Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 May 23

= May 23 =

What if the internet broke tomorrow?
Not a question for the computer desk on how, but for the humanities on what the result would be if we woke up tomorrow and the internet was broke(long term). What could we expect in terms of things that might stop working, or the adjustments we would need to make to continue our lives? 66.87.83.127 (talk) 00:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Humanity could never adjust to long-term Internet deprivation, any more than the Earth's flora could adjust to eternal night. We would wither and die. 79.122.97.10 (talk) 01:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * A lot of businesses would be severely disrupted. On the other hand, Blockbuster Inc., newspapers, and postal services would be ecstatic. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Internet is a relative young thing. More or less 15 years ago, it was something that only nerds could use or understand, many industries had not incorporated it yet. The Napster vs. Metallica case was only 11 years ago. So, it would easy for the industry to turn things back as they used to be. The sudden dissapearence of internet could be a real problem one or two generations from now, but not now. A real problem for our society would be if we lost all electric power distribution, for example, which has rooted so deeply in our lives that we don't even take it into account. Cambalachero (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm 30 years old, and I still remember "life before internet". I even used to send written postal mails (not e-mails, mails) to distant relatives... Cambalachero (talk) 02:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It'd likely result in some short term disruption and possibly some very negative effects that could arguably be indirectly caused by the sudden loss of it. However, to compare man's dependency on the internet to the flora's dependency on light is rather missing a key point. The flora could not have originally evolved without a source of light, however man (evidently) did evolve without the internet. 213.120.209.210 (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree with Cambalachero that it would be "easy". Every person at every business uses the Internet all day, every day to communicate with its clients and vendors, as well as other employees; so all this communication would have to move back to &mdash; ick! &mdash; the phone call.  This takes up much more time than the nicely asynchronous tech of e-mail, so I would foresee a large productivity drop, followed by a profitability drop, across all businesses, that would not just correct itself as people got used to the inconvenience.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Lacking the time and inclination to supply hard numbers . . The majority of the economy is not based on the Internet transactions. Food, housing, transportation, and many other economic goods are facilitated by the Internet, but predate it and would indeed survive the disruption. There is no doubt that an instantaneous end to the Internet would result in economic disruption, but more than half of US businesses would struggle to adapt any more than they did to the demise of the Yellow Pages. SRICE13(TALK 00:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's worth remembering nowadays even things like a lot of debit/credit card processing use the internet. Some may still use dedicated links or dialup to the processing gateway but AFAIK this is dying out. Manually processing may still be possible in some cases (I've experience it in NZ when the processing gateway has problems) but is very slow. AFAIK, semi supported by our article, even Automated teller machine and banks often use VPN connections over the public internet rather then using dedicated lines. Some may have backup links but I don't know how many. (I suspect often the backup links will be just another connection to the internet.) Voice over IP (over the public internet) is increasingly being used even by carriers. I don't know about the US, for whatever reason electronic transactions there seem to still be underutilised and cheques etc are common (although this would still collapse because of the aforementioned reliance of the banks), not that dissimilar to some developing countries like Malaysia but in a lot of the developed world I would guess most use electronic transactions usually via the internet (including most mobile connections) rather then phone banking and manual transactions are rare. The fact that they didn't in the past doesn't change the fact they do now and going back is not likely to be a small feat. I'm not saying the world would end, but the disruption would be tremendous and while some businesses would prosper, many even those who don't seem reliant on the internet would not survive. Of course questions like this can't really be answered since the premise doesn't make any sense. How will the internet suddenly disappear? Are all data lines (including phone lines which nowadays can be considered data lines, and all national and international backbones lines) going to suddenly disappear? Nil Einne (talk) 09:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * 300 million teenagers would suffer massive withdrawal symptoms from not knowing the status of their friends. Come to think of it, they may have to work out what a friend really is. HiLo48 (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Well... it would cause financial and social crisis and be an international level disaster that would take us years to recover from. There would be widescale media and communications disruption. A big financial crash - partly because a lot of stock markets pretty much rely on internet to a) communicate and b) for trades but mostly because an awful lot of money is invested in tech companies (Facebook, for example). A number of banks would probably face severe problems, as they use the internet to communicate with branches etc. You'd might even see a "run" on some of the banks as people got scared they would lose money. Thousands of online businesses would disappear; leading tp mass unemployment (Amazon.com, for example, employs 30,000+ people). Tech jobs would largely be wiped out, leaving one of the more affluent portions of society jobless. Consumer spending would drop. Businesses that use the internet for internal communication and organisation would be disrupted (for example; those saying you could send letters.. would run into issues because the mail services rely heavily on its internet-based communications network - the private couriers rely even more on such things and would basically cease to operate). When you really dig into exactly what would be disrupted and affected it starts to emerge quite how ingrained the Internet is in our modern world, it is at the periphery of almost everything. And that is just physical effects, before you get into the social and mental impact on people. --Errant (chat!) 09:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The most important change is that you wouldn't be able to look up arbitrary subjects on wikipedia anymore. Life as we know it would be over.  i kan reed (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thought Experiment
I have enjoyed in the past few months sharing the problem of the Ship of Theseus. The problem is that I have been running into people recently who have already heard, because someone retold it or because I've forgotten I told it to that person. What are some new though experiments to share with others that are relatively wholesome? Schyler ( one language ) 00:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Although these are the very opposite of new, Zeno's paradoxes are fun. The dichotomy paradox is particularly easy to explain to others. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 03:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The Sorites paradox is another oldie but goldie.--Rallette (talk) 06:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The Epimenides paradox. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Straying into physics, we have Schrodinger's cat (always a winner with dog people). Or, you can turn up the heat on the discussion with Maxwell's Demon.  StuRat (talk) 07:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If you don't mind a bit of maths, I like these two similar-looking problems, which both have rather counterintuitive answers:
 * Imagine a rope fitting exactly around the equator (assuming a perfectly spherical earth, of course). Take a rope one metre longer and arrange it so that it's at the same height above the equator all round the earth. How high is it?
 * Imagine a continuous railway line 1km long. On a hot day it expands by 10cm and distorts upwards in an arc (or, to make the maths easier, into a triangular shape). How far above the ground is it at the centre?
 * (Other units of measurement can be used if you prefer.) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I find Plato's Cave fascinating. In one of his books, William Poundstone reduced it to a one-bit version that really shaped my thinking about what my own consciousness and sense of reality are made of. --Sean 18:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * An metaphor that I find related and that I always enjoyed is from Slaughterhouse-Five, when a Trafalmadorian, who lives in four dimensions, tried to explain to other Trafalmadorians what time must look like for poor Billy Pilgrim, who, being a human, lived in only three dimensions.

The guide invited the crowd to imagine that they were looking across a desert at a mountain range on a day that was twinkling bright and clear ... But among them was this poor Earthling, and his head was encased in a steel sphere that he could never take off. There was only one eyehole through which he could look, and welded to that eyehole were six feet of pipe ... He was also strapped to a steel lattice which was bolted to a flatcar on rails, and there was no way he could turn his head or touch the pipe ... All Billy could see was the little dot at the end of the pipe. He didn't know he was on a flatcar, didn't even know there was anything peculiar about his situation. The flatcar sometimes crept, sometimes went extremely fast, often stopped&mdash;went uphill, downhill, around curves, along straightaways. Whatever poor Billy saw through the pipe, he had no choice but to say to himself, "That's life."


 * Another great one is Flatland and the analogy of what a 3D sphere looks like as it passes through a 2D plane, visiting the people who live in 2D. Compare it to what a 4D 4-sphere passing through would look like to us humans, who live in 3D.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There's actually a really great book by Julian Baggini full of fun philosophical thought experiments called The Book That Wants To Be Eaten. Short of that, I'd ask your local professor of philosophy.  :P  IdealistCynic (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I like Nick Bostrom and the way he's framed the simulation hypothesis --JGGardiner (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * One of my favorite little brainteasers is the following conundrum. You need to tell it exactly this way:
 * See who of your friends can figure out who has the extra dollar. -- Jayron  32  23:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Aha, an oldie but goodie. Shall I spoil it, or leave it be for awhile? :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to spoil anything, people can choose for themselves whether to read Missing dollar riddle Nil Einne (talk) 08:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to spoil anything, people can choose for themselves whether to read Missing dollar riddle Nil Einne (talk) 08:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There's a list at Thought experiment. Pfly (talk) 09:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Another is the ghoti spelling of "fish". StuRat (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Welsh novels
Can anyone name some famous welsh mystery novels that are not in a series? Neptunekh2 (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As with your question below, you've already asked Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 May 16 and received answers to boot. Generally speaking, asking again a few days later doesn't result in any more answers, particularly if you don't mention the previous answers and don't explain why they were insufficient. If you are having problems finding your previous questions please search in the archives. A search for 'welsh mystery novels' finds your previous question in this instance. Nil Einne (talk) 06:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Fantasy books
1. I'm wondering if anyone know of any books that have a gender bending theme with a fantasy theme like a guy reincarnated as a girl or a guy and girl switching bodies?

2. Can anyone recommend any books about Gynoid which are female robots with a human appearance. Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 01:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you not ask the same questions here. here, and here? doom gaze   (talk)  01:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see this before, but Jack L. Chalker has some fun with the were meme along these lines in his River of Dancing Gods trilogy. --Dweller (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

See Orlando: A Biography. 216.93.212.245 (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * 1. Myra Breckinridge and Myron by Gore Vidal.
 * 2. I think Philip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? might have a female android. Spoiler alert:  So does Prelude to Foundation by Isaac Asimov.76.218.9.50 (talk) 03:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Monbushu/MEXT policy on Japanese names
Doesn't the Japanese ministry of Education (Monbusho/MEXT) mandate that Japanese names be in Western order? (Taro Yamada instead of Yamada Taro, with family name last instead of family name first)

Where can I find this policy? What article/name/title is it under? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I found http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/12/kokugo/toushin/001217d.htm which is a MEXT paper on Japanese names. In the final part of the paper, is it stating a policy regarding Japanese names? WhisperToMe (talk) 02:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The answer to the webpage is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Japan WhisperToMe (talk) 05:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

John Maynard Keynes and pedophilia
Was John Maynard Keynes a pedophile? I have heard he regularly had sex with young boys. --HoulGhostjj (talk) 08:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No. He was gay bisexual, but not with children. See his article: John Maynard Keynes. Avic ennasis  @ 09:59, 19 Iyar 5771 / 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Bisexual, happily married. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should read a little bit more into the articles I link to, eh? :-) Thanks for clearing that up. Avic ennasis  @ 09:30, 20 Iyar 5771 / 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Who cares about Iowa?
See this article. Could someone please explain to me why American politicians care about caucuses? Iowa can't possibly contribute more than a handful of electoral votes in the general election, and culturally is not representative of the majority of American people by population (east & west coasters), so why is it (and the other early caucus states) at all relevant in the 21st century? This makes absolutely no sense to me. The Masked Booby (talk) 09:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: if you asked me to name states that matter I'd probably be into the mid 30's before I even considered mentioning Iowa. Seriously, I cannot wrap my mind around this. The Masked Booby (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC).


 * It describes why in the article you linked. The plan is to use Iowa as a proving grounds to see if he can gather the support he needs, and work his way up from there. At least, that's how I read it. Avic ennasis  @ 10:06, 19 Iyar 5771 / 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Another factor is that the media cares about events like the Iowa caucuses. Politicians want media coverage.  For the media it provides a story, a narrative unfolding over time.  And small/less populous states seem to use early votes to make themselves stand out on the national stage.  It's a circle of publicity.
 * At the same time, while voting first may influence subsequent contests, it's potentially a disadvantage for voters to be in the first state to hold caucuses: they may pick a candidate who subsequently withdraws (e.g. due to scandal), while voters in later states can see who are the front-runners, so for Iowa it's a trade-off of publicity against actual democratic influence (although Iowa may feel the influence it gets from being first is greater than the influence its small number of votes would make later). --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * East & West coasters only make a majority if you presume that they share the same political philosphy and must be counted together - by population the three regions East, West and "non-coastal" are relatively equal. Thinking a Spanish-speaking Californian shares the same political and cultural background as a French-speaking Mainer but that they entirely differ from a Spanish-speaking Midwesterner or a Cajun is perhaps oversimplifying. Many Midwesterners get upset with people who presume that bold Hollywood and brash New York are in any way reperesentative of "real" America. Remember "if it plays in Peoria..." (and that's just a few miles east of Iowa). Rmhermen (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The reason Iowa and New Hampshire matter so much is because they're the first states to hold a caucus and a primary. Performing well there can give you a lot of momentum and attention going into Super Tuesday. Barack Obama's win in Iowa in 2008 really shook up that race. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If you're interested, other states, namely Florida, have recently coveted the outsized influence wielded by the early-primary states, and have tried to move their date sooner on the calendar. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * They haven't just tried, they have done so resulting in them losing some or all of their delegates when it was done against party agreements on the dates United States presidential primary ( permanent link because that seems like too much detail on one year for the general article) Nil Einne (talk) 08:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Americans have the unfortunate attribute of always wanting to have voted for the winner. So, if your candidate wins in Iowa, many people will vote for them in subsequent elections just because "they are a winner". StuRat (talk) 05:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It depends on your electorial strategy. If you look at the [map http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2008&off=0&elect=1&f=0] of the 2008 primary, you will see that Obama won the nomination by less than 100 delegates.  Iowa has 57.  In his case, Iowa was incredibly important.  Clinton would have agreed with you that Iowa wasn't that important.  That's why she didn't concentrate on that state and why she lost it.  Her perception of Iowa, Idaho and Utah cost her the nomination. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Air France plane on US soil
The recent Strauss-Kahn case let me questioning, isn't an Air France plane on US soil within French jurisdiction?Quest09 (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well a an El Al flight to London was clearly considered to be outside UK jurisdiction when Doron Almog avoided arrest by not getting off the plane. -- Q Chris (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually our article says quite the opposite about that case. Rmhermen (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're right. That will teach me to go from memory without checking! -- Q Chris (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * When the aircraft is in flight (i.e. from a legal perspective when the doors are closed), it possibly would be outside US jurisdiction. However, in DSK affair, that was not the case. 80.26.37.77 (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It appears to be quite complicated. Section 46501 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code says that for the purposes of applying a list of certain criminal laws to acts on aircraft, the US has "special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States" if it's a civil or military aircraft of the US; or is any aircraft "in" the US; or if its next stop is in the US; or if it lands in the US with a hijacker or several other types of bad guys on board; or if it's leased to a US company.  For other crimes, I dislike linking to a Google Answers answer, but this Google Answers answer seems to have covered the topic adequately.  The focus is on in-flight jurisdiction rather than aircraft-sitting-on-the-tarmac jurisdiction.  If the aircraft is still sitting on the tarmac and has not closed its last cabin door, it's apparently still in the legal jurisdiction of wherever the plane is.  Once the aircraft's last door is closed, it is considered "in flight". Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And that brings me the obvious question, what if the plane is flying with the door open? (Contrary to what movies depict, everyone doesn't get sucked out of the plane).  Googlemeister (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That made me laugh -- thanx!  DRosenbach  ( Talk 05:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Under UK law, an aircraft is in flight "from the moment when, after the embarkation of its crew for the purpose of taking off, it first moves under its own power, until the moment when it next comes to rest after landing" (CAP 393 para 256 (1)a). The state of the doors has nothing to do with it, although US law may be different. Tevildo (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Nemesis
When we come into this world, do we all have a personal Nemesis already alive or not yet born as part of our destiny? I am convinced that we all have a potential enemy waiting to ambush us and ultimately destroy us should our mutual paths ever cross. Did any philosophers happen to share my belief? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether any "great" philosophers ever spoke of a predestined nemesis or not I don't know off hand, but I had to say this seems to me like a fixation (unconscious or not) with a relationship of archetypes:  Jungian Archetypes. I would also recommend the info at the article for Grandiosity. The ratio of Hydrogen to Oxygen in the universe is 2 to 1 which works out great for those of us who need water, and there are two top perspective that can be held on that fact (1) water was made for us (2) we were made from water. I mention this because though you may have not thought of like this, your question/idea fits more with the first perspective.  24.78.172.60 (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * After reading your question & my response my spouse suggested that her personal nemesis' have been her weaknesses, which in turn reminded of me of the "Vices/Passions & Temptations" described in the "Enneagram of Personality."  More directly to your question, some people refuse to talk about religion or politics with the idea that there is too much passion assigned to theses things that cause strife and clashes among people who would otherwise be friends. So I think that if you have a personal nemesis depends very much on you and your beliefs, in other words the idea of a personal nemesis is as likely as a personal (personally taylored) soulmate, and is quite the absolute way of thinking, which leads me to suggest the article on Cognitive distortion. 24.78.172.60 (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "The ratio of Hydrogen to Oxygen in the universe is 2 to 1 ..." - sorry to sink a metaphor under the weight of reality, but that's not even close - see abundance of the chemical elements. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) The ratio of Hydrogen to Oxygen in the universe is 2 to 1: no it isn't. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know how I remembered that so incorrectly, but my enthusiasm stems from the fact it makes Water the most abundant (compound) molecule since the top two (non-inert) elements are Hydrogen and Oxygen. Qualified "most abundant molecule" is a good substitute, sorry. 24.78.172.60 (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's kind of amusing to think that there are 3 billion people who are here to be nothing more than the nemesis of the other 3 billion people. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe nemesis-hood is a reflexive relation, so I am my nemesis's nemesis. And if I ever meet my nemesis, perhaps we annihilate each other ... Gandalf61 (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Many philosophers and non-philosophers certainly share some concept or the other of Nemesis - be it called Nemesis, Karma,  or action and reaction. But, why would you have a personal Nemesis? It is easier to conceive a certain antagonism between separated poles, than a 1-to-1 relationship. 80.26.37.77 (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have seen no evidence that through evolution and natural selection the existence of a personal nemesis for each of us is an attribute that has been selected for; so, no, I'll provisionally state that the theory is wrong, unless you can provide some evidence showing otherwise. Unless by "nemesis" you mean "any sabretooth tiger", which I agree would have been happy to have ambushed and destroyed you; but natural selection took care of that particular nemesis quite a while ago.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * But then, some religions teach that each and every one of us has his or her own personal guardian angel, who stays with us at all times. If that were true (I take no personal position on it), it's easy to see why we'd also have personal nemeses.  Let the nemeses and the angels have at it, while we get about our business.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Not meaning to sound facetious/frivolous towards your question, I would add I think your nemesis is the author of Freedom Evolves. In any case the belief does exit: "The practice of head shrinking among Jivaroan and Urarina peoples derives from an animistic belief that if the spirit of one's mortal enemies, i.e., the nemesis of ones being, are not trapped within the head, they can escape slain bodies. After the spirit transmigrates to another body, they can take the form of a predatory animal and even exact revenge." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism#Death) - 24.78.172.60 (talk) 05:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC) Strictly for moral thoroughness I have to mention the article on "Persecutory delusions." 24.78.172.60 (talk) 06:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC) It seems that I find myself still looking into this because the question actually bothers me, and the reason for that itself may be an answer to the question. Looking at it from the perspective of Logical positivism, I think first of all that you place a lot of importance on "self" to the point of overshooting "Solipsism" and throwing cause and effect relationship out the window so that you can ignore the Existentialist warning about the meaning of life and ignoring the "inner subjective life." So I wonder if you can see the idea of a personal nemesis as almost religious or mythical, next to the idea/analogy that we are like atomic particles, and that any one special/unique particle has it's opposite special/unique particle, say an Electron versus Positron, either at the other end of the galaxy or in the same vicinity, then what is the impetus/volition behind the attraction? What would allow this nemesis to even think of moving in your direction? Why would they exist anywhere near you? You are turning the whole subjective experience of life into a robotic dodge. The answer that makes the most sense is "Why?" - I am less likely to have "karma avatar" than I am to have a perfect soul-mate in the next galaxy, IMHO. If you happen to be looking for an excuse to hurt someone, just forgive them and move on. - 24.78.172.60 (talk) 07:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Political affiliation of superheores
What are the political affiliations of superheroes? Who are left-leaning and who are right-leaning? Some I know are V (comics), who is anarchist-leaning, Batman is a combination of liberal and conservative, he is anti-big government, but supports gun control, Green Arrow is Marxist, Iron Man is definitely conservative in American sense. And what about the others? --DHOD 1234 (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * A lot of this depends on the specific writer, and how he/she wanted the character to develop. Some comic heroes have changed their political leanings over the years. Superman has probably undergone the most dramatic shifts... in the 1980s he was portrayed as being staunchly conservative (with a distinctly pro-Reagan outlook) ... while currently he is portrayed as being much more liberal (to the point of renouncing his US citizenship and becoming a "citizen of the world").  Blueboar (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If I remember the Civil War correctly, Iron Man, Reed Richards and Henry Pym were Republicans, Captain America, Luke Cage and Daredevil were terrorists, the X-men were abstentionists, the Eternals were confederatists, the Inhumans were antiamericanists, the Runaways were anarchists, Hulk was nihilist, Spider-man does not have strong ideas and change sides easily, and Howard the Duck was an "other" Cambalachero (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Watchmen was explicit about the political affiliations of some of its superheroes, more so than most graphic-novel-sized works. The Comedian was a Nixonian Republican who was created as an analogue of G. Gordon Liddy; Rorschach was a sort of paleo-libertarian who refused to ever compromise; and as Ozymandias's article says, he "is one of the only known superheroes to be openly liberal" (in that universe, that is).  Here's a blog that assigned a political affiliation to lots of superheroes.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * New Statesmen (comics) was much the same (in a rather preachy and obvious way), with several superheroes serving or running for office and most a vehicle for political discussion one way or another. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 19:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Superman was a dedicated anti-fascist, fighting Nazis during WWII and exposing some of the (real-world) secrets of the KKK afterward on the Superman radio show. That didn't prevent Fredric Wertham from accusing Superman of being fascist. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * John Constantine is almost certainly left labour, an inactive trot or an inactive anarchist. But you're more likely to see him at some theological or magical equivalent of the poll tax riots than voting for a parliament. Fifelfoo_m (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course all of this may change if the writers want it to. These are fictional characters after all. Blueboar (talk) 00:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Millard Fillmore's religious beliefs
Millard Fillmore says he is a Unitarian. No other mention of his religious beliefs is in the article. Where can I find more detail on this? Thank you. --70.122.116.201 (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The little 4 right after that statement in the article is a reference that contains more information. In this case, the reference directs the reader here, which discusses Transcendentalists, Abolitionism, and the Unitarian Association. -- k a i n a w &trade; 16:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * He appears to me to be a Christian conservative. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's Mallard Fillmore. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If Millard Fillmore says he's a Unitarian, I'd believe him. If you don't, here's an entry of him from a Unitarian dictionary of biography that has some more info.  We do also have an article on religious affiliations of Presidents of the United States but it isn't any help in this case. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

US languages
How many people in the US speak English as their first language and Russian as a second language (as opposed to immagrants who would speak Russian as a first language and English as a second)? In which state is this group the most common per capita? Googlemeister (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This may be a very difficult number to even guess at. The method of adding up this number would be, I suppose, to add up the number of individuals who have taken Russian language classes in college or from private places, add 0.000001% of the people who purchase Russian language study audio CDs, and then also try to apply these percentages to immigrants who already speak Russian as a second language.  As for relevant stats that are not what you want but I am typing them in anyway, our article Russian language and this US Census file say that in the US there are around 850,000 people who speak Russian at home.  About half of those say they speak English "very well".  The big communities are New York, then Los Angeles, then Chicago, then San Francisco.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that children of immigrants would be the largest such group. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 01:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Judges and Wikipedia
Has there ever been a court case where the defendant claimed not to be aware they were doing anything wrong, and the judge responded with words to the effect of "I don't believe you didn't know you were breaking the law. You've got access to Wikipedia, haven't you?"? Or, where the defendant quibbled about the severity of the judgement and the judge said "I have the right to do this. And you should know that.  Haven't you ever heard of Wikipedia"? Or some such wiki-reference? --  Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * See Wikipedia as a court source.—Wavelength (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow, thanks Wavelength. I had no idea there was such juridical acknowledgment of WP's existence.
 * I'd still like to see an example of a judge referring a defendant to Wikipedia for further information about their offence or the sentence imposed on them, or somethig similar. If it exists.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  21:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * A judge wouldn't care if the defendant knew what they were doing was illegal or not due to the principle of ignorantia juris non excusat. --Tango (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I can imagine a judge with a "colourful turn of phrase", or even one with simply a kindly and helpful demeanour (not impossible), not sticking rigidly to that but explaining to a defendant some things about the law and how it works they may not have been aware of. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  03:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In America, law students are told in today's legal writing classes to not cite wikipedia as authority ever. Indeed, the Bluebook states thusly concerning internet sources in general, "they often lack the permanence and authoritativeness of traditional printed material. Therefore, The Bluebook requires the use and citation of traditional printed sources unless (1) the information cited is unavailable in a traditional printed source; or (2) a copy of the source cannot be located because it is so obscure that it is practically unavailable." (bold emphasis in the original) This is the instruction to the supermajority of lawyers in the United States.  The legal community is aware of the errors in wikipedia articles.  In the Robbery article, for example, extortion is cited as a type of robbery.  This is false, and why the crime of extortion has a different name.  Extortion is the use of threats to gain a person's consent to transfer title to property to another whereas there is no consent in robbery.  Robbery also involves the taking of moveable goods whereas extortion can include the transfer of title of unmovable property such as land.  When something as fundamental to criminal law as the definition of robbery contains incorrect information an enduring shadow is cast upon the whole.  If a judge cites wikipedia, it makes headlines in the legal community, but not in a positive way. Gx872op (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that is very enlightening, Gx872op. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  11:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

word counting
Is there anywhere on the internet where I can input a section of text and have it count the number of occurences of each word? I have seen this done with the works of shakespeare, so it should be possible at least, but I have not been able to find anywhere that offers the same service for something I have written myself. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * What you want is something that measures "Word Frequency".
 * Here is a perfectly good one on WriteWords.org.
 * Hope this helps. APL (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * According to http://www.textalyser.net/, the most common words on this page are may (526), utc (467), i (450), talk (387), you (299), t (195), what (121), your (104), do (85), and money (84).
 * —Wavelength (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * [I am correcting the wikicode in my comment.—Wavelength (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)]

Constitution of San Marino
Is anyone aware of where I could find an English translation of the constitution of San Marino? Thanks. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► senator ─╢ 22:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

New invention, new money?
When an innovation occurs, such as personal computers, and people such as Bill Gates make a lot of money from them, where does that money come from?

Does it come from elsewhere, so that other people are poorer, or is new extra money created? If the later, what can I read abvout this process? Thanks 92.24.188.154 (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * When new inventions are created (or resources mined, or manufacturing done, or value added to anything in any way, in excess of the cost of production) economists say that wealth (not money) is created. Money can also be created: see inflation, which can occur for many reasons. Buddy431 (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Money is a convoluted and complex subject and does have an abstract component. to answer your question directly. I would have to say that Bill Gates's money comes from other people but that does not mean that other people are poorer. Money circulates, money gets destroyed and new money is put into circulation. See money circulation\ and 'money supply190.56.125.154 (talk) 23:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In the case of a true innovation, the gains come from perceived and likely gains in productivity, as opposed to a transfer of wealth from a short term market manipulation. SRICE13(TALK 00:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Consider also that before people spent their money on computer, they spent it on other things. It is not as if at any one time, all of one's money is tied up in existing technologies. It's also the case that over time, technologies in particular change cost. In 1985, it might have been a significant fraction of your monthly income to buy a computer; that's less the case today. In the 1980s, buying a large-screen television necessarily cost thousands and thousands of dollars. LCD technology has cheapened to the point where you can buy large screen TVs for a few hundreds of dollars today, and that doesn't even take into account inflation. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

If you want a simple, but exhustive overview of money, currency and wealth generation, the Khan Academy videos are really very good. JamesGrimshaw (talk) 02:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The role of innovation in economic development was a key part of the thought of Joseph Schumpeter. Many economists still refer to it. If you really want something in depth Michael Porter's The Competitive Advantage of Nations will keep you busy. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Money is created ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY in the dual ledgers of lending institutions. Loans are made, of which only a small percentage actually exists (the lender's reserves); the remainder of the loans is new money, created the moment the loans are made.  The loans are paid back with interest after the money is used elsewhere, or else (a small percentage) not repaid when default occurs.  Subtracting the defaults, the new money continues to exist as a product of the uses to which it was put by the borrower, plus the interest paid.  This has nothing to do with technology, except that technology is an aspect of the productive use of the loan.  Bill Gates's earnings on any given day are exactly the same proportion of new and old money as anyone else's on that day, at least in the developed countries.  Note: money is not created via printing presses; printed (or coined) money represnts the results of the money created in the dual ledgers of lending institutions.76.218.9.50 (talk) 04:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I would add to this the creation of equity, such as owning a large number of stock shares. Much of the wealth of people like Bill Gates is due to equity and therefore not liquid.  If there are 1,000,000,000 shares of Microsoft that sell for $50 each on the secondary market, and Bill Gates has 51% of all shares (thought experiment, number not reflective of reality), his equity stake is $25,000,000,000 ($25 billion dollars).  But he can't just sell these shares tommorow and cash out.  In fact, if he sold even a small percentage of these shares, the market's reaction would almost certainly lower the price of the stock significantly.  If it goes to $40 a share, Bill Gates just lost $5 billion dollars.