Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 September 26

= September 26 =

Term for a type of error in reasoning
Let me start with an example of this phenomenon:

"Bring me your biggest, cheapest beer."

It happens when someone assumes that there is one thing that satisfies two (or more) criteria, even though there probably isn't-- in the above example, maybe the biggest beer isn't the cheapest, and vice versa. I just read about this on Wikipedia like a week ago and I don't even know where to start looking. It's not really a cognitive bias or informal fallacy. I think the name has -ism in it, but that's about all I can remember. Attys (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There are two variables. If neither one is given preference then there can be two possible answers (to such a request).


 * You could say bring me your biggest beer or bring me your cheapest beer—unless they happen to be one and the same.


 * What kind of beer, by the way? I'm a big fan of Budweiser. Bus stop (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This doesn't answer the question: It happens when someone assumes that there is one thing that satisfies two (or more) criteria, even though there probably isn't. The superlatives are key, I think. Another example might be: "I'm going to eat the healthiest and tastiest thing on the menu." Perhaps there is no item that is both the healthiest AND the tastiest. Attys (talk) 00:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There are criteria being specified that do not necessarily coincide. But you have already said that, so I am just repeating it. There is a misassumption of commonality of factors when in fact, factors may not occur together. Bus stop (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It is the fallacy of compound question. μηδείς (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Attys (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If you remove the comma from "Bring me your biggest, cheapest beer," it technically wouldn't be a mistake.   Bugboy52.4 ¦  =-=  01:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * And, if you mean cheapest per pint or liter, then the largest size may very well also be the cheapest. StuRat (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Any mistake would be on the part of the wench whose job it is to accurately describe the tavern's fares to the customer were she not to correct any mistaken impressions. 01:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Related failure of logic: "The food at this place is really terrible." - "Yeah, I know, and such small portions." 81.131.53.43 (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No, there are two goals, enjoyable food and the satisfaction of hunger. If terrible means actually inedible, don't eat and refuse to pay.  But if it just means bad enough that you wouldn't order it again (like my Dad's last meal at The Golden Lotus (which he finished in its entirety)) it can still fill you. μηδείς (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I often complain about the food, but am still aghast to see them throw it out.  I will still eat it, but it would be nice to get a partial refund or another serving prepared correctly.  I now eat most of it before I complain, so they can't toss it out.  For example, I once ordered a Whopper, put all the toppings on it, and only then found there was no burger under the lettuce, tomatoes, and pickle.  I complained, expecting them to give me the missing meat patty, but they tossed out the works, making me wait for them to assemble a new one and then I had to wait in line at the toppings bar again. StuRat (talk) 23:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Then there's "first in, best dressed". --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  09:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Once the customer has touched the meal the restaurant is usually legally required to throw it out and start again. I had a problem with the Wendy's on Fulton Street always putting cheese on my burgers when I ordered them plain.  I once waited five minutes for them to "fix" the problem by scraping the cheese off and giving me new buns--with cheese residue still on the patties.  I then had to wait another 15 minutes for new ones.  The next time it happened, I opened the burgers up and placed them on the counter, which resulted in the manager complaining that "Now I have to throw them out!" which was exactly my goal.  After doing this a few times the manager told me to come directly to him to place my orders. μηδείς (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Central Bank


I wasn't sure where to ask this, but where did the American government get money to pay off services and goods (building transportation/public commodities) before the federal bank was made.   Bugboy52.4 ¦  =-=  00:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * From taxation, of course. Ah, but where did the money come from? Well, according to United States dollar, the US started minting coins in 1792. Also, states used to print their own currency. That article could be a good starting point. ←baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So the federal bank is just a place to store money? because we still have taxes or what difference would it make if we removed it.   Bugboy52.4 ¦  =-=  01:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Prior to the USA the Continental government also minted money. I've added an image of the lovely $1/3 bill to the right, because I love the slogan. "MIND YOUR BUSINESS" is better than "In God We Trust" and "E pluribus unum" combined! APL (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You gotta love the concept of 1/3 of a dollar, too; the notes being hand-numbered; and how Congress "paffed" a resolution. :) Unfortunately, the "mind your business" slogan didn't last. It proved to be not worth a continental. ←baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the questioner is thinking of the Federal Reserve Bank, which is not really part of the government proper. The Fed is a central bank which is in charge of trying to regulate the money supply. That's entirely different from taxing and spending, which is what the government itself does. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The fed a private institution? And so when we say national dept, wouldn't that mean the money to whom, the fed?   Bugboy52.4 ¦  =-=  02:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's congressionally chartered, but independent from the federal executive by statute to prevent political manipulation of monetary policy. 69.171.160.56 (talk) 05:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As to your original question, you might want to look at United States Note. Marco polo (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Knee down in American Football
I saw a playback of a play by the NE Patriots in which a player was running with the ball but was hit a few yards from the endzone. Although he made it into the endzone still with the ball, the instant replay showed that his knee touched the ground outside the endozone, so they didn't get the touchdown. Why is this -- is this considered a tackle or is it something else?  DRosenbach  ( Talk 03:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Once the player's knee hits the ground, they are considered "down" and play is stopped. They had to define some part of the body, so it might as well be the knee.  You'll often see this on punt returns, like on the opening kick off.  If the player catching the ball doesn't feel that he can get very far (maybe the ball spent quite a bit of time in the air which has given his opponents lots of time to get near him), he will kneel down.  This indicates that he's down and not going anywhere.  Dismas |(talk) 03:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

A player is ruled down if contact with an opposing player causes any part of the body other than the hands or feet to touch the ground -- this can include the knee, elbow, rear end, or whatever. The ball is then placed at the position it had at the moment the body part touched the ground. Looie496 (talk) 03:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But, as Dismas said in certain situations the player can take a knee without any contact and still be considered down. Kicks and the QB are two that I know of, otherwise the player can fall without contact, get up and not be considered down. -- Daniel  04:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A deliberate kneel down is allowed. Some players do that so they can run more time off the clock (for instance this).  But in the play from Buffalo/NE game he was tackled. Hot Stop talk-contribs 06:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It sounds like he was merely hit and not tackled, but that hit was sufficient to put him "down by contact", so the play was dead and he couldn't get up and run. Note that this is on a running play in which someone has possession. In the NFL, at least, if two players jump for a pass, there may be contact and they might fall to the ground, but it's still possible for one of them to catch the ball, get up, and run. Or at least it used to be. I know this because the Packers did it to the Vikings some years ago, on a Monday night game. I can see it like it was yesterday. ←baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The defense must touch the ball carrier while he is down, otherwise he can get up and continue the play. So, when a punt returner or quarterback opts to take a knee, one of the defenders will jog by and slap his shoulder, to ensure that the play is over. Until that time, the play is still on-going. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure about the current rule, but it used to be that in college football a player was down on such a play even if untouched, whereas the pros required a touch by a defender (except for the deliberate kneeldown). ←baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's review the rules. A player is down (in the NFL) if one of the following things occurs:
 * Any part of his body except his hands and/or feet touches the ground after contact with a defender
 * Any part of his body touches the ground "out of bounds"
 * A player willingly "gives himself up" by deliberately "going to the ground", he may be considered down without a defender touching him.
 * A player on a kick return or punt return declares a "fair catch", he is down when he catches the ball
 * A player may be ruled down when none of the above has occured if their "forward progress" has been stopped by a defender and it has been adjudged by the officials that the player stands no chance to continue forward. The ball is marked at the point of maximum forward progress if that occurs.
 * Wherever the ball is when the above event occurs, THAT is where the ball is spotted. Thus, when a player is touched by a defender, and his knee touches the ground, the ball is spotted at the exact spot it was at the moment his knee touched.  If a player willingly goes down (usually by either "taking a knee" or by "sliding") the ball is marked at the point where the player decided to "give up".  This comes into play especially on slides, as a player with momentum may continue to slide with the ball some distance; but the ball will be marked at the moment he hits the ground before the slide, if he was adjudged by the officials to have deliberately gone to the ground.  In lower levels of football (NCAA (college) and NFHSAA (High School)) the main difference is that a player does not have to be touched by a defender to be considered "down".  Otherwise, the rules are the same.  Point 5 is important if a ball carrier is met "head on" by a defender and driven backwards before hitting the ground.  In that case, the ball is spotted at the point of maximum forward progress and not where he hit the ground.  -- Jayron  32  15:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Supposing a player is running with the ball near the sidelines at his own 35 yard line, and he's hit by a defender but not tackled, and lurches back a couple of yards and goes out of bounds. Is the new line of scrimmage the 35, or the 33? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→
 * A player knocked backwards and out of bounds is marked at the point of maximum forward progress. The closest official ruling I can find is in the  NCAA rulebook, Approved Ruling 5-1-3-IV seems to be very close (but not identical) to your specific scenario.  The NFL does not publish its full rulebook, but a condensed "digest of rules" which does not address specific scenarios as you outline.  I think, however, the NFL rule is likely to be similar here.  The "maximum forward progress" rule is generally enforced based on the concept in football known as "impetus"; which is a nebulous (but still important) concept about who is providing the actual motion of the ball itself.  If a ball carrier willingly runs backwards, and becomes down, the ball is spotted exactly where he went down, because he carried the ball backwards of his own impetus.  If the ball carrier is driven backwards by an opponent, the ball is spotted at the point of maximum forward progress because the impetus for the backwards motion of the ball is the defender, NOT the ball carrier.  Thus, a ball carrier driven backwards and out-of-bounds by an opponent would result in the ball being spotted at the point of maximum forward progress.  Impetus doesn't require that the defender remain in contact throughout the tackle, merely that he supplied the "impetus" for the backward motion.  You can see the NFL definition of impetus here.  -- Jayron  32  04:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

How Much money to create best Saudi University?
Suppose if Saudi Arabia wanted to create the top university in the world (in terms of #1 place in published university ranking table), how much money would they need to pump into a new school (or into an existing university) in order to obtain all the necessary facilities and to "steal" the top faculties from around the world? Edit: More specifically, say if they wanted to have the world #1 science, engineering, medical, humanities, law programs in the world. How much money would they need to spend in order to hire all necessary faculties, pay for research grants and high-tech facilities, etc...? Acceptable (talk) 05:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * QS (one of a number of ranking systems) currently ranks Cambridge as number one internationally. Cambridge operates to a £4.1 billion endowment and a £600 million operating budget (according to our article).  Cambridge was formed around 1209, but the nature of the university in British society has changed radically, and many times, since 1800.  I'd suggest that your Saudi facility would need at least a 50 year lead time.  While academics can be enticed to relocate by funding, they also have other demands.  Many academics demand life in a secular society with rule of law, Saudi Arabia is unable to offer this.  Many academics also require access to a peer group, and a student body, to replicate the university on a long term basis.  A hypothetical university would need to grow into its stature.  From a bad web search I can't evaluate, it was suggested that Umm al-Qura University is the number one university in Saudi Arabia at the moment, however, as a theological university it is unlikely to attract the diversity and depth of scholars required to cause it to be ranked number one, without changing its core nature.  King Saud University seems to be better placed in the long run for these ends.  However, as I noted, Cambridge has had and 800 year lead time in order to develop into what it is. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * [After Edit conflict] Can academics, and academic standards, be bought? There is no guarantee that any amount of money will attract all the best academics. And I suspect you would face some diplomatic/political issues getting the best Israeli academics into Saudi Arabia? HiLo48 (talk) 05:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Further barriers would be non-availability of alcohol (many western academics do like an occasional tipple), and censorship. A country that blocks Google and Wikipedia may not be seen as the best place to conduct research. Can this hypothetical large amount of money buy a way around that? HiLo48 (talk) 05:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You can say that again! Not having a morality police force which arrests and whips people who are seen with the opposite sex in public, or who deny that God is the creator of the universe, or have depictions of religious figures might help, too. 69.171.160.56 (talk) 06:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Some countries have given special privileges to Universities and staff members in the past. Some still currently do: Australia's censorship laws are negotiable for academic research purposes after jumping through a large number of appropriate hoops. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If the goal was to buy up all existing top academics, that would be a rather expensive fee indeed, and may not be possible, because intangibles matter quite a bit in the academic realm (which is obvious by the fact that even the top top top people aren't paid much more than $250K or so by their universities in direct salaries). However if the goal is to build up a top flight research institution, that can be done for a lot cheaper. Why? Because there's been a job glut in the American university system (at least) since 1970, and there are a lot of very top people who are quite desperate for jobs, respect, and money. Will they be willing to relocate to Saudi Arabia? It depends on how much money you're going to throw at them. I know American academics (from top-flight universities) who've seriously considered (even interviewed with) schools in the UAE (who is currently throwing a lot of money at building up one of their universities), and I know someone who decided in the end to take a job in Singapore for the same reason. When you've been an adjunct professor for three years (the lowest of the low of the academic hierarchy), and someone is willing to throw a lot of dough at you, your interest in any job is pretty improved. I'm not sure that those who are not actually on the academic job market realize how bad it is, at the moment. In some fields (err, my field), you're lucky if there are more than 6 jobs in the entire United States that are tenure track — and each of those jobs gets 100+ applications, no sweat. It's an especially bad time right now because of the economic collapse, but even in slightly more flush times (e.g. before 2008) it was a pretty unpleasant scenario, and there were plenty of people who got pretty desperate. You don't need all of those people to start a great university — just enough of them, and the facilities and students to really make the whole thing work. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If you're wanting to get #1 in the list, then you need to understand how these lists work (see College and university rankings). Metrics like good staff-student ratios and library size are easy to achieve with enough money.  Some of it is based on impact ratings and similar measures of publications, citations, etc, which is a lot easier if you do your work in English than in Arabic, and there are ways to encourage academics to publish more; buying some academic publishers would probably help as well. Some of it is based on reputation among academics and recruiters: this would be hard for a new institution regarded with suspicion, but you could advertise, entice academics to conferences, etc. The final metric often used is the employment success of graduates - there must be ways to game this, e.g. careful selection of students, agreements with recruiters, paying companies to give internships. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If I were tasked with trying to raise the rankings, I would first splash out on some consultancy from Asian universities that have already had some success in that area. And get the marketing people in. Perhaps they can find a way to suggest that students will enjoy the lively local clubbing scene. (See marketing materials of UK unis.) Itsmejudith (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We could always combine that with an attempt to eliminate the BA while restricting academic salaries to below cost of living increases and below capital growth; then we can triple student fees… I see your point about asking Chinese academic system consultants. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and they could also enter into partnership arrangements with one of the big American for-profit unis. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You'll also need some help from the film industry, to produce films like Love Story or The Paper Chase. It always help, when it comes to convince others of your iconic value on academics. Quest09 (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Store Inventory: SKU Per Option Combination of a Particular Model
I am helping a company that sells apparel and other branded trinkets. They currently use one SKU for each combination of a any given product. So, if they have a smiley face shirt that comes in 5 colors and 4 sizes, that results in 20 different SKUS. I am pretty new to inventory tracking/ordering, but to me that just doesn’t seem efficient. While this makes it easy to track trends in colors and size, it is more difficult to determine the popularity of a particular 'model'.

The company currently uses Quickbooks to track their inventory, and I can’t help but think that either there is a better way to do it in Quickbooks, or by using different software. Any advice or insight from people who have worked with similar situations?. Thanks, TheGrimme (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Facebook Notification
Everytime I added new friends to my list, there used to be an update on my wall that "Aanusha Ghosh is now friends with so and so". A couple of weeks back, I was tweaking my settings, and did something that disabled those updates on my wall. I've tried to figure out where I went and what option I clicked, but I can't recall anything. How can I revert the change? Please help. Thanks in advance. 223.187.4.231 (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Facebook has made some major changes in the last couple of weeks. It might be those changes which have changed what you see, and not anything you did.  The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

big brother?
Recently our grocery store installed a few new cameras that are rumored to be hooked up to the local police that are in turn hooked up to Homeland Security. The county buses now have new cameras also, which are also said to be hooked up to Homeland Security either directly or through the local Sheriff. Could the rumored conspiracy of 9/11 be to justify such surveillance capability at the expense of what was said to make America a cut above the rest? --DeeperQA (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We have an article on 9/11 conspiracy theories. The USA PATRIOT Act has undeniably increased the power of the government to gather information on things within the US.  I'm not sure what further answer can be provided, though, as your statement is otherwise heavily loaded with vague hearsay, rumor, and generalities, all of which are unverifiable. &mdash; Lomn 17:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ask yourself: why would the Department of Homeland Security want to monitor a grocery store or a bus? How could they possibly come up with the manpower to do so? While it is true that many businesses now have webcams as opposed to Closed circuit television systems, there is no homeland security issue involved with shoplifting or fighting on a bus. Evidence gathered through such means could be passed on to them if it were found to be relevant, but the idea that they are actively monitoring such places is ludicrous. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha. With enough computer processing they wouldn't have to have much manpower at all. Individuals could be tracked from location to location, and identified by facial recognition whenever they happened to glance towards a camera. A sufficiently clever computer could create a map of where you've been all day, and link that map to your identity by comparing your face to DMV records.
 * This database could then be data-mined to flag people who fit a profile, or who simply do unusual things. (Do you photograph government buildings and landmarks for business or pleasure?)
 * This database could then also be searched by any unscrupulous individuals who have access to it so that they could apply pressure to citizens by threatening to anonymously publish the data. (Did you go out to dinner with a woman who isn't your wife?)
 * You don't have to think too hard to think of other people who would love to get their hands on such a database when it inevitably is leaked. Everybody from political candidates, to advertisers, to the terrorists themselves would have use for such a database.
 * I'm not suggesting that this is being done currently, or that this technology is sufficiently reliable yet, but they are definitely working to solve the manpower issue you mention. APL (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't mean this to be rude, but it is doubtful that our government, even though it is run by incompetent people that behave like baboons, would waste money on installing security cameras where you are to moniter you when they have more important terrorist threats to worry about. Bottles of breast milk being taken on plane is a much higher priority than the cameras at the grocery store (which are probably there to prevent shoplifting). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 27 Elul 5771 18:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Makes me wonder just how many people are needed to watch images from thousands of grocery stores and thousands of buses and thousands of other locations around the USA. And where do they store it all?  I can't even get round to watching one series on a DVD box set because I have better things to do.  To say these are hooked up to the local police is a slight possibility, but to suggest they are in turn linked up to the DHS is highly improbable.  It is more likely that there is a requirement that if video still exists, it must be turned over to DHS agents if requested as part of an ongoing investigation.  Astronaut (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think a lot of this comes down how many people who aren't actually doing anything the government would be interested in are nonetheless convinced they are being spied on. The government simply does not have the resources, or the desire, to spy on every last person in the United States, which as of the last census was well over 308 million people. To monitor everyone would require millions of people in huge data centers staring at monitors all day. I think we would know if there were several million people employed in such an enterprise. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Although I, also, dismiss DeeperQA's rumors as unverifiable, I am disappointed that no fewer than three editors in this thread referred to manpower as a mass-surveillance problem, when they should know that computerized facial recognition systems already exist and are undergoing continuous improvement. As noted in that article, these systems have already been used to notice people "of concern", and once that's successful, the systems could of course be used to track them.  The police state of 1984 will be easier from a technical viewpoint to implement than Orwell ever dreamed because of our fancy networked computers.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's also not the case that these sorts of things are intended for live monitoring. In the UK the proliferation of cameras has been immense; your odds of being live monitored are very low. However they are often used in retroactively tracking down people, after crimes have occurred. They may have a panoptic effect though I'm unaware if studies have been done as to whether people actually internalize the watching. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * See:Surveillance state, Mass surveillance COINTELPRO, and NSA warrantless surveillance controversy. Though I don't think the cameras are directly hooked to HLS, if HLS wanted the feed, they could get it. Public awareness (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * One of the key aspects of conspiracy theories is the ego boost that it gives to its believers. It's more fun to fantasize that the government is spying on you, than to face the sobering likelihood that the government couldn't care less what you're doing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that's the nice thing about computer based surveillance. It theoretically can become so cheap that you can keep track of things you don't care about. I doubt it's there yet, but in our lifetimes probably. APL (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * While that may be true for the average no body, its not true for all Bugs. While it has long ended, COINTELPRO, was a program for watching and/or subverting non-criminal citizens, like Fred Hampton or David Halberstam, and many others who irked the government. To believe that some non-criminal environmental, far right, far left, anarchist, totalitarian, white power, black power, radically religious, abortion rights, gay rights, Native American groups are being watched, and not just in the US, is far from a conspiracy theory, see Mark Kennedy (police officer).
 * Actually there are probably even government agents watching my wikipedia edits >.> I think Bugs is an agent and he's trying to convince us he doesn't exist! <.< *turns off computer* Public awareness (talk) 08:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm the Urban Spaceman. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Better yet, read the intro to Information Awareness Office. The mass surveillance program many of you said couldn't exist or said was a conspiracy theory, well it was already running in 2002, and some parts may still be being run, so the OP might be correct about the cameras being accessed by the government regularly. Public awareness (talk) 09:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As Will Rogers said, "Live your life so's you wouldn't be ashamed to sell your parrot to the town gossip." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * They're watching Native American groups in the UK? Nil Einne (talk) 11:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. At Indian restaurants, for example. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hyperbole aside, the NSA is capable of monitoring gobs of information. This has been made public by a number of people well-connected with it. See, e.g. Trailblazer Project and ThinThread. It's pretty amazing stuff. This is warrantless interception of essentially all internet traffic. This is not tin-hat stuff — this is the sort of thing that comes out in Congressional committees. Those two are technically cancelled now, but there's no reason to believe that there aren't similar capabilities out there. It's disturbing. Some recommended reading: "The Secret Sharer", New Yorker, May 2011.
 * The tired "why do you mind, if you don't have something to hide?" argument is as pathetically false as it is dangerous. (It is a rare person who does not have something they'd like to be kept out of public knowledge.) Privacy is a key component to developing a well-rounded, stable civil society. Societies without privacy tend to be despotic and oppressive. The founders of the United States were well aware of this and the dangers caused by unwarranted abridgment of privacy; this is the point of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The abuse of privacy is easy to document historically; the security advantages gained from its abridgment are much harder to document.
 * One does not have to be a Michael Moore-style lefty to see this sort of thing, and this sort of attitude, as distressing. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That totally misses the point, Buggsy. It's about whether nameless others have a right to be looking, not whether we have anything to be ashamed about.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have the right to tell someone on the street not to look at me. If I don't want to be looked at, I shouldn't go out in public. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Bugs, do you know what privacy means? It has nothing to do with people looking at you in public. Nothing! That's a total non sequitur in this conversation. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you understand why we have WP:OUTING? *edited to make simplier to understand* Public awareness (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The notion of the government being "all-knowing" is wishful thinking. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep thinking wishfully, Bugs. Read the articles I cited and see how you feel about it. The notion of the government only using these kinds of tools for ends you would approve of is wishful thinking. There is absolutely no reason to believe that, and no evidence to back it up. The list of false positives and outright abuses vastly, vastly outweighs the cases of actual plots or crimes that wouldn't have been discovered via other methods. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe your government is "all-knowing". Mine certainly isn't. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * About the only thing they seem to know how to do properly is get re-elected. Googlemeister (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, you seem to seriously underestimate how much knowledge of you they collect on a regular basis. Not terrorists. Not criminals. You. Anyway, Bugs, I think this thing has run its run. For someone so jingoistically proud to be an American, you seem to have no regard whatsoever for the reasoning behind the Fourth Amendment. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Or maybe I just don't buy into such paranoia. In any case, it's perfectly reasonable and proper for customs officials to search folks coming into the country. The federal government has a responsibility to guard its borders and protect its citizenry. Considering how incompetent they are at doing that relatively simple task, I have complete faith that they are incompetent at spying on me as well. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I am a laissez-faire minarchist, but I grant that it may be of some relevance that nowadays just one person crossing the border may import "WMD"s on his person. While I oppose customs laws regarding import of trade goods, or such things as searching hard drives for data which could be transmitted by phone but which pose no immediate physical threat, I do see a legitimate reason to protect the boarder militarily. I won't speculate on how best that would be done, it's technical and I have no expertise. But I grant that arguments can be made for screening all entrants for actual weapons or weaponizable materials. μηδείς (talk) 02:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

paradox
Do paradox have solutions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.128 (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sometimes. That's an extremely vague question, so that's the best answer you are going to get unless you specify the paradox. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * i mean, if paradoxes do have a solution, because i read somewhere that an actual paradox cannot exist because if it does, the universe as wouldnt exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.129 (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Paradoxes don't necessarily have to be true contradictions, only apparent contradiction. Many so called paradoxes have well understood answers, Olber's Paradox comes to mind.  Generally scientific paradoxes are just gaps in our understanding. -- Daniel  19:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

what is the oldest paradox that is not yet fully understood? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.2 (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Impossible to answer with certainty, but Zeno's paradoxes are pretty old and haven't been answered completely. -- Daniel 19:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is a List of paradoxes. You can go through it and determine which you think is the oldest unanswered one. -- Daniel  19:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * x2 I'm not sure what you mean by "not understood". Most apparent "paradoxes" represent a faulty initial conclusion, like  Zeno's paradoxes.  Modern paradoxes represent thought experiments designed to probe the limits of scientific theories, or demonstrate such limitations, especially in applicability to real situations.  Schroedinger's Cat was designed specifically by Schroedinger to show the limits of quantum theory, while the EPR paradox was designed to show the limitations of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Its not that such paradoxes are supposed to be literally true experiments one could perform; rather they are a form of Reductio ad absurdum whereby the limitations of scientific models are explored. It should be noted that the existance of these limitations does not render the models invalid; science is not a set of binary  "true/false" conditions, or mathematical proofs whereby a single negative result or inconsistancy invalidates the entire body of work.  What these paradoxes show is not the complete falseness of the models, but rather the limitations of them when they are overextended into realms where they may not apply.  Such paradoxes may not be meant to be "solved" in a literal sense.  -- Jayron  32  19:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Mathematicians declare Zeno's paradoxes to have been resolved by calculus. "If the paradoxes are thus stated in the precise mathematical terminology of continuous variables (...) the seeming contradictions resolve themselves." see Zeno's paradoxes. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Green Card Marriage
I am editing a wikipedia page on United States marriages. I am specifically looking on green card marriages. I am trying to find a case to help with my research and to act as a reference, but all the websites I found on this topic were all similar to this. I want to find something that is not based on a government agency, but is real life cases that may help make my research more credible. Thank you for your help.

Bed28 (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Try searching in Google Scholar for studies or Google Books.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   20:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

magic
im here in the philippines, is there a magic club here that teaches no experience students to be a magician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.2 (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Have you tried joining online forums for amateur magicians? There seems to be a lot. I don't think professionals will willingly teach you anything without even the most basic knowledge first, baka kokontra LOL. I only found one called the 'Inner Magic Club' (the only one from the Philippines listed as a member of the Fédération Internationale des Sociétés Magiques), but they're rather... elite. You can always try hanging out at the local carnaval though. :P --  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   23:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * are there universities that teaches magic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.128 (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Though the University of Kerala in India apparently offered magic as a vocational course for adults.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   01:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Successful magicians invent their own tricks. You can learn a few techniques like sleight of hand and misdirection from others, but ultimately it comes down to your own inventiveness.--Shantavira|feed me 08:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

If you have internet access, as you seem to do, there are lots of free online resources, especially videos on sites like Youtube. --Dweller (talk) 10:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Pick a card, any card you like. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)