Miscellaneous desk
< August 1	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 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.

August 2

environmental vegetarianism

i read the article about it and i got pretty much confused whether environmental vegetarianism actually contributes to sustainability r not.

can anyone help me about the actual merits and demerits of environmental vegetarianism?

thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.50.142.233 (talk) 06:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The jury's still out on whether vegetarianism is the most sustainable diet (although it's certainly more sustainable than a steady diet of Big Macs). You may want to read my article on the subject at http://life-user.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-i-ex-vegetarian.html. Neon Merlin 07:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mylan Engel's "The Immorality of Eating Meat" always seemed like a quality defense of vegetarian and it does involve environmental grounds. Here is a copy of the paper.--droptone (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want actual data from a solidly reliable source, the United Nations’ report Livestock's Long Shadow is hard to beat. It's available online for free, too. Red Act (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unemployment and humanism

If everyone has value to society, how can there be so many people whom society isn't willing to pay for? 99.225.250.31 (talk) 07:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The law may set a lower limit on what people can be paid, in which case they may not be paid anything! Logically you may be also able to deduce that your assumption "everyone has value to society" is not true. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(slightly political) It's also possible to say that in a pyramid like social structure there will be many people whose value lies in being at the bottom. This linked image outlines the ancient principles http://www.aldokkan.com/society/social_pyramid.jpg 83.100.250.79 (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From where does this stated notion derive that "everyone has value to society?" I'm not questioning it, I'm just wondering what its source is. Bus stop (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think answers may be found in unemployment - specifically in a market driven employment market it's not always (isn't) economically viable (profitable) to employ everyone. Additionally in an industrialised society the use of machines to increase productivity per person results in less work for people in general - and therefor - unemployment.83.100.250.79 (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A large portion (what portion varies from country to country and time to time) of unemployed people are just "between jobs" rather than long term unemployed. The labour market is very illiquid, so it's not unusual for someone perfectly employable to take some time to find a new job after losing their old one. --Tango (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When a company says its value is in its employees it often means it's just about to make whole bunch of them redundant. Value can be negative as well as positive. Dmcq (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a mixed-up question - so you get a three-way answer to think about!

I simply don't believe that "everyone has value to society". People who live a life of crime or who expect to live their entire lives on handouts of various kinds may not be providing society with any value whatever. Many other people provide some small value, but still less than they cost. If those people simply vanished overnight, society would undoubtedly be better off. The moral difficulty is that in many (most?) of those cases, the reason they are worthless to society is something that's beyond their individual control and indeed their situation may even be the fault of society at large. However, that doesn't alter the fact of their lack of value. So why isn't society willing to pay for these people? Well, it's obvious: because their value is zero...or, quite possibly, negative...duh! As it happens, we DO pay for them in many ways - pretty much because we're morally obliged to (especially when the root cause is not due to the individual in question). But in many cases, you couldn't describe the support we're giving them as being given "willingly".
The big problem with the OP's premise is in linking it to unemployment...an unemployed person may be "worthless" right now - but what about later? Let's pick an example: With the collapse of the housing market, we need far less realtors and home builders - lots of them must be unmployed and falling back on the safety net that society provides for them. But does that make them worthless? Not really - we fully expect the property market to recover in a year or two - and then we'll suddenly be in great need of these people again. Doesn't it make sense to support them in some manner until their skills are once more required?
The bottom-line of such willingness as there is to help these people is that we can all envisage a situation in which we might be in the same boat - there are very few people in society who could not find themselves unemployed right after their next pay check. Also we don't really want to have the sight of people starving to death or dying of exposure in the streets in the midst of our otherwise comfortable and civilised society.

SteveBaker (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Logistics exam question

I am stuck on one question, and am hoping you could put me on the right track

Toyota has been the international benchmark in the car industry, The Toyota Production System (TPS) was the basis of the lean-production revolution in worldwide car manufacturing, this included JIT, total quality management and continuous improvement. The company has taken this a stage further in the layout of the factory with workers grouped into areas to do particular tasks on the cars as they come through the factory; workers are aided by machines but not taken over by them. It has achieved high efficiency over conventional more automated systems that have more maintenance problems. It also allows for continuous improvement and total quality management to operate effectively. In developing new products, Toyota is using as many components from other ranges as it can. How will other manufacturers respond to this competition? Legacy929 (talk) 09:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My answer would be that the other manufacturers should create the same sort of setup however it would also depend on other companies being able to provide the correct amount of stock when its required. Legacy929 (talk) 09:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The questions seems to me that its a sneeky way of getting you to list and describe all the latest techniques for operations management. 78.147.244.14 (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that if other companies are prepared to adapt to compete there will be a massive capital requirement but - equally important - a massive investment in people. Training is one thing. Acceptance of change is far harder to achieve. Some have doubted that non-Japanese have the temprement to accept Japanese standards of behaviour.86.197.149.12 (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)DT[reply]

WP is not a crystal ball that predicts what manufacturers will do. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a good idea to compare and contrast alternative logistics strategies that the competitors might apply, and how they could gain competitive advantage. 130.188.8.11 (talk) 10:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Railway travel in Kazakhstan

Is it possible, as I've heard from people who live in Kazakhstan, to take a train between Aktau and either Karaganda or Astana without crossing through other countries? I've looked it up on the KTZ website, which appears to show one train every night at 20.53, with a long wait in Zhanaarka for a connecting train that arrives in Karaganda at 8.40 the next morning. But my Russian is not very good yet, and I'm probably getting something wrong. A search on Wikipedia tells me Zhanaarka is a district, not a town, and I've never heard of any of the other places on the route. The detailed railway map of Kazakhstan linked from the KTZ article is very low resolution and I can't read the city names. Also, the first train is described as "marshrut" - does that mean it's actually a bus? 86.130.139.236 (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find this, for perhaps a partial answer to your questions: [1], and this: [2] Bus stop (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These links are not about Kazakhstan... the first is for Baku, Azerbajian, and the second is about Armenia. 86.130.139.236 (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I just thought that the word, "marshrut," might mean the same thing in different areas. Good point. Definitions might vary by region. Bus stop (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On this map Zhanaarka District (if it is 'Žanaarkinskij rajon') is roughly the light blue tracks on this map : http://www.parovoz.com/maps/KTZ.gif

- this suggests that the southern route (near to kyrgizstan) is taken rather than the northern route passing through russia. However the railway website isn't working for me at the moment so I can't check.

also are you sure it's a 10 hr journey, and not 1 day 10hrs or more - it's well over 2000miles// Sorry I can't be of more help.

Mashrut - It's not a bus (don't worry) it's a general travel term (eg Almaty Mashrut could mean Almaty service)- I think in this context it's the type of train service (probably means "stopping service") (there are no buses - joke)83.100.250.79 (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also I think the major town in Zanaarka is "Atasu" (english) if that helps.83.100.250.79 (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can list some of the other places on the route it will be simple to see if any borders are crossed.83.100.250.79 (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info - I found out some more. First, in this Lonely Planet thread it's mentioned the station near Aktau is called Mangyshlak - is that right? Assuming it is, Deutsche Bahn shows me a direct train to Astana, which takes just under 48 hours :-) Finally, in the same thread above there's a link to a much more detailed route map, which shows the line this train takes, staying just inside the Kazakh border with Russia. The existing map in the KTZ article misses it out entirely. I would change the link myself, but it's only a Geocities page and might vanish. Is it worth asking the author if they would release it for use on Wikipedia? 86.130.139.236 (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a 'mangyshlak' near Aktau (not clear what it is) on one of the maps - though clearly not the same as 'mangyshlak province' : Luckily this site [3] states "Railways connecting the Mangyshlak station and the Aktau port are operated by Kaskor-Trans-Ser-vice and total 21 km." it seems to me that the atation serving Aktau is called "Mangyshlak station" and the port rail facility is named Aktau (or something like that)

Various travel sites describe "mangyshlak" as a station in the suburbs of Aktau.

Yes, it's worth linking to the map at the least, maybe - I found another here [4] that might be better.

In fact you really want this.. [5] - or more specifically start here [6] - you can see the two stations near Aktau.

Additionally the best is not free [7] 83.100.250.79 (talk) 23:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the best map as a link to the article.

It's possible that this is a new track - there has been plans for expansion of the Kazakh rail network - specifically with a view to transporting goods from china to europe - I'm don't know if this is why that line is missing from the other maps - because it is new - but it is a possibility.83.100.250.79 (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stockholm question

I keep forgetting what is the name of the big open square in the centre of Stockholm, near NK and Åhléns, with the immensely large, rectangular fountain pool. I seem to remember the name had something to do with King Oskar. What is this square's name? JIP | Talk 17:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sergels torg is pretty close, but the pool is superelliptical, not squarish. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also check the category Squares in Stockholm here [8], which may tickle your memory. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely not Sergels torg. Even though I've only been to Stockholm about ten times, I mostly know Sergels torg inside out by now. No, this square is further away from the railway station than Sergels torg. AFAICR it's only less than a kilometre south from NK and Åhléns. Sergels torg is on two levels, with the fountain pool at the top, and all the shops at the bottom. This place is all on one level, with a big rectangular fountain pool and bars and cafés surrounding it. I know the place when I see it, but I just can't remember its name.

If you get stuck - could you point to it on this map http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=ahlens&sll=59.331876,18.063626&sspn=0.00753,0.026307&gl=uk&ie=UTF8&radius=0.46&rq=1&ev=zi&ll=59.331876,18.063626&spn=0.00753,0.026307&z=15 I think I've got both your things on it, so it must be nearby83.100.250.79 (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a picture of the square I'm talking about. This should help Stockholmians, at least, answer my question. JIP | Talk 19:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like Kungstradgarden (the photo on the bottom shows some facades on the opposite side). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it looks like that's it. I've never been to Stockholm in winter, only in spring or summer, but the last photograph showing the square in summer confirmed me it's the same place. Thanks a lot! JIP | Talk 19:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Long historical trend in income inequality

Has income inequality generally increased or decreased since the Middle Ages? Neon Merlin 23:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly certain that, at least in the past 200 years, income inequality has decreased considerably. While in terms of absolute income, the richest people ever alive are all working today (Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, et. al.), most studies agree that their relative wealth compared to the average person's wealth does not compare to that of those in the age of the Robber barons, who were far and away (at least in American society) the richest people ever, by comparison to the average American. The Vanderbilt family littered the U.S. with mansions which rival the largest palaces in the world (see Biltmore). Guys like Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller were no less well off either. --Jayron32 04:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's called "The Rise of the Middle Class". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It really depends on how you measure wealth. According to our List of wealthiest historical figures article, itself based on a piece by Forbes, Bill Gates is nothing more than a wannabe compared to some of the pharaohs or Chinese emperors. John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, William Henry Vanderbilt, Osman Ali Khan, Andrew Mellon, Henry Ford, Marcus Licinius Crassus, Alain Le Roux and Basil II, Cornelius Vanderbilt, Alanus Rufus, Amenhotep III, William de Warenne, William II of England, Elizabeth I, John D. Rockefeller, Jar, Sam Walton, John Jacob Astor and Odo of Bayeux all had over $100 billion in 2007 values, which tops Bill Gates’ current estimated US$40 billion net worth.

But, the question was about inequality, where the key is the total share of the wealth held by the few, vis-à-vis the wealth held by the many. In that regard, the ancient totalitarians would have presided over a far greater inequality than mere entrepreneurs do today. Further, the very wide spread of literacy should be considered as one of the aspects of "wealth" that cannot be overlooked. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question that income inequality has been rising the last couple of decades. But whether it has risen or declined since the Middle Ages is another matter. The rise of the middle class in the Western countries should probably have done something to stabilise it, but it is a question whether the steep rise in income of the top few percent haven't been so steep as to neutralise this development? The biggest problem in answering this question is probably the lack of precise information regarding income during the Middle Ages, but one should think that it would be possibe to make some rough estimations to use in such calculations. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in Gini coefficient, income inequality metrics, and list of countries by income equality. --Sean 14:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have a few notions and a handful of sources, I'm no expert. But it is important, in discussing theory, general trends and specific cases, to keep the distinction between inequality of wealth and inequality of income in mind. Many farmers may own much valuable land, yet still struggle precariously when costs are high, labor is scarce, yields are low and prices are low. Similarly for a small manufacturer or merchant with valuable facilities or stock on hand, but low turnover at low prices. Eventually, as in the Great Depression, the capital or wealth is liquidated through debt, taxes and bankruptcy, or else its real value declines drastically, but at a given moment there may be a great disparity between the distribution of wealth and the distribution of income. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]