Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 June 3

Humanities desk
< June 2	<< May | June | Jul >>	June 4 >

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.

June 3

"China as climate change leader"

I keep reading in the news about China's being the new world leader in climate change. What does "leader" mean in this sense? Does it mean whatever China does, the world will follow by example? But why China? Why not every country that signs the Paris Agreement? I feel like I'm missing something. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

It means China is at the forefront of reducing carbon emissions and in developing, implementing, and manufacturing renewable energy resources. --Jayron32 01:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

But why depend on just one country to be the leader? Why not just work together cooperatively, allowing all countries to have equal say in leadership? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Because one country would be in first place in some particular metric. Only one can be the most. --Jayron32 01:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Ties happen, in theory. In practice, various outlets will still declare one or another the true world leader, based on another metric, because "leader" always carries the synonym of directing/ruling/inspiring, even if the title was earned and defended by being ahead on points, rather than stating one's goal and then demanding competitors (and sanctioning bodies) to bend to that vision.

In UFC featherweight analogy terms, Aldo is China, Holloway is India and McGregor is the US. We're hours away from a historic conference in Rio on who will lead the championship into the future, and they'll call it "new" and "undisputed", but America is still foremost in actually influencing the climate which affects the livelihood of every signatory (from Arnold Allen to Azerbaijan), so it's only really meaningful on paper. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, China is responsible for 20% of greenhouse gas emissions, so their actions are proportionally more impactful than other countries. The only other country with a similar share of emissions is the US (18%), and they have renounced their leadership role by announcing their intention to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. The next most polluting country, Russia (7.5%), has been dragging their feet on ratifying the Paris Agreement and also wouldn't qualify as a leader. So that leaves China and India (4%) as the countries with the greatest emissions who are actively engaged. Dragons flight (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

To add to Jayron32 and Dragons flight good answers, there's a suggestion that China could became a significant player in foreign investment in emission reduction and climate change adaptation in the developing world, particularly Africa and parts of Asia. [1] [2] Nil Einne (talk) 05:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Note that China is currently the worst polluter, giving them the most ability to improve (see grading on a curve). There have been recent scenes of people in Chinese cities needing masks to breath in places with almost zero visibility. See [3], which shows China has 8 in the worst 35 cities for air pollution, while the US has none in the worst 100. StuRat (talk) 06:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

This type of air pollution has almost nothing to do with climate change. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

That's not completely accurate. Heavy particulate pollution is almost always associated with burning coal. Less heavy particulate pollution is associated with diesel fuel. Therefore, these extremely visible event serve as a marker for fossil fuel consumption. -Arch dude (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

StuRat's juxtaposition of the two phenomena made it seem like they were directly related, which is a common misconception in my experience. It's true that visible pollution such as urban smog can be a marker of fossil fuel use but it's not an especially reliable one. You can clean up the air from visible pollution while still having substantial greenhouse gas emissions. That's what has happened in many western, developed countries. Conversely you can have very high levels of particulate emissions from inefficient combustion of renewable fuels, as is the case in less-developed countries where dung and similar fuels are used. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

A good example may be actually comparing the countries. According to Coal in China#Coal consumption, coal consumption in China in 2010 was 3.2 billion metric tonnes. Meanwhile coal consumption in the US was s 798 million short tons or 724 million metric tonnes in 2015 [4], a bit over a quarter less. Is that difference really the primary reason why air pollution in China is so much worse? Well India, which also has some of the worse air pollution in the world (Air pollution in India) consumed 787 million metric tonnes of coal in 2014 [5]. India is of course less than half the size of the US, but I think it's clear that this isn't the primary reason why their air pollution is so much worse isn't because of that. (NB I've seen different figures for all 3 countries, and using different data sources probably isn't the best way to compare them but I don't believe these are going to make a substanial difference.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

SBHB's point is that the two don't have to be tightly linked. Modern technology can eliminate 90-95% of the particulate pollution. The US requires such technology, whereas ~30% of coal in China is burnt with no pollution controls, and much of the rest uses controls well below the modern best practices. It is true that China's air pollution problem is heavily linked to coal, but one could also eliminate ~50% of the air pollution without replacing coal if appropriate technology was deployed everywhere. (There is also a Chinese problem with diesel fuels, but that's a separate issue.) India is somewhat different. Their leading pollution source is biomass burning (e.g. agricultural waste, and use of wood and cow dung in rural cooking). Coal also matters in India but not in the dominant way that it matters in China. Dragons flight (talk) 08:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree, I think the figures clearly demonstrate that even taking on board Arch dude's point, saying that China has such bad air pollution demonstrates that they have a long way to go to reduced GHG emissions compared to the US is highly flawed. Even in terms of air pollution, China using a lot of coal obviously doesn't help but slightly over 4 times the consumption isn't by itself enough to account for the massive difference in air pollution levels. Actually one point I didn't think of until now. We already know that in terms of CO2 the US is only about half of China anyway. Since China consumes over 4 times the amount of coal, this would actually suggest China is doing better than the US. India is of course about half the US but consumes a similar about of coal, so they're doing better too! But then their air pollution is so much worse, (the reasons of course as you outlined), so however you spin it these examples demonstrate that saying China or India have terrible air pollution and therefore also have a long way to go in curbing GHG emissions is flawed. It is true that concerns over air pollution by Chinese citizens and so China's leaders are one of the catalysts for a push to renewable energy and a push to limit fossil fuel consumption and thereby limit GHG emissions, but that's a different point. P.S. I appreciate that other GHG can be significant too, I only mention CO2 since they're the easiest to compare. Nil Einne (talk) 09:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

How do you know the US doesn't burn more oil and gas making the 2 and 4 numbers more balanced? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. I'm pretty sure the US does burn more oil and gas. I never said they don't since it's beside the point. The claim was made by StuRat that China's air pollution is a good indication of how far they have to go in terms of GHG emissions. No evidence was provided for this questionable claim. Arch dude then claimed that air pollution is an indication of coal usage (and I think they were also saying that coal tends to be a worse GHG emitter than diesel although reading again I wonder if I was wrong) and therefore StuRat had a point. Dragons flight and SBHB had some good responses to this but an additional response is to actually look at the statistics. China is a worse CO2 emitter but only double the US. They actually do burn about 4 times the coal as the US. India burns about the same but is only about half the US CO2. All of these obviously have other contributions to CO2 emissions. Both India and China have terrible air pollution, and as highlighted by Df and SBHB and the statistics coal may be a significant contributor in China, but it's not just from the amount they're burning hence why the US is so much better despite only using 4 times less. India uses the same but is a lot worse and primarily not even because of the coal. (Although I'm pretty sure it's also a far bigger contributor to air pollution than in the US.) Clearly looking at coal usage let alone air pollution is a very, very poor substitute for CO2 emissions and therefore likely GHG emissions. Nil Einne (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The numbers not seeming to add up, to me, implies that somebody is "cooking the books". Since the amount of coal burned is far easier to track than the amount of CO² emitted, I would tend to think that the latter number was faked. StuRat (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Please cite some evidence the numbers don't add up. So far you've provided zero despite making many questionable claims. I've provided sources for most of my claims. Note as I highlighted above there's zero reason from the evidence I've presented to think that CO2 emissions don't add up since coal is not the only thing which causes CO2 emissions. If you thought it was, this highlights even more why you probably shouldn't have even tried to contribute to this discussion. P.S. In case it wasn't obvious, I was being facetious when I suggested China was doing better than the US. The point was these statistics illustrate why simply looking at coal usage, let alone air pollution is as I said a very, very, very poor substitute for actually looking at what is the point of discussion here namely GHG emissions. To be fair, as I acknowledged above CO2 emissions isn't a perfect substitute either since it's only one, but it does tend to be the most significant. P.P.S. Of course since a lot of the coal is produced in China it's not that hard for them to lie about how much coal they're using if they wanted to anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Re: "In case it wasn't obvious, I was being facetious when I suggested China was doing better than the US." No, it wasn't obvious. I took you literally, which is why I said the numbers don't add up. Try adding a smiley to facetious comments. StuRat (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Swear on a stack of bibles to tell the whole truth

In movie courtroom scenes, witnesses swear on a stack of bibles to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help them God. Is it actually done like that in present-day US courtrooms? The stack of bibles and the wording of the oath? If you're Pastafarian can you use a colander or something instead? This is a question about legal procedure but it's not a request for legal advice. Thanks. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

It was always a single Bible, and the "stack" was just an exaggeration. I believe the Bible is considered optional in most jurisdictions (anywhere it isn't might find themselves on the end of an ACLU lawsuit). As for substituting your own object, other holy books might be permitted, but I'm rather skeptical that a colander would be, on the grounds of "making a mockery of the court" or perhaps "insulting the religions of others". StuRat (talk) 06:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

StuRat: There is absolutely no requirement to swear on anything in U.S. courts. It isn't required to invoke God, either. In the early common law, atheists were considered incompetent to testify (link to paper); that's no longer true, of course. Rule 603 of the Federal Rules of Evidence only requires that "every witness ... declare that the witness will testify truthfully, by oath or affirmation administered in a form calculated to awaken the witness' conscience and impress the witness' mind with the duty to do so." All the states, to my knowledge, have the same or similar rule. Neutrality^talk 01:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Re: "There is absolutely no requirement to swear on anything in U.S. courts." I agree. This is why I said: "I believe the Bible is considered optional...". However, I could envision a period where a red state might add that requirement, and it would then remain in effect until overturned, perhaps by an ACLU lawsuit. StuRat (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

173.228.123.121 -- "I swear on a stack of Bibles" is a kind of exaggerated semi-humorous juvenile expression for emphatically asserting that what you say is true. It was never a courtroom procedure, and I assume that you would be more likely to find it in cartoons than in serious movies. A colander in Pastafarianism is more of a sacred object than a scripture. Maybe they'd let you swear on a copy of "The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster" (though I'm sure they'd prefer holy books which uncomplicatedly encourage truth-telling)... AnonMoos (talk) 08:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Interesting it was only in 2007 that people were allowed to swear on a different religious text in North Carolina, see American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina v. North Carolina and [6]. I failed to turn up much more about controversies over what religious text you could use to swear on, even when it came to scientology. Some jurisidictions outside the US (e.g. Victoria in Australia) allow you to swear without a religious text. (Or affirm if you wish.) Some people have taken oaths of office with colanders on their heads, but this will often have to be specifically challenged, there's often no one to specifically reject your oath otherwise. (By comparison if you go to court and wish to swear on the The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the court could just refuse to let you.) Judges have rejected the FSM as a religion before in other cases [7]. Nil Einne (talk) 11:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

In the UK, the ability right to affirm rather than swear an oath in court goes back to the Quakers Act 1695. The Oaths Act 1978 clarified the situation, having to provide a New Testament for Christians and a Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) for Jewish people. "In the case of a person who is neither a Christian nor a Jew, the oath shall be administered in any lawful manner" (ie without the use of any book). However, most courts now provide a range of scriptures to suit the main religions although it is pointed out that ". Many faith traditions are oral, or not based on scripture, while others, such as Hinduism or Jainism revere a number of scriptures; and for yet others, there is one central text only" [8] Alansplodge (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

"any lawful manner" doesn't seem to say to me that you can't use a book, although it suggests it probably isn't required. The above source does mention people bringing their own books and also stuff like

(In Tibetan practice, oaths are normally taken in front of a picture of a deity, a photograph of the Dalai Lama or any Lama of the witness’s practice, if taken at all.)

and

In the past, court staff have been instructed to administer a form of declaration to Chinese witnesses in a ceremony which involves the breaking of a saucer. This ceremony, instituted in the Imperial Courts of China many centuries ago, is very rarely practised today in courts of law, although it is said to be practised by the Triads during their secret initiation ceremonies. It is probably because of this association that Chinese today do not ask or choose to take an oath in this manner. It should therefore not be used.

and also

In the case of R v Kemble [1990] 91 Cr App R 178, the Court of Appeal laid down the minimum requirements of the law and made it clear that the only duty of a court is to consider whether the witness is taking an oath which appears to the court to be binding on the witness’s conscience and, if so, whether it is an oath which the witness himself considers to be binding on his conscience.

This makes me think there is a chance you could bring your own copy of the The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (or whatever) and colander (presuming you can get the later through security) and may be able to convince the courts to let you wear the colander and swear on the GFSM provided they think by doing so it's binding on your conscience. They would probably prefer you to just swear without anything or affirm though and may not be happy if they think you're just taking the Mickey though.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

If you're going to give testimony in court, it's probably best not to do things that would make the judge and/or jury think you're a lunatic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• As for swearing on a "stack" of bibles... several US Presidents have taken their oaths of office with their hand placed on more than one bible ... Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, George H. W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump all swore the oath of office on two Bibles. For example, Obama and Trump both used the "Lincoln Bible" (the bible that Lincoln used) as well as a family bible... while George H. W. Bush used both the "Washington Bible" and a family bible. This was, however, a personal choice, and not something mandated by any law (or even custom). The President is not required to use any bible when swearing the oath, and some haven't (both John Quincy Adams and Franklin Pierce swore on a book of law, to represent that they were swearing on the Constitution.) Blueboar (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• I'm a Notary in Ohio, and routinely administer oaths. The oath itself by definition includes an appeal to God (as in "so help you God"). There is no requirement whatsoever that the oath be sworn on a bible. As far as I'm concerned, as long as you appear before me and are willing to raise your right hand and swear an oath, it has no legal impact what your left hand is doing - whether it's on a Bible, on a colander, on your favorite comic book, or in your pocket. The alternative for someone with religious objections or other personal reasons is to administer an affirmation instead, which replaces the appeal to God with a perjury statement ("under penalty of the law of perjury") and avoids the issue in its entirety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.240.160.163 (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

RE: the colander being a sacred object for Pastafarians rather than Scripture, it seems that, historically, there has been more emphasis on Scripture (regardless of the Faith) being more "legitimate" than a religious object in motivating a person to tell the truth. Interestingly, here in Canada, there are many jurisdictions who now permit and encourage the Eagle Feather as a sacred item upon which Native Canadians (First Nations) can pledge one's oath to tell the truth (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/eagle-feathers-now-on-hand-for-oaths-at-ottawa-courthouse-1.3409212 http://www.nugget.ca/2012/04/23/court-open-for-eagle-feather) - sorry, I haven't figured out how to make a link here yet! 198.72.29.37 (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Green Climate Fund

I am trying to clarify the role of the Green Climate Fund and I'm finding the reporting on the issue somewhat confused and contradictory. How does GCF use the money? Specifically, does it make grants or loans or both? In other words, do organizations receiving money from the GCF have an obligation to repay the money? with interest? If GCF is loaning money, and hence acting like a bank, what term of repayment would be typical on projects they might support? Some of the reporting suggests the world would need to supply a large amount of new capital every year, but in the long-run that would be unnecessary if loans are getting repaid, right? Do contributing countries and organizations have residual rights over money they contribute to the Fund? For example, do they have the right to withdraw funds later and/or earn interest on their contribution? Dragons flight (talk) 09:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

A graphic on the fund's website [9] indicates that so far, 42% of its funding has been through grants, 39% through loans (concessional funding presumably), 1% through guarantees and 18% equity. --Xuxl (talk) 13:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Russian government and Brexit

Has anyone ever accused the Russian government of trying to influence the Brexit vote?Uncle dan is home (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I remember about some outfit hey set up in Scotland to engage in social engineering that way. Anyway you can find lots yourself via Google 'russia brexit vote'. Dmcq (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Some speculation from Labour MPs, but no evidence of any kind. They have accused the government of covering something up, but they don't know what. See UK officials now think Russia may have interfered with the Brexit vote. Alansplodge (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth I don't think Russia had a major role in it. If you want to look at that sort of social manipulation stuff look at the crowd around Cambridge Analytica. Dmcq (talk) 09:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

School segmentation

Why are K-12 schools segmented/divided by three tiers? First, children start school at about 5. Sometimes, schools can be strict and say that the child must enroll when it is 5 in the autumn, even though the child will turn 5 later in the year or even in the spring of next year. The child starts in kindergarten, naps, and may have snack time. Then, by first grade, nap and snack time are gone, but recess still remains in the schedule. By 6th grade, recess, or playground time, is removed, but children are enrolled in physical education. Also, the child goes to a new school building, called middle school or junior high school. They may see their old friends, if (1) their classmates pass elementary school and (2) their classmates still live in the same school district. By ninth grade, they go to high school. After high school, they enter the workforce, marry, have children, or choose to pursue higher education full-time. All of this is segmented by age-based "grades". If a person never graduates from primary school, then will the primary school accept an older student? What about home-schooled children who are 11 years old but are trained enough to enroll in college-level STEM courses? Can they live in the dorms with the much older students, or do they need an adult chaperone? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

There are smaller schools that have all grades in one building. As to why they are in different schools normally, one possible concern is that bullying or even rough play could easily prove fatal with large age differences involved. StuRat (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

(E/C) That is an enormous block of questions and it's unclear how many of them are rhetorical. A lot of the ones near the end will vary with jurisdiction, so I would suggest you contact your local school board or college/university or at least tell us where in the world you're referring to. When it comes to the split between elementary, senior elementary (or junior high), and secondary (high school), a great deal of it has to do with resources. As kids grow up, their educational needs become more complex; if there was a system where kids stayed in a single institution their whole educational career, those schools could never provide access to the kind of scholastic aids available using the other model (consider chemistry labs, automotive shops, football fields, orchestral instruments, etc.) By concentrating older kids into high schools, those resources can be invested in more easily. Matt Deres (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

That would depend on how you do it. There are typically many small elementary schools, a few mid-sized middle schools, and one or two high schools in a small school district in the US. It's true that you couldn't have all the facilities at the high school replicated at all the other schools. However, you could have a single massive school with all the resources combined. But the consensus seems to be that distant elementary or combined-age schools, with massive numbers of students, is overwhelming for elementary students. StuRat (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

An elementary I went to now has a third of a mile of permanent hallways with classrooms on each side plus 4 "mobile home" classrooms. Is that big for most of America? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Hard to say given that description. What was the enrollment ? Sounds like they are dealing with a population surge. Mine had about 300 students. StuRat (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Over 1,400 students but after annex expansion. I had to Google that. Before annex expansion there's only a 2-story annex (~1990), "temporary" trailers (~2000) and the rest is mid-century which was the lion's share of the school till very recently. There's a public high school in Manhattan which has 10 floors, 5 gyms, multiple escalators and 12 science labs. Needless to say, there are elevators. It competes with private (free) Hunter for students, was belatedly cleaned of asbestos from being inside the cloud that chased people on 9/11, the '02 class president got cancer in '06 and it still beats 4 or 5 out of 8 Ivy Leagues in average SAT score. I didn't get in. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I assume you are asking about the system in Ohio, or the USA. In other places, the system is different. In general, most children adapt to whatever system is imposed upon them. Dbfirs 18:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Not universal. I had physical education in second grade and recess in sixth grade. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

No recess by the 6th grade? Where and when were you in school? School selection determined by residential location? Where and when were you in school? High school starts in the 9th grade? Where and when were you in school? The world is a very diverse place. Consider broadening your horizons.DOR (HK) (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

i.e. some secondary schools outside America end in 13th grade. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

For a US district that doesn't follow the three-levels idea, see Metropolitan School District of Perry Township in Indianapolis. They had a bunch of elementaries that fed into two middle schools and two high schools. Some years ago, it came time to build more schools because of increased enrolment, but instead of rearranging the boundaries for who went where, they created a pair of sixth-grade academies (one for each middle school), and this meant more room in the elementaries because each one had only five grades' worth of students, not six. Nyttend (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Previous sentences and US death penalty in the 70s

What happened to the people who were already convicted to death when the death penalty was suspended and reintroduced in the 70s? Have they seen their sentences first cancelled and then reinstated? --Hofhof (talk) 18:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

See Capital punishment in the United States. The decision in Furman v. Georgia (1972) caused all death sentences pending at the time to be reduced to life imprisonment. Executions resumed on January 17, 1977, when Gary Gilmore went before a firing squad in Utah. Although hundreds of individuals were sentenced to death in the United States during the 1970s and early 1980s, only ten people besides Gilmore (who had waived all of his appeal rights) were actually executed prior to 1984. Blooteuth (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Note one way in which they could still be executed: If the original conviction was reduced to life imprisonment, but they were then charged in an additional capital crime (which charges may not have happened, had the original sentence been carried out). Some prosecutors will intentionally hold back "extraneous" cases, to be brought before the court only if the original case "goes south" in some way. This can also save time, money, and aggravation to the victim's family, if trial for the second crime is never required. StuRat (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

No. The death-penalty laws from before Furman were invalidated. No one can be sentenced to death under those laws, because they are unconstitutional. --Trovatore (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Hofhof, maybe a little more detail would help. The death penalty was not "suspended". In 1972, in Furman, what the Supreme Court said was that all state death-penalty laws existing at the time were unconstitutional. However, it also laid out guidelines according to which states might create new laws that could be constitutional. Not so clear on this last point; see below. --Trovatore (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Many states got promptly to work on that, and in 1976, in Gregg, the Court said that some of them had succeeded (which is not to say that there were not still constitutional challenges available in specific cases).

Furman is still good law, which means that the pre-1972 laws remain invalid. You also can't try someone for a pre-Furman crime under a post-Furman law, because that would be ex post facto. So there is no more possibility of executing a state death sentence for a pre-Furman crime, whether or not it has already been tried. I am not sure about federal crimes. --Trovatore (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

 

Update: I should say that I don't really find in our article (or anywhere, really) a clear justification for my previous claim that Furman gave guidelines as to how states could come up with a constitutional death law. There were nine separate opinions, so you would have to search the five majority opinions and come up with your own conclusions.

What is the case is that the opinions said in general terms what they found unconstitutional about the existing laws. Two of them said that the death penalty was unconstitutional period, so those wouldn't help states trying to come up with such a law, but they could try to craft laws that would satisfy the other three, specifically to reduce the arbitrariness of the sentence.

It's not clear to me that the current system (yes, I know, it's state-by-state, but there are some commonalities) is any less capricious than the pre-Furman one, but the Gregg court and subsequent rulings have found it acceptable. But my main point stands — the death penalty was not suspended but rather struck down, as it existed at the time, and that ruling has never been overturned. The allegedly constitutional current laws are different laws. --Trovatore (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Book on the philosophy of a branch of mathematics and related books

I like this book, Calculus Made Easy, originally written by Silvanus P. Thompson and later edited by Martin Gardner. It's not a textbook. It seems to be more of a philosophical exposition of various topics related to the Calculus. Are there other books that are like this? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

To easily find book like that do a Google on 'amazon Calculus Made Easy', then go down to the section 'Customers who bought this item also bought' or 'What other items do customers buy after viewing this item?' and have a look there, or go to 'Amazon Bestsellers Rank' and look in the most restrictive category below that, or look for other books by an author by clicking on the authors name or searching for it in the search box at the top. Dmcq (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• You might also look at Martin Gardner bibliography. Loraof (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I wonder how many this is true of - I own more maths books by Martin Gardner than by women, is that bad? ;-) Dmcq (talk) 08:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)