only people who earn PhDs or medical degrees in Germany are allowed to use "Dr." as a courtesy title. (...) Violators can face a year behind bars."--Mr.K. (talk) 11:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Now it's those who received it from an EU university, by EU law. Others can apply to have their PhD recognised if they want (I'm not sure how easy that is). --Tango (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Buy stocks in a person, or a person's output

Seeing the odd question above, 'how can I invest in a "race"', I have an odd question of my own: Would it be possible (legal) to invest in a person, or a person's output? Has this been done?

Buy this I mean, say, I give a person a million dollars to buy 10% of his output for the rest of his life. (I assume I couldn't legally by 10% of the person himself -- that would probably count as slavery). This would be similar to a loan, except that I own 10% of his output whatever it is -- whether it pays back 10 times or not at all.

Would that be possible? — Sam 63.138.152.238 (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If that person was self-employed (possibly working for someone else as a contractor) and had their own company, you could buy shares in that. You could always just write up a contract between the two of you (well, get a solicitor to, this kind of thing needs to be done just right), you can have contracts for pretty much anything - as long as there isn't anything explicitly illegal and there is consideration (which there is in your case), it's all good. --Tango (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if you had a contract, I don't think it would be legally enforceable - the 'seller' could walk away - but that would probably make them liable for the money you gave them in the first place. So no, I don't think youcould do that, except if they have a particular career in mind - like acting - and so you could say '10% of the money you make from acting' and that might be enforceable. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

What a topical question - made me think straightaway of this, which I was reading just over a week ago. Karenjc 20:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

In less money-focussed contexts, it's certainly possible to invest in a person. Sports coaches invest their time and effort in training someone they believe has the talent to be a champion. There might be some emolument involved, but many coaches go way beyond what the money pays for. Music teachers do the same for their special students, sometimes giving them years of free tuition. They wouldn't do it for Mrs Smith's little girl Patty, whom Mrs Smith says is very bright and will one day play at Carnegie Hall - just because Mrs Smith says so. Patty would have to display special talent of a rare kind that needs proper training and lots of it, in many cases far more than Mrs Smith can afford. The payoff for the coach or the teacher is not money, but the joy of seeing a rare talent nurtured and brought to fruition, and the carrying on of their own teachings by someone who knows what they're talking about. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be enforceable? A contract is a contract, I can't see anything that would invalidate it so you could sue for breech of contract. --Tango (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Such an investment would simply be called a 'loan', with repayments being priced as percentage of earnings. In our law at least, contractual breaches attract expectation damages, so in principle, you can claim for what you expected to receive under the contract, not just the money you put in.

In certain cases, equity may intervene to prevent enforcement of the contract, but that would depend on how unfair the contract is taking ino account all the circumstances, including the relative bargaining positions of the parties at the time. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Bowie Bonds. DuncanHill (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• Also Justin Wilson. And this link doesn't work for me but it might have some other examples in it. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
• See also Scott Gibson. I believe that this is common among beginning and lower-level professional golfers—investors (sometimes friends and relatives) put up money to cover the expenses (travel, etc.) of participating in a professional tour and receive dividends dependent on the player's earnings. Deor (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The examples above are all limited - I think it would be the 'rest of your life clause' you'd struggle with. In the UK a precedent would be needed really (it's not set down in law already, as far as I'm aware) but there hasn't been one. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Why would the 'rest of your life' clause be a problem? Properly drafted, it is clearly far from being void for uncertainty.

People enter into contracts that run for the duration of their natural lives (or something similar) all the time. Think life insurance contracts, or annuities, or those schemes where the buyer pays a certain amount per period to the seller until the death of the seller, in exchange for the property upon death. Obviously you can't have liquidated damages over such an indeterminate period. If they wish to terminate, then damages will be assessed by the court. So long as the contract was not obtained with duress, undue influence, oppression, or some other kind of unconscionable conduct, I don't see any problems with it.

PPP - Principle, precedent, policy. Precedent only comes into play if principles are muddy. In this situation, contract law principles are fairly clear and the outcome of such a dispute being brought before a court would be fairly predictable. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't speak to the legality, but another possibility for "has it been done" is Conan Doyle's The Adventure of the Resident Patient — fiction, of course, but another example of someone who has thought of doing this. Nyttend (talk) 05:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

And there's the Rothko Case, which rested on a gallery claiming to have "invested in" the painter's entire lifetime output in return for a monthly pittance when he was young and poor. Karenjc 22:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Happens all the time with actor's or author's agents. They pay you 10% or so of the earnings or work you find for them. Plus you could set up a company, have the victim as the sole employee of the company, and take 10% of the companies earnings, paying the rest to the employee. 78.146.195.92 (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Montana House of Representatives

In the article on the Montana House of Representatives it says "In the event that the parties have a tie in number of members, the speaker and other officers are elected from the party who holds the governor's seat."

What is the basis of this? Is there or a constitutional provision giving the governor a casting vote in the House? Or is it just a custom? Sam 23:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamUK (talk • contribs)

Like many constitutions, the Montana State Constitution does not address political parties, so it must be a house rule of some kind. --Sean 00:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Pre-Socratic Philosophers

How these early philosophers began to elaborate a naturalistic model of the universe by using the concepts of one vs. many and being vs. becoming? This is not a homework question and if the Wikipedia doesn't have any article on the question, please, refer to me to any website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.65 (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Check out the origins of ontology. LANTZY^TALK 03:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)