Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 October 11

= October 11 =

RMS Titanic
Hi!, how are you?, I'd like to know how many Canadians were on board the Titanic. Thank you and have a nice morning! Mark.Iowafromiowa (talk) 11:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Our own Passengers of the RMS Titanic has all of them, but doesn't separate them by nationality (although it is possible to sort them and count them). The Encyclopedia Titanica however does list them - there were only 5 who were born in Canada, but 35 who lived there, and 81 who were travelling there. I suppose these numbers overlap though. You can use that site to look for other nationalities too. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Iowafromiowa (talk) 11:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You can also press the CNTRL and F keys and put in "Canada" that way you can count off the key presses to retain accuracy (instead of trying to remember your placement on the screen). Marketdiamond (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Calculate risk of variable-rate interest loan/mortgage
How do you calculate the risk of variable interests? How do you know the value of an asset (like a house) which has a liability like a mortgage of 25 years with variable-rate mortgage on it? For the bank it's clear that they can charge the basic index + a margin and cover their back. As a borrower, you know that the interest rate can be as high as in the past, but that the past doesn't have to determine the future (thus, the rate can also be much higher than in the past). So, how much reserves should someone plan to cover any contingency? OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You need to make some assumptions about the probability distribution of the future interest rates. Coming up with good assumptions for that kind of thing is very difficult and there have been hundreds of books and papers written on the subject. For most purposes, people just value loans as the current amount outstanding, which essentially means you are using the interest rate on the loan as your discount rate. I don't think many people intentionally hold reserves again their mortage - it would be more efficient to just pay off part of the mortgage. What people actually do is make an estimate of how high their mortage payments could go and make sure their income would be able to cover them (so you don't borrow so much that an increase in the rate would mean you no longer had enough money each month). Those estimates aren't easy to make for the long-term, though.--Tango (talk) 12:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Holding reserves can be a good idea, if the mortgage has low interests (which is the case at the moment) but you are investing the deposit in a higher rate fund or higher paying bond, although this extra margin implies some additional risks. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * When interest rates are low, isn't that the ideal time to get a fixed interest rate loan ? StuRat (talk) 15:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Since the decision fixed or variable depends on the expectation up or down I suppose that you are right. The interest cannot get lower, so go for the fixed interest. But in a real-life scenario that's not always the case. Some banks won't offer fixed interest, some people are already into the mortgage and some people still want to know how do we evaluate variable interest loans. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It will be rare to be able to find something giving low-risk investment returns higher than the mortage interest rate (unless it's a fixed rate mortgage and rates have gone up since you took it out, but obviously that isn't relevant to your question). All returns and interest rates are essentially the risk-free rate plus a premium. The premium on your mortage is going to include an allowance for the risk of you defaulting and a profit margin. To find an investment product with a higher premium, you would need to take on significant risk. --Tango (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * But if someone gets extra unexpected cash, like a bonus, he can decide: will I cancel a part of the mortgage or will I take the risk of some bond (corporate or governmental) and cancel the mortgage next year with the proceedings? But that's only possible if he had some rule of thumb to evaluate the risk of the variable-rate mortgage. For the gov and corporate bond you already have several ratings of credit worthiness.
 * But maybe the answer is as simple as 'it's just speculation. (a gamble).'OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said at the start, you have to come up with some model of interest rates, which is a problem far too difficult to answer here. As I said, there are many books written on the subject. You will generally have to take on very high risk to get an investment return higher than mortgage rates, though, so I doubt it is really worth worrying about, especially with a time horizon as short as one year. Just pay off the mortgage. (I am, of course, talking in general terms. If you are actually trying to make a decision about your own finances, you should speak to an independant financial advisor -they will be able to take your personal circumstances into account, which I cannot do.) --Tango (talk) 11:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't need to come up with a model, you could look at what others with models think. Market expectations of future interest rates can be gauged by looking at, for example, forward interest rate and interest rate swap.90.212.157.32 (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Party registration in the United States
I was trying to find out information about the system of party registration (i.e., where a voter rather than an elected official is described as a "Registered Democrat/Republican"). In the UK the concept simply doesn't exist. You might choose to join a political party, paying dues and possibly having a say on internal matters, but that's a private matter between you and the party just like joining any other private club. There is no concept of "registering" as a supporter of a particular party - or even odder, registering as an Independent - in the way that there is in the US.

Unless I'm missing something, information on Wikipedia seems to be scarce. I found one paragraph here, which at least told me how this happens (at the point when you register to vote), and that it's not the same for every state. But I can't find much more about it. I'd just be intrigued to know stuff like how this system first came about; what the perceived benefit is; why it's used in some states but not others; is it unique to the US or do other countries work the same way; and so on. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well to answer for the U.S. it seems that this will answer how and where it came about and some additional musings from the academic hereand here. The simple answer is that in many jurisdictions and states you can't vote in the Spring primaries without being registered with a party affiliation, big whoop you might say but for the 2012 Republican presidential field it was a big deal and in 2008 you had the primaries almost go into the summer with McCain v. Romney and Obama v. Clinton  . . . not to mention some jurisdictions that are basically one party dominate so that the general election isn't really relevant but the party primary in Spring is the election (again in most you may not primary vote unless you are registered with that party).  As far as registering Independent there are on occasion Independent candidates and even in the mega cities some sitting mayors have broken away from their party for one election cycle to run for the general election in the fall after losing a party primary or knowing they would lose it likehere.  Also some states allow Independents to vote in either party primary.  Marketdiamond (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * it's not an all US thing, some states have this voter registration system and others don't. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The OP said that in their final sentence. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * To add to some of that: Very broadly speaking, the point of registering in the U.S. is that it grants the registree (is that a word? I'm going with it) the right to vote in primary elections, and thus have a say in which candidates appear on the ballot in the general election.  The primary elections are basically the time when the parties choose their candidates.  When you get a ballot in a primary, there are multiple ballots.  Each party has a ballot where you choose from among that party's candidates for various offices.  When you vote, you're choosing which candidates from that party will run in the general election later in the year.  The specific practice varies greatly from state-to-state.  Some states have a closed primary, which means you MUST be pre-registered as a member of that party in order to vote on that party's slate of candidates.  You can still vote on non-partisan races (many Judgeships and other offices are officially non-partisan) and ballot initiatives/referenda but you don't get to vote on the party lists if you are officially "unaffiliated".  Some states have open primaries, which means that registration is entirely meaningless: you still only get to vote in one party's primary or the other, but you simply pick which party when you show up at the polling station, and they give you a ballot.  Other states have a hybrid of the two: basically, if you are registered as "unaffiliated" you get to choose which ballot you want, if you are registered for a party, you get that party's ballot.  And, there are states which don't use primary elections but rather operate on what is called the caucus model (they all used to do this a century or two ago, but I think there's only 3 or so that do it now), Iowa_caucuses covers how the caucus usually runs.  So you can see, it is a complex system.  Ah, the joys of federalism. -- Jayron  32  13:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks folks. Some really interesting stuff there, especially the links that Marketdiamond posted to the history of how it all first came about in Crawford County, Pennsylvania (and it really ought to get a mention in that article). It looks as if the concept of a Primary election, open or closed, isn't unique to the US (though it may have started there. But possibly, the concept of party registration, as opposed to party membership, is. I certainly can't find any evidence of that happening anywhere else. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, in the U.S., party registration is a nearly perfect synonym of party membership. People generally need to be registered members of a party in order to get that party's sponsorship to run for office to represent party, or to participate in party conventions, or anything else like that.  You don't have to pay dues to join a political party, all you have to do is register for it, but I think (and I am just speculating here) that if a party collected dues from its members it would amount to a Poll tax (United States) on voting in primaries (poll tax means a fee charged to vote in the U.S.  It has a different meaning elsewhere).  See Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which expressly forbids the charging of fees for ballot access.  If it cost money to join a party, then that would mean that the parties could control ballot access unfairly in primary elections.  The parties already do control ballot access in the primaries, but how they do so is carefully designed to be equitable under the Constitution.  Using a fee to control that access would be (IMHO) a clear violation of the 24th amendment.  -- Jayron  32  15:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Like the OP, I also am not quite understanding this concept. After reading this thread, I still don't quite understand what the reasoning is for the US Government, or local governmen,t being part of handling the membership rolls of the parties. In most other situations, the US takes separation of state and private organisations much further than most of Europe, but in this case it seems to be the opposite. Why aren't parties seen as any independent organizations that can handle their internal affairs as they like? (Such as the Boy Scouts of America, who are apparently allowed to exclude gay people just because they want to.) Since you are mentioning the 24th amendment, Jayron, are you implying that the dominance of the two current main parties means that you can't get on the ballot without them? Because if I am not mistaken, there are plenty of people running for offices without being part of any of them. Doesn't that mean anybody can get on any ballog? How could e.g. the Republican party (who aren't a government of any level, or an agency thereof) be violating a rule against a "tax"? Aren't they allowed to (like the BSA) accept or reject anybody they like, and charge whatever fees they like? /Coffeeshivers (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "are you implying that the dominance of the two current main parties means that you can't get on the ballot without them?" I won't just imply it. I'll state it right out: Unless you belong to one of the two main parties, you stand almost no chance of getting on the ballot, and significantly less chance of being elected even if you do.  The proof is in the pudding: In the United States, there have been three or four significant "third parties" that have made any national impact: the Constitution, Reform,Libertarian and Green parties.  None of them has "automatic access" to run candidates in any state.  And in all of history, do you know how many candidates from these three parties collectively have been elected to National Office (President, Senator, or House of Rep.)?  Zero.  I've never seen an election anywhere for any national office where someone from any of these parties polled in the double digits, and commonly, even where they are on the ballot, they get less than 1% of the vote.  There are "independent" candidates that occasionally win elections, but in the past 30 years the only one who has done so is Bernie Sanders from Vermont, and that's only because it's Vermont.  Sanders also has the broad endorsement of the National Democratic Party, and caucuses with them in the Senate.  Other so-called "independent" candidates have all been ones who were originally elected with support of one of the two major parties, but "left the party" at some point after gaining national recognition (see Joe Lieberman).  Unless you belong to either one of the two major parties, you couldn't be elected "Dog Catcher" anywhere in the U.S.  Third_party_(United_States) has some background on the myriad ways in which the two major parties maintain a stranglehold on elections in the U.S.  But what it comes down to is that neither of the two major parties has anything to gain by making it easier for smaller parties to have access to getting candidates on the ballot, so they make it as hard as possible.  -- Jayron  32  20:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * More: List of third party performances in United States elections shows that, since 1990, "any elections where a candidate that wasn't a Republican or Democrat obtained at least 5.0% of the vote" and shows how completely rare it is for a third-party candidate to get even that small amount of votes. Since 1990, in any senatorial, gubernatorial, or presidential poll, someone from outside the two major parties has won their election 7 times:
 * Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. was an ex-Republican who ran as an independent after gaining national fame as a Republican.
 * Wally Hickel was the same.
 * Angus King was a true indepedent, with no party affiliation
 * Jesse Ventura was a member of the Reform party with no prior political experience
 * Lincoln Chafee is an ex-Republican who later ran as an independent after gaining national exposure as a Republican
 * Joe Lieberman is an ex-Democrat and one time Democratic Vice Presidential nominee.
 * Bernie Sanders is a true Independent, with no prior party affiliation
 * That's it: 5 governors and 2 senators and never since 1990 has a Presidential candidate from third party won a single Electoral College vote, meaning no such candidate has ever carried a state. And of those 5 governors and 2 senators, only 3 won their elections with no prior party affiliation, that is everyone else had to use the party system to build up enough exposure to strike out on their own.  By my math, that's 302 gubernatorial elections, 300 senatorial elections, and 5 presidential elections over that time frame: so in 607 tries, a third party candidate with no prior party affiliation to work from has won an election 3 times, or 0.494% of the time.  I can't think of another Western democracy where two parties have won 99.506% of every election of the past 18 years.   -- Jayron  32  20:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks for the info. However, while the two dominant parties de facto have a complete stronghold on high level politics, they don't have anyde jure special status. Or do they? And if they don't, how can any membership fees or rules they would (hypothetically) make, be affected by a law against taxes? And how can the government at different levels be involved in their membership management? Maybe not expecting answers that I'll understand to that, a more concrete follow up question would be: Is Green Party, Libertarian Party etc. membership also done by voter registration? Or are those parties, dwarves in size compared to the main two, completely different? (And I don't mean in practice, that I know that they are, but from a legal perspective?) /Coffeeshivers (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, those parties do not run in the Primaries. They nominate their candidates at conventions/caucuses run by their parties in various state and national conventions/caucuses.  So if you are a Libertarian, and want to help select the Libertarian Candidate for an office, you need to go to the local, state, or national Libertarian Convention where the candidate is chosen.  The deal is that in the U.S., there is literally no national election.  Even the President is technically elected by the Electoral College, the members of which are elected by the individual states on state-wide elections according to state laws, with no input from the national government.  There are very few restrictions placed on how states choose to run their elections, so effectively the two parties needn't have any permission or legal allowances at the federal level to maintain their de jure andde facto stranglehold on national politics.  The states are not subject to Federal laws except in a VERY limited number of cases, so machine politics can run rampant in the states and localities.  The federal government just does not get involved in state election laws, so the Parties are allowed to enact election laws which not just set up de facto barriers to third parties, but which de jure deliberately exclude (or set such giant hurdles as to practically exclude) anyone except themselves.  -- Jayron  32  21:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't want to see the case overstated. The Republican and Democratic Parties have no special legal status. If another party wants to have a primary ballot, I see no reason why they could not do it if they meet some minimal threshold of support as demonstrated by a petition. I'm no lawyer, but I find it implausible that any state could get away with treating another party according to different rules than those applying to the Democrats and Republicans (the federal courts would slap that down). The fact is that it's simply part of US culture that third parties are not generally all that popular.
 * The purpose of having the state government handle the list of party registrants is simply one of practicality: when you show up at the polling place on primary election day, the poll workers need to know from their records which ballot to give you (if only registered party members can vote in its primary) or which ballots you can choose from (if independents are allowed to vote in any party's primary).
 * Party registration is a concept that refers to registration with the polling authorities: when you register as a voter in most states, you state a party or none (="independent"). In some states this is meaningless, while in others it signifies what party's primary you can or cannot vote in, as explained above. But party membership is a vague concept in the US, seldom referred to. If someone says that he is a member of a particular party, maybe he means he is registered with the polling authorities that way, or maybe he means he's "a card-carrying member" of that party, probably implying he has contributed money to them and possibly received some sort of certificate in return. But "party membership" is just a vague and unimportant concept. (One exception: back in the 1950s during the paranoia about communism, Joe McCarthy used to haul people before Congress and ask them "Are you or have you ever been a card-carrying member of the Communist Party?" Duoduoduo(talk) 17:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting tidbit in this regard. From today's CNN obituary of politician Arlen Specter:
 * Even though he was a registered Democrat, Specter ran successfully for Philadelphia district attorney on the Republican ticket in 1965 and eventually registered as a Republican.
 * Duoduoduo (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The two dominant parties aren't supposed to have de jure special status but in practice they do. There are many laws that make it easier for "established" parties to participate in elections and harder for new ones to do so. Those laws were written by legislators from the two dominant parties, so there's no surprise there. thx1138 (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Secularization
Can someone provide for me an example or illustrate for me what this quote means from this article secularization?


 * Complete Secularization: this definition is not limited to the partial definition, but exceeds it to "The separation between all (religion, moral, and human) values, and (not just the state) but also to (the human nature in its public and private sides), so that the holiness is removed from the world, and this world is transformed into a usable matter that can be employed for the sake of the strong".

What on earth does the author mean by that? 140.254.227.67 (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure, but it sounds like the author of that quote, Abdel Wahab El-Messiri, is using terms that recall the philosophical tradition of nihilism, the idea that life has no inherent meaning or value. In his opinion, because "complete" secularization removes all external sources of value (religious, moral, etc.) from a person, they become vulnerable to being "usable matter that can be employed for the sake of the strong", meaning that they can easily be influenced by people who want to use them.  I read him as saying "without some sort of externally-given values, people lack any means by which to resist becoming pawns of the powerful".  I don't agree or disagree with what he is saying, but that seems to be what he is saying.  -- Jayron  32  14:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. I'll take it as a negative/pejorative connotation of secularization then. 140.254.227.67 (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the brackets in that sentence don't make sense. Parenthetical material should be capable of being removed, but if you remove the contents of the sets of parentheses, there's nothing left of the second part of the 'separation'. I also noticed that the sentence prefacing this quotation in the article body refers to "the secularization term" instead of to "the term 'secularization'". I wonder if something has been lost in translation?
 * Nevertheless, the concept of complete secularization that El-Messiri is articulating here seems to be one of strict naturalism or materialism - a world-view in which not just religious concepts such as 'faith', 'god', 'dharma', 'tawhid', 'avatara' are meaningless, but also ethical concepts such as 'proper', 'good', 'lawful', 'cruel'. Whether anyone actually holds such a view is questionable, but it is clear he wishes to distinguish the simple separation of religion and nation from the abandonment of the full range of religious and philosophical inquiry and action.AlexTiefling (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "He's a Nihilist" . . . "aw that must be exhausting!" Marketdiamond (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So, that would imply that religious and philosophical inquiry and action have some purpose, do they? Religious and philosophical traditions do have value, do they? 140.254.227.67 (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what he's saying. What he's doing in that quote appears to be a reductio ad absurdum argument.  He's framing secularism as to its inevitable end: if people lack any sort of ethical values at all, then they have no means by which to judge for themselves which people to give their allegiance to, and which to not.  Thus they are reduced from independent actors of their own to tools "be employed for the sake of the strong".  It is a careful warning to not take secularism too strongly, because the sorts of values that religion and things like religion like philosophy and morality and ethicism gives us is itself important for us.  He's not necessarily advocating for a religious world view, but he is also advocating against the sort of extreme nihilism that he equates "complete secularism" to. -- Jayron  32  15:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That reminds me of continental philosophy. I once knew a continental philosopher/English teacher who would agree with that attitude, and I am pretty much influenced with that sort of thinking. She claimed she was a humanist, or specifically a Christian humanist, but it appears that she frames the pitfalls of secularism in its implications in King Lear or the Enlightenment. 140.254.227.67(talk) 15:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This strikes me as not unlike Heidegger's The Question Concerning Technology. Basically Heidegger argues that technology is not a thing but a way of mind, a way of rendering everything into utility and purpose, including (ultimately) man himself, who is in the end just seen as another form of reserve resources for exploitation by the technological worldview. I've never thought of it as a critique on "complete secularism" but there's definitely that to it. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think the quoted text makes any sense because it groups "moral values" and "human values" with "religion" when "moral values" and "human values" bear just as much affinity to the secular sphere as to the religious sphere. Bus stop (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it depends on what you mean by "secular". That's the distinction he's making, between the common definition of "secular" which just means "not religious" and a new term he's coining called "Complete secularism" which takes it an extreme end.  -- Jayron  32  17:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Right; the guy is arguing that secularism means the separation of all values from the activities of the state, which is not most people's definition of secularism. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The creation of the Hebrew calendar
When was the Hebrew calendar created? I know it was a gradual process, but when did the main events in its creation occur? Is it true that it's the oldest calender known? Thanks, Oh, well (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The history seems to be covered in some detail in the Change to a calculated calendar section of the article that you linked. Is there something in particular you wanted to know that's not covered there? Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes – I want to compare its creation date with other calenders to see it it's really the oldest, but the article focuses on changes to different versions of the Hebrew calender rather than prospects to the title "the first version of the Hebrew calender". I wish it had explained in more details its originations, especially with comparisons to other calenders that may have influenced it (similarly to how the Julian calendar influenced theGregorian one). Oh, well (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You've just about exhausted my ability to give any substantial help, but I would note that in looking into this it occurs to me that you really cannot answer the question you're answering without determining a set of criteria by which to determine what "creation" means, so as to distinguish between minor changes to a calendar scheme, which leave it being the same calendar, and more major changes which would cause it to be the creation of a new calendar. If you set those criteria as being the first time humans began to group days into larger and smaller cycles, then calendars which evolved in the same region are all likely to be of the same age. If on the other hand you set those criteria by choosing some particular subset of:
 * number of days,
 * number of months,
 * existence and number of days in the week,
 * number of months,
 * names of days,
 * names of months,
 * whether months have fixed numbers of days or correspond to the lunar month,
 * whether the calendar is a solar annual calendar always beginning on the same solar day or a lunar calendar which is or is not occasionally corrected to match the solar month,
 * how and if years are numbered,
 * and I could probably think of additional criteria if I tried,
 * then the particular criteria that you choose and the importance that you assign to them are going to determine whether a particular change in a calendar creates a new calendar or merely a new version of the same calendar. If you're playing a game of "mine's the oldest" (and I'm not saying that you are, but if you were) then that game is inevitably destined to devolve into a argument over whose criteria are the right ones rather than a real determination of which calendar is older and the oldest, like beauty, will largely be in the eye of the beholder. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "creation" is a bit vague. For example, during certain periods of ancient history, Jews in Israel would assign special watchers who at the end of every month would observe a full moon in the sky and light a bonfire on a hill. This bonfire would be seen by people on other hills, who would light a bonfire as well. The bonfire would spread. This was the form of communication - the way to say "it's a new month." So that essentially was a way to keep track of time and when a new month was, even without setting it in stone. Indeed, the same is true for holidays during the year, as we know that they had (have) set holidays on specific dates to be observed then. There were many calculations involved, and it's likely there was some form of a written calendar, even if not like the final one today. Certainly, the version of their calendar used (and still used) is a lunar calendar, not a solar calendar. -- Jethro  B  23:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The full moon does not occur at the start, but halfway through a Jewish month. You probably mean the observation of a new moon. -09:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Sound the trumpet at the new moon." 86.159.77.170 (talk) 10:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The creation of the Hebrew calendar is traditionally ascribed by Jews to the moment thatthis was said. If you want to know when that was, you'll need to take a deep breath and dive into the cesspit of Exodus dating, because it took place about a fortnight before the Exodus. Modern scholarly consensus seems to place it at earlier than 1440 BCE. --Dweller (talk) 08:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Luka Magnotta
Why isn't he categorized as "Necrophiles" and "Canadian cannibals"?. I can't edit the article because I'm not yet autoconfirmed, but for those who saw the video, it's clear that he practises both things. Thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You should be able to ask that question at the article's talk page. Be careful not to call him names or assert that he is indeed guilty of certain crimes, see WP:BLP for policy. μηδείς (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Until he's convicted of something, such labels are BLP violations and are subject to immediate removal. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Luxury retailers profit protection
I was in a Chanel boutique the other day with my sister and we were browsing the suits, handbags, gowns, jewellery etc. While there I couldn't help but wonder how they protected their merchandise, it seemed very exposed. There was one of each handbag displayed impeccably, with seemingly nothing to stop you from just walking out with it; no security tag or anything. Fair enough, there was a security guard but if the store was ambushed by several thieves, doesn't look as though it'd be particularly effective. --Jewboy 20:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The items usually have a significant markup (>3x) so the brand is worth more than the physical bag. Additionally, such venues usually don't attract theft.Smallman12q (talk) 23:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Probably not a professional thief who wants to quickly turn around stolen items for maximum profit at minimal risk. A kleptomaniac, on the other hand, might steal it. StuRat (talk) 04:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There will have been security cameras as well, so the police can identify the thief and get the product back. And are you sure there were no tags? They may well be hidden inside. --Tango (talk) 11:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Danish throne in 1863
Why didn't Prince Frederick of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg contend for the Danish throne in 1863? He was the senior male in the Oldenburg line and was therefore the first in line heir to the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein. He was also an heir according to agnatic primogeniture to King Frederick III of Denmark, the first absolute monarch in Denmark, that is after the childless daughters of Frederick VI, Princess Caroline of Denmark, Princess Vilhelmine Marie of Denmark and his elderly father (agnatic primogeniture was the alternative option to the Salic law after the end of Frederick III's line in 1863). Also most of his ancestors were Danish, which in an age of nationalism should count for something. --The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * His father's cession of claims associated with the London Protocol of 1852 seem to have taken him and his descendants out of the running for the Danish throne.--Cam (talk) 23:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * But that renunciation doesn't apply to Frederick, or so he claims by the time of the Second Schleswig War in 1864.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In the wars between 1849 and 1864 which split Schleswig-Holstein off from Denmark and attached it to Germany (or, actually, Prussia, which decided to keep it rather than hand it over to Augustenburg), the Augustenburg princes and some of the Gluckburg princes fought on the German (Austro-Prussian) side (hoping a German victory would make them sovereign Dukes of Holstein), making them unacceptable to the defeated Danes as kings. The solution was to give Denmark to Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg officially because (through a series of diplomatically obtained renunciations) his wife was Denmark's rightful heiress, but pragmatically because he was dynastically the nearest Oldenburg who had been born in, raised as and fought with the Danes. So Frederik of Augustenburg didn't pursue the Danish Crown because it was already obvious Danish nationalism would block the claim of a "German". FactStraight (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Why is marginalism such a big improvement over subjectivism in economics?
It is my understanding that the subjective theory of value, has a long history before Adam Smith that can be traced from Aristotle to certain Scholastics and then Turgot and the physiocrats. So the idea that subjective utility, psychological preferences and supply and demand determines prices was advocated long before the Marginal Revolution of Jevons, Walras, Menger.

So my question is what was the big deal about marginal utility? From the wikipedia article it seems that the main thing is that you look at the individual units at the margins instead of the product as a whole. Why is this so much more useful than just saying subjective utility determines prices? Whats the big deal about the "marginal unit"? And why did this change economics so much?

Well, I notice economics becomes much more mathematical after Jevons, so is the main thing that it becomes easier to apply concrete mathematical calculus and quantification to economics?

Can someone explain why subjective marginal utility of the late 1800s was so revolutionary and transformative to the field of economics, compared to old fashioned subjectivism? --Gary123 (talk) 02:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Marginal utility doesn't discuss the problem of value and subjective preference for utility, but discusses the problem of price through the price of the final unit realisable in an effective demand. It had immediate instrumental benefits for attempts to price commodities in finance capital and was widely adopted. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * As Joseph Schumpeter noted in his History of Economic Analysis:
 * The greater influence of the marginal revolution has to do with the paradox of value. The basic gist of the argument is as follows: Since you cannot live long without water, but could go a lifetime without diamonds, surely the subjective value of water should be much greater than the subjective value of diamonds in the mind of any reasonable person. But in the typical marketplace, a bucket of diamonds will carry a greater price tag than a bucket of water. This empirical fact is difficult to reconcile with a naive formulation of the subjective theory of value. So this is where the "subjective marginal utility" enters the explanation. The subjective theory of value is more readily accepted when we frame the above situation in terms of "the subjective value of one additional bucket of water" versus "the subjective value of one additional bucket of diamonds", rather than simply "the subjective value of a bucket of water". Since the typical marketplace actor will have an adequate water supply, but perhaps not a great deal of diamonds, the subjective value of more diamonds could well be greater to him than that of more water, thus explaining why diamonds are more expensive than water. Gabbe (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

American railroads in WWII
Besides Union Pacific, what other railroads were involved in the war effort during WWII?142.255.103.121(talk) 03:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you clarify your Q please ? I doubt if there was any American railroad which didn't contribute to the war effort by delivering troops, ammunition, weapons, vehicles, and/or supplies. StuRat (talk) 04:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * One of the largest corporations on earth up until the early 1970's was the Pennsylvania Railroad and they were the dominant transport for the "arsenal of democracy" Pittsburgh and among the top in the other "arsenal of democracy" Detroit. But StuRat is correct everything from the Santa Fe to the Atlantic Coast Line in Florida played major roles in the war efforts. Marketdiamond (talk) 06:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright. Which other railroads, besides Union Pacific and Pennsylvania Railroad, were involved the the war effort?142.255.103.121 (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Start with List of common carrier freight railroads in the United States and see which ones existed at the time. I picked Duluth, Missabe and Iron Range Railway at random; it states "Ore movement was nearly 45 million tons in 1942 and the War Production Board allowed the Missabe to order ten more Yellowstones, delivered in 1943." Clarityfiend (talk) 22:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Every single solitary one in existence at the time. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)