Humanities desk
< May 9	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 11 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 10

English AP exam prompts

My exam for English AP is tomorrow and I feel that I have trouble grasping the complete concepts of literature or that I am unable to nail the work's theme, literary devices, and so on. How can I place myself in a mindset to really get it. I am looking for advice like on this page (http://www.ehow.com/how_4491937_identify-symbols-literature.html). --Melab±1 ☎ 00:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Worrying about how to read and write about literature a few hours before a major exam is setting new standards of "too little too late". At this point, the best advice I (as a teacher) can give you is to get a good nights sleep, eat a decent meal, and be in peak physical condition, so your mental state is not distracted by being tired and hungry. Cramming is next to worthless at this point, indeed if you sacrifice sleep or other physical needs for studying extra, you are likely to have a significant negative impact on your ability to recall information or perform skills needed to do well on the test. --Jayron32 00:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron is right. Tonight is for rest. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know what "English AP" is? We don't have an article on it. --Dweller (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Placement English Language and Composition, Advanced Placement English Literature and Composition... AnonMoos (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Never heard this expression before. --Dweller (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nor me. I'm not au fait with educational abbreviations of every country in the world. --ColinFine (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edit on that article, Colin, in which you inserted an essential piece of information that is so frequently overlooked and taken for granted on both Wikipedia and the internet in general – that the subject under consideration relates to the United States of America. 31.185.38.198 (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was Brad Mehldau's Largo recorded live?

Was Brad Mehldau's Largo recorded live? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.29.132.240 (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was recorded in a studio (as opposed to at a concert venue, in front of a live audience), but it was recorded "live, on the floor. There were no overdubs." See production credits at Nonesuch Records ---Sluzzelin talk 03:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gesturing while Talking

Is the practice of gesturing while talking nearly universal among those physically capable of doing it? 98.116.69.250 (talk) 05:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. I rarely do it, as it only seem useful when describing something tangible which is hard to visualize without gestures. I wouldn't see much point in adding gestures to describe what I had for lunch, for example. StuRat (talk) 06:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some research about gesturing here: Dr. Elena Nicoladis and her research colleagues observed the hand gestures of bilingual children as they told the same story twice, first in one language and then the other. The researchers were surprised by what they saw. "The children used gestures a lot more when telling the story in what they considered to be their stronger language,". Also, Gesturing aids thinking, memory, and Gesturing While Talking Helps Change Your Thoughts. Anecdotally, the amount of gesturing also seems to vary from one culture to another. When the East End of London had a large Yiddish speaking community, it was sometimes jokingly called "the land of the waving palms" because of the amount of gesturing that could be seen. Italians are also noted for vigorous gesturing, and don't forget the Gallic shrug. Alansplodge (talk) 10:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. See this. Congenitally blind test subjects waved their hands while speaking to listeners they knew were also blind. Zoonoses (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of elevator divisions of ThyssenKrupp and Hitachi

The elevator divisions of ThyssenKrupp and Hitachi should have been merged some years ago, but they weren't merged. My question: Why? --84.61.181.19 (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is based on a supposition: you clearly believe that they should have been merged some years ago. Have you considered that your supposition may be flawed? --Dweller (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is that they weren't merged because you're not the CEO. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The elevators probably had something to do with it. Bus stop (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they'll merge if they think it will give their profits a lift. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! "profits a lift". Brilliant!

US bureaucratic reorganisation

Any idea when the FDA was moved from USDA to HEW? I'm getting the impression from History of the Food and Drug Administration that it started in USDA and was moved to HEW by the end of the 1960s, but beyond that I can't quite figure it out. Nyttend (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It moved from USDA in 1940, but didn't join HEW until 1953, and in between was part of the short-lived Federal Security Agency, an independent agency formed by the Reorganization Act of 1939 and later abolished, with most of its functions transferred to the new HEW. From Tamar Lasky, Epidemiologic Principles And Food Safety (2007), p. 6.

~~1939~~ 1839 - Patent Office, Department of State

1849 - Chemical Laboratory of the Agriculture Division in the Patent Office, Department of the Interior

1862 - Chemical Division, USDA

1889 - Chemical Division, USDA

1890 - Division of Chemistry, USDA

1901 - Bureau of Chemistry, USDA

1927 - Food and Drug Insecticide Administration, USDA

1930 - FDA, USDA

1940 - FDA, Federal Security Agency

1953 - FDA, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW)

1979 - FDA, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

Neutrality^talk 14:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take it the first item on that list was transported forward in time a century by a freak tear in the space-time continuum ? :-) StuRat (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Apparently they invented and patented a time machine :-) Nyttend (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ayy, yes. Neutrality^talk 06:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WhatWeDo/History/Overviews/LocationofFDAanditsPredecessorsinFederalGovernment/default.htm Dalliance (talk) 11:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is Gambling work?

Is gambling work? If I support myself and my family by gambling at the casino, worth that be consider work? If I (who is a non-american) travel to USA on a tourist visa which strictly forbids working while in USA and I spend my time in the casino earning money by gambling. Am I breaking my tourist visa condition? 220.239.37.244 (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it possible to support oneself gambling at the casino; if you make that much money, pretty soon they won't let you come back. Nyttend (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite difficult anyway. If you're an excellent card counter, and you bet low enough amounts at each casino that they don't worry about you winning, and you switch casinos often, you might be able to make a living at it. This would be very much like work, though, in that you would put in many hours for low pay. I believe the winnings are taxable as "unearned income", though, so not considered to be work by the IRS, at least for Americans. I suspect the same is true of tourists. StuRat (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on which games you're playing. If you're playing against the house (e.g. slot machines and blackjack), you might be asked to leave, but that's only likely to happen if you're cheating (or make it look like you are). Such games have a reliable house edge and no way to get around it short of cheating. The house can wait out your winning streak. Even if you quit while you're well up, they view it as a form of advertising, as you're likely to tell your friends about your winnings. However, there are games where you can make a living by gambling. These are games like poker, where you're winning other people's money, not the house's. There are such things as professional poker players, and some of them do make money through playing the game, rather than through tournament prizes and endorsements. As the casinos get their cut from the hand win-or-lose, they don't mind if a skilled poker player makes a large amount off of other guests. In fact, having skilled poker players at their tables is actually something to be proud of, as high-rollers want to try their luck against the skilled players (and will then purchase expensive hotel rooms, food and entertainment afterwards). - Regarding the original question, you're *highly* unlikely to reliably make money through gambling, but if you are in a position to (e.g. you're a professional poker player in your home country), coming to the US with the intention of performing your profession might run counter to your visa conditions. We can't give legal advice, so you'd have to talk to the State Department. -- 71.217.8.17 (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

High rollers do not purchase anything. The "expensive hotel rooms, food and entertainment" are provided. Poker is the only game I know where someone can make a living through gambling. BJ can be beat, but they can throw you out for counting just about anywhere except Atlantic City, and in AC they have ways to get you to leave (shuffle after every hand, change table max to $1, ect.) The only other game that can be reliably beat is faro. If you find a casino in the U.S. that offers it, I'd love to hear about it. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the game from the St. Petersburg Paradox, which has an infinite average payout. If anywhere in the world offers that, I'd love to hear about it! If the OP has been taken in by something like one of the Roulette betting systems, then they really, really, don't work, even though an astonishing number of people are convinced that they do. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will happily take the house's part of that game against you, for an advance payment of one hundred thousand dollars. Your expected winnings are still infinite, so you needn't quibble on the price. --Trovatore (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, guys? Isn't this pretty clearly legal advice? I don't think it's a request for advice on the question of whether you can win at gambling. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt anyone can win in blackjack. It's quite simple to screw 'card counters': the croupier makes a pause and reshuffles when he comes back or simply invite the winner to a drink. There's no need to more extreme measures like inviting him to leave. OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The techniques you mention are largely unnecessary, because outside of AC they can simply throw you the hell out. In AC, the techniques you mentioned aren't possible, due to CCC regulations. People can and do beat BJ under the right conditions. When Delaware Park opened their tables, counters had beaten them to the tune of 3 million before they wised up. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first and second questions really aren't requests for legal advice; the third is, so you'll notice that we've ignored it except for the one bit instructing the OP to contact the State Department. I turned the question toward practicability to emphasise the near-impossibility of this scenario happening. Nyttend (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many professional poker players don't use the term 'gambling'. They are poker players and adjust the odds of winning by either folding bad cards or raising bets on good cards. True gambling is slots and lotteries, etc. I would assume that many tourists gamble in the US on tourist visas. I think the IRS is right at the casinos for the bigger wins, but not the smaller ones. I live in Canada, and I was told that I would have to pay the IRS, then apply later for the difference back from lower Canadian taxes.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether gambling is "work" or not is probably a matter of opinion; but in the USA, at least, gambling winnings are taxable income. So in that sense it qualifies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Work" is a very fuzzy concept. Exactly the same job could be utter drudgery to one person but unbounded joy to another. That's why governments are interested in employment, earnings, taxable income etc etc, and don't get much into "work". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but the OP probably wants to know whether it's employment-type income, rather than whether it's "work" in some deeper sense. For example, obviously you don't pay payroll tax on gambling winnings (Social Security/Medicare taxes), but might you have to pay self-employment tax, which is more or less a substitute for payroll tax when there's no "employer" per se? I don't know the answer to those questions, and it would be interesting to hear. Just academic for me — I don't particularly care for gambling, mainly because I almost never win, so I'm unlikely to have it come up as an actual tax issue. --Trovatore (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs is correct. Gambling winnings are taxable income in the U.S. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The federal 1040 instructions don't define what "work" is, they define what taxable income is. States usually follow the federal rules about what constitutes income and deductions, with exceptions here and there. And it doesn't require a lawyer to interpret p.27 where it includes gambling winnings as income that must be reported.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that they're taxable income. The question is, what kind of taxable income? Do you have to report it on Schedule C and pay self-employment tax in addition to income tax? Or would it go in some other category where you don't have to pay self-employment tax, similar to interest and dividends? --Trovatore (talk) 01:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the instructions, it's to be entered on Line 21, which is defined as "Other income". Read the instructions for the details. But I think it's just straight income and gets lumped in with your gross income. I imagine that if you were a frequent gambler and filed quarterly income payments (as in being self-employed), you could avoid getting socked with a penalty for owing the fed too much at annual tax time. But you need to read the details to find out for sure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Self-employment tax is not about quarterly payments. Anyone who would otherwise be under-withheld may be required to make quarterly payments, whether self-employed or not (for example, if you're under-withheld because of capital gains). Self-employment tax is a replacement for Social Security and Medicare taxes. --Trovatore (talk) 01:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the OP's question again, he's not so much worried about taxable income as he is about violating his tourist visa. That's where he needs to talk to an expert. Maybe not a lawyer, maybe just whoever he got the tourist visa from. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For those who think that it is impossible to make considerable money at gambling, be aware that there are all sorts of rule-bendings that occur for high-stakes players; it is a little known amenity to lure the folks who are going to (potentially) put down hundreds of thousands of dollars, and sometimes the casinos shave their odds completely off. Recently this caused one player to win millions of dollars at three American casinos. Anyway, whether you can win is totally irrelevant — of course you can win big if the statistics work out for you, as many casinos have found. The question is whether you win over the long play. Some people can do this because of (totally legal) rule adjustments, some people are lucky. It's irrelevant to the question that the OP asked and a majorly silly distraction debate here, since most of you are talking out of your hats anyway. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow. The link you provide says nothing about the house "shaving their odds competely off", or at all. The only exception made for Mr. Johnson was allowing him to wager $100,000 a hand, which is considerably higher than the table limit. The house edge in BJ is the same if the player bets $5 or $500,000; about half a percent for a competent player (they're rarer than you'd think). A counter can shift the odds up to half a percent in his favor. The only real odds-shaving I've seen is certain houses lowering their sports-betting vigorish for extremely high-limit bettors, from the customary 10% down to as low as 1%. (Hope I'm not talking out of my hat!) Joefromrandb (talk) 01:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you read the end of the first page and particularly the beginning of second, it does mention them effectively reducing their odds by offering discounts. Later in the second page, it describes in detail the advantages offered to the player discussed. Nil Einne (talk) 02:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a different story. Comping a player a $15,000-a-night suite or a $5000 bottle of '82 Petrus will not help the player's odds. It's a calculated move by the house to help them keep the player put, and thus win more of his cash. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But Mr.98 never said the 15k suite or bottle or whatever had anything to do with improving the odds. It seems clear they're referring to the other things the casinos did, which had nothing to do with any of those but moves (other then both being a bid to attract someone they were hoping would make them a lot of money) which did actually improve the odds significantly by offering fairly large discounts and other similar things because they were desperate. We don't even know if they offered the specific player any of that sort of stuff (although they probably did) since from what I saw, it doesn't discuss it in the case of that player, instead only the stuff that actually mattered to him.

Edit: Actually very near the end it mentions how one casino will continue to offer to take care of his rooms and his accounts while he's there, but won't offer such generous discounts (i.e. the thing that matters most to said player), so I guess it does mention the room thing briefly in relation to said player.

Edit2: In the case a nitpicker comes along, I just want to note the free stuff like a free room and bottle arguably will actually improve the immediate odds since e.g. instead of losing $500k they've lost slightly less presuming they would have spent some of their money for the same things otherwise. It works similarly if you win $500k, instead of winning $500k you've effectively won $500k+whatever. However because these are only one time things and fairly small for a highroller, and don't increase as they play more (except if they stay for longer) the odds will progressively get worse the more they lose or win until the improvement is indisguisable from noise. Also this only really works if you would have bought those things anyway, e.g. if you get a free bottle but you wouldn't have bought it anyway or you would have never come to the place except to gamble so you wouldn't need a room, it falls down. From the description in the article, the discounts mentioned are likely to remain if you don't win too much and particularly if you lose, so you keep those better odds.

Nil Einne (talk) 02:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I'd love to continue discussing this, we've moved way off-topic from the OP's question, and I'm as much-if not more-to blame as anyone here. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst the above all seems centred around Vegas/casino style gambling I'll just quickly add that that's not the only way professional gamblers make money. I have a friend that is a professional gambler and he has long sustained an average lifestyle through betting on sports (football/soccer in particular)...I.e. he's not rich, he probably earns around the Uk average each year. ny156uk (talk) 07:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the changes to the odds, from the article:

Johnson did not miss the math. For example, at the Trop, he was willing to play with a 20 percent discount after his losses hit $500,000, but only if the casino structured the rules of the game to shave away some of the house advantage. Johnson could calculate exactly how much of an advantage he would gain with each small adjustment in the rules of play. He won’t say what all the adjustments were in the final e-mailed agreement with the Trop, but they included playing with a hand-shuffled six-deck shoe; the right to split and double down on up to four hands at once; and a “soft 17” (the player can draw another card on a hand totaling six plus an ace, counting the ace as either a one or an 11, while the dealer must stand, counting the ace as an 11). When Johnson and the Trop finally agreed, he had whittled the house edge down to one-fourth of 1 percent, by his figuring. In effect, he was playing a 50-50 game against the house, and with the discount, he was risking only 80 cents of every dollar he played. He had to pony up $1 million of his own money to start, but, as he would say later: “You’d never lose the million. If you got to [$500,000 in losses], you would stop and take your 20 percent discount. You’d owe them only $400,000.”

In a 50-50 game, you’re taking basically the same risk as the house, but if you get lucky and start out winning, you have little incentive to stop.

So when Johnson got far enough ahead in his winning sprees, he reasoned that he might as well keep playing. “I was already ahead of the property,” he says. “So my philosophy at that point was that I can afford to take an additional risk here, because I’m battling with their money, using their discount against them.”'

That's what I was referring to. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Typical reference desk, not answering the question asked but answering the question they'd like to pontificate about. The actual OP's question is pretty clearly legal tax related advice. There are different sorts of "income", which is the core of the actual question. Trust that if you win a substantial amount of money at once the casino is required to report it. Shadowjams (talk) 22:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]