Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 April 20

= April 20 =

Coffee, tea, or alcohol.
A friend is curious what would be more culturally appropriate to offer as a drink in this case; a 16 y/o Irish girl has just spent a long day at the hospital with her dad in Belgium, and found out that her father is undergoing probably routine but emergency surgery, say for an impacted gallbladder. Would a fellow Irish businessman, acting as informal guardian, assuming he wanted to offer a pickmeup, offer the girl coffee, tea, or an alcoholic beverage? (Nothing sexual is implied, he's a friend of the family.) This is for a short story, all that is wanted is cultural authenticity in regards to a mood improver. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Tea_culture would imply tea would be appropriate. To wit: "Ireland has, for a long time, been the biggest per-capita consumer of tea in the world."  -- Jayron  32  03:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * According to Legal drinking age, in Belgium, it's "16 for beer and wine, 18 for spirits", so he could legally offer beer or wine, but not hard liquor. In Ireland, the drinking age is 18, so if she's a good girl, she's never had any alcohol in the homeland. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 03:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The author originally had him offer coffee. That struck me as an Americanism, and most kids don't drink coffee that young, and are just beginning to experiment.  Tea seemed right, but I wasn't sure if that was just British. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * In the Irish TV comedy Father Ted, the eponymous priest has a housekeeper called Mrs Doyle who continually pesters guests to the presbytery to drink tea. When one visiting priest tells her that he's allergic to tea and will die if he drinks one drop, he's still not let off the hook. BTW, please remind your friend that tea in these islands is almost universally drunk with milk, none of that lemon malarkey thank you. Alansplodge (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Re your last comment, μηδείς, in the UK (and I would have thought also in Eire, though I have only visited and will stand correction) there is no widespread stigma against teenagers drinking coffee, other than their own personal taste. Of course, most of the coffee consumed here is rather innocuous Instant coffee, not percolated. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't take it as stigmatized, just possibly inauthentic. The author's concern is that she is writing about Irish characters but is not Irish herself.  She has decided tea is the "correct" answer for her purposes.  Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I took a course in Critical Incident Stress Management (helping people to deal with the immediate aftermath of a critical incident, e.g. a death or serious accident) here in Ireland. It was noted that the default setting for almost all Irish people dealing with a serious event is to 'put the kettle on' - that is, to make a cup of tea - and, in fact, we were advised that if we are ever in the position of having to help someone 'defuse' after an incident, we should get tea brewing as a matter of priority. So yes, for the purposes of your story, offering tea would be just right. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Great answer, Mike. I'll pass it on.  But, it's not my story.  If it were my story it'd've been a swig from a flask. μηδείς (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Tea or coffee. Paedophiles have bribed victims with alcohol; and the Irish Roman Catholic Church is in a historic child abuse scandal - about why bishops did not act on allegations against priests and so on. There are fewer circumstances it is appropriate to give any U18 alcohol; even a legal guardian with no perverted interest is aware of how it is perceived. It would be mitigated if there were a female adult present, if it were in the context of a meal or if they both had alcohol. One alcohol which would be completely acceptable would be Irish coffee - filter coffee with an alcoholic component. It is difficult or impossible to abuse, because it costs $5-10, and is so difficult to make that in my experience the bar staff always had to phone the publican. I've routinely had coffee since at least 16. My IP address locates to Lisburn, UK/Ireland. --81.145.165.2 (talk) 11:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

how much profit do mobile manufactureres make?
how much profit do mobile manufaturers make on the MSRP of a product? for example, a Galaxy S5 will cost USD 971 for an end buyer. now out of this USD 971, what percentage goes to Samsung and what to the retailer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorMakingEdits (talk • contribs) 11:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * To US English speakers: This Q is apparently about cell phone manufacturers, not manufacturers that change location frequently. StuRat (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The quick answer is that (according to our Samsung article) Samsung reported profits of $27.6 billion in 2010. How that relates to the profit on individual products would vary enormously and would be very difficult to calculate.--Shantavira|feed me 14:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

that is gross profit. i need to know how much money the company gets by selling a single unit of galaxy s5? --EditorMakingEdits (talk) 03:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * There will be no fixed amount. The unit will be sold at different prices to different wholesalers in different countries, depending partly on the quantity sold, but also on how keen Samsung is to break into a particular market and how good the wholesaler is at negotiating the price down.  Even if you knew this price (which you are unlikely ever to find out because it is commercially sensitive), to find the profit per unit you would still need to proportion out Samsung's manufacturing costs and overheads to particular products.  No doubt Samsung do this internally, but they are unlikely to publish the information.  I suspect that they have actually made a loss on the first few hundred thousand sold, and will not start making a significant profit until the product becomes popular and sales reach a million or so ( mileage will vary depending on product. )    D b f i r s   07:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

People have backtracked and priced components and ended up with, say, 140% manufacturing cost compared to sale price for an iphone. That emphasises how much guesswork there really is. Also, account for shared components with other models, development of the next model, paying debts, currency exchange rates and working practices. Whereas the Dutch go home at 15.30, the South Koreans finish work at probably 20.00. Google might charge for software. Android is open source, but apps like Google Maps are proprietary. --81.145.165.2 (talk) 11:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Religious prohibitions on the celebration of birthdays and holidays
One of the Jehovah's Witnesses' most famous practices is their non-celebration of birthdays, Christmas, Mother's Day, Halloween, New Year's Day, Valentine's Day and other holidays other than the Memorial of Christ's Death (although they do celebrate weddings, anniversaries and funerals). From what I read, this was not one of their founding doctrines (unlike their 606, and later, 607 B.C. date for the Babylonian Captivity); in fact, this doctrine comes only from 1951, long after various splinter groups (both from the Witnesses, and from the Bible Student movement) had formed, and six years after their prohibition of blood transfusions.

Now here are my questions: 1. Do any of the non-JW groups in the Bible Student movement also share this practice of not celebrating birthdays and holidays? 2. Are there any other religions outside of the Jehovah's Witnesses, Bible Study movement or not, Christian or not, or organizations, religious or not, that also share this practice? And among these other groups (if there are any), why do they follow the practice? 3. How did this doctrine develop? Our articles do not mention how the doctrine was formulated, although our article on Jehovah's Witnesses practices does mention that at least some practices are formulated at meetings of the JW's Governing Body; however the Governing Body did not exist in 1951. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Not so much a ban on all forms of celebration of those events, but some types of celebration, like singing, dancing, drinking alcohol, and mixing of opposite sexes, might tend to be banned in some conservative religions. They might even object to strip bars. :-) StuRat (talk) 13:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * However, my questions only refer to prohibitions/discouragements of celebrating holidays and certain forms of occasions, not how they are celebrated. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The only holidays that fall under the scope of religious guidance are religious holidays. If a religion doesn't celebrate that day as holy, it ceases to be a holiday. If it ceases to be, its presence can't be ignored. If a church commands a flock to not observe certain secular customs on particular days, then that forced non-observational practice becomes its own annual religious tradition. To think about not thinking of something requires just as much devotion. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * For your question number 3, there are answers in their article (about holidays) published at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989235.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC) and 15:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * (Note: This only applies to "birthdays", not "birthdays and holidays"). Our Birthday article does have some more information on celebrating or not celebrating birthdays throughout various cultures and religions in general, as well as within Christianity in particular. Some of it is referenced. ---Sluzzelin talk  16:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Only one real answer here, and it refers back to the official page for the religion. No actual answers for the OPs question. Shadowjams (talk) 07:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The Saudi authorities have basically decreed that all celebrations/observances other than Ramadan, Hajj, Eid, and ordinary Friday prayers are un-Islamic (list from memory; I may have missed one). This applies to both Western holidays such as Valentine's Day and a number of Shi`ite holy days... AnonMoos (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Valentine's Day is not a holiday. Not religious, not secular, nothing.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless, Saudi religious authorities are zealous in condemning it as un-Islamic. From past news accounts, stores in Saudi Arabia can sometimes get in trouble for displaying red items in their windows as Feb 14 approaches...   AnonMoos (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Do they condemn the serving of green beer on St Patrick's Day? :)  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Beer of any color is un-Islamic, of course... AnonMoos (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It somewhat depends on what your definition of "holiday" is, but going by definition #1 from Wiktionary, "A day on which a festival, religious event, or national celebration is traditionally observed", the Wikipedia article would disagree with your assessment: "Today, Saint Valentine's Day is an official feast day in the Anglican Communion, as well as in the Lutheran Church." (Though in 1969 it was dropped from the official Catholic calendar.) -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Active Financing Exception and CFC Look-Through Rule
I have received two petitions in the past week or so asking my support to end the "Active Financing Exception" and the "CFC Look-Through Rule." I have never heard of either of them. What are they, and how do they compare fiscally to negative interest on excess reserves? Cc User:Farcaster EllenCT (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll confess I only know a little. Essentially the exception and rule are methods corporations use to pay less in taxes. I don't have any insight here beyond a few minutes searching Google. Here are a couple of sources that look helpful:


 * Seems like a reasonably good explanation here:
 * "The CFC look-through rule, a much broader and more generous exclusion, provides that certain dividends, interest, rents and royalties paid between foreign subsidiaries of the U.S. group, provided not allocable to other subpart F income, will not immediately be subject to federal income tax."[www.icpas.org/WorkArea/downloadasset.aspx?id=3992]
 * "Newly reached fiscal cliff agreement has made it possible for US banks and other large cross-border companies to retain a key tax break covering billions of dollars in foreign income. Multinationals would be allowed after extension of the so-called “subpart F exception for active financing income” to defer paying US taxes on certain financial business deals performed outside the US. The U.S. law imposes tax on that income only when companies brought back to the United States."
 * I suppose if a bank is parking money overseas (avoiding U.S. tax on that) and getting interest from a central bank for excess reserves on deposit with that bank (negative interest on excess reserves), I want to hire that Corporate Treasurer! Farcaster (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Is it racist for someone to call themselves white Canadian/American of European ancestry?
And is it also racist for someone te describe someone with pale skin if they are talking someone they met? Because for example if someone says their college professor is of Japanese descent, is it rude for someone to say for example the person I'm dating is white, has European ancestry or pale skin? Is this culturally acceptable? Venustar84 (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm from the Southern United States, so my situation may be a bit different, but so far as I and probably most of my family and friends would ask in what context.
 * "I'm dating someone (white or European-American), (6'2", 220 lbs, male, brown hair and eyes, late twenties)" would probably not be racist, just merely describing how someone looks.
 * Bragging about dating someone for their race as a matter of status probably is racist, even if it is not actively and malevolently so. There are inactive, unconscious, and (for lack of a better term) "benign" (rather, "less harmful" than "safe") forms of racism.
 * If someone states their race online merely to establish what they look like offline, again, no real harm.
 * If someone states their race online to look for some sort of social credit, I'd be at least concerned unless there's a good reason for them to mention their race (for example, a user mentioning that they're a minority in a discussion on discrimination against their group).
 * That said, there are some individuals who identify as African-American who have paler skin than some people of European ancestry. Many of them would be offended (even if they completely hide it) at being told they "look white."  They may well have some European ancestry as well, and they're likely well aware of it - but pointing that out may be literally the same as pointing out to someone that one of their ancestors was a rapist.  Most multiethnic persons I've met were usually proud to be so, and the issue would come up in conversation if relevant.  Ian.thomson (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * If someone states their race online merely to establish what they look like offline, again, no real harm. - That makes it sound as if it's not really OK to state one's own colour or race, not even in a completely benign context, but it's a victimless crime so you shouldn't lose too much sleep over it. I have to completely disagree with that, which sounds like PC gone mad to the Nth degree.  People are surely permitted to say whatever they like about themselves, as long as it's truthful and doesn't harm or belittle anyone else.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That might be the case if you don't take into account my first statement, that "merely describing how someone looks like" is fine. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, but "no real harm" means there is at least some technical harm even if there's no actual harm. That's what I disagree with.  There's not even any technical harm in stating one's own race or colour in the context we're talking about. It's perfectly acceptable if you want to do that.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "No real harm" doesn't necessarily mean that there was harm, but that if there is harm, it's negligible. At most, it acknowledges the possibility of harm, not the reality of it.  Especially if one pays attention to what I already said for proper context and doesn't look for a reason to argue by putting words in my mouth.  Ian.thomson (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Let us agree to disagree. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's agree to not twist my words out of their given context into something that contradicted other things I clearly stated. You misunderstood what I said despite it not being all that obscure (especially in its context), I clarified it, and you've continued to argue that what I said really wasn't what I said.  That's stubbornly mistaken behavior at best on your part, if not rude. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * For Japanese, they usually say their partner is a 'gaikokujin' (or more colloquially 'gaijin', which contrary to urban legend, is not at all derogatory) - this means 'foreigner'. For someone who is white, specifically, it can be 'hakujin', which literally means 'white person'. 'Kokujin' (black person) is generally shyed-upon, for similar reasons that 'black person' is not used in the US, but used in the UK, quite freely.  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  21:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Speaking of white Japanese foreigners, when Jinsei Shinzaki came to America, he was named "Hakushi". Contemporary TV often called him "The White Angel" and our current article says it means "White Messenger". But Google Translate says it means "white/blank paper". Is there a truly wrong meaning here, or is it a Japanese rhetorical thing (angels deliver messages, messages are written on paper)? And when The Great Muta became Kokushi, is it the same deal, only black? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * No. μηδείς (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

It's never racist to describe reality. To believe otherwise is to subscribe to some weird religion of unreality for some other reason, often a self-serving one. At the point that accurately describing reality is considered a problem, free thought is dead. Shadowjams (talk) 07:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Getting away from the OP's question here, but "describing reality" in certain contexts can indeed indicate racist ideas from the speaker. Consider this conversation: "Dad, I can marry a black guy if I want to- he really loves me and will make a great father for my kids!" dad says, "I doubt it- Black men are six times more likely to end up in jail than white men." See how dad is "just stating a fact", but doing it in order to express his own prejudices. The fact itself isn't racist of course, but how and when you choose to cite various facts says a lot about your intentions. Staecker (talk) 11:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Whether mentioning a particular reality is "racist" or not depends on why one is bringing it up. In the OP's case, stating the race of one's dating partner for no apparent reason might result in a response on the order of "Are you bragging or complaining?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not racist to describe reality, but reality is often the way it is because of racism. E.g. the incarceration rates of black males in the USA is mostly due to institutional racism. See also Racial_inequality_in_the_American_criminal_justice_system. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that "most" incarcerated black males did not actually commit the crime of which they were convicted? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, but there are real differences in sentencing based on race. That is, when two people are substantively convicted of similar crimes, white defendants tend to get proportionally lighter sentences, and tend to avoid prison time at a higher rate.  These studies have a long history in the U.S.  See here for scholarly papers going back decades, and they always come to the same general conclusion: white convicted criminals get more leniency, while black convicted criminals get stricter penalties, when they face substantively the same crime.  -- Jayron  32  18:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * SM referred to the incarceration rate, which I took to mean that a higher percentage of blacks get incarcerated than whites. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * They do, but the reasons for that are multifaceted. It is true that, statistically speaking, a higher percentage of blacks are convicted of crimes in the U.S. than are whites.  But it is also true that, when comparing like crimes, blacks serve longer sentences and face more jail time than whites who commit the same crime.  Your question, "Are you suggesting that "most" incarcerated black males did not actually commit the crime of which they were convicted?" implies that the only explanation for the higher incarceration rate is that blacks are falsely convicted of crimes they didn't commit.  Even if that were not the case (and I'm not saying that it is or it isn't), there are still systemic problems that lead to higher incarceration rates for black Americans than white Americans, including things that happen both before crimes are committed (lower socioeconomic status is correlated to higher crime rates regardless of race; on average blacks are poorer) and after (the aforementioned studies).  Both factors point to problems in the American society at large that need fixing.  -- Jayron  32  11:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I did mean the rate of incarceration, but this has nothing to do with whether a given offender is actually guilty of the crime they are convicted of. E.g. black and white Americans use marijuana at similar rates, but the arrest rate for black Americans is disproportionately high. The rate of incarceration would go down if arrests were proportional to offense, but they are not, see e.g. . (stale thread and off-topic, sorry)SemanticMantis (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)