Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 March 17

= March 17 =

How to cite The New York Times - under T or under N?
Hi. I am building my references list for an academic essay and I was wondering whether an articles by The New York Times goes under T - because "The" is part of the full name, The New York Times - or under N - because the article "the" is usually ignored when sorting alphabetically (just as the United Nations goes under u). Thanks for helping me out with this one :) --Tilmanb (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * New York Times, The would be the most correct. The is an intrisic element, in spite of Wikipedia's article title.--Wetman (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Communism 2
Why do people still support communism even though China, Cuba, North Korea, etc. have all shown that communism leads to nothing but totalitarianism? --70.250.214.164 (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Either because they disagree that China, etc., are totalitarianism or because they think they can do a better job. --Tango (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Or because they simply cannot agree with capitalism. --Tilmanb (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Or because they think totalitarianism is a good thing as it reduces the number of areas of life that they need to organise for themselves. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (OR) A former acquaintance of mine firmly maintained that your examples were all problems of scale - in other words, that at the township or farm level (see commune) the communist economic system is workable. The noteworthy difference therein is that the less people are participating (1,300,000,000 in China versus maybe 30 on a farm) the more likely it is that they all want to be there and believe in the system. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Communism" has a pretty specific meaning, so the local cooperative spirit is more aptly called "communalism". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, primitive communism clearly states that small-scale pre-agrarian communities can have all of the features of a communist system but on a small scale. If someone says "communism never works" without the caveat of primitive communism, then they're basically wrong since "primitive" small-scale communism clearly does work.  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  08:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside North Korea, which is seems to be a hereditary monarchy, one might ask if the people of Chinese and Cuba are better off materially, in health care, and in education under communism than they were under the preceding regimes. I expect that they are, but with limited personal freedom. China has increasing classdistinctions and has developed an aristocracy with numerous billionaires, so their "communism" seem limited. Edison (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Frank Zappa once said, "Communism doesn't work, because people like to own stuff." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse a moment of complete of OR: I'm not a communist (not much of a capitalist either, but that's a different story), but I will say that one of the reasons why Marxist/communist/socialist philosophies persist is that they are really very sharp theories. For instance, the only explanation of the current economic collapse that actually fits the observed situation is the Marxist explanation (the financial class tried to extract just a bit too much surplus labor value from the lower classes; the lower classes' inability to cope with the extraction caused financial organizations to fail to meet their obligations to other financial organizations, causing a trust crisis, which causes markets to shut down in fear.  the government - as guardian of the financial class - steps in and helps the worst-hit financial organizations meet their obligations by extracting more labor value from the lower classes in the form of taxes.)  At heart, Marxism is a meta-theory that includes capitalism, and thus so long as you have a purportedly capitalist system you will have marxist/communist/socialist systems.  a pure capitalist society, left to its own devices, would reduce itself to anarchy in a matter of months.  -- Ludwigs 2  05:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, "Thomas Jefferson" (starting at the 27-minute mark) provides a decent free market capitalist explanation of the current banking crisis. — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  22:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Communism appeals to anyone who has ever lost a job or envied a neighbour, been evicted from their home or relied on the state for healthcare, distrusted career politicians or resented old money. But it appeals especially to those who haven't studied the 20th century.NByz (talk) 05:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you may mean "relied on a for-profit company for healthcare". It's the cases where a corporation has screwed you over on your healthcare that drive people to communism. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * One could argue that the 20th century showed how Communism won't work if you have a powerful group of anti-communists trying to undermine your nation's success. — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 08:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify: if you ask the communists, there never was communism in the Soviet Union, only socialism. Communism, in theory, is what is supposed to come naturally after socialism, a state in which the whole concept of "ownership" is obsolete, except perhaps for personal effects with sentimental value, irrelevant to the productive economy. Also, in communism there is no state or government in the modern sense. They never got that far in Russia. (As to whether it's possible to get there, that's another story.) The use of "communism" to describe the state of affairs that existed or exists in communist dictatorships is just name-calling, from the point of view of political philosophy.--Rallette (talk) 07:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And the form of socialism practised in the USSR was very different from the form practised in, say, Sweden for much of the 20th century. DuncanHill (talk) 11:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Lest we forget, there wasn't much personal freedom in Imperial China, and enormously lower standards of living, hygiene, caloric intake, information flow and participation in government. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hooray for propaganda! Lest we forget, personal freedom, lower standards of living, hygiene, caloric intake, information flow and participation in government were enormously lower in every single country around the world, with the exception perhaps of Somalia. 61.189.63.170 (talk) 12:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * My experience with people from China (who I met while they were visiting the U.S. to get an education) is that most of them do not feel that they are under totalitarian rule. On a day-to-day basis they do not worry about the state, about Big Brother, about Marxist economics. They feel that the government is a system that brings order to the world. They feel that it sometimes oversteps and does not listen to the will of the people, but they see that as an invitation for eventual reform, not revolution. They do "own things" and they do "work for a living."
 * I bring this up not because it is necessarily common (though I suspect it is) or that it makes their form of government "right", but just to point out that the view we are taught about such regimes from the U.S.—both in our schools and our culture—is that they are the proverbial iron foot stepping on a human face every day. And yes, for dissidents, for members of various religious or ethnic groups, that is what it probably feels like. But for the vast majority of the population, it doesn't look anything like the "evil officious Chinese" that we get in our movies. They don't necessarily see the U.S. model as leading to better political judgment, better economics, or better people (as moral or ethical beings). In the U.S., we like to believe that if you don't have "freedom" (vaguely defined), you don't have anything, and you should fight and fight until you have it. That makes for rousing cinema, but it's not how humans have generally lived their lives, and there are many degrees of "freedom". I think your average Chinese probably feels safer than your average American, in practically every realm except personal political expression, and even in that case, your average American is much more likely to voice controversial opinions only when they can do so anonymously, or amongst people they know agree with them 100%, because there are economic/social ramifications for mouthing off in a workplace, amongst friends, etc. I'm not trying to argue for any kind of equivalency, but I do think if you want to understand what the "other side" is thinking, you have to spend a little more time putting yourself in their shoes, and trying to reduce things to "how do they live their daily lives" and not "how do movies make it look." (I know little about Cuba so I don't know if this carries; North Korea is something else entirely, a slave population.) --Mr.98 (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Historically, we should also no forget that Russia was on the losing side of a war in 1917, then in a civil war sponsored by outside powers for the next 6 years, and only a few years later lost 27 million people in WW2 - about 15% of the population. As a comparison, that's 10000 9/11s (15000 if scaled up to the current US population - or about 1 per day for the entire existence of the Soviet union). These are not the best circumstances to build a blooming society brimming with civil rights. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The Reference desk does not do opinions or forum discussions. I think we are done here. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See Socialism with Chinese characteristics for the Chinese style communism. --Kvasir (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Communism was never practiced in China. There was some degree of socialism, some bits of communalism and some bits of authoritarianism. Neither the Communist Party nor independent observers have seriously characterised any of it as communism, however. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * One argument for large-scale communism is that it's never been tried, if one considers the cases so far as simply totalitarian governments which pretended to be communists as a propaganda tool to control the masses. The reality was that the leaders of those nations were rich, and extracted that wealth from the masses.  I suspect that true communism would require both democracy and a powerful work incentive to take the place of capitalism.  A strong religion might work, as fear of eternal damnation for laziness should be effective.  StuRat (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I added a "2" to the section title to differentiate it from another with the same title. StuRat (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It all depends on which regime the people grew up in. If people are born into a nation that holds Communist principles, then these people will generally support its perpetuation. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 16:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * From Will Rogers: "In Russia, they ain't got no income tax. But they ain't got no income!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds like Yakov Smirnoff. StuRat (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The Amana Colonies practiced religious "communalism" with common ownership and no businessmen from the 1840's to 1932. The article does not reflect it, but I was told by residents there that the "great change" in 1932 in which things were divided up and they became the Amana Corporation was largely a result of slackers who did as little as possible versus those who wanted to work hard and have greater material wealth. By many standards they were "communists" in a Biblical and non-Marxist sense, with all property held in common, everyone working, and no one a peasant, wage slave, landlord or rich landowner. They were united by religious belief rather than fear of the secret police and imagined external enemies. Edison (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Did they teach that the lazy would burn in Hell ? If so, that implies that people stopped believing. StuRat (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

(trying to get back to the original query) It all depends on how you define "support communism". Millions of people around the world vote for communist parties in elections, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they wish the see any immediate transition to socialism. Nor does everyone who vote for non-communist bourgeois parties necessarrily agree with capitalistic system of governance. Voting behaviours are far more complex. After 1991 there have been numerous studies/gallups in Eastern Europe were large sections of respondents have supported statements like 'life was better under communism'. Still communist parties generally fare rather badly in elections (with exception of Moldova, and earlier in Ukraine).

This article is a bit interesting, as it expressed an anguished concern that people don't function the way political powers expect them to do. Do notice the following quote; "He warns against efforts to downplay the SED dictatorshop by young people whose knowledge about the GDR is derived from family conversations, and not as much from what they learned in school" (state indoctrination fail, in other words)

If we study the cases were communist parties have obtained mass appeal, it rarely has anything to do with succesfull promotion of a model idea of a different socio-political order. Rather it is were communists have been able to formulate concrete demands that somehow matter to people, were they have been able to gather massive support. Notably, it is often the national question, struggles against colonial and/or imperialist oppression, were communist parties obtained strong links with the populace. For example: In Belgium the communist vote is marginal in general elections (generally below 1%), whilst in Cyprus its above 30%. The explanation is probably not that "capitalism is more popular in Belgium", rather the explanation primarily lies in the historical development of the polity of each country. Moreover, if we study the developments inside the communist movement, we also find some interesting facts. At the time of the emergence of the Communist International, council communists were potent competitors with the mainstream communist movement in some places. Since then the changes in relations in strength has seen the council communists disappear as a political force. The council communists (and similar groups) rebuffed the notion of working for reforms within the capitalist system and solely promised a better life after revolution. Thus they made themselves irrelevant to people whose everyday means were far more pressing. --Soman (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Seventh-Day Adventist in China
How many Seventh-Day Adventists are there in the People's Republic of China today? Sonic99 (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Googling “Seventh Day Adventists, China” led me to this site, and a report dated May 18, 2009 entitled “Adventist president's visit to China first by a top church leader in decades “ which states in its closing sentence: Nearly 400,000 Adventists are believed to worship at thousands of locations across the nation. (The “nation” under discussion is China.) Bielle  (talk) 03:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It says "are believed" because there are no official figures. Officially the Chinese people were liberated from religion by Glorious Leader Mao, woohoo! Shii (tock) 23:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Can someone explain this please? Finding out who you are...
Can someone please explain this in simple terms...

"Finding out WHO YOU ARE is not about being more, doing more, having more, manifesting more, creating more, being the best you can be, finding out your imagined mission or purpose in life, or having financial success. Finding our WHO YOU ARE is the realization that everything is made of the same substance, and YOU ARE THAT ONE SUBSTANCE." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.33.234 (talk) 06:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure. It's nonsense. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 07:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Where did you come across this statement? --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   07:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Something like this: "Finding out who you really are is not about self-improvement but about facing reality and the fact that you are part of it." A popular search engine reveals the quote to be from "The Beginner's Guide to Quantum Psychology", by Stephen H. Wolinsky - who in turn appears to be in the business of mixing particle physics with Indian thought. It's difficult to say from a quick glance what exactly he means by all this, but to quote from a bit further on in the book, "Quantum Psychology is not intended to make you better, more virtuous, teach you how to have great relationships, how to make more money, or even how to feel more comfortable in your life. Rather, it is concerned with developing awareness so that you can discover Who You Are, even beyond awareness itself." What can one say to this? Strong stuff, and there is a good deal of wisdom in the idea that if you want the truth about yourself, you must not expect it to make your life sweet. Do be cautioned that probably none of the book is particularly original, and what's original is probably not so good. You might do better with someone who has the sense to leave quantum mechanics out of it. For Indian philosophy, you would do well to go to the source first, and then work your own way to a synthesis with modern science, if that's what you want. And it's easy: we have a whole bunch of good articles right here on any number of related ideas in Buddhism and Hinduism.--Rallette (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Giving another perspective on this here, the equivalence of matter and energy has been established. If matter and energy are the same, and all we can perceive is made of matter including ourselves, then everything is energy. If everything is made of the same stuff, then that includes ourselves. According to this, finding yourself means recognising that you are not only connected to everything in the universe, but you are an integral part of the universe. (Note to the proper scientists here: I'm simplifying matter/energy equivalence but, for this purpose, the principle is the same.) --TammyMoet (talk) 09:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I think that simplification is misleading. Mass and energy are equivalent; in other words, mass - a measure of a body's resistance to acceleration - and energy - a measure of a system's capacity for doing work - are actually different ways of measuring the same thing. Mass has energy and energy has mass. Matter and energy are definitely not equivalent. Matter certainly has mass (and/or energy) as one of its attributes, but it also has other attributes such as volume and temperature. Matter is not equivalent to volume, temperature or energy. Saying "everything is made of the same substance" makes as much sense as saying "this bar of chocolate and that bar of gold both have a monetary value therefore they are both made of money". Gandalf61 (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to fix a few things there. Temperature is an energy expression (sort of); it measures the average kinetic energy on a molecular scale, normalized to the assymptotic condition known as absolute zero.  Energy has volume as well (again, sort of), see field theory for the spatial nature of energy, though it is somewhat more complex than saying it occupies a space the same way matter does; but there is a dimensional and spatial nature to energy.  The thing that seperates matter from energy is quantum numbers.  Quantum numbers are what tell matter that its a proton or an electron or a quark (or even, say, you).  Mass is the same thing as energy; in terms of conservation law, what is conserved universally is the sum of mass and energy.  If we think of mass and energy as the exact same thing, than we can think of quantum numbers as the parameters that define the organization of those mass/energy values into all of the various forms we see in the universe.  -- Jayron  32  14:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Most mystical faith (regardless of religious or cultural background) hold that identity - the separation of the self from the surrounding world - is a misperception of the true nature of the world. an extension of that is that the various efforts to heighten identity (to make ourself a better person, and more moral person, and more successful person, and etc) are misguided to the extent that they draw you away rom a true understanding of the world.  some of the more New Agey thinkers have taken to reinterpreting the first concept in scientific/physics type terms, which starts to color how they talk about the second concept.  this isn't a bad thing, in itself, but I think it leads to more confusions than it resolves.-- Ludwigs 2  15:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Back to the original question: The best translation is probably "If you give us money, you will feel better." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * lol - silliness... you think that a pro basketball player should get paid ten million a year to run around in short-shorts, but you accuse this guy of being greedy because he tries to make some money by telling people what he thinks are wise thoughts.  what the hell kind of priorities are those?  or do you think those short-shorts contribute more to society?  -- Ludwigs 2  16:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The market itself has decided that the basketball player has contributed more to society, if you subscribe to the idea that wealth is a very rough indicator of how society has rewarded the contributions to society you (and your ancestors) have made. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It depends how short the shorts are and who's wearing them. Matt Deres (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * and the market itself will determine how much this spiritual author gets paid. the whole 'if you give us money you will feel better' stupidity either applies to everything in the market or to nothing - we can't at whim single out one kind of transaction as moral and another as immoral.


 * incidentally, if I'm in a 'short-shorts' mood, I'll watch women's volleyball, thankyouverymuch. -- Ludwigs 2  18:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Especially "beach volleyball". OK, so "If you give us money you will feel better" sounds like a corollary to the old one, "Send me a dollar and I'll tell you how I make money." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Ping Fu
This story http://www.inc.com/magazine/20051201/ping-fu.html is interesting but it just doesn't make sense- how does a Chinese political prisoner with no ties to the US get deported to the US and furnished with admission to the University of New Mexico? Usually deportation is to send people back to the original country they came from. Does the Chinese government have pull with the INS? And the University spot?20.137.18.50 (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This story simply says she came to the US as a student, so perhaps there was an application and acceptance that occurred which the reporter did not bother to write about. This NPR story says she was ordered to leave China, but similarly is vague on this detail you're asking about.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you Comet Tuttle for those good references. The other strange thing is I thought it was the case that when on a student visa, the student had to prove that they had the financial resources to cover the entire education before they were given the visa. At least that's what I remember from talking with a Chinese student on a student visa when I was in College. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The original story, when talking about her deportation, says "she didn't know why New Mexico, any more than she knew why she wasn't dead" so presumably she didn't apply. What it sounds like to me - and I have no references to back this up - is a deal done behind the scenes. The US wanted her freed (possibly because of pressure from an expatriate Chinese lobby), China didn't want her free in China and probably didn't want the bad publicity of either keeping her imprisoned or killing her, so a compromise was reached. Remember that the story she was imprisoned for writing was a pretty big one. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That theory has a high degree of believability too, DJ Clayworth. And yet you'd think if she had people with power gunning for her, she'd at least have someone meet her in San Francisco, not be $5 short for her ticket to Albuquerque being saved by the kindness of a stranger, and then being locked in a room by some person in Albuquerque for three days. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, that name strikes me as a bit odd for a Chinese person - so much so that when I first saw the heading for the question, I thought this was going to be about some comic book character with an arbitrary Asian-sounding name. Shouldn't there be another syllable in the first name somewhere? TomorrowTime (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Han Chinese names usually feature a one-syllable surname (here, Fu) and a one- or two-syllable given name (here, Ping). Rarer variations include two syllable surnames, and >2 syllable given names. In contemporary China, the two character name seems to have become more common than the one character type, but both types are commonly seen.
 * If we take the Communist Party Politburo as a sample, I count 22 double-syllable given names and 3 single syllable given names.
 * Interestingly, characters in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms almost exclusively have single syllable given names. The reason for the popularity of single syllable names during that historical period was a law instituted in c. 1st century AD which forbade double syllable names, based on a misinterpretation of a line in the Confucian classics which denounced "double names" -- which in fact referred to pseudonyms, not double-syllable names. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, so the name and surname are reversed as well? I assumed Ping was the surname... And I'd seen so many two syllable first names that I just flat out assumed two syllables are the unchallenged norm - so much so that I sometimes advise people to figure out which is the name and which the surname in a Chinese or Korean name simply by counting the syllables... Oh well, you live, you learn. Thanks for the explanation, PalaceGuard :) TomorrowTime (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're looking at Kanji / Chinese characters, one helpful rule of thumb, however, is that a two or three character name would most likely be Chinese, while a four (sometimes five if I'm not mistaken) character name would likely be Japanese --达伟 (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I know that. I speak Japanese and have, to a very limited degree, an overview of Chinese culture as well (even if my spoken Chinese is limited to 不要！, which really comes in handy around hawkers in China :) ) Thanks for the kindness, though :) Oh, and you are correct, while the most common number of characters in Japanese names is three/four, first names often have three characters so the names can easily be five characters long (ex-prime minister Koizumi is as good an example as any), and in some cases even six is imaginable - but in this case the last name would also have to have three characters, which is much rarer. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Authorising use of logo
I have created a logo for a non-profit organisation. I've looked around online and seems like that it's best I keep the copyright of the artwork and AUTHORISE the group to use the artwork as the logo. Not really looking for legal advise here but where can I find a sample user agreement that basically says I authorise this group to use the logo under certain conditions and that it may not be altered, it's not for sale etc. I'm not looking for royalty from this logo but I also do not want misuse of the logo or release ownership of it. I want to make sure I cover all the clauses yet it gives me the owner the freedom to give permission case by case. thx in advance. --Kvasir (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I live in Alberta, Canada btw, not sure it's a federal or provincial matter. The said organisation is a provincial registered society. --Kvasir (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, the point of Creative Commons licenses is to provide plain-English summaries of legally-cromulent licenses so that a non-expert can reasonably select terms suitable for their purposes. It looks to me like you'd be going for the by-nc-nd variety.  The summary and full text of the latest revision can be found at creativecommons.org.  That link is specific for Canadian jurisdictions. &mdash; Lomn 18:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what I need. thanks! --Kvasir (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not quite what you wanted. If you release a license under NC-ND-BY all any group has to do to satisfy the requirements of the license is to just not change it, not use it for profit, and give you credit. That's not the same thing as giving you any kind of real control. It will not prevent "misuse" depending on how you are defining it—if the group turned around tomorrow and started advocating Holocaust denial with your logo, there is nothing you could do about it, provided they didn't change its design. If you want real control over how it is used beyond whether it can be modified or used for-profit, you will need to write up a separate agreement, and probably need a lawyer. Drafting contracts is fairly standard in the legal world; I don't know how much it costs but the non-profit group surely has some sort of legal counsel that can iron this out? --Mr.98 (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm covered in the sense that I have the right to terminate the licensing agreement anytime for any reason, no? (Item 7) unless i'm not reading this correctly... --Kvasir (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to protect your rights, you should use a traditional licensing agreement and not a creative commons licence. Their status and effectiveness are uncertain in many jurisdictions. See your attorney. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Point 7 means the license terminates if they violate it. That's just legalese that says, "if you break the rules, you can't appeal to the rules"—if they violate the terms of the license, they can no longer use it. (And "the rules" are just about whether they can modify the logo, use it in for-profit scenarios, or use it without giving you credit—that's it, nothing more.) It says you cannot terminate the license if they haven't broken any of its rules, that once you give it to them under CC, they can continue to use it under those terms in perpetuity. (This is intentional. The point of CC is to give the users the ability to use your stuff forever as long as they comply with the relatively lax rules over intellectual property. It is not about editorial control, or fine control in general. CC licenses are easy to use if you are trying to use them in the spirit of CC, but if you are not, avoid them.) Quite the opposite if you being able to terminate the license for any reason! Again, contract stuff is tricky. I don't think a CC license will satisfy your requirements. You will need to engage in real legal stuff to get what you want. (But keep in mind this is pretty boilerplate stuff for an intellectual property lawyer.) --Mr.98 (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * hmmm thx. yeah, I didn't even consider the possibility the group could change its purpose, however unlikely. At least now i can use the format and terminologies there. --Kvasir (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, but be aware that blindly using/modifying legal content is going to get you a contract that is probably unenforceable in any court (and thus pretty worthless—and they'd be dumb to sign it). What you need to do is to figure out exactly what kind of control you want, and then go to a lawyer who handles this kind of thing, and they will be able to draw you up a boilerplate contract that will work. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

cynicism overload
Is there a case of power companies being known to give away cheaper than free incandascent bulbs in a given area, in any form, not cheaper than free in just the possibility "you get paid to take and use them" but I'm also including hypothetical examples such as packaging them with baby formula and selling the package cheaper than the rest of the baby formulas in the grocery store (though obviously not less cheaply by enough to create an arbitrage situation where someone would just buy them all and resell them - just cheaper by enough that it would be "free money" to choose htat one). This is just one example, I am looking for anything that even vaguely fits my description.

I'm asking because this behavior is predicted by an exhaustive programmatic model I have made of human, employee and corporate behavior, and I would like to test its predictions. Thank you. 82.113.121.167 (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Without answering the question, do you mean fluorescent rather than incandescent? Tevildo (talk) 19:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the OP said what he meant. A power company could give away incandescent bulbs to avoid people using fluorescent ones. The power company then sells more electricity and the extra profits make up for the loss on the bulbs. It would be an extremely unethical practice, which is why the OP says he is being cynical by suggesting it. I have no idea if it has actually happened. --Tango (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not know if it has happened with power companies giving away free inefficient lights, but the reason why many bars offer free salty snacks is so they sell more drinks. Is that considered unethical?  Googlemeister (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think salty snacks will accelerate the impending apocalypse. Vimescarrot (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * you obviously don't frequent the same kinds of bars that I do...-- Ludwigs 2 20:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well for that matter, a lot of people probably don't think incandescent bulbs are going to accelerate The Apocalypse either. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I did once get an item for "less than nothing". It was ketchup for 87 cents a bottle, which came with a coupon for $1 off your next purchase.  I bought about 20.  I wonder if hot dog, hamburger, and french fry manufacturers all conspired to make this offer. :-) StuRat (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You really went to a lot of work to get $2.60 unless you really, really like katsup. Googlemeister (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Given his name, he might be Scottish, which could explain it. :) It could be worse. Alan King said he knew what he was in for when he got married. His bride-to-be went to buy her wedding dress, and they were on sale, so she bought two. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am partially Scottish, how'd you know ? (I had one grandparent born in Scotland, but she had an English surname, so, I figure, on average, I have about a fifth of Scotch in me at any given time.)  I gave away most of the ketchup, and  wondered if I was morally obligated to pay each recipient 13 cents a bottle to take it. :-) StuRat (talk) 03:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I recently replaced my Grandmother's colour scanner/printer/photocopier jobby. The new one cost less than $100, which has to be far less than it cost to make, but is still more than nothing.  Of course, the catch is that the ink cartridges for those things cost a fortune (around $3000 per litre of ink according to our article, which is why if you're actually going to use such a printer a continuous ink system is the way to go). FiggyBee (talk) 03:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If you're looking for examples of service providers offering products at subsidized prices because of the eventual service revenue they will generate, the world is certainly full of them. If you're talking about the net price being negative, examples are just as common (get free IPod or a 10,000 airmiles with a bank account or credit card etc.).  A rational (rational choice theory) firm will certainly offer any product and service combination that ends up generating net cash flows with a positive present value (including the "cost of capital" employed).NByz (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

UK and Ethnicties
I heard the United Kingdom has more interracial relationships per capita than any other nation in the world. Is this true? B-Machine (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This question cannot be answered meaningfully, because race is a cultural construct without any real objective basis. As such, its definition varies from one culture to another. For example, racial categories are subtly different in the United Kingdom from the United States. In the United States, for example, a person from India might be defined as "white", whereas in the United Kingdom, they are probably defined as "Asian".  Therefore, in some countries, there will be more racial categories than in others.  Obviously, if there are more racial categories, there is more likelihood of interracial marriage, since there is an increased chance that any two people are of different races, as defined in that society. Finally, there are many countries where virtually everyone has a background that includes more than one race, as defined in the United Kingdom (or the United States).  In those countries, virtually every marriage is interracial from the perspective of the United Kingdom.  Marco polo (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that relationships between white and black people are common here in the UK but rare in the USA. 92.29.150.112 (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If that is true, it is probably because (generalising wildly) skin colour is seen as less important or interesting in the UK than it is in the US, at least in terms of inter-personal relations. But I always thought that Brazil was the model for such integration.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Race in Brazil is a very complex issue; while outsiders often think of Brazil as a seamless melting pot, it's more that the Brazilian concept of "race" is very different from that in most European or North American countries. FiggyBee (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I've made a comment on that article.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, here the US, people from India are seen as Indians (in race, not just nationality). Which is why some of us insist on the term "Native American" to differentiate from the other type of Indians. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Only 2 per cent of marriages in the UK are inter-ethnic. I think the stats for interracial marriages are similar in the US.--Pondle (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know about marriages but there certainly seem to be lots of mixed relationships and mixed children in the UK, I'm pleased to say. 89.242.38.108 (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe the Irish occasionally marry Scots...hotclaws 14:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Versailles
In modern US Dollars, adjusting for inflation, how much did it cost to build Versailles? --70.250.214.164 (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you mean Versailles (the city), or the Palace of Versailles? --  202.142.129.66 (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The palace. --70.250.214.164 (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * According to this site, "Actual building costs for Versailles are debated by modern historians, because currency values are uncertain. However, Versailles' price tag ranges anywhere from $2,000,000,0000 (in 1994 USD) all the way up to a maximum cost of $299,520,000,000!" According to this, the overall cost in the French currency of the time was 92 million livres, so you could do your own calculation. The Wikipedia French livre article gives an idea of the complexity of the task, even if you based it purely on the price of gold which would be very misleading. Alansplodge (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is going to depend what you are tagging the data to. My calculations give approx 1,000,000 toz of gold (value $1.1B) or 14,500,000 toz silver (value $250M).  That is quite a price difference.  This is based on the conversion rates for 1726.  Googlemeister (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

For Whom the Bell Tolls
Hey again. In Hemingway's "For Whom the Bell Tolls", he seems to use a lot of words like "unprintably" "obscenity", etc in the dialog. Are the characters really saying this,or is it just Hemingway cleverly bowdlerizing their speech? THX --Nick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.224.228 (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "I obscenity in the milk of thy father"? Yes, he's cleverly bowdlerizing their speech.  See For Whom the Bell Tolls.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps in the tradition of silent movie villains supposedly saying, "Curses! Foiled again!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I said that a lot when I was taking fencing lessons. PhGustaf (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The punch line I could add here is so trite and cliched that even I won't touch it. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Bugs, I obscenity in the unprintably obscenity of thy obscenity. Hey, I like this.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a bit more colorful and varied than the famous Watergate cliche, "(expletive deleted)". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That's what she said :) --74.123.54.54 (talk) 03:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

In some of Larry Niven's science fiction, people use "censor" or "censored" where you would expect a swearword -- and he does mean that they're actually saying that. He's extrapolating from the notion that "censorship is bad" to the notion that "censor" itself might become a "bad word". --Anonymous, 07:44 UTC, March 18, 2010. You got in before me,tanj it!..hotclaws 14:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Marriage
Is it legal for a step brother and his step sister to marry in the UK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.137.66 (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC) I mean for a step brother to marry his step sister!--79.76.137.66 (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this is baiting a troll or not, but I'm actually curious about this myself... Even more, I've wondered what would happen if two siblings separated at birth by adoption were to meet and marry. I think an episode of House may have touched on this. Aaronite (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The episode was "Fools for Love", but they were actually half siblings, not step. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It happens in real life. I saw 20/20 do a special about it a few years ago, but I can't quite remember if the marriages were automatically made void upon this discovery or if the couples could choose to remain married. I saw a documentary on BBC America about people who know they're related and still decide to shack up anyway. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's a real life story. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 01:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking, marriage between siblings is against the law almost everywhere. it doesn't matter whether they are full, half, or step siblings (the laws are related to incest laws, and are more concerned with sexual relations within the family group, not with the genetic details).  That being said, the laws for annulling a marriage vary from place to place, and I don't know of any place that has specific laws nullifying legal marriages between siblings, possibly because the act is sufficiently taboo - and thus rare - that law makers haven't seen a need to create such language. -- Ludwigs 2  02:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In Canada the "Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act" is very simple. Marriage is not allowed between siblings or half-siblings, but between step-siblings there's no prohibition.  Adoptive relationships count the same as natural ones, too -- which is a bit weird considering that people sometimes adopt their stepchildren.  Anyway, there it is. --Anonymous, 07:50 UTC (link added 21:25), March 19, 2010.
 * Woody Allen married his stepdaughter, didn't he? Unless she was not actually "legally" his stepdaughter? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If I remember correctly, she was his (then) wife's adopted daughter, but not actually adopted by him, so no actual legal relation. still, even that kicked up a shite storm.  -- Ludwigs 2  03:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Mia Farrow was not Allen's legal wife, though they had a child together. —Kevin Myers 12:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This was discussed back on 1 October. --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   07:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There's a big difference between half-sibling and step-sibling, and even between adopted sibling and step-sibling. The previous discussion linked to the excellent table of kindred and affinity which contains an updated list of forbidden marriages in the UK. If it is to be believed it prohibits marriage to half-siblings but not step-siblings or adopted siblings (obviously unless both siblings are adopted from the same natural parents). If this is anything other than idle curiosity you'll probably need a lawyer. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * According to, "Step-relatives may marry provided they are at least 21 years of age. The younger of the couple must at no time before the age of 18 have lived in the same household as the older person. Neither must they have been treated as a child of the older person's family." In other words, if you've lived together as brother and sister with a step-sibling, you cannot marry them, but if you've met as adults or your parents have married while you were over 18, you're ok.
 * The Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Act 1986 is the relevant legislation for Scotland, England, and Wales; it amended the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977 and The Marriage Act 1949 (for England and Wales).  The law in Northern Ireland is different. --Normansmithy (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That ref is inconsistent since it says a woman may not marry her brother, half brother or step brother earlier on the page. So which is correct?--79.76.137.66 (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There was a case where twins were separated at birth and later in life, not realising that they were brother and sister, got married. When they discovered that they were siblings the case came before the High Court in London who in annulling the marriage ruled that "the marriage had never validly existed". ("Twins who were separated at bith 'in accidental marriage'," Times online, 11 January 2008: www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3171716.ece). Simonschaim (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There was alleged to have been such a case, bearing all the hallmarks of urban myth. I would suggest you dig a little deeper, and question why no details ever came to light, and why even the teller of the tale took a step back from it here. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I have not been clear enough. The step siblings in question have both a different mother and different father and so are not related by blood. Is it ok to marry?--79.76.137.66 (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You have been clear, and Normansmithy's link above still applies. Weddingguideuk.com's summary states clearly that even if the stepsiblings have no blood relationship at all, they cannot marry if they have lived together in the same family, as brother and sister, when the younger of the two was still under 18.  The inconsistency for stepbrothers and stepsisters is probably just a missed line; the advice further down the page makes the situation crystal clear.  There are other seeming anomalies of this type: for example, I saw a documentary in which a divorced man wished to marry his former mother-in-law but was prevented from doing so even though the two were not in any way related by blood, because his ex-wife was still alive.  Looking at weddingguide.uk, we find that "if a man wishes to marry his daughter-in-law, both his son and his son's mother must be dead", so the same will apply to mother-in-law and son-in-law.  Should the stepsiblings decide to marry without declaring their relationship, the marriage will not be valid and there may be penalties for making a false declaration.  If this is not a hypothetical case, then your question is close to a request for legal advice, which Wikipedia cannot give.  Don't rely on the links that have been given here: visit your local register office who will advise you free of charge.   Ka renjc 17:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)