Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 February 24

= February 24 =

british royal family
Are there any women in the british royal family (current or past) that are hot?


 * Princess Grace, AKA Grace Kelly? Oh wait, no, that's an imposter.  So: no. 84.153.231.223 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 00:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC).
 * Princess Grace was not part of the British royal family but of the Monagasque family. --Kvasir (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Diana, Princess of Wales was generally considered to be physically attractive. --Tango (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As for the present, considering Forbes: The Hottest Young Royals of 2009 ranks Zara Phillips third and Princess Beatrice of York fifth, I'd have to say no. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That list isn't based on attractiveness, according to their explanation. Woogee (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a question that calls for a subjective opinion, so 1) there is no correct or incorrect answer (that is, someone else might find either of those two young women, or some other female royal, attractive) and 2) the question isn't really suitable for the Reference Desk. Marco polo (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * British Royal Family has a photograph; you can judge for yourself. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II probably gets quite warm every so often, but I'm pretty sure she doesn't sweat. --Dweller (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Right now its unlikely, given that it is the middle of winter here. 148.197.114.158 (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But they wouldn't sweat anyway. Haven't you heard - animals sweat, men perspire, ladies glow.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The Countess of Wessex is rather attractive: And Eugenie of York:  But they don't hold a candle to Princess Marie of Denmark:  Woogee (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are really judging the slickness of the photo rather than what they actually look like. I used to collect different photos of the same person taken under different conditions and lighting: in one they would look glamourous, in others frumpy and wrinkly. 78.151.155.128 (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think Princess Marie is British (as per OP's question). But if we're going to look at the Danes, Marie can't compare with Mary, Crown Princess of Denmark. Better pictures at her official page. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * QE II was considered attractive during her early reign. (The OP did asked current and past) --Kvasir (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed; "I did but see her passing by, and yet I love her till I die" said Robert Menzies. Whether this was genuine admiration or just sycophancy has been the subject of debate ever since. Also the Lady Diana "legs" photo caused a sensation at the time. Alansplodge (talk) 13:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * By "sensation" you mean it was in the press a lot. Nobody did any polls on what the public thought or cared, if they did at all. Its wrong to confuse what the press and media say with the true opinion of the public. 78.151.155.128 (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

they say face is the index of the mind- no wonder not just the women - even the men they are all ugly. charles, elizebeth, phillip ... when you think of the royal family only ugly faces come to your mind. Diana was indeed goodlooking but was never hot... as someone mentioned this is very subjective - i would personally find Monica Belluci or Kate Balnchett hot... Im sure a few people find prince charles hot too...LOL

signed white house passes
I have White House memorabelia (documents) including signed passes by Eleanor Roosevelt. I would like to know how I would find out who I can contact to find out the value of these items and if any museum would be interested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matts1gran (talk • contribs) 02:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sometimes you can get an idea of value by looking for similar items on ebay. --Tango (talk) 02:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

For goods and services for which supply is equal to amount demanded, where do the signals for equilibrium come from?
E.g. subscription services, digital downloads; things which don't have a surplus or shortage. Prosody (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Look at the illustration from economic equilibrium (right): The supply curve S may (in the extreme case of a digital download) be independent of the quantity Q (which means it will coincide with the blue curve for P0). But the demand curve remains dependent of Q, so they will intersect somewhere. The difference is that that intersection will only determine the traded quantity Q0, since the price P0 has been determined by the supplier. You may ask: How does the supplier determine the price? There are many factors including the supplier's assessment of the market and overall strategy. A supplier may even decide to give the product away for free, if that has strategic advantages. &mdash; Sebastian 05:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The normal supply and demand diagram is probably misleading here. For a good that can be produced with very little cost per unit (marginal cost) supply is going to be very flat, but almost certainly not zero. Marginal costs still exist in these circumstances and marginal cost is the defining factor of supply. Are businesses really able to supply an infinite amount of digital downloads or a subscription service at no cost? Of course not. Even though there is not some natural limit to this resource, natural limits are not the reason the supply and demand model works. See marginal cost, diminishing returns and supply and demand. Remember that supply and demand are NOT figures, they are relationships between price and quantity. That is, at a given price how much of this item is demanded or how much of this item are firms willing to provide]]203.214.82.99 (talk) 11:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right that the validity of this diagram doesn't go to infinity, but that is beside the point. The original question was specifically about the case where businesses are able to supply the demand. So there's no need to worry about marginal cost and diminishing returns. &mdash; Sebastian 15:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe that the question assumes something that is impossible. However, even if it were possible for a firm to provide a truly infinite quantity of product at constant and finite marginal cost (and assuming no consumer satiation), that doesn't mean that there won't be a surplus or shortage. For example, suppose a firm could provide an infinite number of digital downloads at a constant per unit cost of $0.01. Assuming a competitive environment, market forces would push the price to $0.01 per download. If the price were higher than $0.01, consumer demand would be less than infinite and so a surplus would result. If the price were lower than $0.01, the firm would have incentive to produce zero units and a shortage would result. One has to shoe-horn an answer to the question because the question assumes a lot of things that can't be true. Wikiant (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Why do people keep reading untrue assumptions into this question? This question has nothing to do with "infinity", and it certainly does not "assume a lot of things that can't be true". It's just about the case where higher demand does not increase the cost for the supplier. That case exists, and you don't have to make any untrue assumptions. Just look at any webstore: There is a range of demand (up to the webstore's bandwidth) that will make no difference in cost to the supplier. That's what the question is about. &mdash; Sebastian 17:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * When you said the, "supply curve will coincide with the blue line P0" you implied that the quantity supplied can be infinite. In fact, when you pick a slope (any slope) for a demand or supply curve, you introduce assumptions (sometimes a lot of them). For example, by drawing the blue line to be horizontal, you have (by definition) assumed that the marginal cost is constant *at all levels of output*. This is simply impossible. It may be approximately true over a limited range of inputs, but your question suggests that what you want to know is what happens when the assumption is absolutely true. Wikiant (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem to be confusing me with the OP; this was not my question. And please stop putting wrong assumptions and implications into other people's words. Two curves can very well coincide in a range without being identical beyond that range. I already made it abundantly clear that this question applies within a range, and that it is not relevant to worry about infinity. I'm tired of reading the same irrelevant complication over and over again, and I will not waste my time replying to your posts anymore, unless you have something constructive to contribute. &mdash; Sebastian 18:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a bit of confusion here about what demand and supply actually are. Supply is a relationship between price and quantity, that is at a given price, how much will the market be willing to supply. The supplier of any good must pay some price to supply it. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. In regular situations the more of something you supply, the more it costs so you have an upward sloping supply curve (see law of diminishing returns. But it is conceivable that some good might have a fixed per unit cost to produce. Digital download sites pay for bandwidth and labor and the inevitable helpdesk inquiries that come with any service. If you could really do something with ZERO marginal costs then it would be supplied endlessly to almost the entire world's population for a price very close to zero. I suppose that is the answer to the OPs question. But the point is there is no good in the real world that exhibits that characteristic.203.217.33.23 (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation
who is the owner of Wikimedia Foundation? is it possible to purchase this organization? will wales sell it if he is offered a large sum of money, say $20 million or more? --Groped (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The Wikimedia Foundation is a charity, it doesn't have an owner. --Tango (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobody wins if there are more than 3 candidates
by any chance, do you know of the law that states that in case there are more than two candidates standing in elections; The candidate who wins is the first choice of a minority. I always knew that by Arrow's Law. But now i am searching, i cannot find it. Even there are no entries in google. I'll appreciate if you can just drop a blank message on my talkpage just to remind me that an answer has been posted. —  Hamza  [ talk ]  04:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no such law; it's not correct. It's entirely possible to have an election where one candidate is seen by a large fraction of the voters as the obvious choice, and anyone running against them is just a fringe candidate who will never attract many votes.  Here's one real-life example where there were 26 candidates and the winner got 79.96% of all the votes.  --Anonymous, 05:18 UTC, February 24, 2010.
 * I don't understand the question. There can be more than two candidates in the first run, but the second run is only for the top two candidates. Or did you mean in case there was a draw for second and third spot in the first run? And what "minority" is the one that decides, according to you? An ethnic minority? Some other kind of minority? TomorrowTime (talk) 09:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It depends on the electoral system. While many of the world's elections are done with a two-round system, others are decided by first past the post (where the person who gets the most votes in a single ballot wins), or preferential voting as we have here in Australia, where a single ballot elects the person that a majority would prefer, but not necessarily a person who is the majority's first choice. FiggyBee (talk) 10:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In the USA, it varies from state to state. Some states require a run-off if no candidate gets a majority. In Minnesota that is not the case, which is how less-than-50-percent elected Jesse Ventura and Al Franken to Governor and Senator respectively. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not an actual law of course, it's a maxim (making it more like Murphy's Law than the Bill of Rights. As soon as there are three candidates in an election it is likely that none will be the first choice of 50% of the electorate, and that "most people would have preferred someone else rather than the person eventually elected". Essentially that makes it a statement about how elections are always compromises. Incidentally only having two candidates doesn't mean the victor is the first choice of most - in the US Presidential elections for example lots of people's 'first choice' may have been eliminated in the primaries. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * When was the last Presidential election in which there were only two candidates, DJ? In the 2008 election there were 24, although some of them were only on the ballot in one state. FiggyBee (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In the U.S., it seems to have been United States presidential election, 1868 ("Others" took 46 votes across the country - probably write-in candidates?) Warofdreams talk 13:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the top two got 98.6% of the popular vote, so we can essentially ignore the also-rans. --Tango (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Voting is often a "lesser of two evils", which can give an alternative candidate a chance to determine the outcome by drawing votes away - as with Clinton (both times) and the help he got from Perot. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Clinton got help from Perot? Our article on Perot says he took support from Bush and Clinton roughly equally (in 1992, it doesn't say much about 1996). --Tango (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What about Arrow's Theorem, which I think is relevant and possibly what was meant? 128.232.241.211 (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

boiler explosion memorial fund
Has there been a memorial fund to help the victims of the SS Norway boiler explosion?24.90.204.234 (talk) 05:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. If you search through 2003 news archives, you will see that the fund was claimed to be mismanaged and recipient amounts disputed. --  k a i n a w &trade; 06:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I found it. But there's a problem. I have to purchase the whole article. How can I read it without purchase?24.90.204.234 (talk) 06:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * See if your local library will get it for you. Library loans are free.

Future president quote
Which U.S precident Said in his child hood that " I will become a great Precident of U.S? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senpri 7 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You might be thinking of a letter John F Kennedy wrote to a then-high-schooler named Bill Clinton, in which he passed out advice for aspiring future Presidents and ended with the words "No one can guarantee that if you follow this or any other advice you will become a great President. [...] But if you work towards your goal, practice discipline and unremitting effort [...] then, if some chance keeps you from the Presidency, you will still know that you are prepared to serve your nation well as a citizen." I can't find any other references to the words "will become a great president" being said in connection with the childhood of a future president. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm... you may have misread the article, Dust, or at least be misrepresenting it. President Kennedy wrote a magazine article in which he gave advice to "youngsters like Clinton"; he didn't write a letter directly to the teenage Bill. FiggyBee (talk) 11:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia statistics
Is there any way or any tool to know wikipedia statistics? I want to know the following:


 * 1) Total number of stubs in wikipedia and the percentage of stubs out of all articles
 * 2) Total number of post-start class articles (i.e. c-class, b-class and above) and their percentage
 * 3) Average number of articles created per day
 * 4) Per this, there are 11,743,717 registered users and 160,976 active users (they performs 1 edit in past 30 days). I want to know, among them, how many highly active editors are there (say they have more than 500 edits per month)?
 * 5) Is there any way/any study to know the latest breakdown of wikipedia contents, i.e. % of social science articles, % of medicine related articles, % of video game related articles, % of history articles, % of US related articles, % of Brazil related articles etc
 * 6) Is there any study on the demographics of wikipedia editors? --Qoklp (talk) 11:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, those have all been studied. You might get better answers at Wikipedia talk:Statistics and WP:VP. 99.191.75.124 (talk) 13:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ellis Island passenger records
Hi guys. I'm doing a bit of family research and was wondering if someone could decypher a record on an Ellis Island ship manifest. The document is here. The passenger is #27 (Minnie Duhig), which is second from the bottom. I can't really make out what column 18 says. It's something about joining her sister (Miss K Duhig), but a couple of addresses are scribbled in – one below (and struck out) and one to the left – I'd very much like to know what they are. Thanks in advance. matt (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The unstruck one looks like "783 Ely Ave Astoria" to me, and the struck one could say "135 W77th St" (which is in central Manhattan), but I wouldn't put money on it. FiggyBee (talk) 13:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (after ec) Now here's a thing. I can see the part of FiggyBee's answer that says "135 W77th St" in the Edit window, but not on the actual WP page. Curious. (fixed - how weird...) Anyway I agree with that part of the address but haven't a clue what follows - maybe a native New Yorker can have a go? --TammyMoet (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think, comparing it to what that hand has written elsewhere on the page, it's "135 W77th St New York". Compare entry 22. FiggyBee (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC) and as for not seeing my reply, I often come back and rewrite stuff, so it was probably just a caching issue. FiggyBee (talk) 14:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, off-topic, I love that form! "Whether a Polygamist", "Whether an Anarchist"... I guess the "I am not a terrorist" box they make you check on the I-94 card is no new thing. :) FiggyBee (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, not that off-topic! The person on the manifest is (was) my great-great aunt, who was packed off to the US around the time of the Easter Rising in 1916. I don't know whether she was involved in any way, but it has been suggested that the family wanted her a long way away for her own safety!  matt (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, and thanks all for your help on this. Turns out I stayed in a hotel 300 metres from 135 W77th St in 2005, which is a bit creepy – I definitely walked past the building.  As for 783 Ely Ave – forgive me if I'm wrong, but this seems to suggest that Ely Ave is another name for 23rd St.  I don't know much anything about building numbering systems in the US, but Google Earth's numbering is pretty erratic.  matt (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It is pretty common for U.S. cities to change the name of a street to honor some individual, and later when they want to honor someone else, to change it again. Edison (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a subway station called 23rd St - Ely Ave. Our article confusingly says it's "at the intersection of 23rd Street, Ely Avenue, and 44th Drive in Queens", but everything else I can find seems to indicate that 23rd St and Ely Ave are synonymous. Forgotten NY] has some more information and photographic evidence.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  16:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Straying even farther off-topic: I was reminded by "Whether an Anarchist" of the absolutely marvelous short story "Ellis Island" by Mark Helprin, in which being identified as an anarchist at EI figures. Read it, everyone! And God bless the bee! Deor (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an interesting document and website. Unfortunately, the "Manifest Enlarger" still isn't enlarging it enough for me to decipher columns 19 and 22. Column 19 seems to begin with "Ever in prison or almhouse ..." and ends with "... or supported by charity. If so, which?". And what does it mean when lines are crossed out? &mdash; Sebastian 15:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * From what I can make out (with my head cocked sideways), column 19 says "Ever been in prison or almshouse, or institution for care and treatment of ???, or supported by charity: If so, which?". Column 22 is more difficult: "Whether coming by ??? of any offer, ???tation, promise(?), or agreement, express or ??, to labor in the United States".  matt (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Googling what I could make out of column 22 ("Whether coming by reason of any offer") I got to : "Ever in prison or almhouse or institution for care and treatment of the insane or supported by charity? If so, which?", and "Whether coming by reason of any offer, solicitation, promise, or agreement, expressed or implied, to labor in the United States". FiggyBee (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheat! :) matt (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool, thanks! And what do the crossed out lines mean? &mdash; Sebastian 16:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Right, I'm stumped by the building numbering system. The manifest almost certainly says 783 Ely Ave, Astoria. House numbering states that "...in Queens, New York City, a so-called "Philadelphia Plan" uses a dash to separate the cross street number from the rest of the house number, as in 34-55 107th Street...". Does anyone know how 783 would fit into this? I've been whooshing around in Google Earth/Street View, but am not really sure where to start! matt (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just guessing, but maybe the street numbering system changed when they changed the street names in 1916 (as noted in the Forgotten NY link above). Using Google Maps, I could only find a 783 23rd Avenue. -- LarryMac  | Talk  20:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The manifest reads "Astoria, L.I." (the L.I. standing for Long Island, NY). Astoria was a part of the independent municipality of Long Island City, NY until 1899 when it was incorporated into New York City. It seems likely that this is when Manhattan's numbered street grid was applied to Astoria. This site suggests Ely Avenue did indeed become 23rd Avenue. —D. Monack talk 00:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Manhattan's numbered street grid is only used in Manhattan and partially in the Bronx; the Astoria grid is entirely separate. I would expect the "Philadelphia Plan" numbers to only occur where numbered cross streets exist, so if named streets were converted to numbered ones, the building numbers might have been changed at the same time; but I don't know anything specific about that.  --Anonymous, 04:08 UTC, February 25, 2010.

Bully = gang with one person in it?
Would it be true to say that a bully shows the same mind set and behaviour as a street gang member, perhaps a street gang leader, except there is only one person in their gang (at least to start with)? Regarding gangs, I'm thinking about the milder kind of street youth gang that you could get in the UK, without the recognition signals or membership signs of the classic gang as seen in American movies. Thanks. 89.242.101.23 (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Doubtful. Peer pressure and/or identification with a peer group are/is presumably defining characteristics of gang members. A solo bully may share some of the sociopathic behaviour of a sociopathic gang member, but would not appear to be seeking identification with a peer group. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So if you seperate off the fact that the bully is not in a gang then you're saying yes, they share the same sociopathic behaviour. 78.151.158.68 (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The defining characteristic of a gang is that it's a gang. Individual gang members may or may not be sociopathic. Once you strip out the gang part, it is not a gang, by definition. it is meaningless to say that a bully is like a gang that's not a gang. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think first and foremost, a bully is very lonely. They would rather have a sadistic relationship with their mark than no relationship at all. Vranak (talk) 04:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, that reminds me of Stephen Fry's alleged anti-bullying technique as a teenager; he would say "Oh, don't hit me, I'll only get an erection". FiggyBee (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The bullies at my school used to go around in gangs - safety in numbers I suppose. In my experience, it was usually the one being bullied who was alone. Isn't "gang" the collective noun for a number of bullies? Alansplodge (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah but all the bullies are such louts that they can find no comfort in each other's company. They go after the sensitive guys because they have actual feelings, which the bullies envy. Vranak (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, bullies are surprisingly friendly with each other. That's both from by personal experience, and from what an author whose name I've forgotten described in his well-known book about being in a concentration camp. 78.146.242.196 (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course. But how could they get any happy satisfaction from interacting with each other, as they are at bottom sadists and misanthropes? Vranak (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about this. Bullies are like a seed of a gang. They characteristicly like to humiliate a victim in front of others - this is building a gang, where the victim is "them" and the others are "us". So I think there is a lot of truth in it. 78.146.70.111 (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Bullying is a social dominance issue: bullies are only comfortable when there's an enforced social hierarchy (everyone is 'in their place') because (like everyone) they get their sense of security by having an orderly, known environment, and the only way they know how to achieve that is by pushing people on obedience. Bullies  (unless they are really close to the psychopathic edge) almost always have cliques, even if these aren't full fledged gangs - two or three people with the same dominance issues, with a strict internal order - but bullies do well in gangs, because gangs are very rigid about issues like hierarchy, loyalty, chain of command, obedience, and etc, and reward people emotionally for complying.  Bullies often do well in the military as well, not because of the violence, but because the military is thoroughly hierarchical; bullies in the military often become the solidest of citizens.  bullies don't do well in school environments, however. schools try to construct a social hierarchy based on achievement rather than on obedience, and that doesn't translate in to the 'social dominance' model.  from a SD viewpoint, 'achievement' looks like 'insubordination' and suggests competition for status or position.  in other words, a bully might pummel a geek because he thinks the geek is trying to 'look smart' and push himself up in the social order (and consequently needs to be beaten back down a bit), and will have a hard time understanding why the school system objects to his efforts to maintain established order and instead supports weak, smart-ass types. -- Ludwigs 2  15:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting paragraph, matches my observations of bullies. Did you learn this from a textbook please, I'd be interested to read it? 78.147.93.182 (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * not directly - it's tangentially related to my academic discipline, so I've read around the issue a lot. The social dominance stuff isn't difficult to find - start with the (dated, but still interesting) work on the "Authoritarian Personality" and work your way forward through more recent work in social psychology.  you can also find it in some of the sociological work on the "Cycle of Violence" or other research on victims who replicate the behavior of abusers - scholars who handle that sensitively usually point to expected environmental norms rather than mere learned behavior.  -- Ludwigs 2  22:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I find it mildly amusing psychologically instructive that we the geeks who hang out in Wiki forums have, apparently, all been the victims of bullying. Perhaps we you should spend a day at the gym, instead of moping about here. :) -- TheEditrix2 17:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There are many other ways of bullying than just the physical as you imply. 89.243.202.10 (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Economics of Treasury Consumers Bill of Rights
What would the aggregate economic effect be if this Treasury Consumers Bill of Rights were enacted? 99.191.75.124 (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * None. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What makes you say that? 99.191.75.124 (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * He says that because it would take months of review by skilled economists to answer the question, and anybody here who has the skill to tackle this problem will surely have no interest in doing an economic review of an extremely vague idea that has a 0% chance of being considered by any legislative body. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Not to mention raising straw men and failing to knock even those worthies aside. What next, a line-item veto on "waste, fraud and corruption" ? DOR (HK) (talk) 05:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's intended as legislation. It is a collection of political statements set out and worded vaguely like the US bill of rights but without any real thought for their potential legal effect.--203.217.33.23 (talk) 12:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm going to disagree. Whenever anyone (in American) comes up with a "____ Bill of Rights," they almost always intend for it to carry more than the weight of law. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

What powers does an Associate of ILEX hold?
If someone has passed their level 3 diploma in law (or under the new terms is an Associate of Ilex) what duties can they carry out in the work place? I can find out lots of information about a level 6 or "graduate" job but nothing about level 3. Can they see Clients? Can they fee earn? Any help would be appreciated very much!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.54.254.158 (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Presumably the ILEX you refer to isn't Holly. It might be the Institute of Legal Executives, but I'm guessing it's probably the International Legal Exchange Program. Unfortunately we don't seem to have an article about that. --ColinFine (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm certain it's Institute of Legal Executives, because of the reference to the Level 3 Diploma. Some information in Legal executive. It doesn't look like an associate can do a great deal in their own right. But under supervision they can do a lot of the routine work that every solicitor's office has. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

How do I run for THE GOV in The 2010 Gubernatorial California Elections?
Something like www.thegov.ca.gov. Lets talk about starting a Website for Californian Voters--if you vote, you get a login and you can interact with the Governor of California online. (Non-Cali-voters can just view site.) Lets say I ran for office and had A CSPAN-like internet channel showing a livefeed with chat window on the side. w/Video Conferencing. Where the Voters decide what THE GOV does. Is it too late to get on the primaries? --i am the kwisatz haderach (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Jerry Brown hasn't officially filed yet, so you still have time. The filing deadline is March 17, if you'r running as a party candidate, August 6 if you're running as an independent, so good luck.  Woogee (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This PDF file lists all the requirements and what you have to do to run. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You will have no means of knowing if a person voted or not. You also will not know who the person voted for.  If that is a requirement for your plan, you have to go on faith that people are being honest when asked if they voted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kainaw (talk • contribs)
 * I assume the OP means "if you are eligible to vote you get a login". DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Why don't 1099-B forms just tell you what your capital gain/loss is? (U.S. tax question)
In the U.S., if you sell stock, your broker provides you with a 1099-B form showing your net proceeds (gross minus broker commission) from the sale. This information is also furnished to the IRS. However, you are not taxed on the amount that is reported on the 1099-B. Rather, you are taxed on any capital gain you may have received.

So why can't the 1099-B just tell you the amount of any capital gain or loss? The brokerage has all the information needed to calculate this. They know when you bought the stock and what you paid for it at the time, and they know when you sold it and what you sold it  for.

Other income that is reported directly to the IRS on forms like W-2, 1099-DIV, etc., contain the correct amount that you have to pay taxes on. But the 1099-B is different. The IRS doesn't need to know your net proceeds on the stock sale. They just need to know whether the sale resulted in any capital gains or losses.

Thanks, The Hero of This Nation (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * or just ur cost basis


 * It seems like a good idea to me, too. Sometimes the broker doesn't know &mdash; like if you purchase stock at broker A, or you obtain the actual stock certificates, and hand them to broker B to handle &mdash; but in those cases they could just write "unknown" on the cost basis line or on the capital gain or ordinary income line.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The brokerage wouldn't know how much you paid for the securities if bought them from another brokerage and transferred them to the new account. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Which tax bracket are you in? Might make a difference as to whether the income is taxable or not. . . DOR (HK) (talk) 05:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Am not a tax accountant here, but consider this scenario. This year, you bought 100 shares of XYZ at $10 a share in January, and 100 shares of XYZ at $20 a share in April.  You sell 100 shares at $30 a share in October.  Now, you can pay capital gains on either $10 or $20 a share (or anywhere in between) this year depending on what the price the shares you bought was.  Did you sell the ones that you bought for $10 (profit $20/per), or the ones you bought at $20 (profit $10/per).  How is the stock guy supposed to know which specific shares you sold, especially if it is all done electronically?  Googlemeister (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The question raised by the OP has also been considered by others. The Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 will require brokers when reporting the sale of securities to the IRS to include the customer's adjusted basis in the sold securities and to classify any gain or loss as longterm or short-term, and the IRS has proposed regulations to address that requirement. John M Baker (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)