Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 November 3

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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.

November 3

Complicated

When people vote for the candidate of their choice on Tuesday, it seems they're really only voting for an electoral college member and the president as such isn't revealed (or voted in) until December, a month later. Do people know they're voting for this, not the individual running for president? (I'm Australian.) Julia Rossi (talk) 00:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The electoral college is just a formality, because the electoral college members will almost always vote for their candidate. And on the ballot paper (or screen) itself, it is noted that you are actually voting for "electors for Obama/McCain". F (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I've heard of surveys which showed a very large proportion (a majority, I think) of Americans don't know how their elections work. It doesn't really matter, though, because as F says, faithless electors are very rare and have never changed the result of an election. --Tango (talk) 01:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The electoral college is decidedly not a formality, if it were, minority presidents would be impossible; indeed we have had at least 4-5 presidents who did NOT get 50%+1 of the popular vote and still won the electoral college vote; we have had at least 3 presidential elections where the person who won the plurality (most votes, even if not the majority) did NOT become president; most recently in 2000 when Bush defeated Gore with an electoral college vote of 271-266, but Gore had more popular votes by more than 1/2 a million... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

See This archived discussion on the electoral college for a brief description of several times in history that the president did NOT get 50%+1 of the popular vote, but still was elected president... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that F meant that the meetings of the electoral college members in their respective state capitals, the certified letters, the mahogony boxes, etc, etc, are a formality, not the electoral college method itself. By the way, United States presidential election, 1824 makes for some excellent reading—one can only imagine the chaos if a contemporary election were thrown to the House of Representatives for a vote. Darkspots (talk) 11:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. F (talk) 02:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The electoral college "mechanism" is vitally important - it skews the results such that if you live in a heavily one-sided state, your views don't matter - and the candidates won't advertise at you so much (a mixed blessing then!). However, the actual college itself is an historical anachronism with no modern purpose. The odds of one of those electors voting in the opposite way to what they said they would is essentially zero...they'd get lynched if they did it these days...but the consequences of the system that supposes that they'll actually vote are deep indeed. It makes it perfectly possible (as with Bush in 2000) for a president who less people voted for to beat someone who more people actually wanted. The system is predicated around the notion that each US state is truly acting like an independant nation who is electing a president who will only be running the post office and the military. In that case, the idea that you don't want populous states with very one-sided voting to dominate the other states is a valid one. But when the president has as much power as today - and people consider themselves as "Americans" before they consider their 'state-identity' - the system seems very distorted. But the chances of replacing it are near zero - so you'd better just get used to it! SteveBaker (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact seems to be making slow but steady progress. I don't know if it will ever reach the 50% required, but the chance seems to be a fair above zero. --Tango (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

"Do people know they're voting for this" Yes. I think so. You make it sound more complicated than it really is in practice once you strip away the ceremony. I think that most people understand that votes are counted on a state-by-state basis, and that different states get different numbers of 'electoral votes'. People understand this because that's the way TV presents it. Every presidential election year we see the big map of which states have reported in their official counts, and how that adds up on the 'electoral vote'. Anything that's explained in length by the television every four years, I think we can assume is understood by a large percentage of the adult population. That the newspapers, and grade schools also explain it can only help.

Not many of us know the identities of the electors, or the exact time and place that the electors meet to cast their votes, because it doesn't matter at all. They could be robots or trained baboons for all the difference it would make. APL (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Election timing

Hi. The president is sworn in January 20, 2009, I believe, on Inaguration day. However, I'm also wondering why elections always seem to be on Tuesdays? Also, do the final results of the election (ie. who won) get released on Tuesday or Wednesday EST? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

According to this prediction, the results should be known by 11pm Tuesday Eastern time. As for why it is on Tuesday, see U.S. Election Day#History. F (talk) 01:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The results of the election are released precinct by precinct and state by state. If an election is close, the result in a given state will not be known until 95% or more of its precincts have reported their results. This can take quite a while after the polls close, maybe 6 to 12 hours depending on the state. Then, a candidate needs to win the electoral votes of enough states to be assured of a majority in the Electoral College. Again, in a close election, it may be necessary to wait for the results from the west coast, or even, theoretically, Alaska and Hawaii (though in this election, it is a fairly safe bet that Alaska will go for McCain and Hawaii for Obama). If this election is closer than polls predict, and we have to wait for the results from, say, Washington State, then the final results might not be known until 10 or 11 am Wednesday EST. This is assuming that the results are not contested. If the results are contested, as they were in the 2000 presidential election, the result might not be known for weeks. Marco polo (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I took a look at the fascinating video linked by F, which predicts that it will be possible to identify the winner of the election by 8 pm Pacific Time. That would be 11 pm Eastern Time Tuesday. I found the video plausible, though I would not be surprised if it took at least a couple hours longer. Marco polo (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Recall that in the 2000 election, the result was "called" (incorrectly as it happens) by the press 70 minutes before the polls closed in Florida. So there is clearly pressure on the news outlets to call the result as early as possible (or even earlier in that case!). However, it's possible that an overly-early call can change the result. Did Gore supporters in Florida stay home in the last hour because they thought it was all over? Did Bush supporters who might otherwise not have voted recognize the vital importance of getting to the polls before they closed - despite what the press said? Because of that danger (and the risk of looking like total idiots when they get it wrong) - it's likely that they'll be cautious in "calling" the election until there is absolutely no possibility of the result changing. But if it's an Obama landslide (I doubt it) - then it may be possible to know the result for 100% certain before the polls have even closed. We'll know tomorrow(ish). SteveBaker (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That's why a lot of countries have rules about what the media can do while polls are open. I know due to different timezones it's not really practical to have all the polls close at the same time, but those closing earlier could hold off on announcing results until the last polls have closed. --Tango (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem in 2000 wasn't the polls announcing results - it was the results of "exit polls" where some guy stands outside of the polling place and asks people how they voted - so passing laws about what the polls themselves do may not help. SteveBaker (talk) 04:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

How to pronounce "clothes"

Yo W to tha pedia! How does a brother pronounce "clothes" in proper, clean, formal english? Is it pronounced "cloz"? Hustle (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's like "cloe" + th (heavy as in "the" or "that") + "z". So, cloz with a "th" in there. Cheers, Julia Rossi (talk) 03:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Others pronounce it without the "Z." (edit) "TH." Like "close the door." Not to rhyme with "loathes." Consider it a case of "lazymouf." Edison (talk) 04:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Julia's description was right on the money. It would be very difficult to pronounce the word without the "Z" sound. Darkspots (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I always say 'cloze'--and if I absolutely had to pronounce every word correctly, I would actually say "clothing" instead. 'Cloathz' just feels ugly in my mouth. --Masamage ♫ 04:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, except when it's a verb, in which case I always pronounce it properly. :/ --Masamage ♫ 04:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That's the oddest form of discrimination I've ever heard of, Masamage. What would that be - partofspeechism, perhaps? -- JackofOz (talk) 06:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's see if I as an Englishman have understood the foregoing correctly. If I am clothed, I am wearing clothes - but if I am clozed, I am not open? 92.21.243.29 (talk) 10:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

She clothes herself in close, yes. Or in clothing. I will make no attempt to explain myself on this one. X) --Masamage ♫ 00:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I pronounces 'Cloves' but with a 'th' instead of a v. So Clothes infact... That's not particularly useful is it...-- WORMMЯOW  11:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware the pronunciation of "clothes" was just a controversial subject! Is there really more than one way to say it? It's pronounced as it's written (with the usual rule for "magic e" in English). --Tango (talk) 12:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary gives only one pronunciation: with the TH. The American Heritage Book of English Usage says

The pronunciation [without TH] has been recorded in various dictionaries since the 1700s including Samuel Johnson’s (1755) and Noah Webster’s (1828). The pronunciation [with TH], while not incorrect, is sometimes considered pedantic. Either pronunciation is acceptable, but [without TH] is much more common.

Other dictionaries:

• American Heritage gives both, prefers without TH
• Merriam-Webster gives both, prefers without TH
• Cambridge learners only with TH
• Webster's New World College Dictionary gives both, prefers with TH
• Encarta gives both, prefers with TH

So take your pick. Partly it's phonotactics. Sounds present in careful enunciation get elided in fluent speech: in relaxed pronunciation of English, complex consonant clusters get simplified. This is not (necessarily) sloppy or lazy: it's the way native speakers talk naturally, and failing to do it is one feature of a "foreign accent".

PS next time, ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language jnestorius^(talk) 19:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Funny that. I tend to pronounce everything: clo-thes, li-bra-ry, Fe-bru-ary, Aus-tra-lia (cf "Stry-ya") and jewel-ry, so I must sound foreign! Whaddayaknow, Julia Rossi (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There is of course room for free variation. Do you say Aus-tra-lia or Aus-tra-li-a? At any given time, a few words serve as shibboleths; the rest are taken for granted.

Hmmm, given there's: ôˈstrālyə; əˈstrāl-, sometimes the first, more often the second initial sound, with yə (-lia) mostly. But can still have fun with changes. :) Julia Rossi (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

←Phonological history of English consonant clusters is one of those articles that has laypeople like me scratching their heads. But the image from the article shows the geographical range of speakers who preserve a distinction in their speech between "dew" and "do". I grew up in that (very limited) range, and I pronounce the words differently. Freaky. Darkspots (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess I can see how it's possible to pronounce "dew" and "do" differently, strange though it may seem to me, but the one I've always wondered about is "caught" and "cot." Apparently there are people who can make a distinction, but try as I might, I just can't come up with two different sounds for those. And I agree with Masamage: I pronounce "clothes" differently as a noun (cloz) than as a verb (clothz). Like "produce"--PRO-duce vs. prə-DUCE. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 03:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the great CIC/CINC debate! Go to alt.usage.english; they'll fill you in. Anyway I pronounce the two words differently, though it's a bit subtle and you might not really notice in fast speech. The vowel in caught is slightly longer (in time; that is, it's held longer), slightly more rounded (meaning rounded lips), and slightly more "forward", which I don't know how to explain except that it just feels like it's made more forward in the mouth. The vowel in "cot" is the same (or at least almost the same) as the first vowel in "pasta", whereas the vowel in "caught" is definitely not. --Trovatore (talk) 03:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If I were to exaggerate my differing pronunciation of the two words, I'd say I pronounce caught as "cawt", the beginning rhyming with "saw", whereas I pronounce cot as "caht", the beginning rhyming with "blah". --Delirium (talk)

Here in Britain, the vowels in "caught", "cot", "pasta" and "blah" are all quite distinct from the others. Which proves why the IPA is so necessary.

(For the record, that's kɔːt, kɒt, pæstə and blɑː) Malcolm XIV (talk) 11:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but I cringe when I hear people saying pæstə (rather than pɑːstə), bæsic (rather than bay-sic), and cæsl (rather than cɑːsl). I guess it's what one's used to. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen such huge variations in pronunciation in my life. To me, pronouncing clothes like "close" in "close the door" would just make me think you're just generally bad at English and not articulate (still classed as a fluent speaker, but just not that good). Not quite so severe is "dew" and "do", "do" should be obvious, but "dew" can be pronounced like "do", like "new" except with a d instead of an n (possibly bad example, since you could pronounce new like "noo" too) or "mew" with a d instead of an m, or like "Jew". "Caught" rhymes with "sort" and "cot" rhymes with "shot" (short o sound). "Pasta" can rhyme with "raster" or less commonly, sound like the aster part of asteroid (with a p at the front). "Blah" can have a bit more variation. All in my own personal experience of course. Forgive me, but I can't read IPA, except for maybe a couple of symbols. --WikiSlasher (talk) 02:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"Dew" can indeed be pronounced like "do" (e.g. when Sammy Davis sang The Candy Man, it sounded like "Who can make a sun rise, Sprinkle it with "doo", which always gave me images of spreading animal droppings over something). But likewise, "do" is often pronounced like "dew". I've often heard this on US TV shows, and I associate it with young people (late teens - mid 20s; females more than males). It's not exactly like dew, it's more like "dee-you". For some reason, older people never seem to say it this way. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Halloween presidential mask sales

Are these web sites 1 2 3 accurately telling me the future? --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 04:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Give us 48 hours and we'll let you know. --Masamage ♫ 04:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Possibly the longest and most tense 48 hours ever..... --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 04:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Inconveniently, the following Halloween mask distribution will reveal what they really think. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's more interesting that amazon.com have plenty of used McCain masks (at $10 below the usual price) but no used Obama masks. Make what you like of that! SteveBaker (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It turns out that they were telling you the future accurately. Of course, there were several polls with a more developed methodology which were telling everyone the same thing, so it's not really amazing. Warofdreams talk 13:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It's also interesting why the winner is a more popular mask. Here in NZ, a poll said that Helen Clark (the loser) was considered scarier, whether that was reflected in mask sales I don't know (they were probably too small to be significant) Nil Einne (talk) 13:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Phone Dials After Owner's Death

Hi all, I was just reading a Snopes article about the Chatsworth crash which claimed that although a passenger was killed on impact, his cell phone made 35 calls to his relatives. Does anyone have any idea on how this could happen? I cannot think of any mechanism which would allow it to occur... 121.216.77.134 (talk) 09:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the time of death in this instance is recorded incorrectly? Perhaps the guy had relatives on speed-dial and the phone buttons were depressing because of heat (was the wreck on fire?) or perhaps because of pressure (was the phone found on his body?). The truth will be something dull and unspectacular like that. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The phone was not found, according to the Snopes article that the OP supplied. Dismas|^(talk) 14:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

In which case the most probable mechanism is that someone else found it and started playing with speed-dial. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

My phone frequently unlocks its own keypad and starts phoning and texting people randomly from my pocket. I see no reason I need to be alive for that! --Tango (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it is the phone that is alive! Plasticup ^T/C 15:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I've known of phones that would take pictures while in the owner's pocket or purse. Their memory would fill up with shots of their keys, wallet, tissues, etc. Dismas|^(talk) 16:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly a rather suspect series of events. The fact that they supposedly used the signal from his phone to find his location - yet they never found the phone...that's rather odd. That the calls stopped an hour before they found the body...yet the battery could not have gone dead because they were still (presumably) using it to track the location. I suspect that through the confusion and grief there are aspects of this report that are not correct. Snope's "TRUE" status is based (as far as I can tell) on just two newspaper reports. I doubt this happened as written. SteveBaker (talk) 18:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Even the snopes article casts doubt on whether or not the phone was found. If they located the phone near the body this story would not be that unbelievable. ("As far as investigators revealed, they never found Peck's cell phone." could simply mean that they never mentioned the phone. Understandable when they've got bodies to recover.) It's also doesn't mention how, or how successfull they were tracking the cel-phone, or whether they simply found the guy's corpse in the normal course of their search for survivors. APL (talk) 14:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually the Snopes article does say the phone ultimately led rescuers to the remains which suggests the phone did play a part. This doesn't mean it had to be still working when the body was found. It's possible I guess they had tracked the location of where the signal was coming from but couldn't access it for an hour. Or perhaps they thought the chance of a survivor there so unlikely that they didn't try until they had looked into more urgent places. Also, when the article says they finally found his body, it could mean they had seen his body before then but didn't bother or couldn't get it out until an hour later. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure rescuers often won't tell anyone they've found the body until they've recovered it Nil Einne (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

US foreign debt not so great?

Reading about the US being at the edge of bankruptcy due to its huge foreign debt (per GDP now greater than it was in the 1930s), I decided to look that up and of course we have a table: List of countries by external debt. However, to my surprise, the foreign debt per GDP (click (twice) the 'arrow' in the last column) is much bigger for a lot of european countries. Actually, those dominate the top of the list. Might this be a result of delayed payment of bills between companies? For the EU with its open market that would make a lot of sense. But Switzerland (third on the list) is not part of the EU. Might that have something to do with banking?
If those are the cause, were can I find such a list with only government debt, which is what I really wanted to know? Amrad (talk) 09:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's important to note that those numbers are from before the economy went haywire (or, at least, as haywire as it is now), things have probably changed significantly since then. We have a similar list, List of countries by public debt, is that what you wanted? --Tango (talk) 11:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You also have to look at net debt - debt minus liabilities - to get the complete picture. Note how the article you link to (which shows gross debt) only have positive values (or zero) - for net debt, all values should (ideally) sum to zero, ie a lot of countries (like my country and another country) have huge net surpluses. Jørgen (talk) 12:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, of course, I forgot about that. Silly me. So do you know of a list for that? Tango, thanks for the link. That's what I asked for, but it seems now not what I wanted. :) Without calculating in the liabilities it really doesn't say much. Rather like looking at your spending without looking at your income. Amrad (talk) 13:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

So that part of the picture is List of countries by current account balance, where you see the magnitude of the U.S. debt put into its true context. Darkspots (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

While that's a related concept, it's important to notice that the current account is a measure of flow, it's what's changed (usually over the course of a year). Debt and assets are stocks, they are values at a given point in time. See Stock and flow. --Tango (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't follow. Do you mean that that table only shows the change in the net debt for the year 2007? Which would mean that the total net debt is much greater? For the US, the table shows a 730 billion USD net debt. Which is about 2000 USD per capita. If that's only the change over last year, that would mean tens of thousands of US dollar per US citizen. It can't be that bad, can it? Btw, I'm pleased to see that my country (the Netherlands) is so high on the list, despite the small population. That's 4000 USD per capita in black figures. Not as good as Jørgen's Norway, though, where that figure is over 10,000 USD. Norwegian oil does better than Dutch gas, it seems. :) Or rather, it does the same, but for a smaller population.Amrad (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The table shows the Current account balance. Don't read the WP article, read this instead. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to follow up Darkspots' link, here's current account balance controlled for percent of GDP.--droptone (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

In addition to Tango's point that current-account balance is a measure of a single year's flow, not a measure of indebtedness (it's possible to be completely out of debt despite a large current-account deficit, if you started with lots of assets), it's also a measure of the net balance of the entire U.S. economy (i.e. government plus individuals plus companies), which is not the same thing as measuring the government's finances, which is what the sovereign debt figure measures. Which you want depends on what you're looking at. If, for example, you're interested in the likelihood of a country defaulting on its bonds, debt ratio is more immediately important than current-account balance, since a minimally indebted government is not likely to default even if its citizens run up a huge current-account deficit. --Delirium (talk) 09:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I really wish these figures were routinely divided by the number of people of working age (or some other suitable metric) when presented by government or the press. If we did that then people would feel the problem more intimately. If you look at the $700 billion that the US govermnent just pledged to the bank recovery effort - and divide that by (say) 100 million workers (I'm not sure what the true number is) - then that comes out at $7,000 per worker. Yes - that's $7,000 that YOU personally spent on fixing the banking mess. The average person can't comprehend $700,000,000,000 - but $7,000 out of their own pocket gives you an immediate gut-feel for just how big that expenditure will eventually be. People (like John McCain) get very upset at things like 'earmarks'. This year those will add up to $16.5 billion. Is that a lot of money? Well - it amounts to perhaps $160 (using my hundred-million worker number). Since most of the time, you're actually buying something with that money (roads, bridges, etc) - you might not feel it's such a terrible thing. If a new freeway is build in your home town - it might very easily be worth that much to you over the years to come. Sarah Palin's famous "bridge to nowhere" has gotten a lot of press - it was supposed to cost $398 million. That's $3.98 out of my pocket...it was worth that for the laughs we got as a result of it! It's impossible for "Joe Public" to envisage these numbers. But routinely dividing them down like this really helps to put them in focus. SteveBaker (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Tax revenue doesn't come from everyone equally, though, so it doesn't work like that. I don't know what the distributions are exactly, but a large number of the poorest people pay essentially nothing in tax so the bail out didn't cost them a penny (for the UK, it works out at something like the bottom 40%, but that's including money spent on the NHS, so it's probably a little less in the US), most of it was paid for by the high earners that pay most of the tax. --Tango (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not necessarily relevant, though. After all, if the tax money wasn't being spent saving banks, it could be spent on something of benefit to the poor. Btw, essentially everyone in the UK pays tax (VAT if nothing else). Do you mean that the poorest 40% get more from the government than they pay? Algebraist 18:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That depends on whether public spending is being cut or taxes are being increased in order to pay for the bail out (actually, the bail out is a bad example because it will probably result in a profit for the treasury over the long term so it isn't costing anyone anything). Yes, from benefits, tax credits, etc. There's a bar chart on the Office of National Statistics site somewhere, I'll find it. --Tango (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the page I remember, but this pdf has the same chart on page 2 (and it's actually 60%, not 40%, I remembered it incorrectly). That includes more than just cash benefits, I believe, so it's not entirely relevant to what we're talking about. It's still an interesting statistic. --Tango (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The table on page three is more useful, it separates out cash and in-kind benefits. If you only include cash benefits, it's back to 40% (well, the bottom two quintiles, I don't know where the exact cutoff is). --Tango (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware that not everyone pays equally - but reducing the number to some kind of average amount that is representative of what most people are paying (or "owing" or "responsible for" or whatever) is the goal here. Get the number down to a 'human scale' where we can understand the relative size of it. SteveBaker (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, it isn't what "most" people are paying. It's the average of what everyone is paying, but that average is heavily skewed by a small number of people with high incomes. Most people pay little or nothing, a few people pay a lot. --Tango (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's still useful though. $700bn means very little but saying the "average" taxpayer pays $7000 has more meaning. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep - exactly. I'm not asking for any kind of exact number - just some kind of rough-and-ready divisor that turns a crazy number into something that's meaningful. So if the cost falls heavily in the laps of the rich - then let's divide by 200,000,000 or 300,000,000 or whatever it takes to come up with something approximately representative. SteveBaker (talk) 04:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

And then we can also compare countries more easily. The Netherlands reserved 20 billion euro (of which over half is spent now). That's about 25 billion USD (when did that happen? The euro used to be 1.6 USD or something. Anyway....). You divided by 1/3 of the US population, so I'll do the same. That's 25 billion / 5 million = 5000 USD. Not as much as in the US, but close.

We could make a list. Everyone make this calculation for your country please. :) Aren't all EU countries supposed to do the same as the Netherlands are doing? Or wasn't that proposal accepted? Amrad (talk) 08:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Tango, taxes don't come mostly from the happy few. Tey may be filthy rich, but there's too few of them. That's why the Dutch Socialist Party dropped the idea to raise te taxes for them. Most money comes from the upper middle class. Not as much money, but still a lot, and more importantly, they consitute about a quarter of the population (that's a wild guess). Amrad (talk) 08:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It depends on your definitions and where you draw the line. If we look at the table in the pdf I linked to above and, for simplicities sake, assume there are 5 households in the UK (it makes no difference to the percentages), the total amount of tax paid, minus cash benefits, is £38,300, the total tax paid (minus cash benefits) by the richest household is £24,290, that's 63% of UK tax revenue coming from the richest 20% of households. If you include the top 40% of households you get £36,340, or 95% of tax revenue. So, taxes do indeed come mostly from the happy few! That's before we even consider "in-kind benefits" (health and education, mainly, I think), which disproportionately go to the poor (I guess the rich use private hospitals and schools more), then it becomes even more extreme (I'm not quite sure how they define in-kind benefits, though, so I'm not sure how to interpret those numbers accurately, hence not including them here). --Tango (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure public benefits benefit the poor more. How much benefit does somebody without a car get out of public funding of the highways and streets? How much benefit does a poor person get from public funding of the management and regulation of the airline system? How many poor people benefit from public funding of the arts, theatres, etc.? Does a poor or rich person benefit more from the publicly funded legal/police system and its effect on reducing the amount of theft, burglaries, kidnappings, etc.? How about the publicly funded legal system's prosecution of things like theft of intellectual property, or patent violations, or restraint of trade? Or the publicly funded probate court system which ensures that inheritances end up in the right hands? "If you got nothing, you got nothing to lose". Gzuckier (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

A lot of poor people still have cars (and if you don't have a car you don't pay road tax or fuel duty). Does much, if any, public money go on airlines? The arts do receive some public money, but not a great deal. The poor, on average, live in higher crime areas which require a greater proportion of police funding, they are also more likely to use public defence lawyers. The cases you're talking about about civil cases which aren't publicly prosecuted, the loser pays the court costs (I don't know if that covers all the costs, but it certainly covers a good portion). I'm not sure how probate courts are funded, but I think there are fees taken from the estate to cover at least some of it. You then have health and education which are used significantly more by the poor than the rich. Pretty much the only large sector of public money that isn't weighted towards the poor is defence, and that's pretty evenly split (I guess the rich have more to lose in a war, so you could say it slightly favours them, but not much). --Tango (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Note that if you are poor you are still a lot less likely to use anywhere near the amount of roads as a person who's better off outside of work purposes but still has to pay the same amount of road taxes. They will of course also pay less fuel duty, although it can get complicated since a poor person may have a cheaper, fuel-guzzling old car. Whether fuel duty + road tax is enough to account for all costs that come with constructing roads (and all the other costs that come with cars, e.g. in air pollution) is difficult to say since it's extremely complicated to count, but from what I've seen and read, it doesn't. (Something those opposed to increase funding for public transport like to ignore, the tax payer is actually subsiding roads quite a bit). And this is from NZ where we have the kind of fuel duties common in most of the developed world outside the US. If you're in the US, I don't see any way in hell that roads+cars aren't partially subsidised by the tax payer (i.e. outside of licensing and fuel duty) Nil Einne (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Droptone, thanks for the link. That's what I was looking for. The US is now somewhere below the middle (115 out of 175), which doesn't look so bad. Until you notice it's surrounded by third world coutries. Plus some other surprises. Australia and New Zealand for example. And some south and east European countries. And Iceland, way down at 159. Which is a surprise if you think they've got almost free energy. But Iceland#Economy_and_infrastructure says they only fairly recently industrialised. And they probably borrowed money for that, which they haven't paid off yet. These are 2005 figures. I wonder where they are now, after Icesave. I also wonder if their neoliberal privatisation policies are to blame for that. I'm surprised I haven't heard any socialists (who are having a ball right now) point that out. Amrad (talk) 08:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually I have checkily pointed out Icelands current problems in relation to their neoliberal policies a few times in a variety of places (for example, I came across and old blog lauding Iceland's flat tax once and congratulated them on their smart move, as shown by their current situation). I don't of course think so much their flat tax policy. More their idea that just borrowing more and more money was a good way to grow their economy. Of course 2008–2012 Icelandic financial crisis covers this resonably okay. And sadly I'm not surprised by NZ (we have improved since ~1999 at least I think). Trouble is, few people seem to care and when something is done about it, the government is accused of over-taxing people since there's a hefty 'surplus'. Further, the way things are headed in this election is looks likely going to get worse :-( Nil Einne (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Golf

One of my friends shot a 57 once while playing golf - and he was just 10 when he did it! I think the Perfect round article should be updated to reflect this. I don't care whether it was in a tournament or not - he got a really great score at a really young age! Has anyone else ever gotten a score this low in non-tournament play? 121.219.2.201 (talk) 10:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I wish there was a notability about non-tournament play but unless it's in Ripley's Believe It or Not! or Guinness Book of Records kind of bag, it might be hard to tell. Still, you could try this google search[1]. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Certainly the article shouldn't be updated to reflect the score. There would need to be evidence of this from a reliable source, and unfortunately it is highly unlikely that non-touranment records will have evidence that is reliable enough to be considered a record by any sources. A great achievement for your friend but not something that could be added to a wikipedia article. The best bet for your friend would be to contact Ripleys/Guiness Book of records and see whether they could consider the record - to be honest I doubt they would accept it without compelling evidence that it occured. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless he shot a 57 over 9 holes, or on a par-3 course, neither of which would be terribly interesting... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is that people claim these sorts of things all the time - once in a while, they are true - most of the time, they are not. So both Wikipedia and Guinness require strict standards of evidence before they'll print a claim like that...and rightly so. Hence, unless there is documented proof that it happened (which seems pretty unlikely - I mean, what 'official' is going to be following random 10 year-olds around to see if they do something amazing?) - you don't get to report it here - and the Guinness guys certainly won't accept it. I strongly suggest you ask yourself whether even you have evidence that it really happened. It's an easy claim for someone to make - and virtually impossible to either prove or disprove. SteveBaker (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

57 is nothing. Kim Jong Il shot 38 under par in his first game ever with several holes in one. [2] —D. Monack ^talk 08:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Could that make the GBoWR for "biggest whopper ever told?" --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you be a surgeon if you are HIV positive/have AIDS?

A few friends of mine were discussing this and although we are aware there is no obligation to ever tell anyone you suffer from these diseases, being a doctor is kind of a big deal. We came to the conclusion that you could based on the logic that random patients could be HIV+ and you could be in danger of infeciton from treating them, so, as a doctor, if you take good care and attention there is never a risk of infection. If the scenario were the other way around, and you were HIV+ and treating a patient, the same rule applies; you are careful, and there is no risk of transmittition.

But by the same token one doctor sees many patients, surely the risk of transmition is greater if everyday you work with blood, syringes and open wounds for a living?

We came up with many arguments from both camps, but couldn't find an answer on the intertubes.

Thanks a lot Fenton Bailey (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

In the US, as of 1991 the doctors have to inform their patients that they are HIV positive before performing "exposure prone procedures" such as surgery, dressing wounds, drawing blood, etc. source Plasticup ^T/C 15:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I found this from following up the story of Kimberly, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fenton Bailey (talk • contribs) 16:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

For Imperial College London medical course, they test you for diseases and if you have HIV/AIDS then you can still proceed to all the normal courses etc but you are not allowed to perform the surgery part of the course/ 81.151.242.29 (talk) 11:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Which are the funding agencies to give grant or financial assistancet to a Indian NGO to make educational videos ?

SAJITH 16:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)Which are the funding agencies to give grant or financial assistancet to a Indian NGO to make educational videos ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SAJITHANCHAL (talk • contribs)

We've already answered this - see Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#funding_agencies_to_give_grant_to_a_indian_ngo_to_awarness_programme__on_environment_protection_project. Exxolon (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

How do I edit

Really sorry about this, but I'll be as brief as I can. Could someone explain how to revert a page to a previous version (stop vandals from getting the upper hand). Thanks Kiddish.K (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You should ask questions like this at the Help desk, which is for questions about editing. Franamax (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

And I've moved it there for you. See Wikipedia:Help_desk#How_do_I_edit. Franamax (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Franamax. Kiddish.K (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

lemon

what is/are the nutritional ingredient(s) in lemon?----- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.104.156 (talk) 19:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The most significant nutritional components of a lemon are carbohydrates (in the form of sugars) and Vitamin C. There are plenty of other things in smaller amounts - a Google search for "lemon nutrition" turns up a lot of useful pages. ~ mazca ^t|c 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The British Admiralty used lemon juice to combat scurvy, then lime juice (hence the term limey), then back to lemon juice as lime was deficiant in vitamin C. Titch Tucker (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

there's also a lot of fancy biologicals in the peel, but that's not usually consumed. Gzuckier (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Some processed peels exist in glacé/semi-cooked form for mixed dried fruit in recipes, as zest or shaved and dried for tea-making. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Truth about healthcare in the US

Coming from Canada, we have free basic health care, in my province at least. This means that should I suffer a severe anaphylactic shock or a gunshot wound to the lungs and manage to bring myself into a public hospital emergency room, I would be treated and given a room regardless of my financial situation.

Do movies such as Sicko and John Q truly portray the health care system in the United States? If I was penniless and lacked health insurance and walked into a public hospital with a severe gunshot wound, would I be treated? Acceptable (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that US hospitals do provide emergency care to uninsured people given the situations you just described. TastyCakes (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not American and I'm not really sure, but my understanding is that they will treat anyone with an immeadiately life threatening condition regardless of insurance and worry about the money later. --Tango (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If that's so, would they write the money off if the patients had no insurance, or would they go after them for every cent they had? Titch Tucker (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone more knowledgable then me can tell you more, but from my experience any hospital that gets money from a government (state or local) is required to treat any life threatening condition that you come in with. As for cost, it depends on a lot of factors. They will try to get the money from you if possible, I've been to hospitals that offered discounts if you didn't have insurance. They will also try to work with you on setting up a payment plan, and in most US states they are not allowed to charge interest on an account that you are trying to pay off (though they may try very hard not to tell you this). Finally, if you have a low enough income you may qualify for Medicare/Medicade which is provided by the government, and in that case the hospital will work with you to get the government to pay for your care. Tobyc75 (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

both Gzuckier (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What about ambulance service? If I got into a severe car accident without money or insurance, would the paramedics question my financial well-being? In other words, will an ambulance ever refuse to pick me up should I lack the money required to pay afterwards? Acceptable (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the same applies - they'll treat any life threatening condition. --Tango (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

They certainly wouldn't stand there prodding you and asking if you have insurance if you're laying on the side of the road in cardiac arrest. You'll get held up after youre at the hospital if you're clearly stable and able to talk money. 71.176.167.123 (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank god for the NHS - it ain't perfect, but it's free at the point of use. While it's care of chronic conditions and non-urgent problems can be variable for acute life threatening events money is (almost) never an object. Exxolon (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

As stated above, U.S. hospitals will generally treat any emergency condition regardless of the financial situation of the patient. Some hospitals have agreed to treat indigent cases in exchange for government money. Where being uninsured hurts you is in the area of preventative care. A lot of people in U.S. emergency rooms are uninsured people who are in the emergency room because that's the only way they can get care outside of a free clinic. It's worth noting that a similar situation exists in Canada due to a physicians' shortage -- many Canadians can't get a family doctor and wind up in the emergency room for something that should have been taken care of on an outpatient basis. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You're looking for the U.S. Patients' Bill of Rights. --01:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, if you are involved in a car accident or something in China, the hospital will make you pay before they treat you. If you don't pay they will just let you die. F (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense in a socialist country. One would expect the exact opposite (as in Cuba). Do you have a source for that? (Preferably not a US source. :) )

turns out he's right. [3] surprised me too. Gzuckier (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

They practice socialism with Chinese characteristics in China now, in other words, capitalism with no regard for ethics. Pretty sad. F (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Back to the US. What if your condition isn't immediately life-threatening? Where is the line drawn? Whether you are capable of speech? And what about situations that can be life-threatening in the long run? Or what about an wound that will heal by itself, but very slowly and/or with 'debilitating' (searching for the right word) effects? Between a cold and a life-threatening situation there's a whole range of possible ailments. Amrad (talk) 08:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a big difference between a rich socialist country and a poor one. And there are a lot of things in China that don't "make sense" on an ideological basis. TastyCakes (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's also worth considering that as with many developing countries, but especially in the case of China, there is a lot of stuff that shouldn't happen but does because of corruption, government (including civil service and law enforcement) incompetence and other similar factors Nil Einne (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Preferably not a US source. I don't understand. Darkspots (talk) 09:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This page (http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/treatment-without-insurance) is a good start, and then here (http://www.emtala.com/faq.htm). The statement within there on what constitutes an emergency is

"A medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in -- placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy, serious impairment to bodily functions, or serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part, or

"With respect to a pregnant woman who is having contractions -- that there is inadequate time to effect a safe transfer to another hospital before delivery, or that the transfer may pose a threat to the health or safety of the woman or her unborn child." 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You would get almost certainly get treated but you would get a bill running in the tens of thousands of dollars if not more. Even very small procedures that require any sort of time in the hospital cost thousands without insurance, much less something big. If you go to an emergency room, or call an ambulance, you will get taken in and treated—and billed.

Keep in mind Sicko is not really about people without insurance. It's about people with insurance and how they get bilked by the companies as well. I am sure most Americans have some sort of insurance horror story—I have around three of people I know directly and I don't consider myself atypical. In that respect Sicko is pretty accurate—the real evidence for how screwed up the US system is at the moment comes not from the fact that those without insurance are put into impossible binds (which finger they can afford to save) but from the fact that even if you have insurance you have no guarantee of that insurance actually being useful for anything more than occasional checkups and the common cold. Anything serious and they start looking immediately for ways to deny you coverage. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Or less cynically...the insurance industry is only concerned with paying for valid claims, because paying for invalid claims will increase the cost of insurance for everybody. Additionally even in a publically provide systems such as the NHS you have limits and stops on what is and isn't provided, you have patients with horror stories of drugs they need that aren't availale on the nhs. NICE (The national institute of clinical excellence) has to try balanace finite resources across hugely varied illness, with hugely varied degress of impact on life and lifestyle. They use QUALYS (quality of life years) among other things to help choose what services to provide on the nhs. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a big difference between "we only have so much money - where can we spend it best?" and "if we don't pay this claim our shareholders will make more profit". Also there is a big difference between a doctor, or even a health administrator, deciding where to spend the money and a lawyer saying that because of some small print in your insurance contract you won't get paid. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The claims system of an insurance industry does not refuse payment of claims on the basis of making more profit, it refuses claims on the basis of not meeting the criteria defined for a valid claim. That is not that different from refusing access to specific treatment on the basis of NICE's assessmetn of QUALYs. On the nhs you aren't aware of the drug you couldn't get/treatment they don't provide because they provide the services they are allowed to on a 'free at entry', so you never get cover that isn't costed-in, whereas a claim that is invalid is where you are trying to get treatment for a ailment you are not covered for. The difference is minimal and it certainly has zero to do with being a profit making industry. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Some of the reasons that insurance companies have tried to refuse claims include mistakes filling out your application (even when that mistake would have made no difference to your coverage).DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

i know a person who had a compound fracture of her arm while rafting down some river in the rockies, back BC (Before Celllphones); some of the party stayed with her on the bank, while the rest continued downriver to civilization to get help. They airlifted her to the hospital and treated her, and in due time she received a walloping bill, since the insurer's defnition of emergency wouldn't include anything where there was more than 24 hours delay between the injury and the treatment, and thus she would have had to pre-certify the treatment and since she didn't, she was up the creek, so to speak. Gzuckier (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Surely the people who stayed to look after her used a splint or something? Doesn't that count as "treatment"? SteveBaker (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal anecdote from the US: My uninsured friend's appendix exploded. Or something. He got the emergency care he needed, including an ambulance, surgery, and a hospital stay. Then since he didn't have insurance, he was billed for the cost of the care. He had to declare bankruptcy, because he had no way of getting as much money as the treatment cost. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

He didn't have insurance so he had to pay, that's how it's supposed to work... Sure, I'm glad I live in the UK and have the NHS, but if you live in the US you need to have medical insurance, your friend must of known that. There's a big difference between being uninsured and being insured but they refuse to pay up on ridiculous grounds. --Tango (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

How much would full insurance cover cost? Can the general working class afford this, or is it only the unemployed who have no insurance? Titch Tucker (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have a decent full-time job (and are an employee rather than a contractor), you can generally get group insurance through your employer, which is generally much more affordable than buying insurance as an individual (even before the employer kicks in a dime for it). If you're a temp or part-time hourly laborer that may not be an option. --Trovatore (talk) 09:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're poor enough you get Medicaid. I'm not sure if there's a gap between qualifying for Medicaid and being able to afford basic insurance, if there is then that would be a legitimate cause for complaint against the system. --Tango (talk) 00:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the article you linked, being very poor does not necessarily qualify you for Medicaid. Nor, by the way, does health insurance necessarily cover all of your bills (e.g. see co-pay). AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It varies from place to place, but if I wanted full-coverage insurance for myself (a healthy 20-something adult), I'd be paying on the order of $400 per month. Similar insurance for a family with two kids would run about $1000-$1200 per month. --Carnildo (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

There's no such thing as free health care. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the NHS is usually described as "free at the point of use". Somebody has to pay at some point (ie. taxpayers). Of course, if you don't pay tax, it's free for you. --Tango (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the idea that you buy insurance yourself is that healthy people get great rates - but sick people are better off without insurance because the treatment is cheaper than the insurance. So only by bundling a lot of people together can you make it affordable for the people who actually need it. The British NHS gets a lot of flak - but that's from British people who've never had to live with the alternative - and Americans who don't understand it. The key thing that Americans don't understand is that you can still buy your own health insurance - and many companies in the UK offer private health plans...so if you are in a good job - you get the same level of service or better than in the US. However, the private plans in the UK are much cheaper than in the US and they do a better job because they are competing against a service that's literally free. So they can't go around pulling these ridiculous stunts of not covering people for crazy small-print reasons or all of their customers will go back to using the NHS. For people who can't afford private health plans - you've always got coverage that's going to save you in the event of dire emergencies without bankrupting you. SteveBaker (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It's worth noting that even though the British may complain about their NHS, just as people complain about the public system here in NZ, there are few who would advocate the American system in it's current form. While people may argue over how much (and what kind of) private involvement there should be, and how far the public system should go, etc; definitely in NZ and I think in the UK, few disagree that there should be universal health care. Those who want greater private involvement are more likely to look at Singapore (or perhaps Canada) and other countries I'm probably not aware of as a model I think Nil Einne (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I've read abit more about this and one more thing I should mention is that other then the risk of bankruptcy, while you may be treated for the emergency condition, any further treatment and rehabilation may not come unless you can pay for it. Ironically of course if you don't get the after-care you need, you may not be able to go back to work and so may not be able to pay and will have to file for bankruptcy Nil Einne (talk) 13:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)