Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 October 10

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.

October 10

Hearts

Suppose you start a hand of Hearts with all 13 hearts (or all hearts but one, the remaining card being the queen of spades). How are you supposed to play the first turn? February 15, 2009 (talk) 01:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If you have all 13 hearts, then it doesn't matter how you play it. If you're on lead you'll automatically take all 13 tricks and run; if you're not on lead you can never take a trick so you're guaranteed not to take any points, unless someone else can run, but you can't do anything about it in any case.

If you have 12 hearts plus the queen of spades, if you're on lead, then according to the usual rule you're forced to lead the queen since hearts have not been broken. If everyone ducks, lead the ace of hearts next if you have it (if you don't I'm afraid you're hosed). If someone takes the queen with a higher card, then hold onto the heart 2 if you have it until the first heart lead, on which you'll play it. If you don't have it I'm afraid you're probably hosed. --Trovatore (talk) 02:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The 2 of clubs always leads, so if you have all the hearts or all but one and the queen of spades, then you won't be leading. You'll have to throw away on the first turn, breaking hearts. After that, if you have all the hearts, you'll throw away every turn get no points, if you are missing one heart you have to hope it is either thrown away or it isn't the deuce. If the deuce is led, you'll have to win that trick, taking 2 points. If you still have the queen, you should then lead it in the vain hope that someone will have to play the king or ace and then you can throw away for the rest of the game for a total of 2 points. If you have already thrown away the queen (which is wise, since there is a risk of you winning a trick if spades is led), you'll have to win every trick from then on. So, for the first turn: If you have all the hearts, it makes no difference and you'll end up with zero points. If you have the queen of spades instead of a heart other than the deuce, discard it first and hold onto the deuce (or any other heart lower than the one you're missing) in case the other heart is led. If you have the queen instead of the deuce, you're going to have to gamble on whether you think the deuce will be led (and how early in the game) or thrown away. I'm not sure what the best strategy there is, since it depends on the actions of other players. --Tango (talk) 09:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Leading in hearts depends on the variation you are playing. The version with Windows uses the 2 clubs lead but other rules do have the person on the left of the dealer leading. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 13:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The correct rules are that the left of dealer leads, of course. --Trovatore (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the question is regarding the rule that you cant play point cards on the first trick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.100.50 (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no such rule, not in the correct version, which as always means "the version I learned". However, if you're playing with such a non-canonical rule, then obviously it has an exception for this case, just as the rule that you can't lead hearts until a point card has been played (whether by sluff, lead, or follow) has to be modified in the case that you're caught on lead with only hearts. --Trovatore (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There are many variations on Hearts, and no one version is canonical or "correct". All these rules are frequently used enough to be considered within the typical Hearts canon... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The correct version, of course, is the one played in Fleming Hovse, where men are men and the thundering herd is real. --Trovatore (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Gametraders

Is Gametraders the only Australian franchise that sells old games?

Link removed.

Cash converters also sells them. 203.202.144.223 (talk) 01:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Miss Hawaiian Tropic International

I'm looking for a reliable source for an article. I want to find out who Miss Hawaiian Tropic International for 1989 was. I know who Wikipedia says it was but there's no source. I've tried both the Hawaiian Tropic web site as well as Google and I can't find anything. Thanks. Dismas|^(talk) 03:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

this page has pics, but no names. If you can find another pic of the person who it is claimed to be in the Wikipedia article, you could probably look and see for yourself... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

IMDB says its Jennifer Campbell. As does this page and this page and this one too and this one as well. Was this what you were looking for? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems like at least three of those links are Wikipedia mirrors, that's bad form. Especially for someone like me, just looking for a picture... Franamax (talk) 10:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite possibly. I just typed the name from the Wikipedia article into Google, and looked for what was returned. The last link (the table) says that the source is Hawaiian Tropic itself, however. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The Pageant.com source seems the best. IMDb is full of user submitted data. Thanks for the link. I hadn't found that one in my searches. Dismas|^(talk) 20:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyright question regarding mediaevil images

First off I'd like to say I'm a real copyright noob. I was just wondering if is there could any reason that this image (for example) might be copyrighted? Is it possible for images from the middle ages to be copyrighted? Thanks, --Cameron* 12:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the article copyright there is this section

"In the United States, all books and other works published before 1923 have expired copyrights and are in the public domain. In addition, works published before 1964 that did not have their copyrights renewed 28 years after first publication year also are in the public domain, except that books originally published outside the US by non-Americans are exempt from this requirement, if they are still under copyright in their home country (see How Can I Tell Whether a Copyright Was Renewed for more details).

But if the intended exploitation of the work includes publication (or distribution of derivative work, such as a film based on a book protected by copyright) outside the U.S., the terms of copyright around the world must be considered. If the author has been dead more than 70 years, the work is in the public domain in most, but not all, countries . Some works are covered by copyright in Spain for 80 years after the author's death."

Perhaps that helps? 194.221.133.226 (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no information supplied with your example image. If we assume that the image is a straightforwards photographic reproduction of a middle ages image, then it is in the public domain. Any claim of copyright on it is more in hope & error, than in reality. Despite this, very many institutions and websites make erroneous copyright claims for public domain items. There are circumstances in which a reproduction might accrue new copyright - but the test is to do with "originality", which in the example you've shown, would appear to be absent. In the US, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. is a landmark case in this area. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that the "a reproduction of something in the public domain is also in the public domain" applies in the US (though not all such companies recognize it at all—e.g. Corbis does not and happily claim copyright on things that are in the public domain, claiming they "own the copyright to the scan"), and not necessarily elsewhere. Some countries appear to recognize the "sweat of the brow" model of copyright (which I think is ridiculous but there you go). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

OK so straightforward photographic reproductions of mediaevil images are in the public domain? I think that's all I need to know then. Thanks so much! ;) --Cameron* 14:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it might be worth noting that it's not "mediaevil" (which looks like "media evil" and is very strange looking) but "medieval". ;-) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, mediaeval is an accepted variant spelling of medieval. It comes from mediӕval. Gwinva (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. But mediaevil is not. Malcolm XIV (talk) 10:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The painting itself (presuming it's medieval) is clearly out of copyright - so you could find out where it is and go take a photo of it and do whatever you like with your photo. However, what you have here is a photograph of the painting that (presumably) someone else took. They may well own the copyright on that photograph - thereby prohibiting you from using it. SteveBaker (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that in the US, a two-dimensional reproduction of a public-domain image is also public domain. If the image included the frame (assuming there was one), it would be a three-dimensional reproduction and thus copyrighted. If there was something else in the shot, or some fancy lighting effects, or it was an X-ray image, also copyright. A plain 2D repro though, where no creative addition has been made - no copyright. (See Tagishsimon's link above) The image could thus be used on English Wikipedia, which is hosted in the US. To be used on Commons though, it would also have to pass the copyright test of whatever country it was created/first published in. It does get complicated... Franamax (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Questions like this are often best addressed at Media Copyright Questions, where there are people who understand the ins and outs of copyright law. It is not enough for things to be out of copyright in the USA, I'm afraid. If the original is held outside the US, and the copies were taken outside the US, then they still need to conform to the nation of orgin's copyright laws (the US cannot cancel someone else's copyright). For example, some original medieval works are held by the British Library. The British Library make copies (by photograph/digital scanning whatever): the BL still holds the copyright on the reproductions. Unless they give another photographer access to photograph/copy their possession, and that photographer/copiest releases their copy into the public domain. Of course, if the BL loaned their original to a US museum, and someone then took a copy in the US, that copy would be copyright free. But the fact is, the BL keeps most of the originals locked in a vault, does not allow copies to be made (other than their own) and thus their works are rarely copyright free. That is a rough explanation, and I can't say I understand all the ins and outs. But you cannot assume that a piece of work is copyright free simply because it is old. If you are in any doubt, approach the owner of the piece. Gwinva (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

MCQ regular here to help, hopefully! Wikimedia Commons has abandoned the rule about things being in the public domain in the country of origin, when it comes to claiming copyright over copies of public domain images. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Why_do_we_allow_the_.7B.7BPD-Art.7D.7D_tag_to_be_used_for_photographs_from_any_country.3F for more information. This is perfectly acceptable as far as WMF is concerned. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh great, now that is good news! (I'm obviously out of date by a couple of months; my apologies.) So, does that mean any 2D reproduction of a pd work is pd? We can even use the British Library's online catalogue? Gwinva (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2008 (UT

Emigration from the United States

Is there anywhere to find out information about how many Americans have emigrated out of the United States to other countries in a given time period?

--Wellington grey (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Might help -- Emigration information --W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the name...

of the famous image of Marilyn Monroe in all different colours? There's four of them and it is parodied alot in shows and games like MySims and The Simpsons to name two. It is often mistakenly called Marilyn Diptych, another of Warhol's works.--Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 20:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Diptych is pretty much the famous one, but you may want to peruse this list to see if something rings a bell for you. Matt Deres (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Warhol produced many works based on images of Marilyn Monroe (as can be seen by doing a Google Images search for "Marilyn Monroe" +Warhol). Is the one shown on this page the one you have in mind? Deor (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Caribbean vacation destination

Can anyone think of place in or around the Caribbean that meets the following criteria:

• Beautiful, uncrowded beaches
• Other stuff to do, like historical sites and rainforest nature parks
• Isn't under American jurisdiction
• Isn't on the spring break circuit
• Isn't so desperately poor that there are beggars everywhere
• Isn't Cuba

Mwalcoff (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

May I recommend St. Martin, a smalish island in the Antilles which has some unique stuff going for it:

• Despite being relatively small (you can drive a loop around the entire thing in less than 1 hour) it is actually owned by two separate countries. Half the island is Dutch, which has casinos, night clubs, and shopping districts. The other half is French, which has nature preserves, quieter beaches (and even a nude beach! See Orient Beach) and is generally more laid back.
• The airport is Princess Juliana International Airport, which is on the island, and is one of the only airports in the area that can land large planes. Thus, there are less connecting flights, and no need to catch a "puddle jumper" from somewhere else.
• Said airport has one of the coolest beaches in the world next to it. I imagine there is no where else in the world where you can get THIS close to jumbo jets landing and taking off.
• It meets all of your other requirements in spades. It's one of the rare places thats not either a) a spring break mecca (like Cancun) with nothing but drunk 19 year olds running around or b) dominated entirely by "Club Med" style all-inclusive resorts. It's the kind of place where you will spend a lot of time getting out in the local culture at your own pace, and you are not totally insulated from it.

I went there with my family when I was 16 (which is literally half a lifetime ago for me, you do the math) and it is STILL one of the best vacations I have ever taken. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I had a nice holiday in Saint Lucia. It has an interesting interior with mountains (volcanoes), and a (small) rainforest reserve. Hire a jeep and drive around a bit. Astronaut (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. How about Costa Rica as well? How are its beaches? -- 76.190.138.251 (talk) 03:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Never been there, but you might want to not get into certain activities there or you may not come back alive - [1] [2]. Of course, this applies anywhere, not just in Costa Rica. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too worried about safety in Costa Rica; it's generally recognized as one of the safest places in Latin America. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Metric Volume

I've always been taught that litres (L) were an SI base unit but apparently it's not accepted! That is really confusing to me, especially since now there is no possible way to measure volume in the SI. And also, why isn't Celsius on the not accepted page? And how are you supposed to measure volume now? Thanks! Helixer (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The SI system only recognizes as "base" units, those units that cannot be reduced to simpler terms. The article on International System of Units explains the 7 "base" units as: meter, kilogram (not gram), second, ampere, kelvin, mole, and candela. All other units can be reduced to some combination of these units. Please note that SI is distinct from the metric system, though several of the units are based on earlier metric units. As to the specific question, since volume is just displacement cubed, using base SI units, you would express volume as m³. The metric system unit "liter" is just cubic decimeters, dm³ which is equal to 0.001 m³. Hope that helps. Just remember that "SI" and "metric system" are NOT synonyms... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and to answer your question on Celsius; the Celsius temperature scale has no sound physical or mathematical basis. From the point of view of physical reality, the scale sets an arbitrary 0 point (the freezing point of water). Temperature is defined as the average kinetic energy of the molecules of a substance. Since something cannot have negative absolute energy (or, if you prefer, nothing can have negative absolute speed), then negative temperature is meaningless (it implies that molecules are going at a speed slower than zero. This is patently nonsensical). Thus, a usable temperature scale, from a scientific perspective, is one that reprsents physical reality, and should not use negative numbers. The Kelvin scale (which, for convenience sake, uses the exact same sized units as the Celsius scale) is the only allowable one. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It's really a matter of not having definitions for more things than you need to. If you defined the meter as the length of some particular metal bar in some museum somewhere - and the liter as the volume of some container stored in another glass case someplace else - then there could be a problem if the length of the bar was not PRECISELY ten times the cube-root of the volume of the container - and no matter how careful you were, they'd never be exactly that. So it makes sense to simply define the liter as being the volume of an entirely hypothetical container that is a perfect cube that's exactly 1/10th of a meter on each side. With that definition - things can't go wrong. When you choose to do that - you now have a "base unit" (the meter) and a "derived unit" (the liter). The base unit is utterly critical - and the derived unit is merely a convenience for measuring volumes without having to say such-and-such meters-cubed. Science could have worked almost as well with the liter as the base unit and the meter as the derived one - then you'd be measuring things in litres^-3 instead of meters. The math would all still work out. We have settled on the meter, the kilogram and the second more out of convenience (because they are nice "human-scaled" thing that lend themselves to easy measurement). There are some quite strong arguments for using (say) velocity as a base unit - because the speed of light in a vacuum is a nice solid constant - much better than messing around with chunks of metal in museums! BUt you can get into a lot of trouble with that kind of thing. The original idea for the kilogram was that it was the mass of a liter of pure water...but at what temperature? Nowadays the definitions of kilogram, meter and second are supposed to not get all mixed up with each other like that...but it's not easy! SteveBaker (talk) 00:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually it would be litres^1/3, not -3. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Ack! Of course! I'm having a bad day today. SteveBaker (talk) 01:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense!! Thanks!! Why aren't they teaching us that in schools!!!??? >< But what if you have a container that is not the shape of a 3D polygon, such as a vase? How would you express that in metres? And now that I think about it, we were told of the SI system, but were taught the metric system. And seconds are a base unit? I thought it was on the not accepted page... oh wait, those are minutes and hours and days... wait! I just had an epiphany (I just learned that word)—the SI system is rather impractical! And I still don't understand why Celsius isn't on the not accepted page?? That would make sense, being on there. Oh, and I mine as well be asking this on the discussion page of SI, but under the writing style, why does it talk about litres????? Wow.... Well, I have to talk to my science teacher about this! Thanks! Helixer (talk) 05:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The thing is that the SI system is very logical, but the official standards don't always accord with everyday use - for example, it's very convenient in everyday discussions to talk about minutes, hours and days, but for a logical system, there needs to be just one unit of time. Depending on what you are studying at school and at which level, you'll probably be taught in convenient units, rather than necessarily the official SI ones. There's no reason why you can't express the volume of a complex shape in metres cubed; it may not be easy to calculate, but, of course, if you know the volume in litres, then you're there. Warofdreams talk 15:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Celsius is in effect an SI unit, and it's generally used in school science labs and things for everyday work. Just you are likely to need to convert it to kelvin for calculations. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a good object lesson not to take SI too -- well, seriously isn't the word exactly -- too literally, maybe. It's a good system of units, but when people get religious about it and start telling you things like not to use the word micron because the official word is micrometre, you should laugh right in their faces. --Trovatore (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Electoral College

Hi, I was hoping someone might explain this to me because I am confused. What is the point of voting if the electoral college is going to decide president and vice president and before a single vote has been cast it seems as they have already chosen Obama (since he has the most pledges), so technically we still need to vote for the electoral but if they have already pledged and decided-it seems strange that we bother with voting at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.133.247.171 (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

First, distinguish the Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 from the United States presidential election, 2008.

• The primaries (and caucuses) were held in each State between January and June, to select delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention in August. By the time the last few were held, it was clear that Obama already had enough delegates for the nomination, so those primaries were, arguably, pointless.
• The election will be in November, to select the Electoral College which votes for the resident in December. There is no certainty about the outcome of this process; either Obama or McCain could win according to recent opinion polls. So it is still worth your while voting. jnestorius^(talk) 21:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how an election having a clear winner makes the election pointless... --Tango (talk) 22:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

But in news reports it states that Obama has over 200 (I think he has much more than this) pledges and he only needs a couple more to win, can someone please explain this or how it works since we haven't voted yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.133.247.171 (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure which reports you're looking at, but my guess is that what they're doing is adding up the votes from the states where Obama is considered to have a clear lead in the polls. No electors have yet been chosen, from any state. --Trovatore (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you are confusing the primaries (in which the party decide who they want to stand as their presidential candidate) and the actual election for president. The first of those things is done and over with - and Obama beat out Clinton. So let's forget that and concern ourselves with the presidential election proper.

The way the US system works is that each state has some number of 'electors' that is in rough proportion to the number of eligable voters in that state. Texas has 34, California has 55, for example. In theory what happens is that you cast your vote in your state - they count up the number of votes for each presidential candidate and those votes are simply recorded. Then all of the electors from all of the states go off and vote between themselves to decide who will be president and who will be vice-president. You are right in saying that technically they can choose whoever they like and they can ignore the people's votes. (Imagine Obama as president and Palin as Vice-President!) However in practice the electors always vote for the person who won the vote in their state...always...there would be a hell of an upset if they didn't! So the practical upshot of this is that you are really voting to decide how your state's share of the electors will vote. It doesn't matter a damn what the electors say in advance - or who they are - they just do as they are told...we don't even really need them to actually vote because we know precisely what they'll do the minute the popular vote in each state has been counted.

This is a slightly bizarre scheme because it means that (as happened with Bush vs Gore 8 years ago), the majority of people in the USA can vote for one guy (Gore in that case) and the other guy (Bush) can get into office simply because of the way this peculiar electoral college system works. So, if (for example) Florida with it's 27 electors is won by just a few of the people's votes (as happened in Bush vs Gore) - then all 27 electors will vote according to the majority in Florida. You'd think it would be fairer if 13 of them had voted for Gore and 14 for Bush...but that's not how it works in practice. So each state is an "all or nothing" kind of thing. Hence, in that case, Bush was able to win by a slim margin in a bunch of swing state states and despite much larger percentages of votes going for Gore in the states he won - Bush had more electors than Gore did - even though fewer people voted for him. Weird...but true. This has happened in three presidential races in the history of the USA - so it's not that unusual.

There are a couple of errors in what I just said - which I'll now correct. Firstly: Maine and Nebraska are different. They use a system where each district votes separately with one elector each who is required by law to vote however his/her district voted. Two more electors are required to vote like the other states do on a 'winner takes all' basis. This seems a lot fairer - but it's still kinda weird compared to simply counting up the number of Americans who want this president rather than that one. Secondly: Washington DC - although it's not technically a "state" but rather a "district" gets three electors...just because.

The consequences of this for someone voting in this election is that if you are in a solidly red or solidly blue state - your vote is largely going to be irrelevent. Voting for Obama here in Texas is a waste of time - even if (say) a third of voters turn out for Obama, all 55 electors will vote for McCain and not two thirds of them as would better reflect the views of the people. This is very bad news for minorities in big states. However, in a 'swing state' - it is absolutely crucial that everyone who can vote does so because just a handful of votes can put ALL of those electors into one president's total. This makes the system wildly unstable in a close race - and if it is close, you might as well flip a coin because the system simply doesn't work fairly. The system works OK when there is a bigger margin between the candidates - but then so would just about any half-way reasonable system.

SteveBaker (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There's another slight error in what you said - very occasionally, there is a faithless elector who does vote for someone other than the slate they've pledged to vote for. To an outsider like me, it does seem a bizarre system. Warofdreams talk 23:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It made sense back in the 1780s, when travel and communication were so slow. Instead of trying to vote for someone you'd never seen based on outdated information, the idea was that you'd selected a trusted proxy and have him go to the capitol and figure out who to vote for. --Carnildo (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Another point is that Steve makes it sound as though there's some group of electors from each state, and they wait around to see the results of the election in that state and then vote that way. Not sure if that's what he really meant, but anyway it's not what happens. What happens is that each candidate has a "slate" of electors pledged to vote for him/her. The election is to determine which slate gets appointed. If Obama wins Ohio, it will be a different set of Ohioans casting electoral votes than if McCain wins there.

Also, according to the constitution, the state legislature has plenary power to choose its electors. All states currently choose their electors via popular vote, but they don't have to. The last time this was important in a reasonably imminent scenario was in 2000, when the Florida Supreme Court was controlled by Democrats, but the Florida Legislature by Republicans. The Supreme Court appeared ready to set rules for the recount that would maximally favor Gore, but if they hadn't been overruled by the US Supreme Court, and if Gore had won a disputed recount, it appeared quite plausible that the legislature would overrule the popular vote and appoint a slate pledged to Bush. Obviously this would have been an extremely controversial move, but constitutionally it would have been bulletproof. --Trovatore (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The 18th century intent of the electoral college was expressly to curb "mob democracy" which the founding father's thought a spectacularly bad idea. They wanted the president to literally be the "best man for the job" and not whoever appealed to the largest numbers of people. There's extensive coverage of this in The Federalist Papers to explain the justification of the electoral college. The men who wrote the constitution we not really "common folk", they were landed aristocracy who distrusted the "will of the people" and feared what could happen if every whim of the "populace" were followed as soon as they had it. They built safeguards in to prevent "mob rule" and the electoral college was expressly one of them. In the original constitution, the ONLY national office that was voted on via popular vote was the House of Representatives, and at the time voting restrictions were so tight that most people STILL couldn't vote even for them. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

More for y'all. Federalist No. 9 (Alexander Hamilton's take on the issue) and Federalist No. 10 (James Madison's take on it) are probably the most important of the batch which deals with this issue. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the OP is confusing the predictions made by CNN (et al) with the actual results, which are made by the voters on November 4th. CNN currently predicts that Obama will win, but when the vote is held next month he may not. Plasticup ^T/C 01:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Cartoon\caracture

I came across an original framed cartoon painting signed by Van Lyon at an antique shop in NSW Australia. I have had no luck in tracing the artist.

Can anyone assist please.

Mark Wilkinson Forster NSW Australia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kal3b55 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Typing "Van Lyon artist" into google returned this website: [3] as the number one hit. This may be the guy. It has lots of examples of his work on here. Good luck! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

joining the army

Do you have to be in good standing with society to join the US army, or can you be a total homeless vagabond and check into a recruiting station somewhere? --71.176.171.125 (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what recruitment criteria the US Army uses, but what I do know is that someone could lose their home through no fault of their own and still be "in good standing with society". Itsmejudith (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

However, you do generally need to put an address on job application forms and "no fixed abode" often doesn't go down well. I have no idea about the US army, though. I'm sure they have a recruitment website which will have the information though, try googling "join us army". --Tango (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're a young person in good health with a high-school education who scores well enough on the ASVAB, word on the street is that the U.S. Army is interested in you. You can google ASVAB to get an idea of what's involved with that. Darkspots (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

They require a high school education? Plasticup ^T/C 01:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

HS diploma or a GED, among other things. After all, they do have some fancy schmancy (expensive) weapons. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Are those criteria suspended during a draft, or are highschool dropouts excluded then too? Plasticup ^T/C 03:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No telling what would happen if there were another draft. The army has changed a lot since the last time there was one. I was amused to find out that the weight requirements only specify maximum weights. I've read stories about guys in World War II, when there was a very different standard of living in America, who pounded down bananas or whatever to be able to make weight to join up. Darkspots (talk) 07:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The U.S drafted the hell out of dropouts in WW1 and WW2, if that is a guide. No info on how hard they scraped the bottom of the barrel in the Korean Conflict or the Vietnam conflict. Edison (talk) 00:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The things considered are physical and mental qualification to be a soldier, if a criminal record exists, and education. Evidence of former drug use is a big turn off for the armed forces. The issue of losing a home is more subtle. One might be able to join the armed forces, but if there is a credit and/or debt problem that resulted from the lost home, it might prove impossible to obtain a security clearance, and this would strongly limit the type of jobs one could perform in the armed forces. --W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I imagine there are also health requirements in terms of fitness. Someone who has been on the streets for a while will find it difficult to pass some of those requirements. Steewi (talk) 00:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I found this an interesting NYT story about waivers for felonies granted by U.S. armed forces. There's a long tradition of waivers for things like aggravated assault, but now they're granting waivers for rape and kidnapping. And a number of waivers were granted for drug posession. I'm sure W. B. Wilson is correct that they won't have the most sensitive jobs. Darkspots (talk) 00:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

According to the article, the kidnapping charge was made against a woman who was separated from her husband and moved to another state with their child. Some of the charges are probably the result of the stupidity of 'the system', so I wouldn't fault the military for taking some of those people in. That said, recruiters have been known to turn a blind eye when they should not have. --W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you about the nature of the felony convictions for which the Army is granting waivers; I think it provides some background for the OP's question, however. If they're signing up convicted rapists, kidnappers, and dealers of hard drugs, they'll probably work with somebody with no fixed address if they meet the other requirements, which a lot of people do not. Darkspots (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Conservapedia

It says on the Conservapedia Commandments: "Minors under 16 years old use this site. Posting of obscenity here is punishable by up to 10 years in jail under 18 USC § 1470. Vandalism is punishable up to 10 years in jail per 18 USC § 1030. Harassment is punishable by 2 years in jail per 47 USC § 223. The IP addresses of vandals will be reported to authorities. That includes your employer and your local prosecutor."

Is this a joke? I don't want to vandalize conservapedia, I am just wondering. 67.150.123.138 (talk) 23:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me parse the question you just asked "Conservapedia... Is this a Joke?" It would be so much better if it was... Sadly, some people out there take that site seriously. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It's very difficult to tell. I'm fairly sure the people that founded it and many of the people that contribute to it are deadly serious, however a large portion of the contributors could be having a laugh and we wouldn't know it. There is really no way to tell the difference between a fundamentalist and someone parodying a fundamentalist. As for that specific warning, they may well try and press charges, but I would be very surprised if they were successful (although IANAL, so don't take the risk!). Code 1030 seems to be about computer fraud - you would need a hell of a lawyer to convince a judge and jury that writing "So-and-so is gay" on a wiki is fraudulent behaviour... They would probably have a better chance suing you in civil court, but even then they would probably need to prove actual damages, which would be de minimis if existent. --Tango (talk) 00:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

When you typed "IANAL" did you intend "THEYANAL?" Edison (talk) 00:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it a fairly empty threat for non-U.S. users? Are they trying to suggest that U.S. laws can be used to have people from other countries extradited and prosecuted for offences they allegedly committed in their own countries? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It probably is. There aren't many countries with extradition agreements with the US and I have yet to see a district attorney who would accept such a case even if prosecuting a US citizen. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Since the servers are in the US, it is possible to try someone in a US court for offences committed involving those servers. It would have to actually be an offence, though. --Tango (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

There was a case some time ago where Conservapedia threatened to prosecute someone who was in violation of that rule. Suffice to say that their attempt was laughed at. Plasticup ^T/C 01:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The definition of obscenity is pretty specific—not what they think it is. They tried to report someone to the FBI for vandalism awhile back and were warned that they were wasting their time—if you have a website that allows anyone to edit, it is not "vandalism" or "hacking" or whatever for people to use that function in a way that you don't like, and none of this "vandalism" was actually property damage or cost anything, making it even more pointless, so said the FBI. (more info on the FBI incident.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia should also punish vandals and co. Somethings like 10 lashes. Mr.K. (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone asked a similar question here recently. Conservapedia did in fact try to report some vandals to the FBI a while ago[4]. Apparently the FBI told them to go stuff it, and surprisingly, Conservapedia admins blocked at least fourteen good faith editors in a wild attempt to cover up the incident. --S.dedalus (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

That's surprising? It's as though they're shouting "not listening!" with their fingers stuck in their ears, when anyone comes near to poking a hole in their fictional reality. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Surprising in that they would care about covering it up. Why not just call the FBI liberal scum, the same way they do with Wikipedia? --S.dedalus (talk) 07:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably because it would reveal that they were incorrect in the first place (in thinking the FBI would care) (see also: minitrue), and because they feel that the FBI are "their guys" and will be unshaken in that. They're a fairly nationalistic, anti-terrorism, pro-enforcing-whatever-laws-we-like bunch. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It's quite ironic that America has produced its own Soviet while complaining how others are "anti-American". --antilived^{T | C | G} 09:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

In response to JackofOz, whether or not Conservapedia is suggesting it, it's true. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)