Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2016 May 23

= May 23 =

e-books for samsung tablets
Is there a website which allows you to download an e-book for your Samsung Tablet and you don't have to pay for it? Donmust90 (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Probably not, if you mean entire, legal, current books. But old public domain books might be possible.  Or maybe you can get portions of a current book, like a chapter, for free, to whet your interest. StuRat (talk) 02:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Some books are under copyright but available under free content licenses. See Category:Copyleft media. Project Gutenberg and the Internet Archive are good places to find both public domain and freely-licensed works. Outside of freely-licensed stuff, many libraries these days are lending e-books. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 03:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, many public libraries will loan out e-books for a week or two. -- Jayron 32 15:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

stupidy since Nokia 3210.
I would like to know, why does a mobile phone, which has for example only 10% power or 5% power uses his last power, to notify every 20 seconds, that the Accu is low. I don't understand the logic behind this. If I am sitting in a bus / train or are out of home I am not able to load it and it would be enough for me, to inform me once about the accu, not every 20 seconds. And the most cellphone have even their own tune for the the accu alarm, so if you make your cellphone quiet - but forget to disabled the accu stand alarm, you will have a nice weak-up sound in the night. --Ip80.123 (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This is not a forum for discussing the wisdom of a company's programming choices. You'd do much better to contact Nokia or whomever your manufacturer is and ask them if the setting can be changed.  Also, presumably the word you want is stupidity. μηδείς (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Common sense tells you that you need to be informed about the battery being low. If it beeps once, turn the bloody thing off until you can get to a recharging station. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

for me it is to discuss why no one of the produce could never got wiser. A mobile phone shouln't use his last power to inform the user every 20 seconds that battery is low, which makes the battery much lower, than it is. --Ip80.123 (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You're perhaps incorrectly assuming that the power consumed by this notification is somehow significantly more than the power consumed by the "phone" or "wifi" functions of the phone. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 03:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

What people do with the Tusks of Elephants? What is their usage?
I sometimes hear that people kill Elephants because of their Tusks. The number of Elephants seems to be decreased much in both Asia and Africa. Tusks seems to be very high-priced and the trading of Tusks seems to be illegal in most places. I want to ask why one should need a Tusk? Why they are so valuable that people kill Elephants just because of their Tusks? Thanks. 46.225.38.36 (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Elephant tusks are made of ivory, which is very valuable. It has been an artistic medium since prehistoric days, and is especially highly valued in traditional Chinese culture, and China is the most populous country on Earth. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  20:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * According to this article, the black market value of the tusks of one large male elephant may be as much as US$375,000. That is a powerful incentive for poaching. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  20:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the game wardens may make things even worse when they destroy tusks captured from poachers. This limits supply, which, according to the laws of supply and demand, must increase price, to make poaching more profitable.  It would be better to arrest the poachers, then sell the tusks, legally, at the market price, and use that money to fund more enforcement actions.  (If there's no way to do this legally, then the laws need to be changed.) StuRat (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think that makes sense. That keeps the market alive. I am reading "The ivory is so valuable because all across Asia — particularly in China — ivory figurines are given as traditional gifts, and ivory chopsticks, hair ornaments, and jewelry are highly prized luxuries." As long as the substance is in demand, even at lower prices, some degree of incentive continues to exist. It is the demand that has to be reduced. That would be through education. I am reading "Many Chinese consumers don't realize that elephants must be killed for their ivory; in one survey, more than two thirds of Chinese respondents said they thought tusks grew back like fingernails." Bus stop (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's a ridiculous suggestion. It effectively creates another tier in the supply chain and gives wardens a conflict of interest, potentially encouraging them to turn a blind eye or accept a bribe. Akld guy (talk) 03:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Just the opposite. It's the current low pay for game wardens and high value of tusks (due to their scarcity) that makes the game wardens bribable.  You address both those issues if they sold the tusks they take from poachers. StuRat (talk) 03:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * No you don't. Don't you understand that there is no limit to greed? The wardens will not be satisfied with what they get and will simply hold out for more. That's what free market philosophy does. Akld guy (talk) 04:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * And to get more, and still keep their jobs (which is important to keep the gravy train rolling), they would need to arrest more poachers, and confiscate more tusks. This is a good thing.  It's rather similar to drug forfeiture laws, where cops take items from drug dealers, sell them, and use the money to continue the fight.  That does have the problem that the cops are then tempted to plant drugs so they can seize valuables, but this wouldn't work for elephant poachers.  (What would be the point in planting tusks so they could seize the same tusks ?)  StuRat (talk) 05:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Education could help, too, but you will never eliminate demand entirely. Also, sedating elephants and cutting off their tusks, then selling them, might be necessary.  It's a shame to do that to them, but they seem able to survive without tusks, and if that would prevent extinction, it's worth it, I should think. StuRat (talk) 01:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The suggestion has even been made to allow limited hunting of endangered species, with the justification that the money charged could protect more animals than are hunted. I wouldn't go quite that far, but if our current methods aren't working, we do need to look at other possibilities. StuRat (talk) 03:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I heard years ago that in one country, where elephants are "ranched" and limited killing is legal, the elephant population was increasing while it fell in neighboring countries; but of course the ivory could not be exported. —Tamfang (talk) 08:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Too bad, had they sold the ivory they might have reduced the killings of other elephants, too. StuRat (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Ivory is perfectly replaceable by modern products such as plastics. Replacing ivory with other products is the only realistic variable in the equation leading to the pointless killing of elephants. The market price of ivory is irrelevant if there is no demand for ivory. Nowadays people care about related concerns. Nobody favors global warming. Nobody advocates for the destruction of pristine natural environments. No one favors the extinction of species of flora and fauna unless they are particularly dangerous to humans. As soon as people become aware of the price paid for the ivory in the loss of elephants and as soon as they become aware that ivory is perfectly replaceable by other products, that is how soon they will give up demanding products carved of ivory. Bus stop (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thermoset plastics like Bakelite ? I should think ceramics would be a better replacement, although they can't be carved, as ivory can.  But you need to attack the problem from all sides at once, by increasing supply and reducing demand.  Thinking 100% of people will put the interest of elephants in front of their own desires isn't realistic. StuRat (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * What is special about ivory? Does it have any properties that are at all desirable and not replaceable by myriad new materials? Bus stop (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, it's carveable, rather resistant to most common types of degradation, like from the UV in sunlight (which does in a lot of plastics), slightly translucent, and yellows with age. And even if you managed to match all these characteristics, you would still have people who wouldn't want the substitute because it's "not real".  Consider the case of artificial diamonds, which can be better than natural diamonds, in that they have fewer inclusions and impurities, and they are cheaper, but people still don't want them as much as natural diamonds, even if that means blood diamonds. StuRat (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I am surprised no one has mentioned the rather obvious fact that elephants are evolving smaller tusks in response to the fact that poachers cull the ones with the largest tusks first. It's the same phenomenon as catch-size limits driving fisheries to ever smaller fish. μηδείς (talk) 16:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * And don't forget Japanese fishermen throwing back crabs that look like samurai leading to the Heike crab being a dead ringer. StuRat (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In case the OP didn't already see it, Ivory talks about alternatives for aesthetic (rather than practical) uses, such as mammoth ivory. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * comment: Just a little aside and going off at a tangent a bit. In the 1930's Fox stoles once became popular amongst aristocratic women. It showed that they belonged to the land owning gentry that owned  fox hunts.  They became so popular that farms were set up to breed the very rare silver fox. Thus, by the 1950's the price came down to the point that any lower middle class woman could purchase one or two. Result - no longer fashionable . scrumptious-and-luxurious-vintage fox stoles Same with ivory and very 'rare' coloured diamonds etc. The film The Freshman (1990 film) parodied the gluttony of the stupidly rich who paid stupid prices to eat exotic and endangered animals as specialty food items. We have the technology to invisibly hallmark ivory and thus trace its provenance., rather than destroy what very little can be intercepted on route to markets overseas. Legitimizing the trade has the potential to make ivory as  unfashionable as fox stoles and make the trade uneconomic for the ivory poachers and middlemen.--Aspro (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * What is accomplished by invisibly marking illegally-gotten ivory? You say we can trace its provenance. So what? What is accomplished by tracing the provenance of illegally-gained ivory? Bus stop (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It could be used by customs agents to determine if ivory being imported was obtained legally (such as collected from elephants that died of natural causes) or illegally (by poachers). Thus they could make it impossible to import poached ivory and reduce the profit motive for poaching.  At the same time, allowing the legal imports would satisfy any demand. StuRat (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * No, allowing the legal imports would not satisfy demand. In the absence of a change of the heart or of the mind of the ultimate end-consumer, demand remains and price remains high. Demand and price are presumably low in the country of origin. I fail to see the distinction between burning/burying the ivory and invisibly marking the ivory for tracing as to provenance. Bus stop (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * You're going against centuries of economics theory that says price drops as supply goes up. Also see the fox fur example above.  If you destroy ivory, then whoever was going to buy that ivory still wants to buy it, so another elephant is killed to meet that demand.  If you supply that demand, then no additional elephant will be killed. StuRat (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Any illegal ivory that has been invisibly marked, fails to get into the consumer-country, therefore it does not increase supply, therefore it does not serve to decrease price. Bus stop (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * LOL, they don't mark the illegal ivory, they only mark the legal ivory. Thus, if it has the serial number, it's legal.  Of course, under my plan, seized illegal ivory becomes legal, and is then marked, but the poachers make no money from it, taking away their incentive (and even better if they are tossed into jail, as this becomes a disincentive). StuRat (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * So, they don't mark the illegal ivory, they only mark the legal ivory, until the illegal ivory becomes legal, and then it is marked too—as being legal. OK, why bother marking any ivory as legal? Why not just let it all into the consuming country unmarked? What is accomplished in the marking process? Bus stop (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Because poachers make no money for shooting elephants, because their unmarked ivory can't be exported to any nation with money, so they stop poaching and the elephants survive. StuRat (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * What do people do with elephant tusks? Some gain pleasure from hunting the animals, see for example Elephant hunting in Kenya. In certain other African countries, it is still (or was until very recently) possible for foreigners to purchase hunting licences to kill troublesome animals. The uses of the tusks are covered at Ivory trade. We also have an article on the Destruction of ivory, all with references. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)