Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 October 28

= October 28 =

Poor people as an engine of economy
Just would like to know whether my assumptions about the poor or middle class are basically correct:
 * 1) poor people are essential to contain inflation rate and the money value; as such, poor people regulate the prices, keeping them relatively low, and influence discounts
 * 2) as the number of poor people grows, the purchasing capacity decreases, so at some theoretical point nearly every poor man would be able to buy chic and luxurious things because the salespeople are forced to slash down the prices
 * 3) significant amount of poor people may affect such areas as the waste management, making it cheaper (less waste products) 217.25.31.177 (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * First ask: how do you define poor people?
 * In point 2 especially - if a "poor man" who could not previously afford luxuries now can, in ordinary parlance he may well be considered "no longer poor".
 * On point 3: you seem to assume that "poor people", however defined, exhibit the characteristic of producing less waste. Assuming this, it would mean that there is less demand for waste processing services, which, in the long run, would likely lead to a contraction in the market. Since waste management is likely to be a scale business - high economies of scale when proceessing a lot of rubbish compared to a little - this probably leads to higher cost per tonne of waste processed.
 * You may want to start by reading supply and demand. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * well, some articles come close to your questions:
 * 1) substituting unemployed for poor, "The natural rate of unemployment therefore corresponds to the unemployment rate prevailing under a classical view of determination of activity. It is mainly determined by the economy's supply side, and hence production possibilities and economic institutions. If these institutional features involve permanent mismatches in the labor market or real wage rigidities, the natural rate of unemployment may feature involuntary unemployment." from Natural rate of unemployment.
 * 2) "The term liquidity trap is used in Keynesian economics to refer to a situation where the demand for money becomes infinitely elastic, i.e. where the demand curve is horizontal, so that further injections of money into the economy will not serve to further lower interest rates."
 * 3) i got nothing for this one.
 * Gzuckier (talk) 01:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

217, your assumption 1) is wrong; there is no necessary connection between inflation / the money value and whether a society has poor people or not. Moreover, it is widely recognized that supply and competition have the greatest influence on price changes. Assumption 2) is also incorrect, in that any single extra consumer (poor or otherwise) adds to total purchasing power, even if only by a small amount. While the average may fall, that isn’t the same as total demand falling. As for 3), the parameters are simply beyond useful calculation. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a great difference between just "poor" person, who just paid too low for his/her work, and an unemployed person. First, as smaller industry is and as lower precent of population is taking part in the manufacturing process-the higher it would cost to produce different products and there would be not much to trade them for. Second, the more complex and demanding it take to manufacture product, the more expensive it will be -it can be still very cheap for people from other society where people are rich, but always will relatively expensive to the people in the society in which it was produced (e.g., China vs. USA). High inflation rates are connected with more people can't do nothing with their money, meaning poor people and high inflation rates are going well together. Another outcome could be higher deflation rates in societies where most people are poor or unemployed -so there is a small sector who exploit state resources with a very strong purchasing power. This is for example the situation in many South American countries-where an average Western can live as a king without working for the rest of his life and there are districts for the minority of rich people (in local terms-but they live in a very high standards undoubtedly) and all the rest live in miserableness. Indeed, in South America you can buy anything you find in Western markets, it will cost you half usually-so you may tell "Wow, what a low inflation rates"-but just remember that even those fortunate people who work for their living there are being paid for their work about 1/10 than what you would be paid for the same work in any Western society and it would still be too expensive for them-so inflation is not an absolute concept, but one which can't be disconnected from the society for which it applied.

For instance, I bought DVD player which cost about 120 Euro in the Netherlands for only 60$ in Bolivia and original T-shirt of Barca for 15 $ in Argentine where in Europe it cost about 60-100$. So you may wonder how come, the simple answer is that these products are very cheap for manufacturing and manufactures can play with their profits by adjuest the prices to any economy they are marketed in. However, in rich markets it would necessarily cost you more as the accompanying expenses are much higher and as lower prices would lead the economy to deflation-which is at least as negative for economy as inflation is --Gilisa (talk) 08:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I think otherwise, if everyone turns reach, the inflation rate would be extremely dangerous (due to huge money mass in circulation). The unemployed person may be often associated with the poor because the unemployed is also limited. So at some degree the inflation rate is related to the poor/reach ratio in my opinion. 94.20.22.147 (talk) 10:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The all issue is that there is no possibility that everybody would be rich, if there was, then communism could be a very good idea (but it's far from being so). The value of commodities is determined in almost linear relation to how wealthy society is and the more you buy the more you have to give and produce in return, so in a modern economy there is no possibility for everyone to be rich. In very primitive economies, where the economy is based on food ingredients, there is a tehortical chance for everyone to be rich by having a fertile agricultural year-but then we are not talking in terms of inflation or deflation as money have no real meaning in such primitive societies in which economy based on simple exchange trade and there can be, at least theoretically, situation in which the supply is hugh and the demand is very low. But as we are talking about bronze age like  agriculturist economies it have no meaning in modern economical terms.--Gilisa (talk) 11:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That starts off pretty badly. Yes, there is no possibility that everybody can be rich under capitalism.  Communism attempts to share resources equally among everyone, holding that it will then be in everyone's interests to expand the economy as a whole (or pursue other aims).  Were that to prove successful, could you say that everybody was rich?  It would be pretty meaningless. Warofdreams talk 13:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In communistic terms there are no rich or poor people in communist economy-all are equal for the bad or for the good. The problem is that when anyone have the same economical status and when you are paid the same for easier job there is no reason for most people to be productive. In communistic societies mostly all people are poor and the important ones are paid much more unofficially, there are no luxuries available for most people and if there is then someone have to produce them while others only want to enjoy them without taking the same part in the production process -so by now it's not possible. Maybe in the future, when robots will do all the work for us it would be, but the simple rules of economy demnand that there will always be economical hierarchy and economical  incentive to be productive. BTW, I think that you can still be wealthy even if all others are "rich" as well. As long as you can afford yourself to do whatever you want and/or you are satisfied the economical definition for who is rich mean nothing  --Gilisa (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolute definitions of being rich are even more problematic than absolute definitions of poverty. Being able to afford to do whatever you want is very rarely the case, but will rather depend on technologies and, in particular, on what can be bought and sold in an economy.  Being satisfied doesn't really hit the mark - it's the focus of happiness economics and is certainly of interest, but it's not what it commonly understood by being rich.  The economic incentive question is often put, but there are other incentives (moral, acclaim, adjustment of workload, even coercion), which can all work to varying extents - economic incentives are hardly unproblematic, and there's no good evidence that they are necessary.  The luxuries question you put is easily resolvable - incomes would be equal, the exact mix of goods consumed wouldn't be identical, so people who want a particular luxury could prioritise having it.  You do correctly state one problem with all the officially communist societies which have been created - they haven't actually produced this equality, as there's always been a privileged elite.  But I fear this is rather going off track from the original question.  Marx's labour theory of value sees poor people - workers - as the engine of an economy, in that their work creates value.  Of course, you can run an economy without any production, but he has a point in that without any production globally, there wouldn't be an economy. Warofdreams talk 20:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Origin of Surname "Karasarlidis"
Can somebody help me in my little research for my surname origin.My surname is KARASARLIDIS and i want to know is there a possybility for connection with ancient Lydia with capitol Sardis.As i know that was on todays Turkey teritory near Izmir.My grandgrand father came from Smirna, Turkey,which is aproximatly 70km from Izmir.He came during excange of people from Turkey to Greece 1920es i think.His surname was also Karasarlidis.Maybe this is my romantic quest but if anybody can help me i would be wery thankful.Best regards to all good people and sorry all for poor English —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.86.87 (talk) 04:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Your name seems to be Turkish in origin. "Karasarli" is a somewhat common Turkish name. "Karasarlidis" seems to be a Greek version of it.  Perhaps you had a Turkish ancestor who became part of a Greek community for some reason.  The word "kara" means "land" in Turkish.  "Kara Sarli" seems to have been the Turkish name for Skobelevo in Bulgaria.  It could be that this is a descriptive name that could have applied to other places.  The word "sar" means "belt" or "strip" in Turkish.  "-li" is an instrumental ending.  So "kara sarli" could mean something like "with a belt or strip of land" in Turkish.  Marco polo (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You may want to look at Population exchange between Greece and Turkey for some interesting historical background, but I expect you know about it already. A shameful mess created by the Western Allies. Also Izmir and Smyrna seem to be the same place.Alansplodge (talk) 01:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Subramaniam v. Public Prosecutor
In Subramaniam v. Public Prosecutor, what was the result of Subramaniam's retrial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.3.186.10 (talk) 04:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Time signatures, why do some feel more natural (to me) than others?
To me time signatures like 4/4, 3/4 and 12/8 feel very natural. Anything else to is difficult to grasp. Which makes me wonder, why? Is it because in modern (western) popular music these times signatures are so prevalent (ok, 3/4's and 12/8's are not THAT prevalent but at least you hear them on the radio now and then). Or does popular music use these time signatures because they feel natural? PvT (talk) 10:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * See Nature versus nurture. My guess is that it's more of a nurture issue, where the "natural" rhythms are just what you're used to hearing rather than any hard-coded predilection to 4/4 time, but I'm sort of biased towards nurture interpretations (I blame Gattaca).  I'd presume that learning music is a bit like learning language, though some (Noam Chomsky?) have even proposed that at least a part of language is "hard coded."  SDY (talk) 11:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Most modern language theoreticians would suggest that at least to large extent language is hard coded, even to the level of distinguishing between real and pseudo words-but not in the sense of two separated toddlers who have no one to learn language from will develope the same language or natural language as we know it. So, it's both environmental and biological-and as all humans talk Steven Pinker has suggested that language is an instinct. Howeber, connectivity computational models argue that there is no real hard coding for lnaguage-I think that this is a wrong concept. P.S. Noam Chomsky made hugh mistakes so his overall contribution to  linguistics is negative.--Gilisa (talk) 11:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I strongly disagree. The "mistakes" of Chomsky are more akin to Newton's "mistake" about gravity - yes, he is not perfect, but his errors still provide the framework and foundation for an enormous body of later work. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I was refering to Chomsky's assertions according which there is internal mechanism for language acquisition with few parameters that are being fine-tuned to the specific language, I think it's a wrong concept, an if it's, then it only slow down our understanding of how language is produced (even that I believe language is not a solvable question).


 * As for his universal grammar description (themetic roles which must accompanied with verb and etc, it's a shame that they can't be found in dictionaries -they could be very helpful)-I think that this is a great idea. --Gilisa (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it is a matter of custom. You have been bouncing and bopping along to Western time signatures since you were an infant. If you grew up in a different musical culture (and there are many that just sound completely far-out to an untrained Western ear), you'd bop along to their beats. If you listen to non-Western music you quickly see that you affinity to Western time signatures is arbitrary. I seem to recall studies saying that listening to music as a child was important if you were to become a good dancer—not quite the same thing, but it does imply that nurture is a big deal when it comes to finding certain rhythms to be natural. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And its also not universal that every song which is "comfortable" to western ears is in either 3-time or 4-time or some multiple thereof. Consider that one of Pink Floyd's most popular songs is in 7/4 time, Money, and most people find it a catchy and pleasant song.  -- Jayron  32  14:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also Take Five (5/4 beat), which is very recognizable but (for me) very hard to reproduce... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Music in 4/4 and 12/8 do no necessarily "feel natural", and music in other meters are not necessarily "hard to grasp" ("Money" by Pink Floyd being a great example). I'd say that it is easier to make natural sounding music in some meters and harder in others, but ultimately it is the composing and playing skills of the musicians that make music sound natural or difficult. Why is it generally easier to do in 4/4 and 12/8? Because, I would argue, they involve regular pulses with predictable accents repeating in short cycles. 4 beat cycles are often basically two 2 beat cycles. Lots of popular songs are closer to 2/4 than 4/4. And 12/8 is usually just a "swung" or "shuffle" 4/4. I'd suspect music in 3/4 also feel very natural quite often--so natural that one might not realize a song is in 3 instead of 2 or 4. The Beatles' song Blackbird, for example, shifts between 3/4, 4/4, and 2/4, but feels quite natural to me. Pfly (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Listen to the second movement of Tchaikovsky's 6th Symphony, the "Pathétique". It sounds completely natural, right?  A waltz, right?  Then go back and actually count the beats, and you'll discover it's not a waltz at all, but it's written in 5/4.  Thanks to the consummate skill of the composer, who died a few days after the first performance, he writes a piece in 5/4, a normally "unnatural" meter, in a completely natural-sounding way.  --  JackofOz (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I will take the line that JackofOz start with: 7/8 is common in Middle Eastern music but not in Western music. Also, in Western music the length of any unit is 4, but not in African music-so it's quite clear that this differences were developed. --Gilisa (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Top Ten Controversies in US History?
Does anyone know where I can go to find this? --Reticuli88 (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless you're referring to a particular feature, book or article that someone has written with that title, then this is basically an invitation to debate, which is not what this reference desk is for. --Reticuli88 (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Also, "controversies" is too wide a term.  It could mean anything, and what is controversial to one person may not be at all to the next.  Please find a more appropriate discussion forum. --Richardrj talkemail 15:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You say that, but I'm sure in the next hour or so people are going to respond with a list they've thought up ;)
 * What do you (Reticuli88) mean by controversies, though? Big news stories with conflicting support (OJ trial)?  Laws (Roe v Wade)?  Disputed history (was Lee Harvey Oswald a patsy)? TastyCakes (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking for any publications, online or not, on top controversies in US history, like the Kennedy assasination, or like that. --Reticuli88 (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Typing "American controversy" into Google Scholar yields the Hemmings/Jefferson debate, evolution/creationism, and hate speech among the top hits. Google Books adds slavery and the reintegration of slaves after the civil war. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We have a list of political scandals of the United States and Category:Political scandals in the United States. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 15:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you mean conspiracy theories? Either way, any list will be necessarily very arbitrary. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Richard Hofstadter's three-volume Great Issues in American History doesn't have a top-ten list but does go over many of the top controversies in American history (up until 1981) using primary-source documents. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the OP needs to clarify what they are considering "controversies" for us to be of any real help. "JFK assassination" is not specific enough. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the non-answers but I will start with Gadget850's suggestion. Just thought there would be a list or publication somewhere such as wiki's list of specfics types of disasters that I was recently reading. --Reticuli88 (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason these are "non-answers" is that - as I and others have said - "controversies" is too wide and non-specific a term. You're not going to get any kind of definitive list, because what is controversial is a matter of opinion.  --Richardrj talkemail 14:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Disasters" are much easier to quantify, since you can do it by "people killed", "property damage" etc. What classifies as a "controversy" is different for each person, any list would be inherently opinionated.  It would not classify as "fact" or be quantifiable the way "disasters" can, and so is unsuitable for a Wikipedia article.  Incidentally, that's also why you wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) find Wikipedia lists along the lines of "Best actors of all time".  TastyCakes (talk) 14:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Unaware Prophesied Messiahs, Saviors, Redeemers, etc
I am also searching for any stories, legends, etc of any prophesied messiahs, saviors, etc (besides Jesus) who were unaware that they were who they were up until that critical moment. --Reticuli88 (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You may wish to investigate Siyyid `Alí Muḥammad Shírází, one of the founders of the Baháʼí Faith, who was executed for claiming to be the Bab, the foretold next prophet of Islam. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mean to say that Jesus did fall into this description? &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 21:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Until what critical moment? I'm pretty sure few legends of messiahs, saviors, redeemers, prophets (if we're including them) claim they were aware of who they were at birth (unless the legend says they weren't born I guess). Nil Einne (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The moment of prophecy, presumably. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Nil, your answer makes so sense to me whatsoever. --Reticuli88 (talk) 14:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The Matrix? TastyCakes (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Since Mary was aware before she was even pregnant, I don't think Jesus falls into that category, unless she never told him. Baptism of Jesus has some discussion on whether Jesus would have considered himself free of sin without needing to be baptised. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Matrix is a very good example. Thanks! Anymore similar to that? --Reticuli88 (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The Belgariad? Harry Potter? Anyone listed at The Chosen One (Warning, TV Tropes link). AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I thought Jesus din't know he was the Messiah until later in his life. That he was almost reluctant to be this. Am I wrong (which most likely I am)? --Reticuli88 (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Marcus Borg (among others) would argue that, based on my reading of him--I think he and probably most of the Jesus Seminar folks would claim that Jesus didn't ever think of himself as the Messiah. This is speculation, of course, and may not be good enough for what the OP is looking for. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 07:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard? Jim Jones? ;) TastyCakes (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a record of Jesus disputing with the religious leaders in Jerusalem when he was only 12. The reason he gave to his parents was that he should "be about his father's business".  His high-profile religious work didn't begin until he was around 30, so he had known for most of his life. &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 18:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

For a moment I thought about Life of Brian, but Brian was not a messiah. He was a very naughty boy. — Kpalion(talk) 18:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * King Arthur? Whosoever draws out this sword, etc. Ka renjc 20:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Province of Punjab, Pakistan
Didn't Province of Punjab, Pakistan used to have 35 districts and now they have 36? which district is new? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.202 (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Under Districts of Pakistan it says:
 * In May 2005, the Punjab provincial government created a new district by raising the status of Nankana Sahib from a tehsil of Sheikhpura District to a district in its own right.
 * and an article in Dawn (newspaper) is cited. --Anonymous, 16:31 UTC, October 28, 2009.

samurai really cut peasants?
Did samurai really test new swords by cutting through peasants, or is that apocryphal? Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Criminals, yes, but I haven't heard anything about plain old peasants. Vranak (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Tsujigiri --151.51.28.42 (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't you mean Tameshigiri? -- 128.104.112.149 (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Here living in Japan, I am told that it also was used on random unluckies as well as weak children. Which, being a kid's teacher here, doesn't sound half bad some days... ;) Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 10:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Can a psychopath know right from wrong?
--190.50.94.45 (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes.--Gilisa (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * On an actually helpful note, let me refer you to the Psychopathy article. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In fact, many serial killers and other kinds of dangerous mental patients with agenda of causing harm were aware that what they are doing is wrong, by any set of standards, and showed signs of relief that they have been caught as well as recommending that they should never be released because they will do it again. Many understand that that there is something "wrong" with them and some even are god fearing and see themself as evil. If they chose not to embrace basic values we live by, doesn't mean they are not familiar with them. Remember, many of them have to function in normal society incognito for quite some time. 124.169.15.112 (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

USA airplane crash records from the 1950s
I'm trying to find records on light airplane crashes in Ohio in the early 1950s. The FAA website doesn't yield anything, the NTSB database begins in 1962, and Google doesn't seem to yield anything. Any idea if I can find this information online, and if so, where? Nyttend backup (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There are some light airplane crashes mentioned in the Department of Transport Special Collections website, but most accident reports there are of larger aircraft. Here's the link; go to "Historical Aircraft Accident reports", then search by year. --NellieBly (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information! As you probably guessed, my crash isn't on this page...any other ideas, anyone?  Nyttend backup (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you contacted the National Archives and Records Administration? They might have agency records that predate any online database. Unfortunately, there is no NARA library in Ohio, but perhaps if you call them they can direct you to a local resource that can help you. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Who had jurisdiction for investigating light aircraft crashes back then? Perhaps no one but the local police authorities has records. Rmhermen (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably the Civil Aeronautics Board. You probably would have to contact NARA about this, or dedicated plane-crash buffs (of which there are). There are, if I recall, sites that will let you order crash reports on historic crashes (for a price). But I don't know the specifics, unfortunately... --Mr.98 (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information! I was spending some time volunteering at my local historical society today (the only one in the room who knew how to use a computer :- and was shown a photograph of a small aircraft being hauled out of a lake by a floating crane.  If I understood the other volunteers rightly, it was a newspaper photo, but they didn't have any other parts of the newspaper, so I was being asked to find this crash online so that we could learn when the newspaper was dated.  I should note that they had asked someone else to try to check CAA records (I suppose this to mean Civil Aeronautics Authority; they thought this was what the acronym meant, but they weren't sure), but this hadn't yielded anything, as far as they knew.  Nyttend (talk) 04:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * While it is impressive that we have an article on the United States government role in civil aviation, unfortunately the articles never mentions general aviation so we can't tell if light aircraft crashes were investigated by CAB or only commercial ones. Rmhermen (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't say so, but local police haven't had the right to investigate accidents in the US since well before 1933. By the 1950s all aircraft accidents reported to the authorities were without exception investigated by the feds - either the CAB (or later on the NTSB) or, in case of federal offenses like hijacking or bombing, the FBI, sometimes in cooperation with the CAB or NTSB. Local authorities were involved in instances where a general aviation pilot was found to have committed a non-federal offense (say, flying a crop duster drunk), but the accident itself would always have been investigated by the feds.
 * However, this ignores the very real possibility that the accident wasn't reported. A lot of accidents occur unreported, especially among pilots operating under the figurative radar - smugglers, unlicensed pilots, drug runners, people who distrust or dislike the government, and the like. It's quite possible that someone under those circumstances might simply write off the cost of the aircraft as being worth less than going to jail or attracting the feds' attention. --NellieBly (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent article on loss of sense of self following brain injury
Can anyone refer me to an article which deal with similar subject that was published during the last two years?--Gilisa (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you mean a loss / change in the sense of self as one of the psychological sequelae of a trauma in general, or the acute loss of propio(re)ception as a result of posterior parietal lesion? --Dr Dima (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Dr.Dima, I meant change in the sense of self as a result of traumatic brain injury, and if you know one such article from the last two years which review (preferably)this issue and address the psychological aspects of these lesions it would be of great help.--Gilisa (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, psychological aspects of brain injury are pretty far from my field of expertise, so I can't recommend any particular article. Sorry about that. However, when I google-scholar it like this, lots of interesting stuff comes up. And yes, Google Scholar is a verb now :) --Dr Dima (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I didn't know that it become a verb so I didn't try it!:). Anyway it's not my field of expertise either-but like you I'm in the neuroscience business and Just submitted my first article for publication. Thanks for the help! --Gilisa (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Good luck with your article! --Dr Dima (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * See Google (verb)!Alansplodge (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I was thinking that he meant something else. Once there were not much differences between the efficiency of google scholar and just google in regard to searching scientific papers.--Gilisa (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

memorial to Flight 990
Is there a memorial for the victims of EgyptAir Flight 990 located anywhere? If yes, what does it look like?24.90.204.234 (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There's one at Newport, Rhode Island. --82.41.11.134 (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

why isn't "atleast" one word?
I think it shoudl be atleast —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.235.46 (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I have never seen "at least" written in one word. If it becomes an accepted usage, then we will adopt it into Wikipedia, but unless I am very much mistaken, "atleast" is not generally considered to be correct.  Falconus p  t   c 22:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why should it be? Rebracketing only happens occasionally. --Tango (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this would better be asked at the language reference desk? Nyttend (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In future, yes, this kind of question should go there. I don't think there is any need to move this one over, though, I doubt they'll have a better answer that it has already got. --Tango (talk) 22:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Saying "I think it should" is equivalent to saying "people should spell it that way". But clearly very few people do, so they're not going to be swayed by your suggestion.  There's been a trend in recent years to respell things like "a lot" and "a while" as "alot" and "awhile", but they've still never been recognised in any dictionary I've ever seen.  To adopt "atleast" would also require "atmost", "atbest", "atworst" and "atall", for consistency.  Language change is a natural process, but these would be change for its own sake.  "Afew Good Men"?  I don't think so.  --  202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Alot" is a common spelling mistake, but I've never seen "awhile" before - is that really coming into fashion? Also - since when has the English language been in any way consistent? --Tango (talk) 02:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Awhile" is a spelling that I use all the time. I had no idea that it was nonstandard, though now that I think about it, a high school teacher did dock me a point for that once.  I much prefer "awhile" to "a while", though apparently that's not a world-wide accepted usage.  I guess one mark of how common it may be is the fact that my spell checker does not flag "awhile."  I'm in North Carolina, USA.  I'm wondering if this usage varies by location, as I have not had any issues with using it here?  Falconus p  t   c 03:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have always used "awhile" (one word) as an adverb. My most recent edition of the COD (1989) approves this use, as did Samuel Johnson in my copy of his Dictionary of the English Language (1827). The meanings are not presented as identical, however. Bielle  (talk) 04:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, "awhile" is quite common. It appears 3 times on the current version of the Miscellaneous ref desk, for example. But I'll be sticking with "a while" for quite a while yet, thanks very much, reactionary old thing that I am.  I guess personal preference comes down to what one has seen most often.  I grew up with "a while", which has always seemed completely natural to me because it's sort of synonymous with "a long time" (and one would never write "along time").  But younger folks have been proportionately more exposed to "awhile", so to them, it's not eyelid-batworthy.  --  JackofOz (talk) 11:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Awhile" has been an acceptable word for centuries, but it doesn't mean quite the same thing as "a while". It's adverbial only, and means "for a while". To quote Partridge's classic, if dated, "Usage and abusage", "Awhile" for "a while" is catachrestic when while is a noun. 'I shall stay here for awhile' is incorrect for '...for a while'. Such a sentence as 'They followed the inlet for awhile along the edge of the bank' brings one up with a jerk; "for a while" or, simply, "awhile" would have been correct. So, given that I'm on this reference desk awhile, let me tell you that it's acceptable. "Alot" and "Atleast" are not, however. Grutness...wha?  22:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Aha. So, "I sat there for awhile" means "I sat there for for a while", and that's why it has to be "I sat there for a while".  --  JackofOz (talk) 10:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. You can say "I sat there awhile", but it sounds pretty dated, and - oddly - it's started to return from its contraction and will often be written as "I sat there a while". Grutness...wha?  00:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A sometimes-common American contraction that has not yet become accepted or standard yet (i.e. it would get corrected by an editor or circled in red by a teacher) is "alright" for "all right" by analogy with "already". But "all ready" and "already" usually mean different things, with the latter adverbial in roughly the same way that "awhile" is — for example, "We'd already been sitting in the office awhile when..." I can't yet see a similar use for "alright" or "atleast", although perhaps the colloquial use of "all right" as a reinforcer of another phrase might justify "alright's" eventual introduction in phrases such as "You could tell that we were quite unhappy with the whole situation, alright, ..." where writing "we were quite unhappy with the whole situation, all right, ..." might be confusing. I'm not arguing for "alright's" introduction, just positing a possible purpose or rationale. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It brings to mind the well known hymn, Lead Kindly Light... "And with the morn those angel faces smile, which I / Have loved long since, and lost awhile!" John Henry Newman, 1833. Perhaps you could start by using "atleast" in all your correspondence. When enough people pick it up: Voila! it becomes standard English. It might take a while (aha! "awhile" and "a while" are two different things). My father remembers when the verb "show" was invariably spelt "shew" in the UK. We have a very democratic language.Alansplodge (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Vatican City and the freedom of panorama
Has Vatican City the freedom of panorama? --88.76.242.171 (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * According to people at Wikimedia Commons, the answer is no, because it has Italy's copyright laws, and Italy does not have freedom of panorama. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What about Andorra, Liechtenstein, Malta, Monaco, and San Marino? --88.77.238.36 (talk) 07:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If it's not on that list, then we don't know. But in general, Liechtenstein follows most Swiss laws, Monaco follows most French laws, and San Marino follows most Italian laws.  --M @ r ē ino 14:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Are there any copyrighted buildings in Vatican City? --88.78.239.248 (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You can copyright a building??? Googlemeister (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, they're creative works, and like (almost) all creative works they're copyrighted when they're new (so I can't just make a new copy of the Burj Dubai in Las Vegas). The specific issue here is panoramafreiheit; whether a mere photo of a copyrighted building infringes on the architect's copyright. In some places it does, in some it doesn't. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 16:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't the buildings be out of copyright, though? I'm not sure if the 70-year rule applies to buildings? I'm pretty sure all the architects for Vatican City are Dead. Also I don't think the Church would sue you for copyright infringement on IP for a building. --JoeTalkWork 21:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed (I think that's 88.78.239.248's point above), all the major one as surely much too old. This also hold for sculptures; most of those will be too old as well, but there are some modern sculptures like this one. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's worth noting that there can be copyright issues even with very old buildings—aside from having changes made at various times, things like lighting arrangements (e.g. the Eiffel Tower's) can be copyrighted in some jurisdictions. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not all the buildings in Vatican City are so old that their architects are dead; see Domus Sanctae Marthae. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Investing in precious metals
How are people obtaining precious metals for investment purposes? What's the least risky way to invest in gold, silver, and other precious metals? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 23:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia can't offer financial advice, above all "least risk" advice.--Wetman (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Since when can't we offer financial advice? I don't think that's in our "no advice" charter. Granted, our advice is probably worthless. But what people do with their money is their own business. I'm sure someone who does investing knows the least risky option here—there is always risk, of course, but there are definitely levels of risk (risk is, after all, a commodity in the financial world). --Mr.98 (talk) 00:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you really comfortable with people using the Refdesk to advise other people to buy INTC or AAPL because they are undervalued? Your argument about their actions being "their own business" could also apply to legal or medical advice, right?  We aren't supposed to offer "professional advice", which probably just means "advice you ought to be getting from a professional" &mdash; like the guy trying to find out how to hang that sign across the road a few months ago.  It's not just legal and medical advice we should be avoiding, despite the fact that this page only says "legal and medical" up at the top today.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Without offering advice, I will say that there are three main methods: 1) investing in shares of companies that mine precious metals; 2) investing in exchange-traded funds, or ETFs, that purchase and hold precious metals in proportion to share purchases; and 3) purchasing physical precious metals.  There may be other methods besides these three, such as relocating to a region where trace amounts of surface gold occur and panning for gold. Each method has its own risks, in addition to the risk that the price of precious metals could fall after you make your purchase, which is a risk for all three.  For method 1), the risks include the risk that the company will prove insolvent or face other unforeseen difficulties, including poor management and many others, as well as the other risks associated with buying stock in any company. There is also a risk that precious metal stock prices will prove more volatile than the price of the precious metal itself.   For method 2), there are some similar risks as for method 1), including potential bankruptcy or fraud on the part of the company that underwrites the ETF.  For method 3), in addition to the risk of falling prices shared with the other methods, you face the risk of theft or other partial or complete loss of your physical investment. There is also the historical risk of a gold confiscation order (which poses a less direct but still real risk to investments using methods 1) and 2)). Because these methods have risks that are different in nature, it is really a subjective judgment which method involves least risk. To the extent that risk differs among the three methods, market forces should have incorporated the risk into the price.  If any of these methods offered a given return at a lower rate of risk, market forces should have bid up its price to the point where risk was equalized with the other methods. Also, the assessment of risk may differ for two different people depending on their circumstances, assumptions about the future, personal inclinations, and so on.  You really need to inform yourself about the alternatives and make a judgment for yourself.  Marco polo (talk) 00:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Where does one buy physical gold or silver? Certainly it's not just from the companies that you see advertised on TV. 71.54.238.131 (talk) 03:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Your local coin dealer stocks bullion coins and possibly small ingots. They will quote you the day's buying and selling price for each type (Krugerrands, for example) if you call them on the phone.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I was just reading about the recent increase in people panning for gold in the U.S. Here is one such article: Rmhermen (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

We should avoid offering individualized investment advice, for the same reasons we avoid legal and medical advice. Generalized discussion of investment concepts, however, do not seem to be as problematic, and I have no problems with Marco polo's fine discussion. Conventionally, it is assumed that ETFs are the lowest-risk way to invest in precious metals, since ETFs largely avoid the risks of investment in mining and operations companies and the risks of personal ownership of the metals. It must be understood, however, that ownership of precious metals in any form is a highly risky form of investment, since precious metals prices are so volatile. In addition, precious metals generally have underperformed other investments in most periods, so there is a highly unfavorable risk-versus-reward analysis. John M Baker (talk) 04:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If one is going the route of purchasing physical metal, there are several options, including purchasing pre 1964 US coins on ebay or from a local seller of coins. Googlemeister (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The least risky way is to invest with high confidence in a commodity that will be increasing in value. You need to know why, though, it will be increasing in value. I used to get wisdom from a local radio show, Money Talks. I noted that gold would be increasing; it did, massively. I noted that uranium would be increasing. Ditto. Still, you have to have the empathy and intellect to distinguish good advice from sketchy speculation. In short, the distilled wisdom from competent professionals is the easiest and surest way to make money in this fashion. Vranak (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a pretty good joke. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * According to efficient market theory, publicly traded investments reflect all available information. Thus, it would be impossible for a radio talk show reliably to provide investment information that would out-perform the market.  Of course, someone following the advice of the talk show might get lucky, as Vranak apparently did.  John M Baker (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't get lucky because I didn't invest. It was purely an intellectual exercise. Second, if you have guests talking about why a certain commodity will likely become more valuable, then you're not dealing with luck at all, you're dealing with valid information. The reason uranium was touted to be a good investment was that China was investing heavily in Pebble Bed reactors to meet their burgeoning energy demands. It's pretty simple stuff. Vranak (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * But the information, in this case that China was investing in reactors, was equally available to other investors, who were able to take it into account in valuing uranium. Thus, the price already reflected the possibility that demand would rise because of China's increased needs.  You can consistently outperform the market only if you have information that is not available to the market, or if you are smarter than everyone else in the world who invests in the market.


 * However confident someone may be about increases in the price of uranium, it's probably not wise to start stockpiling it. Warofdreams talk 21:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Very long time later but came across this while searching for something else but it seems likely confirmation bias could easily be at play. In fact the OP themselves said something about 'you have to have the empathy and intellect to distinguish good advice from sketchy speculation' which sort of screams confirmation bias and seems very common in these sort of financial situations. If you do well, it's because your a smart investor. If you do poorly, you just got unlucky. In this particular case it's even worse because we're talking about a solely hypothetical situation. Perhaps you don't remember how the same host told you in 2006 how Greek bonds were an excellent investment or how they said in 2007 that the price of oil was likely to keep growing and reach $400+ a barrel by 2011, and how sure you were the host was right at the time on both these. A better test for a hypothetical scenario would be if you were to construct your own virtual market with however much virtual capital you feel is suitable and invest appropriately based on this advice (preferably including brokerage fees etc) and see how you go. Even if you don't want to make it so complicated, at the very least write down all of what you believed rather then going by memory. Of course while this mostly eliminates the risk of you remembering the 'smart' advice which you believed but forgetting the 'dumb' advice you believed, it doesn't do anything about the fact even if you do outperform the market, you can't really prove it was because you're a savvy investor as opposed to someone who got lucky. (There could easily be others out there who did the same thing and got 'unlucky'.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The Efficient markets hypothesis indicates that it is impossible to predict future prices. What might look like a trend is just a random sequence. 92.24.25.252 (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Challenge to the Reader novels
When I was a kid I used to read old Ellery Queen novels. Before the last chapter the author posed a challenge to the reader. All of the clues to solve the mystery had been presented throughout the book and the reader was challenged to solve the mystery before reading the conclusion. Are there any current authors who have similar styles? (Encyclopedia Brown doesn't count, as it is written for kids)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.29.109 (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not exactly the same, but the Colin Dexter always claimed that the mysteries in his Inspector Morse novels could be solved by the reader before the solution was revealed. He didn't write anything explicitly in the novels to say when that was, though. Also Colin Dexter is more than a bit clever, so they are pretty difficult to solve. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There is an entire genre of those, called whodunits. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 07:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)