Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 August 17

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.

August 17

Sales pitch

Having just moved back to university for the school year I was lucky enough to be able to transfer my job as a cashier at Sam's Club from my hometown to here. As part of being a cashier at Sam's you have to sales pitch to members variously either to upgrade to the "Plus membership" (benefits: [1]) or to apply for a Sam's line of credit (either from Sam's itself or via Discover Card), with the primary sales point there being that if your order is $50 or more you'd save $20 instantly if you were approved. In my hometown I was able to preform relatively well, selling an average of one plus upgrade a week and four credits a week working 30 hours. The downside is that while this was pretty good for my club, the one I have transferred to is in a larger city (about twice the size) and is likely to be more strict on wanting the 4+ upgrades and 5+ credits a week that we're technically supposed to get. On top of this I will be working substantially fewer hours (probably between 10 and 20 a week). To help me reach these levels, what would be the most effective ways to sales pitch members on either upgrading their membership or applying for a Sam's line of credit? What would people be most receptive to hearing that would make them want to do one of these two things? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm definitely not in your demographic, as any store that requires a membership fee sounds like a total scam to me. Also, if I was a member and was trying to bring a 55 gallon barrel of mayo to the checkout with a forklift, the last thing I would want to hear is a sales pitch. However, I suggest you aim your sales pitch at the talkative ones, because they might be more willing to listen (and heck, they deserve it). The money back offer if not satisfied is about the only selling point I see for the Plus card. It promises "more savings" but doesn't put numbers on any of it, except the pharmacy part. My spidey-sense scam alert is tingling again. As for the line of credit, how about low interest rates ? Will I lose my house to pay off that barrel of mayo ? StuRat (talk) 06:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

But StuRat, think of the savings!! If the deposed Crown Prince of Nigeria sent you an unsolicited email offering you 10% of his family fortune in exchange for your bank account details, would you think that's a scam too? 149.135.147.66 (talk) 08:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

So once Sam's Club gets your financial details Stu, they're going to close up their 600 locations and be gone like a thief in the night? The OP is legitimately asking a sales question. And in that vein... Stu is right in that the talkative ones will probably have a better return for you. Also, since you say this is a college town, you might be able to get college kids with the line of credit pitch. I know that when I was in school, reps from Discover, Visa, etc had tables set up in the quad to get college kids to sign up for credit cards and they were doing a brisk business of it. I'd pick a couple big perks that the customer could get from the deal and mention that first right out of the gate. So no, "How'd you like to sign up for..." Instead, go with "You could save blah blah if you sign up for..." Dismas|^(talk) 10:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not that they'd close, it's that you'd never save as much as you spent on the membership fee. If it costs $100 a year to be a member, and you save only 1% per visit, you'd need to spend $10,000 there each year just to break even. Then you have to consider that a lot of the oversized items you buy at such places are bound to spoil before you can use them, and that discount sales at other stores no longer benefit you as much, because it then makes it that much harder to break even at Sam's Club. So, before I would sign up for such a plan, I'd need to be convinced that their prices are always much lower than every other store's sales prices. A simple claim that they have lower prices won't do it, as every store claims that. I'd need proof, and to know exactly how much lower the average item is, not a few they select.

We could also apply game theory and ask why they would require a membership fee ? This would appear to be a negative for them, as it limits their customer base. So, there must be a corresponding positive, like that many people never recoup the membership fee. This makes it look more like Scam's Club than a grocery store. (I'm reminded of the old Entertainment Book, where you paid $50 for $5000 worth of coupons. Sounds like a great deal, until you consider that most of those coupons are for, at most, 25% off items you'd never want, which are priced at twice the competition's prices.) No, spending money to get future discounts just doesn't make a lot of sense. StuRat (talk) 14:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

If Wikipedia can tell you the magic formula to get an extra customer every week, surely others will find out about it and soon your Gods will decree that you must sell an extra subscription every week. It's not like you can make your pitch in private. Unless you thought you'd get pity sign-ups from naive refdesk readers, in which case I can only say that by now you know that's a hopeless cause. :) You have to understand - humans are excess. Humans are waste product. Your bosses need an excuse to fire some people every week so the rest stay in terror. The homeless have to be ground up to make specialty dog food for celebrities. It's an immutable law of nature, decreed by the Gods themselves, beyond all human capacity to reason or dispute or oppose. Wnt (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Question about the psychological/sociological perception of someone to a given situation in a Culture

Is colonial mentality a disgusting thing to be look down upon or it is not necesarily so for it is an individual's preference of living not to be criticized? (Let us exclude for this moment the economic effects and choose only from any of the notions above, please answer directly.)I am searching of how the world views such situation, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalayo (talk • contribs) 05:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

"The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions". How's that for a direct answer? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you actually understand the question? If so, please translate. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I understood enough of it to know that it was asking for opinions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

That much is certain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yet another Assange question... Why Ecuador?

Simple enough, why Ecuador? Did Assange shop around as best he could to find a gov't that was sympathetic to him or what? Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 06:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't Rafael Correa have a tendency to pick a fight with the U.S., similar to some other current left-leaning Latin American leaders like Hugo Chavez? If so, then that would probably be a part of the reason as to why Assange chose Ecuador. Futurist110 (talk) 07:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

See Reactions_to_the_United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak#South_America. Deputy Foreign Minister Kintto Lucas offered him residency there, which was later retracted pending further consideration, and then apparently considered and accepted. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both. I see there are some answers at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Julian_Assange_and_Ecuador as well. Thanks again, Dismas|^(talk) 08:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Most married monarchs

Who is the most married European male monarch and who is the most married European female monarch (officially recognized monogamous unions). I am looking for someone beyond Henry VIII (6) or Ivan the Terrible (8).--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 07:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's widely ackownledged that Henry VIII was not monogamous. 149.135.147.67 (talk) 09:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

He was only married to one woman at a time.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 09:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but he frequently had mistresses on the side. 149.135.147.46 (talk) 09:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Mistresses are not wives.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 10:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the OP is wanting to exclude polygamous unions such as apply in certain Eastern countries. I doubt if these have ever been a feature of European marriage customs, so the mention of "monogamous" served only to confuse the issue. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 09:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 10:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

There have been cases of official polygamy by European monarchs, such as Philip II of Macedon (father of Alexander the Great). The most married female monarch I have found so far is Mary, Queen of Scots (3 times). - Lindert (talk) 13:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Non-European monarchs are out of scope
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Cleopatra VII (Hellenistic ruler of Egypt) also married 3 times, though 2 were to her brothers and the third was to Mark Anthony who was apparently already married. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC) But she was still married to those three people under the laws of her place and time, which is the only thing that's relevant. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 21:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC) She wasn't a European monarch though. - Lindert (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC) So why was she mentioned at all? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 21:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the above hatted discussion, Cleopatra VII was Greek, even though she ruled Egypt, hence arguably European. --Colapeninsula (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You could say she was European (in a sense) and that she was a monarch, but not a 'European Monarch' imo. If we used that logic, G.W. Bush would be a European president (because of his obviously European ancestry). - Lindert (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

So, Cleopatra was a European-African monarch, just like Obama is an African-American president. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 01:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

New benchmark; I found Joan I of Naples (4 times). Are there any female rulers who married for more than four times?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Religious implications of extraterrestrial contact

How would extraterrestrial contact affect Earth's major religions? Wouldn't it disprove at least the Abrahamic religions? --168.7.232.125 (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't really see how, actually. AFAIK there's nothing in Jewish, Christian or Islamic scriptures that excludes the possibility of God having created life elsewhere. If intelligent life were discovered, this would however create significant moral dilemmas; e.g. does 'thou shall not kill/murder' also apply to non-human intelligent life? - Lindert (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

That God would know of the existence of alien civilizations and fail to mention them, or how humans should react with them, would be added to the rather long list of other things God would presumably know about, but failed to mention, like the extreme age of the Earth and universe, that the Earth rotates about the Sun, the existence of dinosaurs, etc. The more of these you add up, the more it becomes apparent that the Bible/Koran/Torah wasn't written by an omniscient being, but by people with rather limited knowledge of the universe. StuRat (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Or that it wasn't important to the relationship between humankindand God (although some insist otherwise). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Nobody ever claimed the Bible was written by an omniscient being, Stu. Moses is said to have written most of the early books of the Old Testament; the New Testament had multiple authors, including Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul etc. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I've met a couple of people who claimed the Bible was written by an omniscient being, but they were real nutters. HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

As have I. They usually say that the authors of the Bible were inspired by God, so those are God's words, not their own. Presumably this logic would then be extended to say anyone who translated the Bible or decided which books to include or omit was also inspired by God. Thus, they consider the Bible to be the perfect word of God, "even the bits that contradict the other bits" - Ned Flanders. StuRat (talk) 02:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Instead of presuming and considering cartoon characters, you could research what actual people and groups of people believe about divine inspiration and Biblical inerrancy, particularly as pertains to the selection of the Biblical canon and translations of the Bible. There are several schools of thought, with no "presumably" about it. 212.183.128.86 (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Geez, lighten up a bit, you'll live longer. StuRat (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

What would be really interesting would be to find out the religious views, if any, of the ETs. For example, Mormonism is based on the idea that Jesus made an appearance in North America. What if creatures from a planet around Alpha Centauri said Jesus had visited them also. (Or any religious figure you'd care to mention.) That would raise some eyebrows. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Huh that's an interesting twist. The OP made it sound like their existence would disprove religions, when in fact, it may confirm it, if they appear with a similar religion. Who knows. Look, did evolution disprove religion? No, although there are still some people who don't believe in it. I think it'd be the same here. No reason to disprove anything, but you'll have your bunch who will turn a blind eye to it (which is just silly). --Activism1234 14:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I happen to know that Catholic thinkers have pondered this, at least. If nobody has dug you up relevant links by the evening (when I have more time), I'll see what I can get you. 86.157.148.121 (talk) 14:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I remember a story by Randall Garrett in which a priest says the RC Church had decided that people not descended from those who ate the apple are not its proper concern. —Tamfang (talk) 23:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

You might want to watch the movie Contact (film). It deals with your exact question. As for my take, religous people have always rationalized their beliefs. Presumably they would do the same with the discovery of aliens. Evolution for example disproved the book of Genesis, and that alone should have disproved Abrahamic religions, but of course people began to make stuff up, reject the book of Genesis (but accept the rest of the bible which makes the bible make even less sense), rationalized their religion and of course out right deny evolution. I recall there was a time when scientists claimed they may have found the body of jesus, and christians were saying that even if they did find his body, they believed his soul was resurrected. So as you can see, people always rationalize. See cognitive dissonance. 148.168.40.4 (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Who rejected Genesis outright? Never heard of that, and not saying it's not true, but would be interesting to learn more about. Also, you're making a really gross and far-fetched assumption that it should've disproved religion outright, which is hardly the case. --Activism1234 15:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The usual argument in logic is that if any part of a logic statement is false, then the entire statement is false. StuRat (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

First and foremost, my arguments are mostly in regards to christianity, not all religions. Lots of christians reject the bible entirely but still believe in jesus and believe he is the messiah. I know lots of christians who also believe in evolution, and are not creationists. There are lots of christians who believe in creation and also believe in evolution. Basically any permutation you can think of, they exist. There are even some rare christians who are also atheists, not sure how that works but they exist. Your last statement basically proves the point I was making lol. As StuRat mentioned, if a belief in god is based on the teachings of the bible, disproving any of the claims the bible makes on the feats god purportedly has done also disproves the god the bible teaches about. Now you can still believe in god, it just won't be the same god described in the bible. It is, by definition, a different god since the god you believe in couldn't have done the feats the bible claims he has done. 148.168.40.4 (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, but how does that apply to evolution? Which feat does that supposedly reject? Anyone who picks and chooses what to believe from a sacred text is to me plain ignorant, but I don't see why someone can't be a religious person in any of the Abrahamic religions and yet still believe in evolution... --Activism1234 21:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You could be an atheist yet still believe in most of the teachings of Christ, like caring for the poor, not judging others, turning the other cheek, and, of course, looking like a hippie. :-) StuRat (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

See christian atheist. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Now whether or not he actually taught those things or had those characteristics is a completely different story. We have no eyewittness accounts, and we don't know who wrote the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as there are no autographed manuscripts. However most historians agree that whoever wrote them were not eyewittnesses and were reporting on hearsay. The oldest of them were dated to a few decades after jesus died. But even if they were eyewittnesses, that hardly means anything since they could easily have been lying, delusional, misinterpreting, misremembering, etc. Taking into account how people have a tendency to deify celeberties and think they are perfect, it's likely that a similar phenomena was taking place in those accounts. 148.168.40.4 (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to doubt that those were the teachings of Christ, since they were the most contemporary accounts we have. By contrast, both earlier Jewish teachings and later Catholic teachings tend to disagree, especially on the "not judging others" and "turning the other cheek" parts. StuRat (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

An account written a few decades after jesus died is not a contemporary account. Plus they were written by his supporters who revered him. 148.168.40.4 (talk) 17:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

But why would they make up those beliefs and ascribe them to Jesus if he didn't believe them ? If their own beliefs were that different from his, they would find somebody else to deify. StuRat (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

How many Elvis Presley fans say he didn't do any drugs? On wikipedia even, someone once wrote that Hilary Clinton was valedictorian of her highschool and it remained on wikipedia for months until a news report stated it was wrong. ScienceApe (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's a very relevant analogy. Better would be, "How many Elvis fans are inspired by his clean living mantra to totally avoid drugs," or "How many young admirers of Hilary Clinton aspire to be their highschool valedictorian to follow her example." 203.27.72.5 (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

But Elvis and Hilary Clinton were famous for other things. Jesus was only famous because his followers choose to write about him. That would be like saying Elvis never sang a song but his followers all got together to claim he was a famous singer, or that Hillary never married Bill Clinton but her supporters got together to start the rumor that she did. If Elvis never played rock and roll, he wouldn't have any supporters, at least not any rock and roll fans. Mind you, I believe that all those miracles were invented (or faked at the time). Here the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" rule applies. However, the beliefs of Jesus, while a bit unusual, were not extraordinary, so I tend to believe what was written about them. StuRat (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Jesus wasn't famous for being a nice person. He was famous because purportedly he was the son of god. Obviously if you believe that, you're going to say nice things about him. The point I was making was that fanatics of any individual tend to deify them. Watch the following, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_21XD74JKHw ScienceApe (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The attributes attributed to Jesus would make him look more like a nut than a nice guy, to most people, at that time. StuRat (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Which is why the ones who believed he was a nut didn't have anything nice to say about him or his followers. But his followers obviously idolized him when he was probably just a nut. Look at modern day cult leaders. All of their followers idolize them, but everyone else sees them for the nutters they are. ScienceApe (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The 'not judging others' part is often taken woefully out of context. Jesus routinely judged people, which many did not like.: "[The world] hates Me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil". Jesus preached 'repent or perish' and offended quite a few with his You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell? and by calling people who asked him a question an evil and adulterous generation. The consistent interpretation of 'don't judge' is found in John 7:24: "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment." - Lindert (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, see cargo cult. μηδείς (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Actual answer to the actual question. These links should give you an idea of the general Catholic view on the question, and give you further places to look if you want to read further. Report on an amusing booklet published by the Catholic Truth Society. An article based on an interview with the head of the Vatican Observatory, which goes a little into the actual theological musings this topic prompts. There's more, but that's probably enough for one faith.

Incidentally, to those who buy in to a historical narrative that imagines all Christians were 6-day, Young Earth Creationist, Fundamentalist Literalists for most of history, until Darwin came along and the faith had to be allegorised, I can only recommend a read of St Augustine's On the literal meaning of Genesis (early 5th century), and perhaps a consideration of the history of Biblical hermeneutics, Allegorical interpretation, Allegory in the Middle Ages, etc? Allegory is not some new thing that came along and replaced literalism recently: quite the opposite, although I cannot find a decent Wikipedia article on the rise of Biblical literalism in the 19th century non-conformists. 86.157.148.121 (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes people have been rationalizing the bible before Darwin. Lots of people knew or suspected that the Earth was a lot older than what the bible said it was. Doesn't change the fact that they were rationalizing it to fit reality. ScienceApe (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

In the case of Augustine, that's not really accurate. He specifically defended the traditional dating of creation according to the Septuagint, against those that advocated an older earth. He just believed God created everything in an instant c. 7500 years ago, but that Moses used 'creation days' as a literary device to describe that. There was no 'reality' that forced him to conclude this apart from the biblical text itself (even though I personally don't find his interpretation compelling). - Lindert (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Religious implications of extraterrestrial contact (arbitrary break)

See A Case of Conscience. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Having not read the novel, is the article summary accurate? An alien race following a morality "written on their hearts" which conformed with Catholic morality, even in the absence of religion, would actually fit with Catholic teaching, rather than conflicting with it. 86.157.148.121 (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the summary is accurate, do read the book, it is well worth it. μηδείς (talk) 23:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

But the conflict is whether or not Jesus died for the sins of non-humans, and if not, they cannot be considered to have souls. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

As I say, I haven't read the novel. Your description of it here sounds more compelling than the summary in the lede of our article: I'm just wondering how accurate our article is. Although, if you read the actual Catholic articles I linked above, you'll see that it is considered entirely possible that Jesus didn't need to die for the sins of some alien race, because they might never have fallen from Grace! Or that they might have had their own Jesus incarnate as one of them (although that gets tricky theologically), or that our Jesus, in taking on physical flesh and sentient humanity, took on the sins of all sentient physical peoples. 86.157.148.121 (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Who's to say God didn't incarnate himself into a member of an alien race, and die for their sins too? The Bible confines itself to earthly events. We can't use its lack of mention of extra-terrestrial events or sentient beings to conclude anything about such beings, including whether they exist or not, and if they do, whether they have souls or not. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The Catholic church. They found it equally unacceptable that Christ made multiple appearances or that the antipodes were home to the irredeemably damned. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 01:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

One could argue that God or gods in general are extraterrestrial anyway. HiLo48 (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The OP may be interested in Theistic evolution, and for more in-depth, Islamic views on evolution (Christian views is included in the theistic article). However, if you're still confused, as these articles basically just say that scholar X says that evolution doesn't contradict the Bible, but doesn't explain how that's possible, Orthodox scientists respond to Darwin, which seems to me to actually go in-depth at why they feel that way and how they reconcile the two beliefs, as well as using ancient commentary rather than just changing a view. Hope it helps, even if you don't believe it, still interesting. --Activism1234 23:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• I have to second A Case of Conscience. It, The Sparrow, The Mote in God's Eye and Speaker for the Dead are some of the best first-contact and four of the best all-round sci-fi novels ever written. The latter two novels don't go very far into religious questions, though, especially not Mote. The Sparrow is about a priest sent on a first-contact mission by the Vatican while the UN dithers. There is nothing wrong about the article on Conscience, except perhaps that it underplays the novel's classical status. μηδείς (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• Relevant TV Tropes link.--85.55.198.248 (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Why would a business operate this way?

I purchased something at Office Depot and happened to look at the back of the receipt and saw their return policy in tabular format as follows:

If You Paid With:	Your Refund Will Be:
Cash or check greater than 10 days ago	Cash
Cash or check less than 10 days ago or Office Depot Gift Card	Office Depot Merchandise Card
Credit Card or Debit Card	Same Card

Why would they give a gift card only usable at Office Depot to someone who paid by cash or check before they gave cash back? I'd venture to say that just about everyone agrees that cash you can use anywhere (including Office Depot) is better than a card you can only use at Office Depot, and it seems a reasonable assumption that if you're going to return it, they'd prefer getting it back sooner rather than later (they allow returns up to 30 days for most supplies with receipt) so there's less chance of any damage the receiving associate may not notice. Anyone who decided an hour after buying that they want to return it and notices this policy may well throw the thing into the bottom of their backpack and wait 10 days if they just want cash and not store credit (probably not for a $1.99 composition pad, but maybe if suddenly they found out they didn't need that $49.99 thingamabob they foolishly bought and they never really shop at Office Depot except for this one time). What's their likely logic? 20.137.18.53 (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

That you will either return the item immediately and they get to keep your money (especially if you forget to use the card before it expires), or you will leave the item in the bottom of your backpack until you forget about it and the return period ends, in which case they will also keep your money. Presumably they don't do this with credit cards since those companies demand a more reasonable return policy. StuRat (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, money on gift cards is held in escrow - the business doesn't actually get that money until it is used. eldamorie (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Or the card expires. In any case, they get the interest on it until it is used, any unused portion, and the amount of any purchase made which exceeds the card's value. So, gift cards are quite the bonus for any business and a terrible value for consumers. StuRat (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

(Citation for escrow, please.) Since a check might bounce I can understand why they don't give cash for something paid for by a check. It would be a quick way to get cash by check fraud, otherwise. Sjö (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, but that doesn't explain not being willing to refund cash, unless they are worried about counterfeit bills (but, of course, then people could just buy items with counterfeit bills and keep the change, at least until Office Depot starts giving out all change in gift cards, too). StuRat (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

True. It could be an attempt to avoid losing extra money from a scam where a customer pays for a small item with a large bill and claims they received the wrong amount of change, gets an extra twnety or so from the cashier, then returns the item for cash. As far as the escrow thing... this article seems to suggest that gift cards are treated as loans, and that consumer groups have attempted to regulate gift cards as escrow, but have not yet been successful. Of course, that article is four years old so it's possible the situation has changed since then. I was told that gift card funds were held in escrow by managers at retail jobs in the past, its possible that was a company policy or simply a misunderstanding eldamorie (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

In any case, whether it's held in escrow or not only really matters when they go bankrupt. StuRat (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

There have been plenty of cases of companies going bankrupt and their gift vouchers becoming worthless. I've never heard of there being escrow accounts. Here is Snopes on the topic. --Tango (talk) 23:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yet another reason why such things are bad for consumer. When I get a "$2 off your next purchase" coupon with my receipt, I turn right around and buy something worth $2. If I don't, the chance of me redeeming it is 50%, at best. The same would apply if they gave me a voucher or gift card. StuRat (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much 100% of the "save $X off your next purchase" I've seen continue "of $2X or more". 67.163.109.173 (talk) 11:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That would still be 50% off, so not bad. However, my store regularly runs a special where you buy N units of Y and get a coupon for $Z off your next purchase, no minimum beyond $Z required. This is quite a scam, though, in that people think they are saving $Z (let's say $3) off their purchase, let's say $6, or 1/2 off. The reality is that, even in ideal conditions, they would get only $3 off a total $9 purchase ($6 the first time and $3 the next time), or 1/3 off. However, when you add in the chance of them failing to redeem the $3 off voucher, buying something the 2nd time for considerably more than $3, etc., they may be saving 1/10 or less, on average. So, to at least get my 1/3, I turn right around and buy a $3 item, right down to adding or removing grapes from a bag to get it to exactly $3. StuRat (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Are grapes the most efficient in terms of the extra mass they add to your trip home? Is there a lighter product in the store that would also take the total to exactly $3? If not, do you make sure to void in the restroom to counterbalance the extra mass and therefore minimize your gasoline expenditures? ;-) 67.163.109.173 (talk) 02:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

re: "everyone agrees that cash you can use anywhere (including Office Depot) is better than a card you can only use at Office Depot"... well, not "everyone"... a cash refund may be great from the customer's POV, but from the business's POV it sucks. A business (such as office depot) wants you to spend your money at their store, and not somewhere else. If they give you cash, you might just walk out of the store and spend it elsewhere (such as at a competing office supply store). So, providing a refund in the form of store credit is simply good business practice. It removes the chance that you will spend the money elsewhere. Blueboar (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I should have typed "every consumer" which was the intent of my mind when I wrote. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

"Good business practice" seems to neglect the harm that it does to future sales by pissing off their customer base. StuRat (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the restriction is to protect against check fraud hence the ten day limit, by the way the table above doesnt reflect the table on the Office Depot website which says no time limitation on cash purchases just on checks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Something to ask about Italia?

Hello, I am going to write a novel about Leonardo da Vinci and history of Italia:

1) Are Italian language in Leonardo da Vinci's era and nowaday same? I mean, did Leonardo da Vinci say "ciao"?

2) What is traditional custom of Italian farmer in that era?

3) Who was the king of Italia in that era?

4) What is the most popular farm animals/plant/forest in Italia?

5) What is the most popular tradional song in Italia?

6) Do you know any countryside in Italia with farmers, a river, a forest, chursts in Italia?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicknight94 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

One important thing lacking in your understanding is that Italy was not a single nation as it is now (except for the Vatican and San Marino). Many of the current provinces were independent nations then. StuRat (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

1) The language would have been quite a bit different then. As for "ciao", as our article notes, it originated in Venice. It doesn't say when it spread to Florence, so I don't know if Leonardo would have used it. StuRat (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The language has of course changed, but not as much as you might think. I find Leonardo's rough contemporary Niccolò Machiavelli to be reasonably readable, maybe about as much as Shakespeare (who was a century later). Has English changed a little faster, in some measurable way? Or is it just a side effect of me knowing contemporary English better and therefore being more sensitive to differences? --Trovatore (talk) 21:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

2) There are many traditional customs. Perhaps drinking a bottle of wine with a meal is the most stereotypical custom (although this also applies to others, like the French). I'm not positive this would have been the custom among farmers in Florence in Leonardo's time, but I'm sure others can verify whether it was.

3) Leonardo da Vinci was born in the Republic of Florence. The Medici were the de facto leaders there, with Lorenzo de' Medici perhaps the one who most influenced Leonardo. StuRat (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

4) Grapes and olives were certainly important in Italy then, as they are now, and were back in Roman times. StuRat (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Though note that many, many of the traditional foods that we associate with Italy today would not have been eaten then, because they relied upon new world crops that would not likely have made their way over by then. Tomatoes and potatoes, to pick two important ones, were not common at all in Europe during Leonardo's lifetime. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

6) There will be many places with each of those things in Italy. However, farms and forest are somewhat incompatible, as land must be cleared of trees to make productive farmland. However, you can find them near each other. StuRat (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Without wanting to be unkind, may I suggest that if you want to write a novel about Leonardo and his time, then you need to do rather deeper research than asking a question at the Wikipedia Reference Desk. --ColinFine (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I get the impression the story won't be about Leonardo, but will be about a contemporary farmer who just happens to live in his area. StuRat (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it is a story about a time traveler goes to many era and resolve problems in the era, with help of era's famous people. Leo's era is just one of them.--Lê _{talk-contributions} 23:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

That takes me back, way back, to be specific. StuRat (talk) 05:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I am going to do that. This is just my first step. Thanks you so much :D--Lê _{talk-contributions} 23:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

P/S: When I said "custom", I mean "clothing". Sorry for my poor word.--Lê _{talk-contributions} 23:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah... I think the word you were looking for was "costume" not "custom"... for that, examine the art work of the period, especially those works which depict commoners. Blueboar (talk) 03:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Check out some books on Italian history at a library, I think that would help your story more unless you are writing a children's book, ie. the Magic Treehouse books.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 05:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the modern "Italian" language is only about as old as Italy is as a nation. For the reasons already noted regarding Italy not being a country before the middle 19th century, there was not a single language spoken on the peninsula. Even today, many Italians, especially in the South and on the islands of Sicily and Sardinia, are diglossic between Standard Italian and their local languages, such as the Sicilian language and the Sardinian language. In northwestern Italy, there are dialects spoken which are part of the continuum that includes the Occitan language of Southern France and Catalan language of northeastern Spain. Prior to unification, it is unlikely that a Genovese merchant could communicate with an Umbrian farmer, nor with a Sicilian shepherd. Today they using Italian language, but they may or may not use that language at home as their native tongue. --Jayron32 17:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

unsecured personal debt

Hi (this is just a request for references, not a solution!!)

I have no creditworthiness and will become homeless in a matter of a few months unless I can relocate from one of the poorest areas on the continent I'm in. I have a lot of experience elswhere. I calculated my personal demand for a loan as being almost vertical, as given the alternative of becoming homeless I am vey happy to spend half of my discretionary income on loan repayment. The principal of the loan I require is 2500 euros and is to be spent on nothing but a cheap plane ticket and deposit on a room while I start working elsewhere. Given the calculation above, I am happy to pay between 150% annual interest rate to up to 700% annual interest rate (just as long as I can repay whenever, e.g. after 2 months, after 3 months!) as well as a "loan fee" which increases the effective interest rate even if I repay sooner. I am an American and European citizen. I believe that the amount of interest rate that I can absorb is enough that I should be able to get the loan even in case that I am in a veryí "high-risk"-pool. Basically, I will do anything for access to this capital. What kind of financial or other institution can I turn to to make this a reality? For the purposes of this reference, I would like you to assume the near-vertical elasticity of demand for whatever reason (i.e. the fact that I'm going to be homeless soon) as that has other factors such as missing medical care I get free elsewhere but cannot get unless I'm a millionaire, etc etc. Assuming that my actual demand on the loan is as detailed above - where can I get it? Thanks. (by the way I've tried local banks, who do not give unsecured loans here.) --80.99.254.208 (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You may be out of luck finding anyone willing to give you an unsecured loan if you tell them you plan to leave the country soon. You might contact the embassy of whichever nation(s) you hold citizenship. They may spring for a ticket home, for any citizens stranded aboard, as you seem to be. Once "home", you could go to a homeless shelter or such, until you save up enough to get you own place. But, of course, if you have any friends or relatives that would lend you money, that's another option. Also, have you considered selling your stuff ? Presumably you can't take it all with you anyway. If you have a computer, that might pay for a standby ticket home. StuRat (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean in the target country or one I don't plan to move to. I would not pick up the loan here. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, then you're asking somebody to loan money to somebody out of the nation, in the hopes that they will return and pay it back. Not gonna happen. StuRat (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Secondly, to be honest I don't have the guts to move someplace planning to stay at a homeless shelter. I want to rent a room with the money and accept a job. I can negotiate the latter from here. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Homeless shelters are not all flophouses. Many have individual rooms. Look for one run by a church or the YMCA. (Are you a member of a church ? If so, they might help you out.) Another option is places where you work for your rent. Are you handy with tools ? If so, they might let you stay in exchange for doing maintenance work. If not, then maybe yard work. StuRat (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, i wouldn't go donw this path. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion to go to your nearest embassy and ask for help. Borrowing money is almost never the solution to serious money problems. You would be reliant on finding a job fast - if you didn't manage to find one, then you would end up with the extremely high interest compounding and you would be looking at bankruptcy. There is also the problem Stu mentions of trying to borrow money in one country and pay it back in another - you're not going to be able to do that (if you had an excellent credit rating, you might be able to get a loan from a global bank, but that doesn't sound like an option for you). --Tango (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

700% interest (non-compound) on 2500 Euro is 17500 Euro/yr or around 4375 Euro/3 months. Add back the original principal and you're claiming to have the work skills to be confident of an ability to pay almost 7000 Euro to someone 3 months after getting this loan even though you're broke now. So you have these marketable enough skills to get relatively high paying work basically instantly, and yet you don't have enough personal or professional contacts to get the travel situation straightened out somehow. That doesn't sound realistic. Your IP address geolocates to Budapest, Hungary. Can I ask what the target country is and where to find that kind of work?

Seriously though, if your situation makes sense at all, I'd say to start contacting job prospects in the target country from where you are now, and try to land an interview (or better yet, an actual job offer) from where you are now. Depending on the type of work, if you're as employable as you say, you can possibly get the employer to pick up the travel expenses and pay you a few weeks of salary in advance to get you situated. The whole story sounds doubtful to me though. 66.127.54.117 (talk) 07:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Interest is pretty much always quoted compound. Assuming the OP means an annual effective rate of 700%, the interest accrued on €2,500 after 3 months would be €1,704. (The difference between simple and compound interest is enormous when you are talking about such high rates.) --Tango (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

First, let me address Tango. I really did mean "up to 700%", as by my own calculations the most I could normally reasonably handle (easily) is 150% or so + a fee that doesn't accrue further and is repayable within a certain amount of time. Here is a scenario for my "up to" amount. Let's say that I use about €75-€100 on a ticket, before setting up some interviews with potential employers and potential roommates from here. If I luck out, I might find a good solution that is very modest (e.g. a very small room or even a shared room) and if I have a good rapport with them could not pay such a large deposit. Further, at such a high interest rate I would take the money at the last possible moment - meaning pretty much after my interviews and signing a check - and then I would take as little as possible. So what I could probably do in this situation is buy a round-trip ticket from my current funds, also booking a few of the cheapest hostels in that city via hostelbookers or similar, set up a bunch of interviews with jobs I can do, hopefully interview by phone and giving them a 3-4 day window during which we set up meetings, and also put together a short-list of roommates from sites that list rooms for rent. The Internet makes all this easy. Then I pick up the money from my 700% effective-annual source, go there, stay at the hostel, do interviews, also meet with roommates, pick the cheapest POSSIBLE room with the absolute least deposit I can manage, and start doing the basic job. In this scenario, I do not need a full €2,500, because I'm living in such a lousy "solution", so around €1,100 should just about cover the above costs, including deposit, and ecking out a month of scraping by below my true austerity level until I start getting paychecks. This €1,100 represents about 60% of one month's income net of all of my expenses. The cheapest room I can probably arrange is something like €320 per month including expenses with maybe €350 deposit on it, which gets us to €670 in housing expenses plus metro tickets (€30) plus a few nights at hostel (€80) is now €780, leaving €430 for food and all other expenses. This is below my "voluntary" austerity level, but lots of people live on that amount of income in the city, so it will be doable.

Okay, now let's look at the interest rate. 35 days pass, say, until my first paycheck. I don't have the exact formula but assuming it's something like (35/365)*700 - we are calculating the percent - this is 67%. That means on the principal of €1100 in this scenario the interest accrued after 35 days is €737. Ouch. I now have received a bank transfer of €1800. Unfortunately, I can't keep living at such a level of austerity - my true level of austerity is €850 or so - however this would leave me just €950 to repay the loan with. At this rate the loan repayment takes forever. So I calculate just my recurring rent, no phone still but that's okay, a ramen-noodle diet, basic transportation, and figure I can put about €1150 toward the loan. This is the interest repayment plus reduces the principal by €413. The next month the principal will just be €1100-€413 = €687. Of course I would be shopping my work contract around to payday loan places, as this 700% annual interest rate is just incredible, but whatever. Assume I can't get any. Okay, next month rolls around and I get another paycheck. Now the new principal of €687 has 30 days of interest which is 57% (assuming 30/365 * 700) of €687. This is €391. Fuck it, I don't want 700% interst rates. I would repay the 687 + the 391 which is 1078 and call it a day.

Obviously the above is a ridiculous scenario and I probably would never even agree to a 700% interest rate. It is unreasonable. But it beats the ever living shit out of a homeless shelter, and my life following the above scenario would be fine. At a more reasonable annual effective interest rate of 150% or so I really don't have any problems. So, how do I make it happen? --80.99.254.208 (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I can tell that the whole thing doesn't sound like a good idea. If banks are not willing to lend you money, don't go for other alternative sources of lending. If you still have some months until you get homeless try: selling everything that can be sold, getting a job anywhere, finding alternatives to a normal residency (like camping, couchsurfers, farms who including housing). I know that traveling around Europe is not hugely expensive. It can cost you just 20 euros to go to a more affluent country (from you IP I believe you are located in Hungary, which was struck pretty bad by the bubble). OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Mmmm. Our church has recently had to buy a few people coach and plane tickets back to their home countries (in the EU), as they came to the UK expecting a job and found they had no job and nowhere to live, nothing to eat. Just assuming you'll be fine is a bad idea, particularly if you don't have any reliable contacts in your destination town. Taking out loans from a loan shark to do so is an even worse idea, and is how people get in serious trouble. Please, please IP80, don't do this. Listen to Osman. 86.157.148.121 (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

At least in the US, if you start a new job, it's often possible to get your employer to give you an advance on your first paycheck, so you have a little bit of cash to work with. The issues of payday loans you already know about. If you can pay them off quickly (everyone thinks they can, but they are often mistaken) then the total cost might not be too bad. 66.127.54.117 (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)