The Knowledge vs. Intellect Test

[NoTime]

Okay, okay, I'll get to it.


Neither, unless you replace "to revolve" with "to orbit". Which orbits around which? Well they orbit around each other I suppose, because they're both seperately massive and obey Newton's laws to a good approximation.

:rofl: If you want to have a polster hang up real quick, start telling them why none of their choices are valid and insist on "none of the above"

 

[Mickey]

I didn't either, but at least that fact can be considered general knowledge, and not some random fact about some random country's constitution.

Hate to break it to you, but the American constitution is the oldest federal constitution in the world still in use. It's not just some random country's constitution. Neither is a fact regarding the separation of church and state in this constitution just some random fact, given it's the first constitution in the world to explicitly forbid its government from establishing a religion.

Well, that's not true, now that I think of it... I didn't hate to break it to you. :tongue2:

 

[Gokul43201]

Geeze, I was thinking a lot of people here would have scored well and posted. Are the only bright ones here the ones that have posted already? :tongue:

C'mon Gokul, I know you'd ace this kind of test.

Far from it. You beat me by a point on knowledge.

 

[marlon]

7/9 Intellect
You are 68% knowledgable and 80% intellectual.

marlon

 

[Astronuc]

With regard to the first PM of Australia, which is a bit like knowing that George Washington was the first President of the US, the six colonies (New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia, which are now states) federated and the Commonwealth of Australia was formed on January 1, 1901, which was the date that the first PM assumed office.

 

[K.J.Healey]

I was totally expecting the one :

13. Two of the following numbers add up to thirteen. 1, 6, 3, 5, 11
True.
False.

to be trick, cause I think ive seen that in a kid's puzzle book and it said something like "
TRUE!! 1 and 3 make 13!!!

I proceeded to throw the book out.

 

[marlon]

to be trick, cause I think ive seen that in a kid's puzzle book and it said something like "
TRUE!! 1 and 3 make 13!!!

No way, that's not adding up...Actions like this make every answer doubtable.

I proceeded to throw the book out.

marlon

 

[Mickey]

With regard to the first PM of Australia, which is a bit like knowing that George Washington was the first President of the US

I really don't see the comparison, given that the head of state for Australia is still determined by the British monarchy, totally unlike the election of George Washington.

Remembering the first head of state for an Australian republic (i.e. the first Australian head of state of Australia) would be more like remembering that George Washington was the first US president.

 

[Astronuc]

I was just drawing an analogy between first Head of State (*see below) in Australia vs US.

I really don't see the comparison, given that the head of state for Australia is still determined by the British monarchy, totally unlike the election of George Washington.

Ummm, from recent history . . .

Elected again as Leader in 1995, Howard became the 25th Prime Minister of Australia after defeating incumbent Paul Keating in the election of 2 March 1996. His government has been subsequently re-elected in the elections of 1998, 2001 and 2004, . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Howard

One may be thinking of the Governor General -

A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.

from http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/641/0/PA000170.htm [Broken]

The Prime Minister is appointed by the Governor-General under section 64 of the Australian Constitution. Section 64 of the Constitution empowers the Governor-General to appoint Ministers of State, and requires such Ministers to be members of the House of Representatives or the Senate. These Ministers are ex officio members of the Federal Executive Council and constitute the Cabinet. The Prime Minister in practice is the leader of the Cabinet. By convention, he or she will always be a Member of the House of Representatives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Australia

64. The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth as the Governor-General in Council may establish.

Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General. They shall be members of the Federal Executive Council, and shall be the Queen's Ministers of State for the Commonwealth.

After the first general election no Minister of State shall hold office for a longer period than three months unless he is or becomes a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.

from http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/ [Broken]

*Interestingly, the PM is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. What happens is the that the people elect members of parliament and the majority party gets to elect the PM. The PM is appointed by the Governor General, and the PM is the defacto Head of State, because the GG does not conduct affairs of state for Australia. The GG is just the Queen's (or someday King's) representative, but in reality, the Queen has no practical authority in Australia.

Similarly, the US president is elected by the electoral college, not by direct vote of the people. That has been controversial in the last two US presidential elections. :rofl:

 

[Mickey]

You can say nonsensical words like "de facto head of state" and "practical authority" all you want. George Washington lead thousands of people to die for actual authority, and that makes his name more significant than the name of the first PM of Australia.

Knowing the name of the first PM of Australia is more like knowing the names of the first PMs of Canada and New Zealand, other costitutional monarchies who are also subject to the British crown. Hopefully http://www.republic.org.au/homepagehtml.htm [Broken] will eventually realize they're in the 21st century. Britain at least has an excuse, since they can show that the monarchy brings them money through tourism. The other large Commonwealth Realms have no such excuse.

The GG is just the Queen's (or someday King's) representative, but in reality, the Queen has no practical authority in Australia.

Similarly, the US president is elected by the electoral college, not by direct vote of the people. That has been controversial in the last two US presidential elections. :rofl:

Again, I don't see the comparison. The electoral college is appointed by elected representatives of the people and is subject to rules enumerated by the constitution. The crown is a hereditary line elected by no one. And this really isn't funny!

Australian parliamentarians, soldiers, and judges swear an oath to an unelected British monarch. American revolutionaries, led by George Washington, risked their lives and the lives of their families to fight against that. They didn't "effectively win" and the US is not the "de facto superpower." They actually won. The result was the most powerful nation in world history.

 

[Gokul43201]

I'd say that knowing xxx was the first PM of Australia is closer to knowing that John Hanson was the first "President of the United States" (at least from a "knowledge" point of view).

But don't knock xxx so casually - he singlehandedly dispersed the first riot in international cricket.

 

[Astronuc]

George Washington lead thousands of people to die for actual authority,

Actually, I don't think Washington lead thousands to die.

Read Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States". The majority of the population (poor people, women, African slaves (and their decendants) and Indians) were excluded from the political process when Washington became president. The majority of Americans were no better off after independence, and a minority of Americans controlled the government.

The terms "de facto head of state" and "practical authority" are not nonsensical, but describe the reality of the situation, which is in contrast to the provisions in a legal document.