Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 July 2

= July 2 =

Liquor Store Laws
I'm 19 and my girlfriend just turned 21. Am I allowed to accompany her into a liquor store while she makes a purchase? We're in Pennsylvania if that's applicable. Thanks 71.175.59.53 (talk) 22:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you use any style of jump in high jump?
I was watching this:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=nnIyjqcOUr8&feature=related

10 seconds in surprised me with how high he got. It appears as if it's 2m - 2.5m. With good high jumping shoes and small style adjustments it could be even better. Would this be allowed? --81.100.112.56 (talk) 00:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Saying that any style is acceptable may run afoul of issues, but you may certainly use unconventional techniques in the high jump. The Fosbury Flop hasn't always existed, for instance. I should also note that the gymnastics surface in the video appears quite springy, which isn't the case for the high jump. &mdash; Lomn 00:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * On further investigation, that style would be disallowed. High jump competitors must take off from one foot. &mdash; Lomn 01:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! --81.100.113.139 (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Branislav Ivanovic = Brother of Ana Ivanovic?
Is Branislav Ivanovic the brother of Ana Ivanovic? Both are Serbian people with the same surname, but t is not stated on their articles about their relationship. So are they realy siblings?--203.124.2.18 (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Possibly not - the Ana Ivanović article says she has "a younger brother, Miloš", which slightly suggests she has no other siblings. Also, she was born in Belgrade whereas Branislav Ivanović was born in Sremska Mitrovica.--92.40.81.160 (talk) 08:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ivanovic is a very common name in Serbia. Going on the name alone, it would be highly likely that they're not closely related.  --  JackofOz (talk) 11:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, just like Yankovic: Jelena Yankovic and Weird Al Yankovic are not related. Or maybe......14:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, we have to be careful with language with this subject. All humans are ultimately related to each other, so you can't say that any two people are "not related" without engaging in terminological inexactitude.  What we're saying is that 2 people with the same surname do not necessarily have any identifiable or close blood or marital connection.  I see 3 scenarios:
 * Identified and close : e.g. siblings
 * Identified and distant : e.g. 23rd cousins 18 times removed (which means that for all practical purposes they're not considered to be related, even though they actually are); or
 * Unidentified : because of our lack of genealogical skills and/or the absence of relevant records, they might have no identifiable relationship at all. But this is not a reason to believe that such a relationship doesn't exist.  We just haven't found out what it is yet, and may never be able to find it.  --  JackofOz (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ivanovic is like Johnson, isn't it? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Guava
I have a guava tree in my kitchen garden. However it is attacked by bats which eat away all its fruits. How do I get rid of the menace? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumalsn (talk • contribs)


 * I imagine 'getting rid of the menace' would be much more difficult than protecting your tree. This may appear naive but you ought to be looking for some sort of net that you can put over the tree when the fruits begin to ripen. This assumes your tree is small enough to cover easily and the cost of a suitable net is within reason. Richard Avery (talk) 06:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Sumalsn. In some places bats are protected by law. Here in the UK "all bats are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Acts, and even disturbing a bat or its roost can be punished with a heavy fine." I don't know whether there are similar laws in India but it might be worth checking in case you were thinking of taking action directly against the bats.--92.40.81.160 (talk) 08:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can't net the whole tree, try plastic bags or netting over the bunches of fruit. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

or glass-bottles then you could have a guava-fruit in a jar thing like those apple/pear in a jar things you get! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can get a bat predator. Says: "Numerous anecdotal observations have revealed a wide range of predators for bats. Raptors and owls approach bats and often catch them in flight. Opossums and snakes may wait close to roost sites or attack fruit-eating bats when they approach trees loaded with ripe fruits. Presumably to lessen the risk of being caught by predators such as owls, some bats are known to drastically reduce their activity level during bright nights around full moon (lunarphobia)." -LambaJan (talk) 13:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Dragon/Knight Riddle
A dragon and knight live on an island, which has seven poisoned wells, numbered one through seven. If you drink from a well you can only save yourself by drinking from a higher numbered well. Well number seven is located at the top of a high mountain, so only the dragon can reach it. They decide the island isnt big enough and they have a duel. Each of them brings a glass of water to the duel, they exchange glasses and drink. After the duel, the knight lives and the dragon dies. Why? I've asked a few people and they don't know XD Any ideas are much appreciated. Thanks, Kilo  T  14:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Are we allowed to assume that the dragon doesn't bring water from well number one? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think we're allowed to assume that the knight is cleverer. Hint: if you were the knight, what would you bring in your glass (knowing how the dragon would react to what it expects you to bring) and how would you prepare for what you expect the dragon to have in its glass? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Here we go - We'll assume that the knight thinks the dragon is going to give the knight from well 7, so just before the duel the knight drinks from the well numbered 6, poisoning himself (and keeping a little extra to give to the dragon), then when the dragon givs the knight well 7 water to drink this cures the knight, allowing him to live. On the dragon dying stance i'm going to say that the dragon was far too tired to go back up to well 7 (it's a long way you know) after already being up there once, so didn't get the antidote and died. -Benbread (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Why would the dragon bring the only drink that would cure the knight? The dragon would surely bring a drink from well 6 because it knows that it can always reach well 7 but the knight never can, therefore by making the night drink well 6 the knight will never be cured, whereas the dragon can just go to whichever well is required after drinking the first drink and be cured. Am I missing something (sorry just reworded my answer a bit)? 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh wait I see - if he pre-drinks a well then the higher-numbered well has no poisoning affect - only acting as a cure? If that's the case then the knight must simply pre-guess the dragon's choice and pre-drink from a lower-numbered well, that way provided the dragon brings a higher-well number down he will be making what was a poison a cure, and then whatever he gives the dragon would require the dragon to go get a drink from a higher-well. The problem here is like benbread said we have to assume that there isn't sufficient time for the dragon to get the cure (since he can access all the wells). Not a good riddle i don't think 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If the knight brought a higher numbered water than the dragon then on exchange he would drink from a low value glass. A drink from a glass leaves content, so the knight at once grabbed the glass the dragon has drunk from. This is a higher number than the one he drank from. So he is saved. AND this is a dual not a drinking contest, so the knight used his weapons to prevent the dragon reaching a well - or perhaps just killed him outright.86.197.172.94 (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)DT

Good day. The knight could have brought the water from the higher numbered wells. That would seem more likely, at least to me. So the knight grabbed water from a lower level well and a higher number well knowing the dragon would probably get water from a low level well. Then during the duel the playing field is equal you have two glasses of poison and one glass of cure. Either that or the dragon brought a higher level well water thinking the knight would only bring lower levels. Even so I think that there were two glasses of poison and one glass of a cure. I hope I have helped. I know sometimes my answers can be a bit confusing so I hope this one isn't. Have a positively wonderful day.Rem Nightfall (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * At this point I'd be more interested to see the purported "solution". Much as Benbread has laid out above, I see no answer that assumes rational players without stepping into "one has time to get poisoned and then cured, but the other doesn't." &mdash; Lomn 16:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I figured it out: Before the knight comes to the duel, he drinks from Well 1. The dragon chooses to give him the water he knows the knight isn't going to be able to cure, i.e. from Well 6, which actually cures the knight. The knight gives the dragon normal (i.e. not from any of the wells) water. The dragon, convinced he is poisoned, drinks from Well 7, gets poisoned, and, since there is no well higher than 7 with which he could cure himself, dies. 80.123.210.172 (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A brilliant answer. I am convinced.  Plasticup  T / C  17:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not. Where does the non-poisoned water come from?  The dragon knows good and well that the non-poisoned salt water doesn't require a drink from Well 7 to cure. &mdash; Lomn 17:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say anywhere that there aren't any other fresh water sources on the island. The knight and dragon don't normally drink from the poisoned wells, they're just doing it for the duel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.123.210.172 (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, we're just adding silly content to change the parameters of the riddle to fit a proposed solution. Alternately, we've abandoned the notion of rational actors.  Why can't the dragon engage in the same trickery?  "The knight is smarter" is wholly uninteresting. &mdash; Lomn 17:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm adding silly content because the riddle is completely idiotic. There is no viable solution that I can think of without adding content. Is this just some elaborate hoax? 80.123.210.172 (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

(Rm indent)Yes, the riddle is flawed. The answer I had in mind is the same as 80's above (except I said that the dragon will give the knight water from well 7 - same thing, really). We have to assume that the dragon is silly and would expect water from some well. And I used the fact that they're on an island to assume that there's an abundance of non-poisoned water (it would have been quite obvious if the asker spellled this out). But I'm pretty sure that that's what the asker had in mind. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the riddle is flawed at all. The fact that they "live" on the island proves that there must be drinkable water for the knight somewhere. I don't think that qualifies as added content; on the contrary, the only way we could have a situation without a drinkable well is if the riddle specified that there was no such thing or at least said that they'd recently been stranded there somehow. I came to a similar solution and I think it's a lot more sensible than the crap that often gets floated around as "riddles" on the net. Matt Deres (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the existence of non-poisonous water as well as the dragon's ability to taste salt are clutching at straws. I called it flawed because we have to assume that the knight is cleverer and riddles usually specify if the players are not rational or not equally intelligent. But now that I think about it, the riddle did mention that the knight won so the assumption is not unreasonable. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My chief problem with an answer like that (specifically, the knight being more intelligent) is that it eliminates the notion of a singular answer. Once disparate intelligences are supposed, why not just say that the dragon was dumb and brought well 1 water?  Or that the knight attacked the dragon's vulnerable throat when it tilted its head back to drink?  Or that the knight had, in fact, spent years in Australia developing an immunity to iocain powder?  All of these "solve" the riddle, and all alter the premise less than adjusting the central puzzle of the riddle by introducing unspecified water sources. &mdash; Lomn 19:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but I still prefer the given answer. The riddle is specifically designed to seem to favour the dragon (having access to well #7), but states clearly that the knight won the duel. The "good" answer should account for the result while only playing with the variables given (in this case, the order of drink). While you feel that the outcome removed the possibility of a singular answer, I think it's provided the single reasonable answer. Having the dragon be stupid and bring water from well #1 would only account for the knight surviving, not the death of the dragon. The dragon can only be killed (I think) if it is tricked in the manner described. Matt Deres (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, we could assume that the duel involves standing around until one of them falls over dead (maybe you only have 30 seconds to drink from another well and they only have the two carrying vessels), in which case the only way to protect oneself would be to pre-drink. If that's the case, then the knight raced to Well #1 as soon as the duel was called, camped there to keep the dragon from pre-drinking from it and from bringing it to the duel, and then left with a glass of its water at the last second, hoping that the dragon wouldn't sneak out of the bushes and fly to the duel faster than he could run.  He also must hope that the dragon didn't collect water before the duel was called.


 * I don't buy the argument that there must be drinkable water somewhere on the island. We could say that the knight's morning routine is to take his glass over to Well #1, fill it, walk to Well #2, drink Well #1's water from the glass, then immediately drink from Well #2.  And likewise for the dragon.  --Prestidigitator (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Doesn't anybody have a problem with the dragon bringing a glass of water to the duel in the first place :-)} ?? Once you accept that, then 80.123 and Matt Deres have the basic keys. Ignore the knight for a moment; he's adequately dealt with.  Then:
 * What is the only scenario in which the dragon must die -- i.e., the only scenario in which there is no antidote? He has to drink from 7.
 * The knight can't give him water from 7, therefore he has to drink it himself.
 * If the knight gave him water from 1-6, drinking 7 cures him. Therefore, there must be nontoxic water on the island.
 * No other scenario forces the dragon to die, right? --Danh, 63.231.163.123 (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The other scenario that forces the dragon to die is that it drinks no water after the duel drink. Actually the answer is that the problem needs to be stated much better.  For example, must the second drink be consumed immediately after the first to cancel the toxic effects?  Nothing in the problem actually stated that the successive drink from the higher-numbered well didn't also need to be cured, so a simple interpretation of the problem statement leaves them both doomed as soon as they take their first drink, for where is Well #8?  This doesn't seem to be a very useful assumption, but I think the one about the duel drink being their last (before the life/death determination) is a reasonable one, and gives a sure answer to the problem as well (as I stated above).  --Prestidigitator (talk) 08:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The dragon died of old age and the knight drank the brew that is truehotclaws 13:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Toast vs Bread: Calories
Whilst making some toast this morning, as if often the case, my mind drifted away from the charred wheat product i was about to indulge to more serious matters: Namely, which has more/less calories and is "better for you", Toast or Bread (commonly known as antitoast)? Here's my reasoning; When being toasted the bread is exposed to heat which causes the bread particles to become excited (and here's where my theory could be proved null) and presumably an exothermic reaction occurs, probably to do with all that tasty tasty starch being reduced to carbon. But then i though, what about warm toast? Warm toast is generally much hotter than that of the human body so energy in the form of heat must be transferred to the body, resulting in additional energy (just as drinking lots of cold water burns calories). But then, as the smoke alarm started to sound i was struck with a third conundrum; What about the increased hardness and general crunch-factor of toast, surely that would result in more energy being required to process and therefore less calorie gain? It's a dilemma, Wikipedia, so i'm hoping some toast connoisseur could spread some light on it. (Get it, spread? eh?) -Benbread (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As per there's no difference in the calory content of bread and toast. Hail Wiki! 125.21.243.66 (talk) 14:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The calory content of bread/toast doesn't change based on weather it's crunchy or soft, or warm or at room temperature - it only causes a negligible change in the calories consumed to ingest it. Toasting doesn't convert starch to carbon, it only dehydrates the bread somewhat. Hail Wiki! 125.21.243.66 (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But what if you're a particularly bad chef and whilst cooking set the toast alight due to overcooking resulting in a completely charred mess that has been extinguished due to there being nothing left to burn? Hail Benbread (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... that would be interesting. AFAIK that should cause a decrease in the caloric content, since some of the oxidation that was supposed to happen inside the body occurs outside and the residue on ingesting doesn't give that much energy (or may even be undigestible). 125.21.243.66 (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Something else to ponder . -- LarryMac  | Talk  14:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Haha LOL 125.21.243.66 (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Toast absorbs more butter or margarine than bread - that's part of the point of toast. So your total calorie intake will be higher if you choose toast. On the other hand if you don't like bread as much as you like toast, you might be tempted to spread a lot of nutella, jam or lemon curd on the bread, in which case that would be the higher-calorie option. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Zune
I have the old model 30 GB Zune. I use it at least 6 hours a day, every day. I usually have it connected to my PC via USB so the battery is always charged. I am now noticing something strange. The battery life at the corner of the Zune is red. I have never seen this before. Can someone tell me what this means? I don't have access to the internet (outside of Wikipedia..), so I apologize for what may be perceived as lack of foot work on my part. --Endless Dan 15:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC) "Make sure that you have the device connected to a high-power USB port. For optimal charging, the Zune device requires at least 500 milliamps (mA) of power. Frequently, USB ports that are located on the front of a computer and on some USB hubs are low-power, 100-mA ports. Typically, the high-power, 500-mA USB ports are on the back of the computer. Additionally, when you suspend the computer or put the computer to sleep, high-power USB ports may be switched to low-power, 100 mA mode." from zune.net - one possibility87.102.86.73 (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What do the 'charging icons' say? eg from zune.net again

87.102.86.73 (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The device displays the home screen or full-screen charging icons. See Resolution 1.
 * The device displays the home screen, follow these steps. See Resolution 2.
 * The device displays full-screen charging icons. See Resolution 3.


 * Since you use the Zune so much, it's entirely possible that the battery is simply not working at the efficiency it had when the device was new. The fact that you let it charge continuously may also be contributing to the issue; I know that some other electronic devices such as laptops may lose some battery capacity if they are continuously being recharged.  --Several Times (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

What is it called?
What is it called when an image is placed on a black background, usually with a white border, and a funny caption below it? I see this a lot of websites and forums. What it it's origin? Examples:   79.75.179.174 (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Motivational poster. --Sean 17:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you may be looking for LOLCats. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You are definitely looking for the image macro, or a specific form of it at least. --Several Times (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think LOLCats came before Yotsuba's motivational posters, and I wouldn't be surprised if there's ones that came before that too. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Since the OP mentioned that it has a funny caption, it is perhaps a demotivational poster- a mock of motivational posters. Acceptable (talk) 04:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

They are called Successories, both the motivational and funny ones. Peace. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 06:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Are dogs prostitutes?
could I say that dogs are prostitutes, since they like us as long as we provide shelter and food to them, but they never provide us with food and shelter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.59.90.236 (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not unless they are having sex with us... DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well in that case my dog is definately......eh....you could say it was a parasitic relationship. But since we benefit (by getting affection), it could be symbiotic moreso. Fribbler (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Temple Grandin, an animal behavior scientist, has said that dogs have probably lived in a symbiotic relationship with humans from the time that we bacame humans. They provided protection and probably assisted in hunting for food and in protecting crops. They also "provided shelter" by driving off animals or people who might have decided to take our shelter for their own use. In more recent millenia they have continued to serve in hunting, protecting, herding, and in search and rescue, as well as being trtained as service animals such as guide dogs for the blind. "Symbiotes" or employees would thus be a good descriptor of many dogs throughout history. There are also dogs which just provide companionship. See also "Eulogy of the dog," by George G. Vest, September 23, 1870, 1 U.S., Congress, Senate, Congressional Record, 101st Cong., 2d sess., pp. S4823-24 (daily edition). Try substituting the word "prostitute" for "dog" in the passage and see if it makes as much sense. Edison (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In any case I don't know how you'd get "prostitutes" out of them. Prostitutes refer specifically to sex workers—the return of sex in exchange for resources. "Happiness" and "sex" are not the same thing. --Fastfission (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sort of, except you don't have to pay dogs to have sex with them.87.102.86.73 (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * example http://www.meancheese.com/pictures/bangkok/dogs3.jpg note the url - bangkok QED.87.102.86.73 (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * what about pimps http://blog.meevee.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/11/21/dogs.jpg you bet.87.102.86.73 (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * They do provide food. Heck they even fight for your country. As for me, my dogs and I have a symbiotic relationship. We feed and take care of them while they provide companionship and an early warning device.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 21:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I take it you mean "prostitute" figuratively as in "a person who misuses their talents or who sacrifices their self-respect for the sake of personal or financial gain" – as if a dog might be a careerist speciesist opportunist. If you make it wider, there's an economy of exchange in there, companionship, protection, hunting skills and alarm notice for food and shelter and a reasonable amount of exercise. So there were times when breeds were kept to provide food as well. In Animals in Translation, Temple Grandin says wolves likely taught humans to co-operate with each other, and that dogs fit into human groups because they're a pack animal that expects a pecking order with allocated responsibilities. You'd have to ask a dog if it's been a fair exchange. A lot of the time it looks like sacrificed self-respect to me. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think dogs have a concept of self respect.87.102.86.73 (talk) 12:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not? They are reasonably intelligent.  Plasticup  T / C  12:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

animals
do animals have heart attacks like humans do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.197.50 (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Well, only those with hearts. Mammals also have cancers, diabetes, glaucomas, etc.  Plasticup  T / C  19:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Videos on iPod
Does anyone know how many Megabytes a 25 minute video takes up on an iPod? I want to download an episode of Family Guy from iTunes, but I have a 4 GB Nano and I don't want to download the episode if it takes up to much space. Thanks! Grango242 (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It should fit. Entire DVDs are often under 4 GBs. --Endless Dan 20:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the OP was worried about one episode taking up too much space, not whether it would fit. If you don't get a good answer here, try the Computing desk. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In my experience, 45 minute shows (i.e. episodes from full-hour slots) take up about 350 MB. I expect that a 25 minute show (which is probably more like 22 minutes if we are talking about a show from a 30-minute slot) would be about 175 MB.  Plasticup  T / C  21:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Grango242 (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What's that song?


Non-profits most profitable prophets
Since many non-profit organizations give exorbitant salaries and other benefits to their senior staff, this seems to bypass the spirit of the law, if not the letter. Recent examples include the Red Cross, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and, of course, a whole range of televangelists orgs which seem designed solely to enrich their leaders by collecting money "for charity" and instead using it to buy luxury cars (Creflow Dollar), private jets and mansions (Kenneth Copeland), etc. So, is there any jurisdiction which imposes a limit on how much money can go to individuals who run the "non-profit" orgs ? StuRat (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In the USA, large non-profits make their finances public via IRS Form 990, so donors can decide whether the administrative overhead is excessive, just like with public companies. Most non-profits run on contributions of (presumably) informed donors, so I don't see the problem.  --Sean 01:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What makes you think Blue Cross Blue Shield is a non-profit organization? -- LarryMac  | Talk  01:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan is a nonprofit, read the 4th sentence in the "Mission" statement on their page: . I'd just assumed this meant all of them were, but maybe not. StuRat (talk) 03:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Wellpoint, which owns/operates BCBS plans in 14 states is clearly a for-profit, publicly traded company. It's not clear to me what the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association is - the article says it's a federation, and their website doesn't really give any clear indication.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  13:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's clearly impossible for the large organizations, like the American Red Cross, to use only volunteer labor. So they're going to have to hire truck drivers, janitors, HR staff, and so forth to operate.  Should the truck drivers be paid a competitive (market) wage for their labor?  How about the Oracle admin?  The middle-managers?  Upper management?  At what point in the organizational hierarchy should the pay become sub-market, and what effect will that have on the quality of people you hire?  (There may be independently wealthy, brilliant people who want to "make a difference" and will work for free.  They'll make great Board members.  That doesn't mean they'll take on the upper-management lifestyle of constant travel, long hours, etc.)  -- Coneslayer (talk) 01:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I never suggested not paying people at all. If you want me to draw a line, I'd say US$100,000 a year in salary and other compensation is a reasonable limit.  I would think there are many CEOs raking in millions a year who would like to retire from their current jobs and lead a major charity, for little or no compensation, as their way to "give back" to the community.  After all, many of these "charities" collect money from people who can barely afford it, so asking the CEO of the charity to "get by" on a six figure salary hardly seems like an unfair sacrifice to expect. StuRat (talk) 02:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The article Non-profit organization warns not to generalize "about the comparative cost of a "nonprofit" versus "for profit" organization; there may be internalized profit in a nonprofit organization" since the distinction is between a company that pays shareholders (profit) and a nfp company that pays stakeholders (profit redistributed in other ways). A charity is something else. In Charitable organization it says, "Charities are all non-profit organizations, however, not all non-profit organizations are charities." Then there's misappropriation and some CEOs notoriously walk away with multiples of 7-figure payouts when a company fails spectacularly, so they don't look like the types to reduce themselves to working for 6-figure peanuts. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a good distinction. I also question whether granting tax-free status to non-charities who pay their execs millions makes sense, but let's limit this discussion to charitable non-profit orgs for now. StuRat (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Julia makes an important point. Harvard University, for example, is a non-profit but not a charity.  If the president of the university makes $100k, what do the deans and department heads make?  How about the faculty?  How will you attract faculty to the schools of business, law, and medicine, given their opportunities in the private sector?
 * Assuming you meant to limit the discussion to charitable organizations, the same reasoning holds. Suppose you're a talented mid-career Oracle DBA, in charge of the Springfield Datacenter of the American Magenta Cross, making $90k, in line with the for-profit sector.  Your boss retires and you get the good news:  You've been promoted to Manager of National Database Operations!  It's a lot more travel, and your Blackberry will be surgically implanted, but don't worry... you'll be raking in $95k for the trouble!  What do you do?  What do you do?
 * The same goes for the CEOs and other upper management. CEOs are interchangeable in the modern business world.  Whether that's a good idea or not, it's the reality&mdash;you don't have to be a "car guy" to run Ford.  If the market rate for a CEO of you org's size is $5M, then what do you expect to get for $100k?  Your question seems like it presupposes that the charity can dictate salary ("asking the CEO of the charity to "get by" on a six figure salary hardly seems like an unfair sacrifice to expect") but they simply don't have that power.  Employees have excellent mobility between the for-profit and non-profit sectors, so the charities are competing in the same labor market as the for-profits.  -- Coneslayer (talk) 11:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course the charity has the power to set the salary of their executive staff to be whatever they want. And certainly there are some people willing to work at a reduced salary for a good cause.  The only issue I see is if there are enough quality people around to fill all the positions needed.  I would guess that there are, but have there been any surveys asking people if they would be willing to work at a reduced salary for a worthwile cause ?  Also, even if the CEO isn't quite as experienced, the extra millions the charity gets to keep and avoiding the PR disaster and resulting withholding of donations from paying millions to a CEO may well be worth it. StuRat (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Many of the world's problems disappear if you get to postulate a large supply of capable people willing to work at below-market rates for a good cause. Given the continued existence of these problems, I dispute the existence of this labor pool.  -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Solving all of the world's probs would take millions of such people, while only hundreds are needed to lead major charities. I believe there are hundreds, but not millions, of such people.  Also, I can't blame people who barely make enough to survive as is for refusing a pay cut, but can find fault with millionaires who refuse a pay cut for any reason. StuRat (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion seems to have drifted from my question, whether any jurisdiction currently limits the compensation of executives at non-profits, to a more general discussion of whether such a law would be good. Can we get back to the original Q, please ? StuRat (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)