Miscellaneous desk
< April 25	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 27 >

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 26

Childcare teaching method

Returning from a Boy Scout meeting tonight, my stepson questioned my wife and I about how people learn to take care of their children. I advised that the best way was to learn by example (to which he replied with some sarcastic comments regarding my parenting skills). Anyway, I told him about my experience with Home Economics in high school, and how we had to carry around an egg in a basket for a week. If the egg was damaged upon its return to the teacher, our grade suffered accordingly. His Mom informed us that there are now life like dolls that actually cry and defecate, and that have sensors that detect when the "baby's" diaper is changed, when it's fed, how often it is held, etc. When returned, a computer can determine how well the doll was "cared for." This fascinated both my son and I. Is this for real? I checked the article on Childcare and searched for things like Childcare methods & Childcare education to no avail. I'd appreciate some assistance. (Personally, I can't help but think of Chucky.) Regards, Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 01:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a website for one such doll. I'm not sure exactly how sophisticated these are. When I was in high school (~10 years ago), there were dolls that you had to "feed" by turning a key in its back when it cried periodically. The dolls seem to have gotten more complicated since then (?). Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good gods! We are truly living in a different world than just 10 years ago. (The pic of the power cord coming out of its back is truly creepy.) I wonder if this is a form of childcare education, or birth control. I can't imagine how I would've cared for this thing in high school. (I remember some of the "smart" kids in my class hard-boiled their "baby eggs" to minimize damage...hoping the teacher wouldn't notice. Not sure if that fits under irony or not.) Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 02:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My impression was that the primary purpose of having school kids "caring" for those dolls was to give them the message "Don't get pregnant!" (At least not yet.) As for learning about childcare, the traditional sources are surely mothers. And every generation seems to have its guide books on raising kids. Dr Spock was the guru when I was a baby. HiLo48 (talk) 02:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then there's this and then that. I agree that caring for the robot baby is more effective as a precautionary method of child birth, than an actual teaching method for child care. Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 02:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, the obvious thing about those gurus and their books is that each generation's gurus contradict the previous generation's ones. It's amazing we survive at all! HiLo48 (talk) 02:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many actually didn't survive, either because their parents were in denial about safety or because they believed that the old ways were always best "and we never did any of that and we were fine!!!". The ones who didn't survive aren't here to contest the point. Survivor bias is a well-known phenomenon. --NellieBly (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the robot baby. We've come in a full circle :} Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 03:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This all sounds like an excellent argument for home schooling.Phalcor (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if somebody will come up with a machine to "care for" the robot babies, and thus get a good grade for the students who buy them. StuRat (talk) 09:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for a half-remembered UK TV series that followed the adventures of some teens who had been given these contraptions. I only found this unfortunate event. Alansplodge (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roth 401(k) vs. traditional IRA converted to Roth IRA

I'm 26 years old and a lawyer with an income of $170,000 plus a small bonus (probably will be about $10,000). Now that I'm getting my enormous student loans all paid off, I'm trying to get on top of my personal finances and start investing and saving for retirement (about 40 years from now?). (I don't have any dependents or a taste for nice things yet, so I might as well sock away a good chunk of my income.) Comparing all my options seems really complicated and is kind of overwhelming, and I'm hoping to get a bit of feedback here to see if I'm on the right track!

I've looked at some online calculators and seen that a Roth 401(k) beats a traditional 401(k) for me, so I've already taken the traditional 401(k) out of the running. (My employer does not do any 401(k) match, unfortunately, but does offer a Roth 401(k).) I am ineligible for a Roth IRA because of my income, but I can still do a traditional IRA. I also did some other online calculators and saw that for me doing the traditional to Roth conversion makes sense. Since I plan to contribute more than $5,000 (the IRA limit) toward my retirement savings, I'm going to enroll in my employer's 401(k) plan, which will make my IRA contributions non-deductible. I think this doesn't really matter though, because for me to do the conversion I have to pay taxes on my IRA contributions anyways. (Am I right about it not mattering?) Looking at the 401(k) IRA matrix, it seems like the Roth IRA is better than the Roth 401(k) in basically every way. Would the best strategy be to fully fund my traditional IRA first (preparing to convert to Roth as soon as I can), and then fund my Roth 401(k) as close to 16,500 as I can? Any other thoughts?? Thanks from a personal finance beginner!! Blueskysand (talk) 01:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are making that kind of doe, you really need to consult a professional. Find someone who will provide you with references of ACTUAL customers in the same income level as you (at least, starting out at the same income level), and who are willing to communicate with you independently about WHY they were satisfied with his/her financial advice. If they are reluctant to do so, I'd continue searching. (A truly great financial adviser will have developed a strong enough relationship with his/her customers that this shouldn't be a problem). In the meantime, my non prof. advice is to sock away as you possibly can in traditional savings until you truly educate yourself on the best way to manage your money in a way that you are informed and comfortable in doing so. Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 02:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I don't really think I need to hire a financial adviser because my situation really isn't that complicated... (I don't have any big near-term savings goals, this money is just going to sit for 40 years, and I intend to invest in a lifecycle fund with a low expense ratio for minimal hassle.) I just need some general pointers about whether I've correctly characterized the advantages and disadvantages of these different treatments for tax purposes etc... Anyways, I think a normal savings account would be a pretty lousy choice for my money, especially considering the ridiculously low interest rates available now (~1% for "high-interest" online savings accounts), and then (if I waited too long) forfeiting my possible yearly contribution to my IRA and 401(k). Blueskysand (talk) 02:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a risk/reward thing. If you feel comfortable taking financial advice from strangers on the Internet, then by all means... Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 02:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And paying a financial planner would be better? Mr. Blueskysand has a good grasp on his finances, and a financial planner would probably be a waste of money for him. Buddy431 (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like the mighty Quinn says. Do something safe and simple (CDs money market account etc.) until you get a thorough understanding of what your options are. Life has a way of coming up with surprises. Oops. that sounds like advise. Mustn't do that. please disregard previous statement.Phalcor (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's terrible advice (CDs are probably the worst investment you could make in a situation like this). Without commenting too much on the OPs specific situation, here's a good article on what to fund in what order, depending on your income: [1]. You look like you have a pretty good handle on this, and I would actually advise against a financial planner; any extra benefit they might be able to squeeze out of your savings will be more than offset by their fees. Buddy431 (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what the "CD" you're talking about is (it doesn't seem to be any of these). But for us to be advising an OP against getting professional advice and instead using their own brain seems contrary to the general principles we employ around here. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The third entry on the CD (disambiguation) page you cite is Certificate of deposit. You may want to read that article for more information. --Jayron32 19:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jayron. I read it, and I stand by my comment. Individual editors' personal opinions of particular investment or financial management avenues should not dictate how we respond to questions. It's exactly the same principle as no legal advice or no medical advice - apart from "see a lawyer" or "see a doctor". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You stand by your comment that you don't know what CD means in this context? Really? Even after I showed it to you, you still do not understand what "CD" the person is talking about? I'm perplexed, since its the only financial instrument with the abbreviation CD. What is hard to understand that the abbreviation CD means "Certificate of Deposit". How can it be made clearer? --Jayron32 00:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, how silly. The comment I stand by is "But for us to be advising an OP against getting professional advice and instead using their own brain seems contrary to the general principles we employ around here.". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry. I never once disagreed with you on that statement. You said you didn't understand what a CD was. I directed you to the meaning. You're subsequent statement to my defintion was highly confusing then, as it made it appear as though you were somehow either disagreeing with, or still not understanding, what CD meant. --Jayron32 02:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see the problem now. You responded about the CD thing, which was useful, and I thanked you for it. You did not disagree with my other statement, true; but you did not comment on it at all, which I interpreted as indifference or even tacit disagreement, so I felt I needed to restate my position. (Not sure why I couldn't have seen it as tacit agreement, rather than tacit disagreement, but there you have it, the human mind in all its glorious unpredictability.) Ultimately, I read too much into the absence of any comment on your part. But I meant well. Tricky business, this communication stuff. I must do some more practice. :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'ts all good. --Jayron32 04:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Permission to use photograph

Hi,

I would very much like to use the photograph you publish of John Howard the great prison reformer for my PhD. Can you please advise me how I request this permission.

Kind regards,

Julia — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.tabreham (talk • contribs) 13:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You dont say which John Howard or which image so it is difficult to give any guidance, but this page should give you some help - Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. MilborneOne (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the OP said it was John Howard (prison reformer), I suspect she is referring to this portrait, drawn c. 1789. It's probably in the public domain. However, some countries place 'creative expression' on the photographing/scanning of pictures (presumably in the skill of getting the colour balance/brightness/contrast correct). So as MilborneOne said, we need to know what country you live in. And the link zie provided is probably the best pace to ask for further advice. CS Miller (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do be aware that the picture in question is one of the ones involved in the National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute, so if you are in the UK use of this picture may be problematical, though if you are in the US there would be no problem in you using the picture. The dispute has gone very quiet since late 2009, but we cannot assume that it has gone away. Here's an interesting blog discussion on the background to the case by a lawyer I slightly know - he did a presentation to the British national SF convention a few days ago on Lucasfilm v Ainsworth ("Stormtroopers in Court!") which is currently before the UK Supreme Court (original High Court case) Lucasfilm v Ainsworth: The Copyright is *not* strong in this one..., (appeal) Star Wars II: Ainsworth Strikes Back, (Supreme Court hearing) And it's going to be a Trilogy!, which just goes to show how entertaining (and expensive) copyright cases can get. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 23:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Catholics: eating meat during Lent and Holy Week

This may not be the correct site to ask the following, but I couldn't find the link to submit it:

During Lent season. I understand that we as catholics are to obstain from eating meat on Fridays. I also understand that during Holy Week (specially Holy Thursday, Friday, & Saturday) we are not to consume meat. Meat cannot be eaten until Sunday. Is this correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.20.212 (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a title to the OP's question. --- OtherDave (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to the question depends on where you are in the world (I'm assuming you're talking about Roman Catholics). For example, the United States Conferences of Catholic Bishops says that Ash Wednesday and Good Friday are days of obligatory fasting and of abstinence from meat. ("Fasting" means one full meal, and two smaller ones meant not to equal another full meal.)

...If possible, the fast on Good Friday is continued until the Easter Vigil (on Holy Saturday night) as the "paschal fast"...

That makes it clear that fasting, not necessarily abstinence, is encouraged rather than required. The same site confirms that Fridays in Lent are obligatory days of complete abstinence(meaning abstinence from meat). You may also want to review this 1966 statement by the American bishops on penance and abstinence. --- OtherDave (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are some exceptions, though. When St. Patrick's Day falls on a Friday, for example, many bishops will waive the abstinence requirement. See [2]. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is surely a matter of personal behaviour and your desired level of commitment. i do not think that your God will regard you as a worse person for eating some meat during Holy Week. Richard Avery (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is so true, Richard. A long time after I resigned from the Catholic Club, I attended Mass one day just out of curiosity, to see what had changed. During the sermon, the priest was talking about sin, and how we should all be a little easier on ourselves. He said that many of the things we were all taught as children were grievous sins, were nothing of the kind. To his eternal credit, the priest said that we were never in danger of eternal hellfire, or even a slightly delayed entry into Heaven, for eating meat on a Friday or during Holy Week. As glad as I was to hear those words, they only confirmed the rightness of my decision to leave in the first place. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand the practice (which may be wrong) fasting is a devotional metaphor. Christ is spiritual sustenance (as in transubstantiation): he died on good friday and rose again on easter sunday; fasting for those days (avoiding physical sustenance) recalls losing and regaining that source of spiritual sustenance. No doubt historically (and probably in some monasteries to this day) this would be a full 3-day (water only) fast, but the symbolic idea is more important than the physical act, and accommodations are made. As with most things religious, it's best to keep the principle in mind and not sweat too much over the details. --Ludwigs2 17:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little-known fact that Jesus first words to Mary Magdelene on Sunday were, "You know, I haven't eaten in 3 days, and a bagel with cream cheese and lox would really hit the spot about now."

I would expect that the Catholic view on fasting is similar to the Jewish view: That fasting is not appropriate if it could result in physical harm to the faster (i.e. if they're old or infirm). The "greater sin" axiom would apply. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Marr

who has he been having it off with (apart from his missus?)

That information is part of a Gag order (super injunction), i'm sure there are rumours a plenty but the information that's been released (by an interview with Andrew Marr) is all that's (currently) allowed in the public domain. ny156uk (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, it's not covered by the Super-injunction anymore, only the gag order (regular injunction). With a super-injunction, people aren't even allowed to say that any sort of gag order exists. Now, the British papers are allowed to say that such a gag order exists (and they have been [3] [4], [5], [6]), but are still not allowed to give certain details (i.e. who he had the affair with). Previously, while the "super-injunction" was still in place, they weren't even allowed to report that there was any sort of legal proceedings going on at all. Buddy431 (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All that is known is that it was a "fellow journalist" - [7]. Exxolon (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, the rumors generally agree that it was Alice Miles, [8], [9], [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t453856/], etc. I'm not sure how much stock to put in these rumors - they all seem to link back to a single blog post from 2008 [10]. Buddy431 (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares?--85.211.210.107 (talk) 06:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All that matters here is that the OP cares enough to ask. The tabloids will assure you that few people will admit to caring, but it sells lots of newspapers. And there is nothing guaranteed to make people care more than a super-injunction.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]