Humanities desk
< April 17	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 19 >

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.

April 18

No life in the oceans

Let's say that for some reason in the future all life disappeared from the ocean, meaning that the ocean became so toxic and/or acidic that no complex life could live in it. What impact would this have on global society? I'm sure millions would die because of the dependence on fishing around the world in certain countries, but would this be enough to cause a world conflict and a collapse of modern society?--十八 03:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a good Q for the Science Desk. StuRat (talk) 04:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I originally was gonna post it on Science, but I didn't want to know how this could happen, I want to know about the societal impact, so I asked this board.--十八 06:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect we would be in bigger trouble than a collapse of civilization: [[[Oxygen production]http://ecology.com/features/mostimportantorganism/]] 70.79.246.134 (talk) 04:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, say all life in the ocean other than algae died. For instance, say there was a genetically altered strain of algae that still produced oxygen as good as (or perhaps better) than normal algae, but as an unforeseen side effect, it also produces some kind of poison that kills off all normal algae and other complex life in the oceans. Then what would happen to world society?--十八 07:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then other forms of life in the ocean would develop a tolerance for the poison, that's just how it works out. But, OK, let's go with your scenario. The main impact would then be a lack of seafood. Poor nations dependent on seafood (mainly islands) would suffer massive starvation, while rich nations and those which eat mainly farmed foods would do fine. If this change happened slowly enough, then more farm area could be made available by deforestation of the Amazon, etc. Also, we might get a worldwide population control program with mandatory sterilization for those who no longer have any source of food (that is, either they get sterilized or they don't get food aid). StuRat (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With your scenario, there is most certainly an algae bloom since there is nothing to consume the algae. Depending what type of algae, this could impede world's shipping. Not only will poor island nations suffer, fisheries and trade are a major part of the economy in countries like Japan, Canada, and many "well-off" countries. --Kvasir (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where should this wikilink point?

Resolved

I created the page New York Codes, Rules and Regulations. My main source, [1], alleges that all the title #s (except for "judiciary" and "miscellaneous") refer to departments of the state of new york.

However, I'm having a heck of a time finding any internet resources about the New York State Department of Social Services (i.e., the department corresponding to Title 18). Apparently it does exist -- see e.g. [2] -- but other sources omit it -- see e.g. [3].

So what's going on here? Please help me gather research that I can use to write the article, or else some proof that the article can't be written. JD Caselaw (talk) 05:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oh crap

[4] ..."New York State Department of Family Assistance Formerly the Department of Social Services"...

:(

JD Caselaw (talk) 05:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Norman invasion of 1066

Does anyone know how many Normans actually took part in William I's invasion of England in 1066? It appears that there were a considerable amount of Bretons as well as Flemings in his army. I have noticed many noble families' ancestry traces back to Brittany rather than Normandy as in the case of the House of Stewart whose founder FitzAlan came from Brittany. Also Anne Boleyn's direct maternal ancestry derives from Brittany.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the rivalry between Normandy and Brittany spilled over into conflict between William and Conan II, Duke of Brittany in 1064. When William decided to invade England, he recruited his supporters (Conan's opponents) to join him, at the same time warning Conan off invading Normandy. There is some more information here and here. According to this site, "led by Earl Alan of Richmond, the Bretons constituted one-third of the Norman forces at the Battle of Hastings". Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You, Ghmyrtle. That's very interesting. I knew the Bretons formed a large part of the army, but hadn't realised they constituted one third! I got to thinking about the Bretons when an editor posted the above question regarding Brien of Brittany. I believe they were highly skilled as archers.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name of a logical fallacy?

What is the name of a fallacy where someone throws out your entire argument and just says it's not worth discussing, or it's not an argument, without actually addressing the points raised? Is there such a thing? Malamockq (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In order to have a logical fallacy there has to be some attempt to use logic. Avoiding the argument altogether is therefore outside of logical argument.

However, if they say your argument is wrong "because you always say stupid stuff like that", this could be a type of genetic fallacy (that the argument is false because of who it comes from).

Also note that "whether the matter is worth discussing" is another logical argument, distinct from the actual matter. StuRat (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So there's no word to describe what I'm talking about? Malamockq (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't been specific enough. At the moment, far from being a specific fallacy, it's not even clear that someone doing this would be wrong; lots of things are genuinely not worth discussing, and lots of things advanced as an argument are not actually arguments. Algebraist 14:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Watergate-era term for that kind of thing was "non-denial denial". A more recent term would be "impeaching the source" or "demonizing the source", i.e. "everything that man says is a lie". It could also be considered a type of boycott, although I'm not sure I've ever heard it used that way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those really have nothing to do with what the OP is describing, which is just a failure to engage at all. I don't think that's a logical fallacy. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might find an answer in List of fallacies. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a fallacy at all. The only pointer I can offer is the phrase "What we have here is failure to communicate". Vranak (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think what the OP is getting at is the sort of argument where one person makes a statement, expecting to have a debate or argument of some kind (just for sake of example: "The moon is made out of cheese."), and instead of replying with an actual argument ("No, people have gone there and proven that it is made out of dust and rocks."), the other person simply says the argument is pointless and they shouldn't argue about it ("That's an incredibly stupid idea that is simply not worth arguing over."), regardless of whether or not it actually is worth arguing over (in this case... probably not!). I agree with Vranak that this isn't really a logical fallacy, per se, but it is definitely a poor arguing technique (because it doesn't do anything other than make your side look weak and defenseless), and there's probably a term for it. This page calls it (or at least an argument type that seems somewhat similar) "argument by dismissal". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.163.175 (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are several rhetorical terms that are close to what Malamockq is asking for. I believe the nearest is apodioxis, though it's usually considered a technique of argumentation rather than a fallacy. Deor (talk) 01:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a case of floccinaucinihilipilification. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be stonewalling or filibustering. A stonewalling link connects to something unhelpful and not related. 92.29.88.100 (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Practical Aspects of Time Travel

[Let's say the following is for a fictional work of fiction I am writing.] If one were to go back in time, what could one take to sell that is relatively inexpensive now, but would be valuable then, in order to have enough money to live comfortably for a few months, but not drastically change the world and/or arouse too much suspicion? My thought just now which I remembered was "information about the future" (place bets on events that you know are gonna happen, reap rewards) but I feel that that would be best done in moderation, due to the relatively religious circles I (my character) would be hanging around in, and the whole "not arousing suspicion" thing. (Pretty crucial to the question: the time period concerned is around 1896 in the United States, mainly Chicago.) Thanks! Ab e g92contribs 16:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would think food would be a good item to trade, since many food items are now far cheaper (in terms of hours you must work to afford them) than they were then. Take bags of grain, white sugar, spices, eggs, etc., in appropriate containers for the time. Just be sure not to take back any genetically modified foods. Cloth would be another good item, with silks being far more valuable back then, for example. Avoid synthetic cloth, of course. StuRat (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody in the 19th century would be able to distinguish genetically modified food from contemporary food. Nobody today would be able to distinguish it either. Assuming nobody is replanting it shouldn't be a problem to worry about. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't assume that nobody would replant it. And, if they did, it might spread and change the world of agriculture. StuRat (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The most obvious example of a metal that was exceptionally valuable back then but not very valuable today is metallic aluminum. In that case the disparity is a little too great—there'd be no market and it would certainly be noticed. Gold prices seem pretty stable, adjusted for inflation, so that doesn't help. But I wonder if there aren't other metals that would have been made a lot easier to manufacture and mine today than they were back then, but still valued back then, but not such a great change that it would be noticed. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How valuable was aluminium in 1896? I was going to suggest it, but then discovered that while it was "as expensive as silver" (already way down from its peak of more valuable than gold) in 1884, the key process that made it cheap was discovered in 1886, with the first large-scale production starting in 1888. I can't find figures, but it seems likely that prices had crashed by 1896. Algebraist 17:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you are probably right. I was off by a few decades! --Mr.98 (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Travelling to the past is, of course, impossible. However, if it were possible, even the smallest changes your character makes on the past could drastically change our present world due to the Butterfly effect. --Quest09 (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Medication: Aspirin, Penicillin, Cipro and the like would be invaluable. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But there would be no market for small amounts of penicillin or Cipro. If nobody knows what it is, they won't pay for it. If you take the time to establish that it works and is invaluable, then you're going to attract a huge amount of attention. I'm not sure how profitable aspirin would be in small quantities—it was already being produced by 1896. Useful, but invaluable? I'm dubious. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking Viagra would be a big seller, but might cause an unintended steep rise in the population. :-) StuRat (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Information about how to make various modern drugs would be invaluable, but you can't sell that information without "polluting the timeline" (as science fiction writers like to say). --Tango (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a market for aluminium, just a small one. You would probably need to do research in advance of your visit to find a buyer and to work out what form to take the aluminium in (shaped into something would probably raise less suspicion than bars), but it could be done. --Tango (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about it, I would go for the information aspect. Specifically, look up the names of winners of big horse races and bring that information back with you (bet on Ben Brush, I guess! Can you believe there is a Wikipedia article on the horse that won the Kentucky Derby in 1896? Yeesh!). If your protagonist is careful, he'll just look lucky. You do that a couple of times with modest bets and you don't have to do too much else. Spacing out the wins and not being greedy about it would probably work pretty well at keeping a low profile. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'd still need some money to bet, though. It would be very expensive to buy 1896 currency to take back, so having something to trade would make sense. StuRat (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could just bring back gold, then exchange that for currency. The price of gold is pretty stable over time, so you wouldn't be making a killing in the exchange, but you could then use the gold for the bet money. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But why not bring back something that's much cheaper now ? As for gold, any bars or coins would have dates and other markings, so you'd need to be very careful. StuRat (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modern cameras would be a good item to sell as people would be amazed by the quality of the photographs one could take. Obviously digital cameras would not be practical as they had no PCs; but normal cameras with film would be fine. Also plastic toys such as Barbie dolls would go down well; also synthetic fabrics. Oh, and let's not forget jeans. I know they were around then but they weren't designed the way they are today.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have missed the "but not drastically change the world and/or arouse too much suspicion" part. A modern instant color film camera would make everyone notice. As for Barbie, they would think it was obscene, as more than just her ankles go uncovered. StuRat (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that if you brought back a modern camera with modern film, you'd have to know what chemicals and processes were used to develop it. You could not just drop off a roll at your local drug store and have them turn out prints. Modern films need specific chemical combinations to work correctly. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'd bring back an instant camera and film, which needs no other processing. That doesn't address all the attention you would draw, though. StuRat (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about a different kind of information, specifically that of the location of, at the time undiscovered, Gold/Oil/Diamond rich areas. --Jac16888 ^Talk 18:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible, but 1. now you're spending a lot of time developing mineral resources (or purchasing them, then having them scouted, then selling them off, at the minimum), and 2. you'll probably provoke a lot of attention in doing so. I think what the OP is going for is something that would generate modest income in a short time. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, whoever was going to discover it and get rich now won't, so that changes history. StuRat (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, gambling doesn't have to be the sort that would be frowned on by the religious types our hero seems to want to blend in with. Depending on how long he's going to be in the past he could invest in some small, local business that's about to take off. (This could be pretty well researched by going through newspaper microfilms.) You'd still need a good amount of time and seed money to make that happen, though. APL (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I love the responses. Gold is the first thing that would come to mind for me, but it wouldn't be more valuable back then. I was thinking along the lines of something to fit in a suitcase, so perhaps the cloth might work there? From what I know, anything plastic would have not been invented yet, so selling it would be a bit sketchy to say the least (although I think I could get away with taking some relatively inconspicuous items for personal use). And yes, the amount of articles on Wikipedia about the horses is kind of mind-boggling (was looking through them a couple of days ago). I think that would probably have to be the place to go in terms of information, as betting on things like who will win the presidential race and what Central Park's average temperature will be in March was not as widespread back then, and the mineral lands idea sounds like a bit too much work for the amount of time that would be spent. Thanks, and keep the ideas coming! Ab e g92contribs 18:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bring back Pi calculated to the greatest extent it has yet been calculated. Join a circus where you could display the full calculation. Bus stop (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pi was already known by then to as many decimal places as is actually useful and I can't see any circus being interested in someone reading a really long number (billions of digits). --Tango (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think if the reader is already willing to suspend credibility to the extent of accepting time travel then I think a case can be made that at a small circus in a locale with a quirky interest in science and/or education, such a display could develop a cult following. Bus stop (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you found some nerdy math club that was interested in paying someone to read off a large number, they would certainly be nerdy enough to insist on knowing how the answer was achieved, and how they could verify it.

(Besides, Time travel is a standard conceit in fiction, math circuses are not.) APL (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verification would be possible by ordinary calculation. In fact the time traveller's explanation could simply be ordinary calculation. He could produce a few worn down pencils and abbreviated calculations on paper, explaining that he likes to do most of the math in his head. Some would doubt him. But some would accept the story hook line and sinker. He could request a small stipend to keep providing additional digits. Bus stop (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that additional digits of pi has almost no usage. It's a cute trick but the number of people who would be interested at that time is almost zero. And if they could verify them with ordinary calculation, they could calculate them on their own, if they really wanted them. I just don't see pi as a valuable commodity back then, sorry. They had mathematicians, they knew it to the digits they needed it. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If space and weight are at a premium, perhaps spices would be best. I get a 2.5 ounce bottle of cinnamon for US$1, and I imagine you could sell that for at least a day's wages, back then, in Chicago. You could fit dozens of those in a briefcase. StuRat (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmetics. Women back then would pay a fortune for modern cosmetics. Remember, in the 19th century ladies used arsenic on their faces to obtain a glowing, luminous complexion.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting aspect to this (my above suggestion) is that it could be carried back on something very small and easily disguisable. A flash drive could hold the information. All that would be needed would be a small display and/or earphones for an audio readout. Bus stop (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A flash drive... which they would read on, what exactly? Oh, right. The laptop they brought. Which also has adapters for 19th century electrical outlets. And won't arouse suspicion. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternating current at 110 volts and 60 cycles (US or 50 cycles (Europe) was widely available by 1896 (although DC at 110 volts was common in large cities, and some places have circa 50 volt AC at widely varying frequencies from 25 to 400. If you are smart enough to build a time machine, you are smart enough to build an electric adapter which accepts DC or AC of 25 to 400 Hertz and 50 to 240 volts and powers your little modern doodad. A company I worked for built such an adapter many years ago. Carry a plug adapter which screws into a light socket. In the US the thread has been the same since 1880. Edison (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're not being realistic about time travel. If some of the other things suggested could be carried back in time so could a small computer. Bus stop (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were so many wonderful seemingly incredible new things being invented then such as the telephone, lightbulb, automobile, etc., that it probably wouldn't arouse that much suspicion.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As regards the concept of time travel, the idea isn't as far-fetched as it appears. For instance if a person travelled to a planet 116 light years away and had a powerful telescope with which to view the Earth, what he or she would see would be our world as it was in 1896! The person couldn't change anything yet could observe events as they unfolded; the major and mundane.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But how long would it take to travel a distance of 116 light years? Probably at least 116 years. Bus stop (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spices are a good answer, but there's the hidden expense of repackaging it in some inconspicuous glassware. Also, a lot of the stuff you find in a modern grocery store is not the best quality. Cinnamon is often cut with Cassia, for example.

However, It may be difficult to sell on the other end. A mysterious stranger can't just show up at a grocery store with unmarked glass jars full of spices of unknown providence. APL (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be difficult to sell a suitcase full of spices to a grocery store now, but back then, I wouldn't expect it to be that unusual. Traveling salesman of different types of goods were common. You could also sell them on the street to individuals. They'd probably demand a sample first, then you'd make a sale. StuRat (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about items that are cheaply mass produced now, but are functionally equivalent to items used back then? My first thought is some nice knives or tools. You could buy a entire tool box full of decent quality construction and woodworking tools for not very much money, but they'd be worth a good deal back then. Bringing in a box full of tools to a pawn shop (or similar) would also be a perfectly normal thing to do that wouldn't arose very much suspicion, even if the details of the tools were rather different than the standard at the time. (Nowadays tools tend to be chrome-plated. You'd have to talk your way around that some how.)

Another good answer would be Synthetic diamond, Synthetic ruby, and Cultured pearl. It'd be easy to carry a large amount of value and the price difference from now to then would be large because the prices would be set for the naturally occurring variety. However, you'd probably have to offload these a few at a time. A mysterious stranger rolling into town with a fortune in gemstones would attract attention. Perhaps one or two of them could be set into jewelry, as long as you dressed as though they weren't totally out of your league you could probably pawn them as a family heirloom or something. APL (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ones who gripe about using this page for speculation must be apoplectic about now. Here's an idea that might work: Bring a working model of the first telephone, then patent it the year before the phone actually was patented. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's ... not really in the spirit of the question. The question-asker obviously wants to maintain a low-profile when he gets to past. Usurping one of the most influential inventions of the century won't really achieve that at all. APL (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Besides that, the telephone was already widespread by 1896! They were invented decades previously. If you recall they're mentioned in a couple of Sherlock Holmes stories from the time period in question, and Doyle didn't feel the need to explain what they were. So obviously they were not only already invented, but common knowledge. APL (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, since he's focused on 1896 for some reason. The best thing for him to take along would be some book that would explain what everyday life was like in 1896. Everytime I see one of those backwards time-travel shows I get a laugh. If you went back even to 1996 you'd know way too much about the future, never mind 1896. The best way to be low-key might be to pretend you're from a foreign country and don't speak English. You could probably find a low-paying job and take lessons in English - and pick up then-current idioms while you're at it. The last thing you want to do is use futuristic idioms ("Cool, dude!") and definitely not give away that you have any information about the future. If you bet on a horserace and win, you'd better act very surprised and happy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying that if I travel to the past and want to blend in, I have to act as though I'm from the past? Woa. Thanks Cpt. Obvious! btw, You always laugh at a trope that's almost always played off as comedy? (ST4,BTTF,DrW,etc) Good work. APL (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a revolutionary concept. And for starters, you'd have to resist the temptation to complain about the plumbing (or lack thereof), and only bathe once a week. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use your time machine to plonk you into a bank vault some weekend of the appropriate era, in a bank some distance from where you want to be. Surely your time machine has control of where, as well as when, you land. Steal a lot of money. Now use your time machine to go exactly where and when you want. Spend your money. If you are pursued, use your time machine to take you sometime where the statute of limitations has timed out. PhGustaf (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on your time machine. If its a Tardis style time machine then yes that would work, but many fictional time machines work only move a person in time so they end up in the same place at a different time--Jac16888 ^Talk 23:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OP, remember, is writing about this time machine, and he can make it do whatever he damn well pleases. One useful thing would be to use the time machine to retrieve objects from the past and sell them in the present. One Fabergé Egg could probably pay for the whole thing, and enough of them have gone missing that one might "found" and sold with little trouble. The intact True Cross would be problematic — there would need be fudging to get it past radiocarbon dating, and the people who claim to have some of it already would be annoyed. The current brouhaha about the "Christ myth theory" article would get more interesting, too. PhGustaf (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to pack your handy time travel cheat-sheet t-shirt! Adam Bishop (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want one :)--Jac16888 ^Talk 00:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there antibiotics that are specific to hogs? How about a couple of suitcases full of antibiotic vials, sold in small quantities to hog farmers with a money-back guarantee? Once they see that the "magic hog serum" works, they'll buy the rest at massively inflated prices. Meanwhile, no one will know that hog serum shots (antibiotics) have any effect on anything but farm-raised hogs; and once your supply runs out, the farmers won't have a clue how to make any more, so it won't affect the timeline. 63.17.94.91 (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Elementary, my dear Abeg92. According to Sherlock Holmes#Use of drugs, "All these drugs [cocaine, heroin, and morphine] were legal in late-19th-century England", so they probably were in the U.S. too. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait. How much did those drugs cost back then compared to now? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the people suggesting small electronics to bring back in 1896, not only would those devices draw unwanted attention, but there's no way they would work. For starters, what about those big satellites orbiting in space that are responsible for making some of our electronic stuff function? Could a laptop work even for just a second in 1896? And what would you do once the battery inevitably runs out? Now you've got a piece of equipment that you can't use and that you must hide from everyone else. BTW, would the OP attempt to date anyone in 1896? And how come when this desk gets some truly interesting questions, I'm always too busy to check? 24.189.90.68 (talk) 08:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's silly. The only electronic devices dependent on "satellites" are GPS devices and certain very expensive phones. My laptop would absolutely run for more than "just one second" in 1896. It'd run for about three hours, like it normally does. Charging it would be a pain. But by 1896 some cities were already wired for electricity. I believe that includes some parts of Chicago, but I could be wrong. With the appropriate adapters that could be used to charge a laptop without too much difficulty.

Obviously, you couldn't show this marvelous technology to anyone, and there's a serious question about what would happen to it if you were unexpectedly hit by a train or something, But the idea can't eliminated out of hand. You could store a tremendous amount of information in a very small package. (An iPod Touch, for example.) That could theoretically give you an advantage in many aspects of 1890s life. APL (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the cosmetics I had suggested earlier, what about necessary toiletry items such as shampoo, deodorant, toothpaste, disposable razors?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you have a time machine, why not travel further back, and bring an interesting item from Antiquity, or perhaps purchase an early work by an artist who was still alive and well-known in 1896 - they could confirm its authenticity? Alternatively, perhaps some sort of intricate wood carving or glasswork which can now be done by machine, but would have been time-consuming to produce in the 1890s. Warofdreams talk 10:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, travel back to the 16th century, specifically to the court of Henry VIII and take a photo of Anne Boleyn; that way we can see what she really looked like instead of relying on unreliable descriptions made by often hostile writers who were born decades after her death.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on when your time machine lands, you may need to take 2 pictures, one of her body and one of her head. StuRat (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

You couldn't really profit from a photo of Anne Boleyn while remaining inconspicuous. It would pretty much require you to prove you have a working time machine. I can't think of anything that is less conducive to remaining inconspicuous. It'd be more inconspicuous to shoot the president. APL (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Synthetic gemstones would be the way I would go as they are pretty cheap today, and would be indistinguishable from natural stones with contemporary technology. If you want to bring stuff back to be rich here, then I would recommend a couple of Van Goghs (Though that might be tough to get them from Europe). 65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of presidents, why not travel back to the morning of 22 November 1963 in Dallas and hide up on the Sixth Floor of the Texas School Book Depository and see if Lee Harvey Oswald really did manage to perform those amazing feats with his old broken-down 1890-vintage Carcano rifle.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My initial idea of something cheap today but expensive then was: Money. Due to inflation, $100 today is worth much less than $100 in 1896. Unfortunately, this predates the Federal Reserve System, and therefore Federal Reserve Notes, and money from 1896 or earlier, even if in noncollectible condition (and you only need it to be in good enough shape that people will accept it as money), would probably cost you nearly as much as it's worth. Two of the ideas already mentioned are things that would have immediately occurred to someone in 1896, and for good reason. Nobody in 1896 would have been at all troubled at the thought that you are pawning or selling your jewelry to raise money. There is a morality issue, though: Your character's buyers can't tell that the zircons your character selling are fake, but they are in fact fake, and some future holder will be stung when testing for zircons becomes available. If your character is in a position where he or she can go to a library and research in advance, using microfilms of old newspapers, then the racetrack is probably the best bet. A small bet on a daily double or other longshot would produce substantial funds, without much attention being attracted. Frequent racetrack visits would be inconsistent with a religious environment, but a rare lucky visit would probably be acceptable, if it's only a "relatively religious" circle. There are morality issues with this too, but they don't seem to bother people as much. You could also do this with the stock market, but the racetrack is easier and faster. Depending on the nature of your time machine, it might be possible to have the funding go the other way: To buy things that are cheap in 1896 but will be valuable in 2010. Then you could afford to buy real jewelry today to fund your trip. John M Baker (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The diamonds don't have to be zirconium. You could use real synthetic diamonds or real synthetic rubies. Back then those stones couldn't be created artificially, they had to be dug out of the ground, now both real diamonds and real rubies can be created in the lab.

I'd probably bring at least some local money back. It looks like silver dollars from that period go for about $20 on ebay, Which appears to be slightly below the inflation rate. (As calculated here[5]) You could afford a couple of dollars. APL (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As has been mentioned a few times here, information creates a more interesting story. There are many ways to go about it. These are examples from stories that I've read:

Read the archived papers from the time. Locate a criminal that is wanted with a huge reward and caught around that time. The paper will say where he was caught. Before the police find him, go to the police and tell them were to look. The timeline is unchanged to any degree because the overall actions didn't change.
Again, read the archived papers. See if anything was discovered around the time. Go to the discoverer and sell information that will help find the discovery.
And again, read the archived papers. There will be a scandal. Gather all the info you can on the scandal and blackmail the people involved before the news of the scandal breaks. Of course, in that short story the main character is killed in vengeance before making it out of the past. -- kainaw ™ 16:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why does one have to parley something of lesser value for something of greater value? Why not just bring sufficient "money" to live on? Gold or silver would obviously fit the requirements. Bus stop (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, $100 1896 of gold would cost around $5000 in 2010. Silver would be about $2000. I do not know about paper, but perhaps you could find some very low cost stock certificates of companies that are defunct now, but were doing well in 1896. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 19:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't you try to maximize your exchange? Seems like common sense to do so. APL (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inexpensive now and valuable then? How about crack? Or perhaps read up on scandals and how they were uncovered and blackmail the scoundrel who does not know he is going to be exposed soon anyway. (Of course he is likely to eliminate you). Edison (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My question is: why the concern with the difference in value, between then and now, of whatever one chooses to bring back in time to 1896? Why does it matter whether the "time conversion" results in greater value or lesser value? In my opinion it is a trifling matter in the scheme of temporary time travel. Bus stop (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will go against the question asked here, but I have a suggestion. Almost all major works of fiction where the main character travels in time involves this boring "Temporal Prime Directive". They make such a miracle of moving across time, and waste it by staying in the corner and let everything stay the same, or find another time-traveler making a revolution and then spoil the fun by stoping him. You work in this fiction is a creative work, so I say, Break the law! Take an electric guitar and play "Breaking the Law" or "Anarchy in the U.K." at some roof! Take a bazooka and kill Hitler's ancestors! Take strategic knowledge and save JFK! Take automated machine guns and help Napoleon achieve the conquest of Europe! That would be something new and interesting to read MBelgrano (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is (from the POV of the time traveller) is that you have no way of knowing how that could affect the world. Butterflies and all that--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the multiverse concept, every outcome that is at all possible actually happens at every turning point in history. The jambread falls sticky down in one universe, sticky up in another, is snarfed by the dog before it hits the ground in another, etc. Oswald misses Kennedy in one, hits Mrs. Kennedy in another, there are two, three, or four assassins working independently or in concert in others. Maybe Kennedy shoots Oswald (or his father) in some. The fictional series 1632 (novel) deals with a small town from West Virginia being swept up by an ill defined cosmic event and swapped with a portion of Germany in 1632. The folks of that era realize that the world the "uptimers" came from will never exist. All of Beethoven's compositions will be well known by the year he would have been born, and even if his parents meet and have children, it is unlikely that one with his exact genetics will result. Living painters will not paint the "future" paintings they see attributed to them in art history books. Kings read the encyclopedia an learn which of their associates will conspire against them in the future, and take action against them. King Charles II sell America to the French, for instance, to get money to hire mercenaries to protect his reign. There are radio broadcasts to crystal sets in central Europe. 19th century technology gets widely implemented (much of 20th century technology requires tools and materials that can't be made with the 17th century industries). In the present OP's scenario, if a time traveller went from 2010 to 1896 and bet on a horse race or bought a stock which was upward bound, the odds at the tote or the prices on the stock market would immediately change. Someone else who would have made or lost money would be affected financially, and inevitably some of his decisions or actions would change. If the vacuum tube radio were patented 1 years earlier, it would be used for military communications sooner and some battle would come out differently. If any invention were patented before the "true inventor" got to the patent office, the deprived inventor might not go on to develop his later contributions. Edison (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And that's where the strength of the narrator would come into play. Only episodic works (like TV series) have to return everything back to normal after each story. A self-contained work can make a radical change like this, explore how do things have changed, and doesn't need to find a "way back" MBelgrano (talk) 20:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clocks, watches, chronometers. Imagine how valuable a £1 quartz (solar powered) wristwatch would be when used for navigation around the time that the earliest chronometers were being designed - ooh, you want things for 1896. If the requirement is to have something that is not too unusual in the past, then I expect a cheap clockwork wristwatch would have been much more expensive in the past. The best-selling novel for soon after 1896 would be worth something. Regretebly, the plans for military equipment such as guns or battleships would be worth a lot. As well as posing as a best-selling writer, you could pose as an inventer with a better internal combustion machine. 92.26.16.12 (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salt or spices. And don't pack it in glass - use paper. --Dweller (talk) 10:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Condoms,light ,cheap reliable and much,much better than what was around then.Batteries,a lot of inventions needed decent small batteries.Laser pointers,you could make your living in the circus with that.Don't know which religions you are talking about who may or may not be bothered by these.Buy Coca -cola shares for yourself to take back to the future....hotclaws 18:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collector of the Port of New York

Does anyone know who the current Collector of the Port of New York is? Our article says it's Joseph P. Kelly, since 1961 (unfortunately uncited), but he has neither an article nor a website. I did a semi-thorough Google search, and the only reference I could find to him as Collector was a (kinda interesting) knife case from 1967. (The commonality of the name made searching somewhat difficult.) It seems kind of a stretch (but possible) that he would still be in that position today. If no one knows, I might go down and do some WP:OR of my own (and maybe even get that published somewhere so it can go in the encyclopedia?). Thanks. Ab e g92contribs 16:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt that Kelly has been in the same position for 49 years! Is the Port of New York you're referring to the same thing as the contemporary Port Authority of New York and New Jersey? If so, I searched its website and could not find any evidence that the position even exists anymore. Good luck! —Eustress ^talk 22:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was a federal Customs position (as the article says), and a highly-valued presidential patronage appointment during most of the 19th century; the Port Authority is not a federal agency, so whatever the current version of the position is, it would not be under the Port Authority. AnonMoos (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears Kelly was the last one. Here is an NYT article on Michael Stramiello Jr who became "new regional director of the new New York Customs Region II" that apparently took over from the Collector - a google preview has "Mr, Stramiello, has taken over from Joseph P. Kelly, the last of a long line of Collectors of Customs for the Port of New York that date back to 1789, ... Kelly to Be Consultant Mr. Kelly, the last of 41 men who have held the post of Collector of Customs here, is being retained in an .."John Z (talk) 02:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, John. If anyone is wondering about the 1967 knife case, after he was no longer "The Collector" (1961-1966), that was the date of the court case, while the actual incident happened years earlier. StuRat (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]