Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 July 28

= July 28 =

Can people in North America make it the workforce and survive if they have a disability and didn't even complete high school?
Can people in North America make it the workforce and survive if they have a disability and didn't even complete high school? The modern Amish community don't finish grade 8 and they seem to do ok. So is completing school in North America (Canada and US) necessary to put food on your table? Buffyfan84 (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * For the U.S., of more than 6 million persons with a disability, over 25, and less than a high school diploma, 10.2 percent are part of the workforce (employed or looking for work).&mdash;eric 02:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The Americans with Disabilities Act means employers have to make allowances for disabilities, but without a high school diploma, or at least a GED, you aren't likely to get much of a job. StuRat (talk) 02:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * After e/c: same thing said above, but with more words:


 * The Amish community, and those like them, are essentially farmers. They teach the skills they believe their children need to thrive in an Amish setting.


 * In very general terms, a minimum of a high school (or trade school/apprenticeship equivalent) education is required for most jobs offered by companies and promotions are unlikely without this minimum level. (Student part-time jobs are an exception.) I know of personal-fitness trainers without high school completion, for example, but with job-specific training. If you are creative and talented, you don't need high school to be a singer, dancer, visual artist, photographer etc., but you will need to be very, very good to rise above those who have both talent and schooling. General labourers in construction, office cleaning, agriculture and the like may not even need the local language, but will be limited to minimum wage or less.


 * There may be jobs in small offices where, if you are numerate, "computerate" and/or literate, even without the pieces of paper, jobs may be available. You aren't likely to be first on the list, though, unless your wage demands are very limited. What you need, at base, are the skills you would have picked up in high school, even if you didn't finish the course. (Some jurisdictions allow "life experience" to count towards earning higher academic standing.)


 * If you are disabled, you may qualify for upgrading courses that can help you get a job. Bielle (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The figure is surprising. What do the remaining 89.8% do? They can't be all getting benefits - isn't America (as opposed to W.Europe) "too capitalist" for that? Are they cared for by the relatives? Уга-уга12 (talk) 02:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Their lives might suck by some definitions, but there is a wide array of potential benefits for the permanently disabled. If the disability is so severe that work has become impossible, a couple of options are available. If the disability was suffered on the job, the individual may qualify for worker's compensation or disability insurance, which may have been procured privately or provided by the employer. If the individual had been working for long enough prior to the disabling injury, he may qualify for very early retirement under US Social Security. Regardless of the source of the disability or job history of the disabled, if this individual has become a dependant of a family member, he may be able to get dependent health insurance, which may even be heavily discounted by the family member's employer. If the individual had already had health insurance, he will be able to keep it, provided he can still afford it. If the individual is having trouble affording health insurance, he may qualify for medicaid. And in the worst case scenario, emergency rooms are required to treat anyone who comes in with a genuine medical emergency, even if that person can't afford the bill. So, what, you Europeans think we just dump our disabled in the gutter? :p Someguy1221 (talk) 03:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There are a lot more expenses involved in living than just medical bills... When I was in the US recently, I saw a large number of disabled people (particularly amputees) out begging, so you can understand why people might think you don't take good care of your disabled... --Tango (talk) 15:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm on income assistance. I have no idea about government polices in Europe. What percent of people in united states with mental illnesses are on a income assistance plan? How come not everyone with a disability or illnesses is on social assistance? Can the American government address this issue? Buffyfan84 (talk) 03:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * US American's tend to have a particular aversion to the theft that would be required to finance such a scam. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 09:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The general American opinion is that it's better for everyone if those who can work do work, including those with manageable disabilities and mental illnesses. There's the taxation issues, but also the sense of pride and value a person gets from contributing to society. StuRat (talk) 09:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The vast number of people people starving on the streets in America should answer the question. μηδείς (talk) 04:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Is the NHS that good?
Can you explain to a foreigner, is the NHS in the UK that good that a whole segment of the Olympics opening ceremony is dedicated to it? thanks F (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I for one would quite possibly be dead without it, so why not? Having said this, I didn't watch the ceremony, and it seems from what I can find out via Google that you are exaggerating a little. Anyway, if we are going to indulge in a little dubious patriotic boosting, there are worse things we could have chosen to base it on. A re-enactment of the Battle of Britain (or possibly Agincourt)? A celebration of a hundred years (or possibly a thousand) of football hooliganism? A celebration of Bus queues, and their antithesis, the drunken brawl as everyone scrambles to board the last bus home? Olympic opening ceremonies aren't supposed to be taken seriously. At least, I hope not... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As the American commentators noted, it was in part a convenient way to bring in the Peter Pan stuff and other fairy tales, as Barrie had some strong connection with the NHS. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Barrie had a strong connection with Great Ormond Street Hospital for children; the NHS was established a decade after his death... The NHS has had some problems down the decades, but when most Britons contemplate the alternative (such as seen in the U.S.), they're generally for it. AnonMoos (talk)


 * Yeah these "American commentators" would do well not to pronounce on subjects of which they know nothing. --Viennese Waltz 07:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That's what they are paid to do, though, and it doesn't sound like that was any hugely disastrous error. After all, the show itself linked the concepts of the NHS and that particular hospital. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not talking about that error, I'm talking about the ridiculous assertion that the NHS was only featured as "a convenient way to bring in the Peter Pan stuff". --Viennese Waltz 09:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * One comment from an American reporter was quite amusing. When the North Korean contingent walked in, he mentioned how their "Glorious Leader" was apparently the best athlete in all of North Korea, having gotten 11 holes-in-one during a single golf game.  Then he added "I imagine all North Koreans were filled with pride when he bounced the ball off the windmill and the clown's nose."  I find myself wondering what happened to the 7 people who were unable to guarantee him a hole-in-one on the remaining holes.  Keeping with the British children's literature theme, I imagine he said "Off with their heads !".   :-) StuRat (talk) 09:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't blame Bob Costas for my own faulty memory. It was indeed the GOSH that he was referring to. And the point being that they had all these beds with children and NHS nurses, which overlapped nicely with discussions of Peter Pan and other fairy tales, and bad and good dreams. And the miniature golf joke Costas made was pretty good. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * (OR and personal thoughts) A lot of the ceremony seemed to be aimed at making Britons proud of their country. In particular, the opening sequence with the singing of Jerusalem, Flower of Scotland, Danny Boy and Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau gave me goosebumps. There were also blink-and-you'll-miss-'em references to parts of our culture like East Enders, Grange Hill and Kes (most of which would mean nothing to someone who didn't spend a large amount of their childhood in the UK), and longer tributes to HM The Queen, Rowan Atkinson, Sir Tim Berners-Lee and the Industrial Revolution. In this context, I think the celebration of the NHS was just a demonstration of something that most British people would agree is something that we can be proud of. It might be a rather clunky organisation, and absolutely not a perfect system, but we do enjoy the thought that anyone, regardless off who they are, what they do or what they've done, has the ability to receive the same level of healthcare as anyone else. So, to go back to the question, I don't think the point was that the NHS is 'so good' - it's that this is something that us Limeys are (possibly irrationally) rather proud of. If the opening ceremony had been in the US, maybe there would have been a section on something that the Americans are proud of yet seem incomprehensible to the rest of the world, like the system of lobbying, or relaxed gun controls. You might be interested in the member of the governing party who described the ceremony as leftist multicultural nonsense (my paraphrasing) but received such a barrage of criticism from the public that he's now having to furiously backpedal on those comments. We do enjoy a bit of leftist multicultural nonsense on occasion. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Something else unrelated to the question was a comment I saw on Twitter last night - that the NHS should be celebrated as 'the gift we gave ourselves for surviving the Second World War'. I thought that was a nice way of looking at it. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It wasn't actually Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau that the Welsh choir sang - it was Cwm Rhondda a.k.a. "Guide Me O Thou Great Redeemer/Jehovah". Since they were using rugby clips to illustrate the songs, I suppose it was fairly logical. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The NBC-TV commentators in the U.S. really didn't understand that "Jerusalem" is the English quasi-anthem, as opposed to "God Save the Queen" being the UK anthem... AnonMoos (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The opening ceremony of the Sydney Olympics in 2000 included a celebration of a clothesline. I doubt if that meant much to non-Australians, but we Aussies understood. HiLo48 (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Tupou I painting
Does anyone know who drew the portrait of King Tupou I here? I am not sure if was originally drawn as a portrait or was it improved from an engraving/sketch of the King. Does anyone know when the piece was made and who made it?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like a painting or painted photograph. There are black and white versions from Google Image Search on it which look more like the photograph the engraving was based on, rather than the other way around. 207.224.43.139 (talk) 06:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Also when did photography first arrive in Tonga? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * About 1865 given they were a few years behind Pacific rim urban centers. See Carte de visite. 207.224.43.139 (talk) 07:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Price and quantity in a perfectly competitive industry
In economics, How price and quantity is determined in a perfectly competitive industry? Thank you--180.234.123.164 (talk) 09:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * In perfect competition, the sales price will be just slightly more than the total production cost. How much more is determined by the opportunity cost of producing that item.  That is, if the money to do so were invested elsewhere, how much would it earn ?  If they can get a 10% annual return on investment elsewhere, then they would either get an average 10% profit in the current industry, or they would leave it.  There are some caveats, though, as leaving the industry may also cost money.


 * Quantity is a bit more iffy, but I wouldn't expect much overproduction. That is, they would only make as many items as they could sell at a profit, with some exceptions, like when a firm with deep pockets tries to force a competitor out of the market by selling at a loss. StuRat (talk) 09:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Sturat. I want to make a note on this topic. Should I write the term Quantity is a bit more iffy, but I wouldn't expect much overproduction in exam script or wherever. I want to present it more formally. Thanks in advance--180.234.193.128 (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You could make it sound more formal by using "indeterminate" in place of "iffy": "Quantity is more indeterminate. However, overproduction is unlikely." StuRat (talk)


 * I would point out that in mainstream economics, cost (unless otherwise specified) includes all opportunity costs. Thus, price is equal to average cost in perfect competition. (Also note that by virtue of the definition of perfect competition, leaving the industry does not cost money.) Industry production is equal to market demand at industry price (in the long run, min(AC)). - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 15:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reference to show that opportunity costs are automatically included ? This doesn't seem like it would work, since it's near impossible to tell what return on investment you could make, if you switched to a different type of investment.  (You can look at historic returns for that investment, but past performance is no guarantee of future performance.) StuRat (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Meh, it's a theoretical construct. Varian, Intermediate Microeconomics (7th Ed) p. 335 would be one possible source. Also see this Gbook which equates economic cost and opportunity cost. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 19:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, strictly theoretical, I can believe. No real firm is going to set prices based on opportunity costs. StuRat (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You've got it backwards: in perfect competition, the firm is a price-taker not a price-setter! In the perfect competition model, firms end up pricing at minimum average cost because that's what competition drives prices down to, not because they consciously choose to set prices in that way. The model specifies that the goods are homogeneous, completely undifferentiated, so consumer purchase decision are based on price alone. Individual firms face infinite price elasticity of demand (if they raise prices even slightly above their competitors, they lose all their sales) even though elasticity of demand for their industry overall is finite. If firms are able to price and sell their goods in such a way they make a profit (economic profit, i.e. deducting opportunity costs - sometimes called a "supernormal" profit, rather than an accounting profit that doesn't deduct opportunity costs) then the rate of return to capital in that industry is higher than the average across all industries. Capital flows into that industry and more firms enter the market. Conversely if firms in the industry are making an economic loss (on paper they may be making an "accounting profit", but their capital could be making higher returns elsewhere - an opportunity cost), then firms will withdraw from the market as that capital is reallocated more efficiently. Equilibrium in the perfect competition model occurs when all firms make zero economic/supernormal profit - at this point, there is no incentive for firms to either enter or exit the market. The firms must produce at minimum average cost (the quantity produced by each firm will be the minimum efficient scale of the company's production function, the quantity produced in the industry is the minimum efficient scale times the number of firms, and is also the equilibrium quantity found by the intersection of supply and demand curves), and price at this cost, to record zero profit. No other price makes sense: obviously no firm can achieve a profit pricing goods below minimum average cost, but if firms try pricing above it, then competitors who produce at the efficient scale can undercut them by charging less and will completely eliminate their market share. ManyQuestionsFewAnswers (talk) 05:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

exporting
"with Britain now exporting more to the rest of the world than Europe"

Exporting what, and to who exactly? Really more than all of Europe combined??

- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.173.200.107 (talk) 09:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

It means that Britain now exports less to Europe than it does to the rest of the world, not that its exports outstrip the combined exports of the rest of Europe. 87.112.129.180 (talk) 10:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, a careful syntactician would have written "than to Europe" to eliminate the ambiguity. Deor (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I dare to say that if he means "to Europe", which is almost sure, the only correct form would be "to Europe", being "Europe" alone without "to" in front simply a mistake, and not ambiguous. 79.148.233.179 (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. --Immerhin (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think he was speaking, though, and grammar in speech is generally a little less precise than in the written word and relies on context to make the meaning clear. If we quote a little more, he said: "the economy is rebalancing, with Britain now exporting more to the rest of the world than Europe." In the context of a balanced economy, it is clear that he's talking about Britain's exports being better balanced between Europe and the rest of the world. It's only ambiguous when taken out of context. (It is still a little ambiguous if you aren't that familiar with economics, but his intended audience is people that read the business news, so they generally will be familiar with the concepts.) --Tango (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Ocean-submerged writing and print recovery possibilities
I suppose this is technically a science question, but I expect people in the humanities to have a greater familiarity with whatever answers might exist. I would like to know, first of all, what experience there has been with the recovery of written materials from shipwrecks, either very old or more recent; and, second, what speculative scientific work might have been done on possibilities of recovering things written that are currently lost at sea. For example, The Titanic was first and foremost a postal ship. Is there any reason to think that what was being carried could at all in the future be recovered to any meaningful degree, or would even well-closed books be expected to have totally bled out by now?173.15.152.77 (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There have apparently been only two successful attempts to recover paper from shipwrecks. The Titanic was one, the German battleships scuttled at Scapa Flow was the other. At Scapa Flow postcards were rescued, having been preserved longer than expected by being stored in a metal box. A 'variety of papers and books' were rescued from the Titanic - I haven't yet been able to establish what those were. This company were apparently involved in the salvage, rescuing 'luggage labels and photos'.


 * Although it's not specifically about shipwrecks, many of the techniques involved will be similar to those mentioned in this advice for librarians tackling flooding and other water damage. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * One example of a paper artifact recovered from the Titanic is shown at the top of this page. Deor (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Water soluble inks (like in felt pens) would be lost soon after such paper got wet, so would only be preserved in a waterproof container. Most inks are not water soluble, however.


 * In that case, deterioration of the paper would be the next concern. Bacterial action would be one mechanism, and having limited surface area, as in a tightly closed book, might limit that to the edges.  Leather pouches can also release tannins, and retard bacterial decomp of their contents for some time.  Then there are areas of the sea which have too little dissolved oxygen for animals and/or carbon dioxide for plants, so decomp is halted in that way.


 * The paper could also be torn apart by animals or tides/waves, so having it protected in some way is important. A book with pages flapping in the current wouldn't last long. StuRat (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responses. By the way, this question has been somewhat at the back of my mind since (I think) reading here at wikipedia of some notable author having died in a shipwreck and that certain complete or nearly complete writing not yet published had been lost along with her. I would expect that permanent loss of written material would be mitigated against based a bit on the size of the craft, with currents and animal life having little effect on internal ship compartments for large vessels.173.15.152.77 (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd agree on currents, but not on animal life. Any number of fish, worms, etc., would love to hide out in the interior compartments of a sunken ship, and might well try to eat the paper.  An exception, of course, is for a water-proof compartment.  However, over years or decades, the seals are likely to decay or the walls might rust through or leak.  StuRat (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

King George of Ireland
Is there any "King George of Ireland" related to Charles I of England OR Mary II of England OR William III of England OR James II of England?--Doug Coldwell talk 12:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * George I/II/III? See Monarchy of Ireland. George III was the last King of Ireland as distinct from a King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. George I was related to James II and Charles I through James I - George's great-grandfather, James II's grandfather and Charles I's father. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for putting the picture together for me. That's cool! Cool as a Cucumber....--Doug Coldwell talk 13:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * George III was not the last King of Ireland; see Monarchy of Ireland. George V, Edward VIII, and George VI of the United Kingdom were also Kings of Ireland.  Nyttend (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, George III was the last King of Ireland. He and his heirs from 1801 to 1927 were Kings and Queens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. FiggyBee (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act and Disproportionate share hospitals
I have read a few op-ed/blogs (e.g. here) saying that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) greatly slashes the Disproportionate share hospital (DSH) funds, and that will be a problem because undocumented immigrants are covered by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), but not the PPACA. And yet, when I come here, I see no mention of DSH's in the EMTALA article and I see no mention of EMTALA in the DSH article. What is the setup for reimbursing hospitals for EMTALA shortfalls? Is it some informal arrangement? Or something setup after EMTALA? Or do DSH funds just cover any hospital shortfall, including EMTALA and Medicaid, etc.? If they are connected somehow, it seems some mention should be included in both articles. Thanks... Wknight94 talk 17:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Children with disabilities encounter a similar unfunded mandate under the PPACA. The implications remain to be litigated in cases such as these. Canadian style single payer universal healthcare saves about $1.4 trillion per year relative to the PPACA, mostly because many more cancer patients are caught in stage one instead of stage two or three in emergency rooms. 207.224.43.139 (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Jewish population in Soviet Union
Does anyone have info as to where I can find the Jewish population for each of the SSRs in the USSR from 1926 to the present day? Thank you very much. I know that there is info for some of the SSRs on Wikipedia, but it doesn't have all of the SSRs separately. Futurist110 (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * [I am revising the heading of this section from Jewish population for each of the Soviet Socialist Republics from 1926 to the present day to Jewish population in Soviet Union, in harmony with WP:TPOC (point 13: Section headings). Please see Microcontent: Headlines and Subject Lines (Alertbox).
 * —Wavelength (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)]


 * The FSU desk of the JDC is likely to have this information, though I don't know how accessible it is. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. However, I appear to have found what I was looking for. Luckily I can read Russian. :) http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/sng_nac_39.php?reg=1 Futurist110 (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

US Greencard for Estonians and Mexicans
I read in a TIME Magazine article about illegals a month or two ago that the U.S. only allows 25,000 (apparently non-family related) Greencards to be issued for each country of birth per year. Thus, they wrote that it's much easier for an Estonian-born person in my scenario to get a Greencard than a Mexican-born person, due to their huge differences in population. Futurist110 (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * [I am revising the heading of this section from How Hard it is to Get a United States Greencard for an Estonian-born person relative to a Mexican-born person, assuming that both of them do not have any sufficiently close relatives in the U.S.? to US Greencard for Estonians and Mexicans, in harmony with WP:TPOC (point 13: Section headings). Please see Microcontent: Headlines and Subject Lines (Alertbox).
 * —Wavelength (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)]
 * [This revision was made by the original poster at 20:35, 28 July 2012.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)]


 * That's odd. What I'm finding on US government websites is that there are four ways to get a green card: through family, a job, as a refugee, or other. Other is things like being from Haiti or Cuba or special categories of refugees etc but it does include the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program, which is: 50,000 visas available annually, drawn from random selection from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States." That's certainly a lot less than 25,000 per country, and there is not a set number per country. In addition, Mexico is not considered a qualifying country for the program, though Estonia is (so perhaps for people who qualify no other way, you can say Estonians do have a better chance). In 2012, there were 2,294 applicants from Estonia and 14,768,659 overall. 184.147.121.51 (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not just the difference in population that is significant - the desire to move to the US is going to me much less in Estonia than in Mexico. The US borders Mexico and has a large Hispanic population. If Mexicans want to move somewhere with better economic prospects, then the US is the obvious choice. For Estonians, the obvious choice is somewhere else in the EU, since they don't need any kind of visas or work permits, and they are much closer. While Estonia has about 1% the population of Mexico, I imagine it has much less than 1% the number of people that want to move to the US. --Tango (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I have some relatives in Estonia, which is why I'm asking this question. They do not have Estonian citizenship due to the stringent requirements for citizenship there, especially for ethnic Russians (they are ethnic Russians). Thus, they cannot move to other EU countries and permanently live in those countries. I think they (or at least some of them) might be interested in moving to the U.S. if they'll get this opportunity. Futurist110 (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

http://www.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,2117243-3,00.html

Here's the article itself, but it might only be viewable for subscribers. Anyway, here's the relevant part:

"Obtaining a green card means navigating one of the two principal ways of getting permanent legal status in the U.S.: family or specialized work. To apply for a green card on the basis of family, you need to be a spouse, parent, child or sibling of a citizen. (Green-card holders can petition only for their spouses or unmarried children.) Then it's time to get in line. For green-card seekers, the U.S. has a quota of about 25,000 green cards per country each year. That means Moldova (population: 3.5 million) gets the same number of green cards as Mexico (population: 112 million). The wait time depends on demand. If you're in Mexico, India, the Philippines or another nation with many applicants, expect a wait of years or even decades. (Right now, for example, the U.S. is considering Filipino siblings who applied in January 1989.)"

Is this article wrong? I want to make sure. Futurist110 (talk) 04:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If the Time Magazine article is wrong, I'm seriously surprised that they made such a big mistake when writing it. Futurist110 (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not an expert, but I think the article is right. There's a total limit on how many green cards per country of births they issue each year. But you must also qualify in one of the approved ways, e.g. by family, or through getting an H1-B, or something else. If you do qualify for a valid reason, you go into the queue, and they only issue those 25K cards per country per year, so it can take several years to get processed, if you are unlucky to be from China or India or Mexico, I imagine. There's also a lottery which is a separate thing, and other ways around the process for special categories of people. --50.136.244.171 (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. As for family, one needs to be a brother, parent, or sibling of the individual who's sponsoring him/her, right?--not a cousin or nephew/niece or anything like that. Futurist110 (talk) 01:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

does choice make something more powerful
is a magnetic field more powerful if it has an off switch (generated) versus just being a magnet just sitting there?

my thinking is that I would not want a position of great power if in fact I had no choice in what to do. that's not real power - real power is your choice affecting others. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You are talking about an electromagnet versus a permanent magnet, in which case the electromagnets can be far stronger. I don't understand how this relates to political or military power.   StuRat (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've updated my question to reflect that I meant ceteris paribus. The relation between political and military power is obvious: we call it "power" because of the wielder's ability to affect the world in some way.  The presence of the magnet does so as well.  My question is whether it is any less powerful if the effect is not subject to a "choice" or switch - the magnitude of the effect itself being the same. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If you have what you call "great power" but have no choice in whether or not you exercise it, then surely you're the agent of some higher "power". You're a puppet and you have no power at all.  You have no more power than a gun.  It cannot choose to fire itself, propelling a bullet to a high speed and penetrating an object such as someone's body.  Only the holder of the gun has that power.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  22:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That is interesting. The specific example I was thinking, is a single man who with a couple of years of education and nothing but thought and academic publication is able to alter history.  (e.g. inventing cheap household fusion, whatever).  But in fact he doesn't control what thoughts he has - he can only (e.g.) cause the world to have a cheap fusion plant in each house (just because it's so darn easy and useful), he's not a businessman and can't do anything but publish.  So he can change 7 billion people's lives pretty dramatically (due to what household items are possible with free electricity) OR he can not publish and then not even get tenure.  He has no other power - despite his "vast" power.  That doesn't make him very powerful, in my opinion. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * A gun that goes off by itself at random or regular intervals produces considerably more physical power than a well-controlled gun, but is certainly much less politically powerful. Therefore, the electromagnet analogy is probably unhelpful. 207.224.43.139 (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * But I really meant that the equal amount of physical power is produced. I should have specified that the two produce an equal number of fers - or whatever you measure magnetism in - but one has a switch and one is always on. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. it's apples and oranges. You might as well ask "How can I improve my security the most, by installing anti-virus software or a deadbolt ?". StuRat (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought my analogy was pretty clear... Suppose for example that it is true AIDS had a patient 0 who had intercourse outside species; that person ended up exerting an extremely powerful effect on tens of millions of people, you could say half a continent. (sub-saharan africa).  Obviously the idea to "give ten million people AIDS" is huge (negative) power.  But unlike some villain, that guy didn't have a choice to do that - for all he knew, he was just banging an ape. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * True enough. When Archimedes said "give me a place to stand and I can move the Earth," he had a lever in mind. 207.224.43.139 (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This entire discussion is nonsense, more of a half-baked philosophical soapbox than an actual question, but I feel compelled to point out that the hypothesised origin of HIV is people eating apes and monkeys, not "banging" them. FiggyBee (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not exactly eating them, but being bitten by them or other blood contact with bush meat. What does this have to do with electromagnets? μηδείς (talk) 04:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Perfect example. Suppose the species-jump came at one point in one bite.  That bite had a powerful effect on the world, then.  If the guy had gotten a fortune cookie "You will have a powerful effect on the world" it would be been correct (..."by being bitten by a monkey" is too much specificity to ask of a fortune cookie).  But how powerful is this guy, really, compared with someone who has a choice of what to do? 84.3.160.86 (talk) 09:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That bite didn't just occur at one point. It occured in time, and since the Sun shines upon Earth, 2 – major Time points are created on opposite sides of Earth – known as Midday and Midnight. Where the 2 major Time forces join, synergy creates 2 new minor Time points we recognize as Sunup and Sundown. The 4-equidistant Time points can be considered as Time Square imprinted upon the circle of Earth. In a single rotation of the Earth sphere, each Time corner point rotates through the other 3-corner Time points, thus creating 16 corners, 96 hours and 4-simultaneous 24 hour Days within a single rotation of Earth – equated to a Higher Order of Life Time Cube. In 1884, meridian time personnel met in Washington to change Earth time. I am flabbergasted that the "big brother" hired pedants can brainwash and indoctrinate the powerful antipode human mind to ignore the simple math of 4 simultaneous 24 hour days within a single rotation of Earth, to worship one and trash three. This a major lie has so much evil feed from it's wrong. No man on Earth has no belly-button, it proves every believer on Earth a liar. Your dirty lying teachers use only the midnight to midnight 1 day (ignoring 3 other days). Is Wikipedia a Singularity Brotherhood controlled Trojan Horse indoctrination - that edits Time Cube to a negative view? Who edits the Time Cube on Wikipedia? Gene Ray (talk) 14:10, 303 July 2012 (FSD) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.170.127.234 (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but, uh... what? Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 10:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Click on the user's name and you'll see he's blatantly promoting his own website, which I am sure is prohibited behaviour. --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  20:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a religion, but a pretty dumb one as it doesn't incldue Tithing. Gene Ray, if you calculate why the time cube means people should give us 5-10% of their money so we can promote the truth, I'll join your cause.  Since I came up with the idea I would like to be treasurer  Contact me on my userpage. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 09:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Prank calling on 911
Is it punishable offense? In the USA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiantBluePanda (talk • contribs) 21:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, varying from a fine to imprisonment, for repeat offenders. StuRat (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Or sometimes just a warning and/or citation. I was accused of abusing 911 once when I reported a malfunctioning crosswalk signal back in the payphone era, but when I called back on the non-emergency number to the same dispatcher and asked to be connected to the traffic engineer, I was treated with considerably more respect. 207.224.43.139 (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If the sign was telling people to walk into traffic, then I'd agree that this was an emergency, as someone was likely to be injured or killed in short order. StuRat (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It was just disconnected or otherwise unresponsive, not allowing anyone to cross, at a T intersection where it was the only thing that would change the lights short of a car turning left from the perpendicular. I stood there for at least ten minutes.... 207.224.43.139 (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * When calling 911, it's important to be brief and to the point. The only times I've called 911 were when I was on a rural highway and there was a road hazard of some kind. I called 911 and immediately said this was not necessarily an emergency, I only wanted to report a road hazard. They either took the info or patched me through to the appropriate desk. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, but if it is an emergency, dispatchers prefer that you start with your location, and then the emergency. If you get cut off after "Someone just shot a person..." they can do a lot less than with "I'm at First and Main...." 207.224.43.139 (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. But I want to first inform them that it's not particularly an emergency, but something that someone should deal with. Then I tell them what mile marker it was on the highway. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've called 911 twice in the past year. Maybe I live in more of an emergency-prone area. (Once for an unresponsive man slumped on the street in January when it was twenty below zero; one for a gas leak. Both IMO real emergencies.) --NellieBly (talk) 06:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * In other countries also, there are penalties for misusing the emergency telephone number. Eg in Queensland, Australia (where the emergency number is 000), the penalty is a fine of up to $7500. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note the exchange rate to get a better idea of that amount. --70.179.170.114 (talk) 05:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Congratulations to Mitch on actually providing an article and a link. I was going to hat this as fruitless chat rooming otherwise.  The questioner might also find Prank_call helpful.  μηδείς (talk) 04:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * And, since that would yet again be an inappropriate hatting on your part, I, or somebody else, would have immediately reverted it. StuRat (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Is it punishable? And if it wasn't, you would do it? Shaking my head... (now of course, I'm not accusing you of that, you may just be curious... Just seemed like a weird question to me). -- Activism  1234  05:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * All emergency calls are recorded and are admissible as evidence in courts in the United States. Basically, you need to hope that the police in your local area are so busy that they cannot spare enough time to chase you down, as there is just about no way in which you can disguise your voice that current technology can't identify you just the same.


 * On the other hand, there are a great many federal criminal offences in the United States which are not enforced. it is a Federal CRIMINAL offence to possess a lobster for example. If you annoy them enough, they will track you down even if they can't do it until many years later on. Penyulap  ☏  15:20, 29 Jul 2012 (UTC)


 * I watched the video. No it is not a criminal offence to possess a lobster, and nor does he say it is.  Good video though! FiggyBee (talk) 01:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Suppose One call an emergency number from a online VoIP site connected through anonymous proxy, then is it possible that they would make full efforts to catch the pranker ? GiantBluePanda (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As with any offence, they will weigh up the benefits of investigating the offence against the costs of doing so. What conclusion they will reach in any particular situation is not something we can help you with. I will point out that the main downside to prank emergency calls is not getting prosecuted - the downside is that you might be responsible for someone dying because you were wasting the time of the person that could have saved their life. --Tango (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

This is the Wikipedia reference desk. Wikipedia reference desk. Wikipedia has an article on that. See Prank_call among other things. μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)