Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 July 16

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 16

How many light-skinned African Americans and dark-skinned African Americans?

There are some African Americans with lighter skin and some with darker skin. Does anyone know how many lighter- skinned African Americans and very dark-skinned African Americans? What are the percentages of the light-skinned African Americans and darker-skinned African Americans. Please provide a source link if you can. Thanks.Sonic99 (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Information, to be retrieved, must first be gathered and stored. How do you suppose such statistics on this topic would have been obtained in the first place? -- Deborahjay (talk) 01:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The skin colour of African American is likely a continuum and may even be almost a bell curve so asking for the percentages of light-skinned and darker skinned African Americans is meaningless (it's like, asking for the percentage of Americans who are smart and the percentage of Americans who are dumb) Nil Einne (talk) 11:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Just because there is a continuum doesn't mean that the phenomenon is unmeasureable. There are plenty of proxy measures for "smart" vs. "dumb." Further, not only is the skin color a continuum, being African-American vs. Caucasian is also a continuum. One can be (for example) one-tenth African ancestry and nine-tenths European ancestry. While the person may self-identify as "African-American," in fact the person lies only one-tenth the way along the continuum. Wikiant (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

What Wikiant is describing is called hypodescent. Because of other, not entirely unrelated social pressures, many blacks in the U.S. will avoid the sun because there are perceived social benefits both within and outside of the black community for being fairer skinned. Many very much ascribe to this while many others, particularly recent immigrants and people who have pride for themselves nomatter what anyone thinks (thank God), don't make any efforts to avoid the sun. The ability to get a relatively large amount of sun without burning enables darker skinned people to vary several observable shades depending on how much of a tan they have. These factors make any kind of relevant scientific study nearly impossible, in my estimation. I think you should really look at the purpose for the data and ask if it's really needed and what other kinds of ways you can get some useful data. It might be possible to do a genealogy study if races are marked on documents. The only problem is they only go back so far. That's why black families who've been here a long time can seldom trace back past slavery. -LambaJan (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Historically when measuring skin tone, anthropologists look at places that don't have exposure to the sun (skin under armpits, etc.) to avoid having tanning throw things off. I don't know if anyone has done a systematic study of African-American skin tone lately, but they did them all the time in the early 20th century. I don't know if it would be a simple bell curve—it has to do with a variety of factors, including breeding with Caucasians, which is something that has gone on for centuries but has long been taboo to discuss. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the point. Sure there are ways to to it, e.g. if you define anyone with an IQ 120 and over as smart, and anyone with an IQ under 120 as dumb. BUT you need to actually define something first. You can 'tsimply ask how many people are smart or dumb without first defining what you mean by smart and dumb. Similarly, if the question asker wants to know how many dark skinned and light skinned people there are, he or she has to define what he/she means by dark skinned and light skin first before we can start. And when you actually start to define something is when you realise how dumb it is to use meaningless words when you are actually asking something specific. Instead of saying "how many smart Americans are there and how many dumb Americans are there" which is pretty silly since there could be an infinite number of definitions of smart and dumb, not to mention it doesn't make sense for most people that you're either smart or dumb you should simply ask, what percentage of Americans have an IQ 120 or higher? Similar if you're going to come up with some arbitary definition of dark skinned and light skinned people, you might as well simply ask, what percenmtage are darker then a brown paper bag (or whatever you want)? Nil Einne (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

50.0001% of African Americans are "dark skinned," and 49.9999% are "light skinned." Or, is it the other way around? DOR (HK) (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has several articles which have some information related to this question, if not a complete and direct answer. See Race in the United States , Historical definitions of race , Black people , Human skin color and Von Luschan's chromatic scale. See Colorism, which discusses the "blue vein test" and "brown paper bag test" applied as a skin color criteria by light skinned African Americans who discriminated against dark skinned African Americans. Skin color was also an admission criterion at some black colleges in the 19th century, such as Howard University [1]. These thresholds might be something like what the questioner means. A still lighter skin color would be that required to "pass"[2] as white, a social phenomenon aparently unique to the U.S., sinnce most coutries would consider such a person (with perhaps 1/8 or less African ancestry to "BE" white. See Social interpretations of race , Race in the United States , Racial and ethnic demographics of the United States. It is likely that early twentieth century Eugenics researchers compiled statistics on skin color of Americans, so there might be some statistical data from that era as part of Scientific racism. The eugenicists and anthropoligists of the late 19th and early through mid 20th centuries published atlases of skin piigmentation. See Carleton S. Coon for one such race theorist who published a number of books on the topic of race. This area of research fell out of favor in the later 20th century, since it lent itself to theories of racial superiority. Time magazine [3] in 1954 discussed the skin color variations of American Negroes and how ones with dark skin were decreasing in number due to interracial mating. The assertion by Nil Einne that the question is meaningless is not in accord with published research where "light skinned" versus "dark skinned" was a variable in the research, such as "Human Behavior in the Social Environment from an African-American Perspective," 2007,by Lee [4], page 160, or " The Black Image in the White Mind: Media and Race in America" 2000, by Entman and Rojecki, page 178 [5]. The latter found that "light skinned" versus "dark skinned" was a reliable coding criterion for raters to use. Perhaps someone at a college can get online access to the [6] National survey of black Americans" which seems to have some data on discrimination as related to skin color. Edison (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I should be more specific. How many African Americans are there today, who have light skin tone like Collin Powell and dark skin tone like 50 cents, Curtis James Jackson III? Sonic99 (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Um... What about those in between? Where do they fit in? (If you compare thw two side by side, you'd find their skin tone is quite different meaning there are likely a large number inbetween.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You need something empirical, like a melanin count per square centimeter or some kind of light/color reading, like luminous flux or whatever's most appropriate. When the readings come in you make semi-arbitrary categories. That's basically what those metrics Edison was talking about do. If you have some kind of chromatic scale it's basically a more sophisticated version of the paper bag test he mentioned; an arbitrary delineation in a continuous spectrum (it's not even that when you consider different observable mixes of yellow and red). -LambaJan (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to add it may be easier if you're only counting potrayals in the media as did one study mentioned above. It's often the case that the media only has extremes. E.g. actors/actress are often either very fat or thin on TV. You don't tend to get so many people in between (I've claims this is actual what things are like in the US but I'm guessing this is an exgageration). Nil Einne (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This is becoming a hot topic. Will Smith has skin tone in between very light skin and dark skin. But I still consider Will Smith as a dark-skinned African American. African Americans with fair skin like Collin Powell, must have more european admixure. I think African Americans are slowly mixing and becoming whiter. So how many light-skinned African Americans are there today like Collin Powell? Sonic99 (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a small aside that while I understand this is a hot topic, and it would be interesting to get some information on it, this is sounding increasingly bizarre to an outsider. I do get the idea that African-American is an identity, but in what sense can it be said that 'African-Americans are slowly mixing and becoming whiter' rather than, for example, 'European-Americans (or 'white Americans'?) are slowly mixing and becoming blacker'? I don't know, it just seems an odd way to look at things. 79.66.124.253 (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If I want to go to law school, what should I earn my bachelor's degree in?

I'm a high school graduate and I am thinking that I would like to go to law school and become an attorney. What are the possible majors I can choose from during my first four years of college before I go to law school. I'm thinking of either a government or history major.--68.93.134.252 (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

How about Political Science with a minor in American History?--Wetman (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It depends entirely on the area of law you want to practice. For example, if you intend on being a patent lawyer for a computer hardware company, you may want to know a little bit about computer hardware before starting law school. -- kainaw™ 03:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

A good friend of mine is in law school right now. His Bachelor's degree is in philosophy.... Dismas|^(talk) 06:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Economics majors score higher on the LSAT than other majors (including pre-law and criminal justice). See this for data and sources. Also, lawyers who have undergraduate degrees in economics earn more than lawyers with undergrad degrees in other fields. See this for data and sources. Wikiant (talk) 12:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The actual study tells a slightly different story. You can read it here. Short summary: "Economics placed third behind physics/math and philosophy/religion in a group of 29 disciplines in both years", although economics was the highest when comparing majors with 2,000 or more applicants. Not to get too off-topic.--droptone (talk) 12:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Also a few other notes, (a) (I believe) the study used data from one school and thus has questionable validity (since certain schools tend to have specialties which may have a self-selection effect) although an n of 75k is better than an n of "your friends" and (b) picking a major based on scores people in those majors receive on standardized tests (and only using these sorts of questionaire-type studies) is foolish given the lack of control of causality (i.e. are certain people predisposed to picking major X over Y and if so then do those same people tend to score higher on the LSAT over those who major in Y). I'd suggest majoring in whatever you want but taking plenty of elective courses that deal with legal issues (history of Supreme Court decisions, philosophy of law, logic, etc) and taking classes that deal with issues that are in the area you hope to specialize in (environmental law -> environmental studies, bioethics type law -> biology/pre-med, intellectual copyright -> maybe some computer science courses).--droptone (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

In all honesty, the field of your bachelor's degree has little-to-nothing to do with admission to (or success in) law school. (1) This is why there is no "standard" pre-law "major". (2) Law schools look for diversity in their incoming class. Quite frankly, in law school, everyone and their brother is a poli/sci or history major. They are a dime a dozen, and law schools are intrigued by students "different" from this norm. When I went to law school, there were majors as diverse as music, art, foreign language, nursing, biology, chemistry, math, computers, and the like. Your major is one of the last (and least) variables considered. More important is the breadth/depth of your academic studies, its academic rigor, and your academic success. The actual major itself is virtually immaterial. That being said, ironically (in light of comments above), I majored in economics. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC))

It would also be a good idea to choose a major that will serve you well (in terms of your interest and employment prospects) if you change your mind about law school. A lot can change in four years. -- Coneslayer (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's quite surreal that you Americans need to have this conversation. I got my bachelor's in law! AndyJones (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Precisely, I was unsure going in, so chose Communication, which is good for law, business, and a variety of other things. It has also helped since I chose to leave law and enter another field.

AndyJones, you would probably find quite a few things surreal about the American system :-) There are pre-law minors in some colleges, but I'm not sure how many.

Which reminds me of something surreal about the question, even from a fellow American - where I went, we didn't have to declare our majors till our Junior years. I took a couple Communication courses before then, but most was within the last 2 years. And, while the College of Wooster doesn't have specific requirements that you have to take your first year, some schools make you even get all your requirements out your first year or so. I did mostly requirements my first year, to get them out of the way.209.244.30.221 (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Joseph A. Spadaro. My undergraduate major was in political science. I took two undergrad courses in American constitutional law, but most poli sci majors didn't take them; and, except for those two courses, there was just about no specific bit of information that I picked up that had special relevance in law school. The most important thing is to take courses that will exercise and develop your ability to read and master difficult material, to synthesize facts and ideas from multiple sources, and to explain your thoughts in writing. JamesMLane t c 20:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

And I second what James M. Lane says above. The only course that I took in undergrad that was "directly" helpful was a course in Logic. Of course, 99% of the other law students had not taken such course. Thus, it was not a necessity nor a requirement by any means ... but it was absolutely helpful and relevant in a direct sense. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC))

Poli sci, history, economics, or (to a lesser extent) philosophy are all standard pre-law majors at all of the places I've been involved with. That doesn't mean it's a good thing to do. What they want are good ability to memorize and strong verbal and analytical skills. You can built those in a lot of different places. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think memorization is all that important. Many law-school exams are open book. JamesMLane t c 12:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

To add my two cents, writing is the one essential skill that underlies everything one does practicing law and in law school. I was fortunate to attend a very prestigious law school. The admissions office selects people who are basically the same in competence. There is often only a four point spread between Honors and Fail. Writing is the key to changing that trend in your direction. Any course where your writing will be edited frequently and critically has to help. Also, History, Political Science and Economic majors are a dreary bore. You don't gain any advantage taking these majors, aside from understanding federalism (and wikipedia has a great article). Law is what you decide to make it. It is malleable. Good luck.75Janice (talk) 22:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)75Janice75Janice (talk) 22:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Honey, I think a pacifist snuck into the House...

Resolved

 – StuRat (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

According to Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Formal_declarations_of_war, one person in the US House of Representatives voted against declaring war on Japan after the Pearl Harbor attacks. Who was it and why did they vote that way ? (I'm guessing that either they were a pacifist or perhaps they were worried that the US would lose.) StuRat (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

After a bit of digging, it seems it was Jeannette Rankin, a lifelong pacifist. Fribbler (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The first and last congresswoman from the great state of Montana. Plasticup ^T/C 15:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Might be nice info to add to that page as a footnote at least, particularly since it did take a bit of digging. Шизомби (talk) 04:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all. Apparently Rankin felt the political temperature rise after her unpopular WW2 vote, didn't even attempt to run for re-election, and thus was left out in the cold. StuRat (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that she also voted against World War 1. Edison (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but while also in a minority then, she wasn't a minority of one, since many others thought the US should avoid getting involved in a "European war". However, that position was completely unacceptable to voters after Pearl Harbor. StuRat (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Note also that she also only served two terms in Congress, her first term covering the WWI vote and her second term covering the WW2 vote. But her constituents should have known what they were getting with her, since she ran for her second term on an anti-war platform. Corvus cornix_talk 22:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

At the time she was elected, World War II was "just another European war", that the United States was mostly staying out of. --Carnildo (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Susan Atkins

I was not sure under which Ref Desk to file this question. When we read about Susan Atkins, reports always indicate that she is the longest serving female inmate in California history (37 years, I believe). This has always confused me. Weren't the whole lot of those young girls (Manson family followers) all arrested in the same time frame ... and aren't they all still imprisoned ... (the "main" players, that is) ...? It would seem that all of these (female) main players would have been arrested on the same day and are still in prison. So, were there some other facts that contribute to Susan Atkins having served more time in total? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC))

I think she is tied with Patricia Krenwinkel. Leslie Van Houten won a retrial later and was freed on bond for a brief amount of time. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I just did a little (quick) research. Atkins was incarcerated on October 1, 1969. Krenwinkel was incarcerated on December 1, 1969. Hence, no "tie". And, correct, Van Houten was freed for a brief spell. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC))

Oh, you're right. I didn't notice that Krenwinkel was not arrested with the others. (I read Helter Skelter years and years ago, but that detail did not hold fast in my mind, though many others did!) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Great -- but chilling -- book ... I'm reading it, as we speak ... (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC))

Legal "intent"

There are some crimes where you don't have to actually commit the crime, but only intend to do so, to be charged. Murder is one example, where simply hiring someone you think to be a hit-man is enough to be charged (although the charge is "attempted murder", not "murder"). Child molestation is another, where apparently there doesn't even need to be an actual child involved, for a "perp", lured by someone who the perp thought was under the age of censent, to be charged. With drugs I believe there is "possession of drugs with intent to distribute", but this does require the actual commision of a lesser crime, possession of drugs, to be charged with the greater (intended) crime. Are there any other charges where one can be arrested without actually doing anything illegal, but only intending to do so ? My interest is primarily in the US, but I'd also like to hear about how this is handled in other nations. StuRat (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'd just like to point out that the sort of offenses you're talking about are not examples of "being arrested without actually doing anything illegal". Acts like attempted murder, attempted larceny, and conspiracy are things that are illegal; they aren't murder, larceny, etc., but that doesn't mean they aren't crimes. And the same comment applies for soliciting prostitution in jurisdictions where prostitution and soliciting are illegal. --Anonymous, 05:45 UTC, July 18, 2008.

• There's a bit of a semantics issue here. If planning to commit a crime is also called a crime, then what do you call the actual "event", to distinguish from the intent to commit the "event" ? StuRat (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if I completely understand your question nor if I am answering what you are asking. The "event" is referred to as the underlying offense (or crime), or the controlling offense, or the predicate offense. It is the "main" crime upon which the other crime (attempt, conspiracy, etc.) is based. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC))

Most jurisdictions have a Conspiracy (crime) law, which of course requires discussions with ohers. The UK's Terrorism Act 2006 has a crime called "Acts Preparatory to Terrorism", whereby stuff that's generally legal (stockpiling ammonium, for example) can become illegal if they can show you were doing so as part of a terrorist plan (even if you're not acting in combination with others). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Prostitution—if you solicit someone to exchange money for sex, you can get arrested whether or not you actually have sex. And of course conspiracy, the grand-daddy of all intent laws. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

UK (and presumably UK-descended laws) have a crime called "Going equipped to steal", which is being found in possession of equipment useful for burglary (generally of premises, although probably of vehicles too) with the intent to use them to steal. So it's not illegal to own and carry a chisel, a jemmy, or a lockpick, but if you're found walking around a housing estate at 2am with them and a big bag with "SWAG" written on it, you can be done for going equipped. The difference is inferred intent. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Virtually every completed crime (for example, burglary) has a parallel incompleted crime (i.e., attempted burglary). They are called "inchoate" (incomplete) crimes. Here is an example. Say that a man walks into a jewelry store, intending to steal a gold watch. He goes to the counter and asks the sales clerk to let him see the watch. He examines the watch and is about to place it in his pocket and run out of the store. However, at the very last second, he sees a police officer nearby. So, the man just hands the gold watch back to the sales clerk and says, "no, it's not the style I like" (or whatever). Thus, at that very last second, he abandons his plan to steal the gold watch. And he does so only because he sees the police officer nearby. Despite his "abandonment" of the criminal plan, he has already committed a crime. This guy is still guilty of the crime of attempted theft (attempted larceny). If you watched this entire encounter on a videotape, it would look like a normal ordinary customer transaction. You pick up an item, and then you place it back on the shelf. You look at an item, and then you hand it back to the sales clerk. So, it "looks" like he didn't do anything wrong, and it "looks" like he did not commit any crime. But, he did. He committed the crime of attempting to steal the watch (attempted larceny). Because the crime of larceny was not completed (he didn't actually steal the watch), he cannot be charged with (actual) larceny. But he certainly can be charged with the attempt to steal the watch. In this example, of course, proving the charge would be difficult or nearly impossible. Because the "attempt" charge is based on his (intangible) criminal intent, which would be hard to prove and which would be hard to show evidence of. (Now proving the charge is an entirely different matter, altogether. Whether you can prove it or not, in this example, he still committed the crime of attempted larceny.) But, let’s say that this man agreed to (i.e., confessed to) all of these facts as stated above. Then, he would be charged with and convicted of attempted larceny (attempted theft) of the gold watch. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC))

For further information I was going to refer you to our article on Locus poenitentiae but, alas, it's still one of the red links in List of legal Latin terms. Briefly, it's the point at which you've gone far enough toward committing the crime that you can be convicted. Consider:

• Defendant cased several jewelry stores to see which one might be vulnerable.
• Defendant rented the apartment above the store he selected as a target, intending to drill down through the floor.
• Defendant purchased a drill.
• Defendant practiced at home with the the drill to get the hang of it.
• Defendant brought the drill to the rented apartment.
• Defendant began drilling through the floor.
• Defendant broke through.
• Defendant entered the jewelry store.
• Defendant took a gold watch and left.

Only the last step is a completed larceny or burglary or whatever it would be. The next-to-last is breaking and entering or some such. My guess is that one of the earlier steps would be considered the locus poenitentiae but I'm not sure which one. We'll have to wait until Joseph writes the article.  :) JamesMLane t c 21:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice recipe for committing burglary / larceny there, JamesMLane! The short answer is ... the guy would have to do two things: (A) take "substantial steps" (whatever that means) toward commission of the crime and (B) commit "overt acts". Thus, point "A" means that he must move far along on the continuum toward the commission of the crime. In your recipe above, I'd say that that certainly happens at Step 6 (drilling through the floor) ... and it arguably happens much earlier (perhaps at Step 1 even). Point "B" means that the guy must actually take an overt physical action, as opposed to, say, just mentally planning and thinking about the theft. That's the essence of the matter. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC))

My recipe purely hypothetical example is based on my dim recollection of a case I read in Criminal Law. I think the guy got to the point of starting to drill, and was held to have reached and passed the locus poenitentiae even though he abandoned the project before his drilling reached the bottom of his floor, let alone the top of the store's ceiling. To make the connection to StuRat's question clear, let me add that criminal intent was crucial here. If he had been drilling a hole so that he could practice his putting on his living-room floor, he would have been acquitted, what with golf not yet formally designated as a felony. JamesMLane t c 02:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That's right, golfers can't be convicted of a felony, as paying that much money to putt little balls into little holes is clear and compelling evidence for an insanity plea. :-) StuRat (talk) 12:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

in general is buying fresh fruit and making juice out of it with a juicer cheaper than buying fruit juice directly?

...Or is the value proposition only because it's fresh and you get to work for it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.199.57.103 (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Surely this depends, more than anything else, on how much the variables (the store-bought juice, the fresh fruit, and the juicer) cost wherever it is that you live. Over here in Finland, where most fruit is imported? It's absolutely not cheaper. At the other end of the spectrum, if you can get very cheap fruit from a local market or store (or, better yet, if you have a bunch of fruit trees growing in your yard)? It probably is a lot cheaper. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Almost never. In addition to the reasons Captain Disdain mentions, some juices are wholesaled and shipped as concentrates (e.g. FCOJ) - so they don't have to pack and ship the water and peel etc. And, both as normal or concentrate, juices are much easier to industrially handle - they don't rot or bruise, they pack very well together (in regular TetraBrik cartons), and they're of the absolutely uniform quality (or lack thereof) that industry demands. And lastly - the juice of ugly bruised fruit tastes just the same as the juice of really nice pretty fruit. All this makes industrially-produced juice a lot cheaper. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not a money-saving prospect. Obviously if you live next to an orange plantation or something it probably is, but generally a lot of the costs involved in fruit provision come from storage and shipping of fresh fruit - hence, if they juice it and pasteurise it first (even if it isn't concentrated) it's much cheaper and easier to ship it to you in juice form. Fresh-squeezed is noticeably tastier, I find, but it's much more expensive. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 21:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

This does assume to a degree you're content with juice from a concentrate. If, like me, you're a juice snob and only want non-concentrate juice, the price doubles. You'll usually find that it's economical to make your own (with overripe or bruised fruit), but it's a lot of work to juice them, even with a juicing machine. 130.56.65.25 (talk) 02:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of the previous posts. Other factors to consider are the cost of electricity, the costs of cleaning the juicer, the initial cost of the juicer, and the cost of the fruit that rots to oblivion before it can be "juiced" (bruised or ugly fruit is OK, but not moldy fruit). If you have a very cheap source of fresh fruit, let's say you can save $0.05 per glass of juice. If the juicer costs $50, then it would still take 1000 glasses just to break even. The chances the juicer will break or you will get sick of washing it and stop using it by then are quite high. Also note that juicers often remove some of the best parts of fresh fruit, like the fiber and peel (provided it isn't sprayed with pesticides). StuRat (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep your hands off my blackberries

If you live in western Europe you can get virtually unlimited quantities of blackberries for free. Well worth having a juicer for. Otherwise, make jam or use to flavour alcoholic drinks. Season starts next month. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Last year I actually saw some fresh blackberries on sale in a supermarket. I boggled. 79.66.90.252 (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That seems odd, as they are very expensive in the US. If you have so many free blackberies, why don't you freeze them and export them ? StuRat (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

What's so odd about that? A lot of things are very expensive in some countries and cheap in others. (And they probably do freeze them and export them. That's a profitable business precisely when you've got a lot of something cheaply available the people in the other country like and are willing to pay money for.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 03:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I would expect that if such trade occurs it would bring the price of blackberries up in Europe (now being a valuable export commodity) and down in the US (now being supplied in great quantities). Perhaps some trade barriers prevent this. StuRat (talk) 04:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I could just about believe it as a US trade barrier to keep prices high; I can't really see it as being deliberately to keep prices low in the UK. Brambles are common weeds over here. To sell blackberries would be like selling daisies. Maybe the costs of transport are disproportionate? Like with polystyrene. 79.66.13.38 (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Blackberries normally sell for quite a bit in the US, here they go for US$4.29 for 10 ounces: [7], which works out to over US$15 per kg. Surely a kg of frozen berries can be shipped across the pond for far less than that. So who wants to pick, freeze, and ship them to me, so I can sell them and split the profits ? :-) StuRat (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You would have to ship them in refrigerated storage. That's going to complicate things, and up the price. Plus, you'll be limited by the freezer space of whoever's sending them :) 79.66.124.253 (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Find a scaned version of G.Genette "Metalepse"

Bold textplease, help me to find the text of the French book "Metalepse" written by Gerard Genette. it is extremely important for my scientific work and I can't find this book in Ukraine, the country I live in. PPPPPLLLLEEEEAAAAAASSSSSEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oksana Melnyk (talk • contribs) 18:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You might get an answer at fr:Wikipédia:Oracle. However, as it says in the gutter of some French books, "la photocopie non autorisée est un délit", and the same is true of scanning books. Apart from anything else, scanning paperbacks risks breaking the spine, and French paperbacks are often poorly bound to start with. Simple-minded person that I am, I'd think that for all it costs, about 19 Euro and postage, you'd be easier buying a copy from Amazon or Alapage. There's an interview with Genette here discussing Metalèpse. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Long-term US Government Bond Yield-to-Maturity

Where can I find what the YTM (yield to maturity) was for 30-year US government bonds on June 30th, 2008?24.68.246.113 (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Try the US Federal Reserve Board research website. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/categories/22 DOR (HK) (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No no, the YTM is determined by the market. You'll want a market site. Maybe Bloomberg or something. Give me a second... Plasticup ^T/C 14:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)That's the website for the St. Louis Federal Reserve. I found this at the US Federal Reserve's website under "Research". I think the last line has the information you're looking for. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it is in here somewhere: [8]. Zain Ebrahim's link looks good too. Plasticup ^T/C 14:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I also tried yahoo, google and bloomberg but all I could get was the current YTM. If someone knows how to find historical T-bond data in those sites, I'd appreciate you telling me. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That page has a "last month" column, as long as that means the end of last month, then that's the number you want. It could be some kind of average, I suppose, but I that's unlikely. --Tango (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that might be the YTM for one month ago (i.e. 17 June) but if it changes tomorrow then we'll know for sure. If it is right, then I wonder why it's different from the link at the treasury website. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It did change. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)