Miscellaneous desk
< April 27	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 29 >

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.

April 28

Is secret ballot secret ?

If US has secret ballot, how can a candidate object to an individual voters ballot, as in this case ? Is it that absentee ballots are not secret ? Are the rules different in different parts of the country ? Are regular (i.e., non-absentee) votes even associated with the individual voter at any stage, and if so, who has acess to such data ? Just curious. 98.220.252.228 (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the challenge is to the voter's right to cast a ballot in that district - which could be done without revealing the actual box the voter had crossed (or whatever it is that Americans do). DuncanHill (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a secret ballot, two pieces of information can be of public record: 1. a voter's identity, his or her eligibility to vote, and whether he or she participated in the ballot; and 2. an individual piece of ballot paper, the preference indicated on it, and where it is cast, etc.

What makes it a "secret ballot" is that information piece #1 and information piece #2 are not directly connected. In advanced democracies who don't go in for electronic boobytraps, this is done by 1) ensuring everyone uses the same kind of pencil, and 2) having all the ballots go into the same big box.

So, some voters' eligibility to vote could be challenged, using information piece #1. Likewise, the validity of a particular piece of ballot paper could also be challenged, using information piece #2.

With absentee ballots, you can throw away the vote (it being in an envelope) without ever opening it if you decide the person who mailed it was not eligible to vote, for example. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses, DuncanHill and PalaceGuard008.

I didn't realize that the voter ID information and the actual vote are on separate pieces of paper (seem obvious in hindsight!) This FAQ at the Oregon secretary of setate website, confirms your answers:

Q: "Can anyone find out how I've voted once I mail my ballot?"

A: "No. All ballots are separated from the return envelope before the ballots are inspected. This process ensures confidentiality."

98.220.252.228 (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess someone has the job of separating the envelope from its contents, and they can potentially see who voted for whom unless there are observers to make sure there's no peeking. Even so, the observers could collaborate with the openers. So there can't be an absolutely iron clad guarantee of confidentiality. But I can't see how a postal ballot system could work without some way of identifying that Voter X had sent in a postal ballot. That information is necessary to ensure that people don't vote more than once; and in countries with compulsory voting, it's needed to ensure they're recorded as having voted as required by law. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scrutineers nominated by all candidates? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key idea (as suggested by PalaceGuard's original answer) is that there are two sealed envelops: the outer one contains the voter's name, signature etc while the inner one contains the actual ballot. Once the information on/in the outer one is verified, the inner envelop is simply dumped (unopened) into a pile. These are opened later (perhaps by different personnel) and the actual votes counted.

So one cannot casually peek and discover an individual voter's vote, but would need to tear open the inner envelop, which would presumably be difficult to do in the presence of election observers (assuming, of course, that the voter bothered to seal the inner envelop properly).

I found information on this in the Elections_in_Oregon#Balloting article, and |here. I looked for information on elections in Oregon, since they have all voting by mail. 98.220.252.228 (talk) 05:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weighing

How would you weigh something like a finger, if you couldn't detach it from the rest of the body? Nadando (talk) 05:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extrapolate based on the (estimated) volume and the estimated density or densities of the constituents (bone density and tissue density)? --Ouro (blah blah) 06:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depending how accurate you need to be, you could just cut someone else's finger off and weigh it. That will get you an idea of the general weight of a finger, at least. Vimescarrot (talk) 09:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it's relevant (most of the answers are very stupid) but here is a discussion on "how can I weigh my head?" The most sensible method involves using a seesaw or similar pivot to measure the effect of moving your head on your centre of gravity, and computing the torque caused by gravity acting on your head on the pivoted board; given distance and torque you can calculate weight. The finger probably weighs too little in comparison with body weight for this to be useful, but maybe it could be adapted. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 10:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Archimedes would have had a Eureka moment about this challenge! Rhinoracer (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist on cutting off someone else's finger, I recommend using it to calculate the density of a human finger, and then multiplying that against the measured volume of the target finger. I would bet that density is a lot more consistent person-to-person than finger weight is. APL (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult - but not impossible. You could (for example) have the person move the finger forwards and backwards - measure the movement (using some non-contact method involving cameras or lasers or something) and detect the change in the persons' center of gravity as this happens. You could also perhaps use conservation of inertia by measuring how the rest of the body moves in the opposite direction as the finger is waggled - but you'd probably have to do that in a zero g environment - measuring the mass of the finger rather than it's weight (it would of course be trivial to then get the weight from the mass at 1g). It would require some precision equipment - but I think it could be made to work. After all, we can measure the wobble of a star a bazillion light years away due to the motion of a teeny-tiny planet orbiting it...and this is an essentially similar problem. SteveBaker (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You get a liquid which the finger just floats in, weight a person normally and then weigh them with their finger in the liquid and the difference would be the weight of the finger (which is being cancelled out by the buoyancy). Actually... once you have a liquid that the finger just floats in you could fill a container to the brim with it, put the finger in and then weigh the liquid that overflows - that would be your answer. Finding (or, more likely, making) such a liquid might be a little tricky - there would be a lot of room for human error when determining if the finger floats or not. --Tango (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know the density of liquid that the finger will just float in unless you know the density of the finger...which you don't. Also, your floatation idea only tells you the volume of the finger - not it's weight. Again, you need to know the density - and you don't. SteveBaker (talk) 04:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was intending to find the right liquid empirically. Put the finger in and see if it floats. Making sure the person attached to the finger completely relaxes it and does hold it up or push it down would be a little difficult (that's the human error I mentioned). --Tango (talk) 10:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Water is a good approximation, so, explaining Rhinoracer (above), just put a (nearly full) glass of water on a kitchen scale, zero the scale, then insert the finger in the water. The scale will read the weight of the finger (assuming it has the same density as water). (The exact density will depend on the amount of fat in the finger, but this gives a good approximation.) Don't allow the water to overflow. Dbfirs 14:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Uh, I don't think so. --Sean 14:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Yeah - that gets you the volume of the finger - you still have to make a heck of a lot of assumptions about the mean density of fingers (skin, fat, muscle, bone, etc) in order to get a weight out of that. I doubt the answer would be much better than looking at the finger and saying - "Oh about 10 grams". SteveBaker (talk) 04:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather imprecise, but water probably is a pretty good approximation. The density of the human body as a whole is very close to that of water (although that includes air in the lungs, so a part of the body that doesn't include cavities filled with air would presumably be denser). --Tango (talk) 10:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Sure, but Dbfirs was saying sticking your finger in a glass of water on a scale will cause the scale readout to change, which it won't. --Sean 15:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

No, Dbfirs is right, sticking your finger in the water will increase the scale's reading by an amount equal to the weight of the displaced water. (And Tango is right, it will decrease your scale weight by the same amount.) When your finger is in the water it's supported (approximately) by the buoyant force and not by its attachment to your hand as usual. -- BenRG (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. If you accept water as a close enough approximation then this method works (and is much simpler than my method...). It's a simple application of Newton's third law. --Tango (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, Dbfirs! I just conducted your proposed experiment, and lo, the scale reading went up by 0.8 ounces, which presumably is something like the weight of my finger. --Sean 76.182.94.172 (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Line of Presidential Nominee Succession?

Flash back to a month or so before the US Election, say Obama get's assassinated. Does the Democrat Nominee for Vice President automatically become Democrat Nominee for President (Biden in this example) or does there have to be another very quick convention, or does it become Clinton as she got the 2nd most delegates?

Cheers, 217.206.155.146 (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were lots of discussions about this here at the time. It depends very much on precisely where in the process the candidate dies. This is a pretty good description of all the options. --Tango (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 217.206.155.146 (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Air Conditioners

I'll be buying a new air-conditioner shortly. Does anyone know which will be a better buy: Voltas or Carrier? Thanks in advance. 117.194.224.204 (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your IP address implies you are not posting from the U.S. or Europe. In the U.S. we have "Energy Star" rated appliances, which must meet certain efficiency standards. The output here is measured in BTU. The "energy efficiency ratio" is measured in "BTU per kilowatt hour" Air conditioners have for years been required to be shown in stores with a label showing the annual electric cost to operate various competing models. A cheaper initial cost might be a "better buy" is you are going to use it for one summer then move and dispose of it. If you plan to use it several years, then the more expensive one would be a "better buy" because it would have a lower total cost for purchase and operation. Consumer Reports, a U.S. consumer testing organizatin, does tests of air conditioners and makes purchase recommendations, but I do not recall that they have tested Volta brand models. If you are in India, there is the "Bureau of Energy Efficiency" which gives various "star ratings" to air conditioners. Here is their table for all window air conditioners. You can also select for models of a certain size. Efficiency is apparently in "watts per watt" and cooling capacity is in "tonnes." Edison (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We size air conditioners in tons in the U.S. too: Ton#Refrigeration - the amount of energy needed to melt one short ton of 0° ice in 24 hours. Rmhermen (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never assume that one country's "tonne" is equal to another's "ton." Small ones are typically rated in BTU/hour in my country. Tons come in long, short and metric. It's amazing that a 6000 BTU/hr window air conditioner, which is pretty light weight, does as much cooling in 24 hours as the melting of 1000 pounds of ice. Edison (talk) 04:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You already have one Voltas ,if yu can just spare some time to clean it on sunday(your weekly off) it should be fine...Surprised —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.140.188 (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Normal profit

Why is "normal profit" treated as a cost in economics? 117.0.7.124 (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Profit (economics):

"In economics, a firm is said to be making a normal profit when total revenues equal total costs. These normal profits then match the rate of return that is the minimum rate required by equity investors to maintain their present level of investment. Economically, the "normal profit" is thus treated as a cost, and recognized as one of the two components of the cost of capital. In the short run, a firm will continue producing whilst making subnormal profit, as long as their AVC (Average Variable Costs) are covered."

I don't completely understand that myself, hopefully someone will be along in a bit to explain it! --Tango (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it because the company is required to disperse that profit to shareholders (as a dividend) rather than use it for its own purposes? From the "retained earnings" articles it sounds like this is the case when the company doesn't give its profits to shareholders, perhaps "normal profit" is the other, default case? TastyCakes (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think dividends are generally considered a cost, they are a separate item on the cash flow statement. That article seems to be talking about a minimum amount of profit required to keep investors (which makes sense), but total revenues equalling total costs would mean zero profit, so it doesn't seem to make sense... --Tango (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the article, particularly the quoted part, but I still don't understand the concept. I thought you guys at Wikipedia are the writers yourself? Could the writer come here and help explain things? That would be much appreciated. 117.0.7.124 (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is unlikely that writers of that particular article are also regulars at the reference desk. You could try leaving a question on the article's talk page, or you could ask one of the editors that contributed a lot to the article on their talk page. You can find a list of the editors on the Profit article here. Click on the "talk" next to their name in the list to go to their talk page. TastyCakes (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might also try asking the people at a broader article, like Economics. TastyCakes (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. The WP articles on this stuff suck. Start with economic profit, which is the difference between total revenue and opportunity costs. Opportunity costs are made up of explicit costs and implicit costs. An example of an explicit cost is an electric bill (the amount spent could have been spent on something else). Implicit costs are incurred when opportunities are foregone without making payment. There are two types of implicit cost:

Costs incurred when you use capital that you own. This is made up of economic depreciation (change in market value of the capital) and interest foregone (the amount that could have been earned on the funds used to buy the capital).
Cost of owner's resources. The time (and personal capital) that the owner spends running the firm could be spent on running another firm. This is normal profit: the return the entrepreneur can expect to earn. It is an opportunity cost to the firm. We say that the return to entrepreneurial ability is more than normal in a firm that makes an economic profit.

Does this put everything in its place? Don't read Wikipedia, use an economics textbook instead. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't dispute the importance of using textbooks, it would be great if you could improve the article - that explanation was far better than the one in the article. --Tango (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a very short stab at it. I'll add some refs later. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Zain. That was one very clear explanation! Thanks to all others for your time too. My textbook is away for the time being, will definitely get it back soon. Can't keep asking Wikipedia forever, I know (even though it's tempting because you are really helpful.) 117.0.7.124 (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To rephrase what Zain said (in case for some reason you were lying when you said you got it), Normal profit is the profit that the business owners considers necessary [b]to make running the business worth his/her while[/b], and to stop them just doing something else. It is treated as a cost for the reasons Zain gave and also to differentiate it from Pure Profit (also known as Supernormal Profit) which is like a bonus, profit that the owner/runner doesn't require to keep being prepared to run the business but gets anyway. In the long run in a perfect market there will be no Pure Profit. 91.85.138.20 (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm thanks 91. I got it before, though. :) It became clear as soon as Zain mentioned this is an "opportunity" cost. I was thinking about "cost" with its meaning in every-day life, not its meaning as "opportunity cost" in economics. That is where I got confused. 117.0.54.193 (talk) 05:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steinway Fountain Pen - needs third-party sources

The article Steinway Fountain Pen needs third-party sources. I have tried to find some but unfortunately without any result. Can anyone find some? - and if one does, fell free to ad them. Thank you very much. Fanoftheworld (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really hope that somebody will help finding third-party sources. Fanoftheworld (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, the Ref Desk isn't for helping with sources. Thanks, Genius 101 ^Guestbook 00:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the Reference desk isn't for helping finding references, what is then the Reference desk for? Fanoftheworld (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly we rely on articles within Wikipedia to PROVIDE the references - much as a reference librarian searches their library. SteveBaker (talk) 04:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines: "We expect responses that not only answer the question, but are also factually correct, and to refrain from responding with answers that are based on guesswork. Ideally, answers should refer (link) to relevant Wikipedia articles, or otherwise cite reliable sources." "The reference desk process helps the growth and refinement of Wikipedia by identifying areas that may need improvement." BrainyBabe (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a scam?

More than once I've been a shopping center parking lot and a guy (usually in his late teens or early 20s) drives up and says, "Hey, I've just finished delivering some speakers and I have an extra set. I can't return them to the warehouse, you can have them for free." Suspecting a scam, I've never accepted the offer. What am I missing? Is this a common scam, or are these people being altruistic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.28.57 (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See White van speakers -- Coneslayer (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's happened more than once, it's more than just a coincidence, I'd say. Coneslayer's link looks about right. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 18:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depends. Do you look like (or are you) a supermodel? Otherwise, check this out. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they're really offering them to you for free then I can't figure out their angle. This must certainly be some variant of the common scam, but I can't figure it out. -Elmer Clark (talk) 07:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok, I see that link addresses that. Sort of a bait and switch then. -Elmer Clark (talk) 07:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had this experience recently with meat rather than speakers. The people knock on my house door and explained they had just delivered some meat to someone in the neighborhood but were unable to complete the full delivery and now had some extra they were looking for unload. They made it sound as if they would give me a delivery of "steaks" for free. I wasn't interested, but the "free" and my own kindness led me to let them present their pitch to me. It quickly became clear this would not be free and I am just not interested in purchasing bulk meat. I barely eat the stuff. When I balked they upped the pressure, but not that much. Perhaps it was not a scam, but it sounds strangely similar to the White van speakers scam. The company in question was Iowa Steak Company. Pfly (talk) 05:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest not going to close to the van or you end up rubbing lotion into the skin :) Or they get your attention then try to sell you a knock off watchChromagnum (talk) 10:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TANSTAAFL Phil_burnstein (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add to that, "Caveat emptor" and "A fool and his money are soon parted." It seems amazing that people really fall for this stuff... --- Medical geneticist (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why was it classified?

In reading the various news articles about the 2009 New York City airplane scare, one thing I can't figure out is why law enforcement authorities, who had been warned about the flight, didn't warn the public. They say it was because it was "classified". WHY WAS IT CLASSIFIED? I don't get it. Does anyone have any insights? Mike R (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why, but such info would make a great addition to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I expect all activities involving presidential planes are automatically classified and no-one thought to declassify this one to avoid scaring the public (hopefully they won't make that mistake again). It makes sense to classify the plane's activities even when the Pres. isn't on board since you don't want terrorists, etc., using the opportunity to gain information about the plane's capabilities (by flying close to it and taking close up photographs, or something). --Tango (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you hit the nail on the head. Plus I'm pretty sure it's not always made clear if the president is on the plane so they don't want to give it away that he isn't and they probably wouldn't bother to differentiate between times he clear isn't and times he could be Nil Einne (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More like our president was being stupid, didn't think it through, and they needed an excuse that wouldn't make him look bad. It's happened before. Everyone makes mistakes. That's just my opinion, though. You don't have to take it seriously. <(^_^)> Pokegeek42 (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems unlikely given all sources indicate he wasn't aware. Even if you choose not to believe said sources because they're engaged in a coverup, the question is why on earth would he have been aware? I would hope that during the early stages of what could be a deadly pandemic and the worst economic crisis in many many decades, he would have better things to do then to monitor every single movement of one of his many modes of transport doing nothing more then a photoop. But perhaps that's just me and my weird non American expectations of my leaders... Nil Einne (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If our president is personally managing air force publicity photographs then we really need to find some more work for him to do. APL (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary: the more time politicians spend on such trivia, the less time they have for finding new ways to wreck the economy. —Tamfang (talk) 05:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Our president" was not being stupid. It was not his decision, and he was reportedly furious when he found out about it. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of a good reason why the public couldn't be told of the "photo op" in advance. They didn't need to give the public the same information they gave government agencies. They could have said something like "A government agency will have an aerial publicity photo shoot above the Hudson river tomorrow. Don't be alarmed if you see Air Force planes over Manhattan tomorrow." --98.114.146.142 (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anybody else can think of a good reason either, that's why people are furious. My guess is that the people involved simply didn't think about what they were doing. --Tango (talk) 09:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question is what grade it was classified. There are lots of grades in the US. It was probably not classified "secret" but something much lower, like "for official use only" that is just used by default on most government documents. (Why? Because of our wonderful aggressive "gotcha" investigative reporting that makes every little memo a possibility for political football.) Let's put it this way—for most bureaucrats, you will not get in very much trouble for over-classification, but you can get a heap of trouble for under-classification. So most err on the side of classification (and have for many decades). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 00:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It did not "just happen." Press accounts said "the military" wanted updated publicity photos. Are they likely to have a congressional inquiry and make the General, Colonel, Major, or whatever appear and testify why he thought it was a good idea to have a large jet plane fly around downtown New York at low altitude with a fighter chasing it without informing the public, causing panic among workers in highrise buildings, or will the coverup be successful? Never mind. They have outed Louis Caldera, Director of the White House Military Office, as the one responsible. He is a Harvard graduate, an attorney, a former college president, and former Secretary of the Army. What next? Fake bioterror attacks to make it possible to take snazzy photos of bioterror experts running around a downtown in space suits with Geiger Counters? Is there a Clue Stick available? Edison (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mock attacks kinda like this? —Tamfang (talk) 05:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of many reasons why movements of Air Force One^{yes I know it's a callsign} are not generally made known. You might be able to deduce the president's movements from it; plus an attack on Air Force One would be a major coup for a terrorist, even if the President wasn't on board and even if it was unsuccessful. So it's entirely unsurprising that the default is not to tell people. Clearly in this case it was a mistake, but come on people! Nobody died! Nobody was hurt! If this is the worst thing that happens this month then we are all very lucky.

Incidentally, Mayor Bloomberg was going on about how outraged he was at not being told, yet somebody in his administration did know and didn't think it worth telling him. Is he going to find out who that was and fire them? In fact, isn't it as much his job to make people aware as it was the President's? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rumors have it that he was giving joyrides to people who were big money donaters. $400,000. Used to have that on some presidental website. It got taken off pretty fast. There were supposed to be others, too, but they got canceled after this. Or so I've been told, anyway. Nothing's positive anymore. <(^_^)> Pokegeek42 (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy that. Why would they have an F16 fighter escorting them - and why go to all the trouble of flying over NewYork if it were just a joyride. If you were doing that, the very last thing you'd want would be all of that publicity. Nope - that makes no sense. We need references. Where did you see this? Put up or shut up! SteveBaker (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Share the wealth. Ain't it great we elected him? <(x_x)> AnimeAddict80 (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it were not for the fact that this is not the purpose of Talk pages, my response to this question would be, "Yes, it is great." Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like the eyes. <(x_x)> Neat. <(^_^)> Pokegeek42 (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know the RD is not the place for debates, so forgive me, but you already share the wealth and do all sorts of other socialistic things, without ever thinking about it. Do you pay taxes? Do you have health insurance? Seriously, the ignorance of anyone who thinks Obama is socialist is astounding. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're getting WAY off-topic here. But indeed - there are some things that can be done more efficiently in a group. You can't farm your own food because with modern machinery it takes about as long to harvest the one acre you need to feed yourself as it takes to farm ten thousand acres. So you buy your food in a store that sells the products of gigantic agri-businesses. You can't afford the risk of wrecking your car - so you get together with a million other car owners and (in effect) agree to share the risk...it's called insurance. Similarly, there are a few things you can't do at the scale of even a million people - it takes an entire country to share the risk/benefits. Fixing the financial system and dealing with health care are two things that are like that. Call it socialism if you must - but socialism is just large-scale cooperation. Other things work better the other way...having huge organisations write computer software gets you a monopolistic Microsoft and the incompetent pile of crap they call Vista - they are so big that they can actually ignore their customers! Having huge car companies causes the kind of grief GM are in right now. Individuals or small groups acting together produced Linux and Wikipedia - small car companies who can be light on their feet are still doing reasonably well compared to the giants. Different models suit different problems. Dogmatically applying the same solution to all problems is the sign of a tiny mind. SteveBaker (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we're done here guys. Nothing to see here. Move along. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]