Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 February 23

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.

February 23

Hill, James B. (1945). Autobiography

An article references "Hill, James B. (1945). Autobiography. Raceland, Louisiana, USA: James B. Hill. pp. 200". How can I get more information on this autobiography? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.97.56.130 (talk) 03:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

This question presumably arises from our article James B. Hill. Google Books does not show the book, so it is probably not widely available. The reference was added to the article by Buckeyehill (talk · contribs), presumably a relative of James, but Buckeyehill has not edited since 2007 so asking a question on his or her talk page might not be productive. It looks like some material derived from the book was added by Patchouli Princess (talk · contribs), who does not edit Wikipedia very frequently but did a few things just a few days ago, so asking about this on her talk page might be your best hope. Looie496 (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Illegality of unapproved drugs in the United States

In the Boston Legal episode "Last Call", the characters argue a case about whether a patient can be prescribed/given a drug that has not been approved by the FDA. The episode suggests that it's illegal in the US to do so. Is this the case, and if so, do we have an article discussing it, or are there any pages online that discuss it? Thanks! 68.35.40.154 (talk) 03:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is illegal, but the trick is the definition of a "drug". Simply call your product a nutritional supplement and you can probably sneak by the FDA. But, of course, if people start dying, like with ephedra, then the drug's days will still be numbered. StuRat (talk) 04:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You have to distinguish between the legality of the substance (as in the Controlled Substances Act, which by the way is a terrible law but that's not the point right now), and the legality of representing that you can treat a medical condition with it, or that it's fit for human consumption. To my knowledge (but I'm certainly no lawyer) the mere fact that a substance is an "unapproved drug" does not in itself make it illegal to own, use, or even sell, the substance, provided it is not sold as something intended to be taken.

(On this point it would be interesting to look at the case of laetrile, as there are certainly plenty of patients who tried to get the stuff and wouldn't have cared if it were labeled as furniture polish. I don't really know what the FDA did to stop that; I know they did have a serious enforcement effort but not exactly what they were enforcing.) --Trovatore (talk) 04:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

See also off-label use. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 05:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll be a bit more specific. The drug in question is a potential alleviation of Alzheimer's disease. The character understandably will do anything to stave off the disease, including taking an untested drug and assuming any risks that entails, but nobody is permitted to prescribe it since it's not gone through all the tests required by the FDA. As you say this is in fact the case, do you know of any materials to read which discuss this? Thanks. 68.35.40.154 (talk) 05:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

There are potential risks with off-label drugs (for example, using Abilify or Resperidol to treat Alzheimer's when these have been approved as antipsychotics). The key here is that such drugs have been approved by the FDA (have passed clinical trials and have been found safe and effective for a particular use). Physicians can then prescribe the drug for any use they deem appropriate. In order to promote the drug for another use (e.g., promote Ability as a treatment specifically for Alzheimer's), the manufacturer would have to go through the FDA approval process for that use.

By definition, in the U.S. a prescription drug is one approved by the FDA, even if the physician has off-label use in mind. Thus it's technically not possible to write a prescription for a drug that's not been approved for use in the U.S., though entirely possible to write one for an FDA-approved drug that doesn't suit a particular condition.]

Laetrile, mentioned above by Trovatore, has never been approved by the FDA for any medical condition. Searching for news stories and online discussions regarding laetrile would provide the same sort of information (and controversy) as the Alzheimer's incident would. --- OtherDave (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly possible to write a prescription for an unapproved drug! You just write it down on the little piece of paper. I suppose you mean that the prescription is not legally valid or some such. But prescriptions have other purposes than making it legal to buy something from the pharmacy. In fact doctors frequently write prescriptions for over-the-counter drugs. --Trovatore (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

By default, substances that the FDA has not controlled do not need prescriptions - anyone can hand them out like candy (this excludes substances controlled by other agencies, of course: for instance, pseudophedrine is controlled by the DEA). The only time you might find legal confusion on this is if a doctor is prescribing a drug that is closely related to or derived from a different controlled drug - then there might be some question over whether the uncontrolled drug should have been included with the related controlled drug. --Ludwigs2 00:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Were you responding to me? I didn't say OTC drugs need a prescription (in order to buy them at a pharmacy). Nevertheless medical doctors can and do write prescriptions for OTC drugs. That indicates that prescriptions have other purposes than enabling you to buy the drug at a pharmacy. --Trovatore (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

A doctor who is writing a 'prescription' for OTC drugs is either (1) requesting a dosage size that is not available OTC (e.g., large-dose pills of pain relievers, so that people don't have to take multiple small-dose pills they can buy for themselves), or (b) using his prescription pad as a note pad. 'Prescription' in the old-fashioned sense means nothing more than 'this is what the doctor says to do'; a doctor can 'prescribe' bed rest and plenty of fluids if he wants, and he can even write that down on his prescription pad and instruct the patient to fill it at the pharmacy (if he and the patient have a sense of humor). a doctor can only get in legal trouble for prescribing something this is controlled by the FDA, outlawed by other federal or state agencies, or clearly represents malpractice (e.g. prescribing something that a patient has a known allergy to). --Ludwigs2 18:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

As to your first sentence: No, that's just not so. A doctor can write you a prescription for, say, low-dose aspirin, and you take it to the pharmacy to be filled. You can buy low-dose aspirin just fine without a prescription, but that doesn't mean that the prescription is not a prescription. --Trovatore (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Prediction by comparison to fiction?

I'm curious... is there a known doctrine of prediction of future events by comparing them to fictional stories? In context, I'm thinking of what I'd term "connective mechanics" (after Whipping Star) in which history is broken down as a set of closed causal loops in spacetime, which tend to attract one another into patterns of parallel flow. Thus, for example, one finger on a hand usually predicts the appearance of the next, and one historical event resembles a similar precedent. Ideally, this should present a fallible and thus less destructive alternative to precognition. To give a tempting example, one can attempt to predict the next al-Qaida attack by looking for a story in which twenty hijackers in two teams make a suicide attack flying into a notable public building to destroy it; with that in hand, seemingly confirmed by various small coincidences, one can use Return of the Jedi to describe a plot in which terrorists target One World Trade Center when it is about 85% complete, on September 11, 2011, attacking first with a backpack bomb during a political demonstration at the front entrance to divert security resources, then sending armed men to break a bus or freight vehicle bomb through defenses at the cargo entrance. I haven't heard of any such analyses, and I'm not sure what to call them. (I'm prone to see certain aspects of "connective mechanics" in some spiritual mapping practices^[1] (though not others), but nothing like this) Wnt (talk) 07:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

We'd never know. Detected or thwarted terrorist attacks are kept secret.
Sleigh (talk) 07:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Are they? What about the shoe bomber? The underwear bomber? The Toronto 18? Adam Bishop (talk) 07:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

While we know that certain attackers were caught, we can never know how many of the discovered plots are kept secret by the government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quest09 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Though the evidence so far has been that the government has trumped up its rate of success (e.g. by including among foiled plots tons of plots that basically wouldn't exist had the government not basically entrapped the people in question and pushed them to "action"), so I'm not sure it's right to assume that foiled plots are universally kept secret. (Not that I am sympathetic with alleged plotters; it's just been the case that a lot of the plotters seem to have been pushed to plotting by the various FBI moles that have infiltrated them. Bruce Schneier has discussed this in some detail in various articles.) --Mr.98 (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Reminds me of Robert Redford's job in Three Days of the Condor:

"Joe Turner (Robert Redford) is a CIA employee who works in a clandestine office in New York City. He reads books, newspapers, and magazines from around the world, looking for hidden meanings and new ideas. As part of his duties, Turner files a report to CIA headquarters on a low-quality thriller novel his office has been reading, pointing out strange plot elements therein, and the unusual assortment of languages into which the book has been translated."

These days it's called OSINT, and with the advent of social media etc. is of increasing interest and utility in the Intelligence Community. WikiDao ☯ 16:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Cite a source, please. My understanding is that for decades, the main task of several thousand CIA employees has been not to slip poison into the ears of their enemies, but to read the local newspapers and write reports to HQ. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

So for which part of what I said are you asking for a source? I mean, that you aren't finding at the wikilinks I provided? WikiDao ☯ 17:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Your assertion, "is of increasing interest and utility in the Intelligence Community." Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's a recent one from the BBC: Intelligence agencies urged to track social media sites. WikiDao ☯ 17:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

That source does not support the assertion of yours I am challenging. Please be more careful here about making assertions without a reference. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

That source does support my assertion. I do not know what you are challenging, frankly. But do you intend to give Kainaw and Anonmoos a hard time about the lack of sources they cite in response to your question below? If I go to the trouble to dig up some sources for you in response to that question, will you not bother to read those, either? WikiDao ☯ 03:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Where does it say "increasing"? That is what I am challenging. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Right there at the top: "Intelligence agencies should track social networking sites more closely, the UK's top civil servant has said."

increasing = "more closely"

interest and utility = that's what "the UK's top civil servant has said" WikiDao ☯ 16:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Right, excellent advice. Google it if you want more. WikiDao ☯ 01:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry, you're in the wrong on this one. Saying "UK agents should track Facebook more closely" (basically) does not mean that "openly available information is of increasing interest utility", at all. My point is that reading openly available information has been the bread and butter of "intelligence" for decades and it's a sort of recentism to claim that it's "more important now than ever" or any such nonsense. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, well I guess there's not much more to say about this one then, CT. I have provided you with two sources clearly supporting my very obvious and well-known "claim." Perhaps the one below ("Too many policymakers and intelligence officers mistake secrecy for intelligence and assume that information covertly acquired is superior to that obtained openly.") speaks more to your misunderstanding, I don't know. It sounds like you just want to insist on some sort of vaguely-informed opinion about this, which can be a bit of an annoying and counterproductive approach for a regular here at the RD, imo.

Why don't you try this, anyway: see if you can come up with even a single counter-source to the ones I have provided, one which claims the opposite; ie. that instead of "increasing," the IC interest in and value of social media is instead either remaining the same or decreasing.

Or, just consider: when exactly would you say the "advent of social media" (as I say above) occurred, and what do you call it when something goes from zero to something more-than-zero? WikiDao ☯ 20:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I see what has happened. You have misunderstood my objection. You are defending the proposition that open source intelligence from social media like Facebook is of increasing importance. I have never denied this claim and am not asking you for a reference on it. What you said initially was that open source intelligence itself is of "increasing" importance and utility, and that statement would need a reference. I see now that you misread all of my objections and you were actually defending open source intelligence based upon social media, so I accept your apologies in advance, and I accept your unconditional surrender. I have taken the liberty of smallifying this discussion. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's an "op-ed"-style piece from the CIA's Center for the Study of Intelligence. It starts out:

"We need to rethink the distinction between open sources and secrets. Too many policymakers and intelligence officers mistake secrecy for intelligence and assume that information covertly acquired is superior to that obtained openly. Yet, the distinction between overt and covert sources is less clear than such thinking suggests. Open sources often equal or surpass classified information in monitoring and analyzing such pressing problems as terrorism, proliferation, and counterintelligence. Slighting open source intelligence (OSINT) for secrets, obtained at far greater expense when available at all, is no way to run an intelligence community. Also, we must put to rest the notion that the private sector is the preferred OSINT agent. In the end, I would contend, the Intelligence Community (IC) needs to assign greater resources to open sources."

That's from 2007, you can read the rest by following the link. It's a primary source, I know, but it is from within the IC and discusses the increasing interest in, and the intelligence utility/value of, OSINT. Google around for more, it's being even more discussed now given the role of social media in recent world events (see the BBC source I provided for you above for further support of that claim). WikiDao ☯ 01:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt that OSINT actually looks for parallels in old fiction. And "thwarting" such a connective may not be easy. Simply spalling away at it with antiparallel points of view might weaken it, but to misquote The Manitou, it's easier to push a connective to another place or time than to bend it completely around 180 degrees and send it back to history. (incidentally, the solution there was to call on the spiritual powers of a large computing network...) Neither the film nor the predicted attack has any specified kill count. (the little people on the Death Star are interchangeable - from the "connective mechanics" perspective they might not even exist, just like the randomly chosen 747s weren't represented in the film) So if it is possible to predict and change the future event by this mechanism (which of course I can't assert as scientific fact; in a sense the future can't be changed) there's still a risk of making it worse rather than better, though if it can be prevented completely at least we know that should be a good thing. Wnt (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think "OSINT" (or "*INT" generally) is quite up to what you are describing, then. Certainly it would aspire to that kind of predictive power, but... yeah, not likely there yet (afaik;). WikiDao ☯ 18:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

There's a William Goldman novel where the CIA figures out that increased sales of military-ish children's toys (e.g. GI Joe dolls) is a predictor of social unrest or something, sort of comparable to what you're describing. I don't remember the plot very well, or even the title, but I think it shows that the idea has been around for a while. I'm doubtful that real-life agencies operate that way. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Followup: If we're sticking to the films, the May 1 death of Yoda should mark the beginning of the planning stage of the attack. However, in the film Yoda died in hiding of natural causes rather than by a military attack, which is at least a small divergence. Wnt (talk) 05:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Followup: In the end I did not try doing very much to affect the connective; only writing the Port Authority to urge vigilance, and contacting the "Ewoks" whom, by Google search, I found would be outside the tower that day.^[2] It turns out that this blog was recommended and followed by Anders Breivik, who carried out attacks on July 22 2011.^[3] Despite a few small coincidences (the use of a diversionary attack) I don't really see a plot equivalence; maybe it's a parallel connective bundled together with this one, or maybe the approach simply isn't that accurate. Nonetheless, the fact that one of the two attempted interventions might plausibly have been read by, or conceivably even affected the actions of, the year's worst terrorist definitely worries me about this approach - is it really any safer than precognition itself? Wnt (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I suppose for completeness I should note that construction of the central radio spire is now underway. In one NY-trimmed broadcast (Spike) death of Yoda/Osama was 8:00 or 5/2/11; perhaps the Bengazi attack was 9:14 or 9/11/12; if the timeline is collinear then a decisive Libya re-attack would be 5/17/13, followed by the tower on 8/5. Let's hope the data puts this idea to bed. Wnt (talk) 06:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

My initial guess was that the terrorists manage to get someone access to the country via an attack on embassy records, but now the most notable dropping of barriers is with a mass release of prisoners in escapes.[4] In any case, the tower matched the movie as of mid-May [5] so we should have data one way or the other by 9/12. Wnt (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Pendolino trains in the UK

I've read the Pendolino article but have not found the answer. Are Pendolino trains running in the UK still tilting at corners, as they were designed to do, or has that been stopped on safety grounds? So do they run and tilt, or run and not tilt, or not run at all? Thanks 92.29.115.56 (talk) 10:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

They certainly do tilt, it's an odd experience if you've never been on a tilting train before. They can't run at their full speed (140mph) in the UK, but that's due to signalling restrictions rather than any issue with the tilting. There's more information in the article British Rail Class 390, which is the specific variant of the Pendolino used in the UK. the wub "?!" 12:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought they used to tilt, but since then that tilting was stopped on safety grounds because of the fear that if one of them stuck in the tilted condition, it would bash into a passing train? Has some solution been found? I had read/skimmed through the Class 390 article buut could not see anything about it.

By the way, are the carriages isolated from each other, or can you still walk between them as normal? Thanks 92.29.115.56 (talk) 13:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

As someone who rides Pendalino trains regularly, you can walk from one to the other. 130.88.162.13 (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

As someone who got off a Pendolino less than 90 minutes ago, I can safely say you can walk all the way through the train. As for the tilting issue, the trains were specifically designed with the cars tapering toward the ceiling so that even if the tilt failed on two trains travelling in opposite directions with both trains tilted toward each other, they still wouldn't interfere with each others' envelope. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Pendolino intercom

Prompted by the above, I regularly ride the Pendolino between Birmingham and London. Once or twice during the journey there will be a loud two-tone signal repeated three times over the intercom, presumably some sort of signal to the train crew. Does anyone know what it signifies?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I've wondered the same thing, since it's extremely loud and annoying, and never explained. Someone suggested it's a disabled distress alarm triggered in one of the toilets, which gets pushed surprisingly often because of the over-complicated door-locking system. I even vaguely recall an exasperated train manager once explaining over the intercom that "the big red button is for emergencies only" or words to that effect. However it does seem to happen too regularly even for that, and I've never noticed any rushing of staff towards the toilets when it does occur.

Whilst we're on the subject, anyone know why the intercom system is so terrible on those trains? It constantly seems to cut off people in the middle of their message. You'd think with all the other advanced engineering that goes into them, getting a simple intercom working would be easy! the wub "?!" 13:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

This link might be said to be Virgin (sic) on the ridiculous. Virgin to tackle loo trouble--Aspro (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems unlikely to be the toilet, as there are seven on every Pendolino so the signal would have to identify in which one there was a problem, but it's always the same signal.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The signal could be a request from the driver for the guard to make contact with him. Either that, or a SPAD warning sounding in the cab and being relayed by an open mic. DuncanHill (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

SPADs on every journey and at 100mph seems unlikely.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

merchant of venice willam shakespeare

i am 13yrs old and i need help with an assighnment we (me and my buddies) need to do one scene from the play merchant of venice so could you please give the number of the scene where in PORTIA AND SHYLOCK are present and could you tell me any suitable site i can look this up for in simple english. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.179.16.221 (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you read our article The Merchant of Venice? At the bottom, in the "External Links" section, there are links to sites that help you navigate the play. Although from the sound of it, you may not have read the play. You should read the play. It's the main point of assigning you the homework. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

(Maybe at 13 they're not meant to read the whole play on their own for homework.) Do look at the linked websites. But you should a copy of the play in book form, and you can quickly leaf through it to find pages where both Portia and Shylock appear. That's the easy bit. The hard bit will be understanding the scene, learning your lines and performing them well. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The OP's IP address is in India, which may explain the request for "simple English." It's hard enough for people whose first language is English, but whose first love is not Shakespeare's English, to always get the sense of the play. Sites like No Fear Shakespeare provide both original text and a more modern rendering. I'd encourage you to use the modern version as a guide to help you understand the original, not as a replacement for it. I will also suggest that if you know the general story in Merchant, you have some idea when Shylock and Portia meet. --- OtherDave (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The scene number in question is probably: Act 4, scene 1... if that helps. Blueboar (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Age of majority in Israel

Which calendar is used for determining whether a person has reached the age of majority in Israel? --84.61.155.241 (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm fairly confident it's the Gregorian. 130.88.162.13 (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I asked someone who lived in Israel about 30 years ago and they said that it was the Hebrew calendar - at least then. It may be different now. They said that at the time they barely knew the Gregorian calendar and never used it (but they do learn it in school). But again, things may be different now. Ariel. (talk) 02:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:WHAAOE. The answer is both are official calenders, and though the article is unclear as to which is used for the age of majority, it implies that the Gregorian is now dominant so I assume it is that one. 130.88.162.13 (talk) 09:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

According to The Interpretation Law (5741-1981) of The Laws of the State of Israel: year" and "month" mean, respectively, a year and a month reckoned according to the Gregorian calendar .... I hope that helps. ^Avic_ennasis @ 23:35, 21 Adar I 5771 / 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Early 13th century song: Edi Beo

What does the title, Edi Beo, mean? What is the history of the song? Fippleflute (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Edi beo thu means "Blessed be thou". You can find the full lyrics four verses of the song, with translation, here (page 1, song no. 3). I don't know anything of the song's history apart from the fact that it's a 13th century carol in praise of the Virgin Mary, and that it survives in Corpus Christi College, Oxford MS 59, f. 113b (according to R. T. Davies Medieval English Lyrics (Faber and Faber, 1971) p. 313). --Antiquary (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It was probably composed by a chaplain or schoolmaster at Lllanthony Secunda Priory (Ref: Alec Robertson and Denis Stevens (eds.) The Pelican History of Music (Penguin, 1960) vol. 1, p. 248). Most sources seem agreed that it's mid- or late-13th century. --Antiquary (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

And finally: full lyrics and gloss. Scroll down to §8. --Antiquary (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Iran Hostage Crisis response

1) Did the US have the military capacity to invade and overthrow the Iranian government, at the time, had they chosen to do so ?

2) Why did Iran release the hostages without any of their demands being met ? StuRat (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

As for #2, it was because Ronald Reagan had literally just been inaugurated as President of the United States, and the release of the hostages was a way of thumbing their noses at Jimmy Carter. Corvus cornix_talk 19:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Also in regards to #2, I remember it being common speculation at the time, that based on Reagan's comments, Iran was afraid when he was officially placed in office he would order #1 to be carried out. 10draftsdeep (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)There is a kernel of truth to both answers, in regard to question number 2. Some years later there was a rumor that a "deal" had been made in diplomatic circles. But the assumption at the time was a bit of both the answers above. Following up on question 1, we could easily have destroyed them if we had chosen to. There was, in fact, an abortive and disastrous attempt at a rescue mission, which pretty well drove the final nail into Carter's campaign coffin. The Iranians knew we didn't want to harm the captives. If we had taken the aproach of just going in and blowing the hell out of them, innocent and guilty alike, to be followed up with notes of apology to the families of the victims, the world might look rather different now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding 1): probably not, but who knows? Invading and occupying a country is tough, like the recent invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan shows. Quest09 (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Re #2, the October surprise conspiracy theory is considered credible in some circles. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

That's the rumor to which I was referring. As regards #1, we wouldn't have had to do what we did in Iraq - all we had to do was go in and kill the Ayatollah Khomeini and everyone else that appeared to support him... and then turn the country over to Saddam Hussein. Like I said, thngs would look different now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, things would look different. The US would have then invaded the "Iraqn" after 9-11 to take a much powerful Saddam out of power. Quest09 (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You mean kill most of the country? Were nukes going to be used? Nil Einne (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding #1: Yes. Iran was dependent on foreign support for its military. With direct threat from Iraq, Iran faced three options: 1. Settle the matter with the United States so it could purchase weapons to fight Iraq. 2. Find another country (ie: Russia) to provide military supplies. 3. Hope that the existing stockpile would be enough to handle Iraq. They chose option 1. They settled with the United States and then gathered weapons and intelligence from the United States to use against Iraq. I do not know how long it took them to figure out that the United States was also supplying Iraq.

Regarding #2: The demands changed over time. All of the demands left on the table were met before release. Mainly, Iran wanted money to use to fight Iraq and a promise that the United States would not interfere with Iran's politics in the future. The United States gave a lot of gold to Iran (as well as taking a lot of gold away from Iran-held accounts in the United States) and promised to stay out of Iran's politics. It is rather evident that Iran purposely waited until Reagan was in office to release the hostages because they wanted to make Carter look bad. The idea that Reagan was a crazy man with his finger on "the button" came later. -- kainaw™ 19:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding #1, no doubt the United States could have overthrown Khomeini and eliminated most of the Iranian leadership at the time. However, this would likely have resulted in the death of the hostages, and the United States would not have been able to control the outcome in a country the size of Iran without drafting and training another million or so combat troops for an occupation (since U.S. forces were largely committed elsewhere with the Cold War still underway). This would not have been politically possible in a United States in which Vietnam was seen by large numbers (a majority?) as a recent mistake not to be repeated. Marco polo (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The hostages were taken after Carter allowed the hated Shah to come into the US for medical treatment. I wonder if he had not done so, would there have been no hostage crisis? Or would they have found another excuse, a week later? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps if the US hadn't overthrown the Iranian government in the 1950s and installed the shah in the first place, things also "would be very different", as we are so fond of saying. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

There's also a way to blame all this on the British. In any case, upon leaving office, George Washington advised his countrymen to avoid foreign entanglements, and most every President since then has ignored his advice, often at his own and/or the nation's peril. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It's very well and good to say "don't have foreign entanglements" when you are yourself leaving power, it's another thing to actual run a country in a world that involves a lot of foreign entanglements. Even in the 18th century it was hard to not have foreign entanglements. It seems impossible to consider such a thing prudent foreign policy in the 20th and 21st centuries. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. For example, if the US hadn't joined NATO and instead told Europe that it was on it's own, the Soviet Union surely would have taken over Western Europe, for starters. StuRat (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Prior to Pearl Harbor (and even after) there were a lot of Americans who thought, "Why should we care about Europe? They bloody well don't care about us." When I see all the US-bashing going on in western Europe, I can hear my late grandparents saying, "We told you so." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

When I see all the Europe-bashing going on in the U.S., it makes me think my grandparents (not all of whom are late) would be wondering what they fought for. But wait, aren't we straying away from the topic of answering the question, here? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thought of a follow-up Q:

3) Why weren't the embassy staff evacuated in the early days of the revolution, or perhaps when the Shah was allowed into the US ? Did Carter not realize the danger ? StuRat (talk)

Iran Hostage Crisis does say that the staff of the embassy was reduced to 60 at that time. It had been 1000 earlier in the decade. As stated in that article, the US and Iran still enjoyed diplomatic relations, and the US wanted to reach out to the new de facto government to restart relations, and you'd want an ambassador for that, after all. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

No one was surprised by that disaster except Carter, it seemed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

And diplomatic passports are supposed to provide immunity from stuff like this. Of course that only works if the people around you care about international treaties and the like. Googlemeister (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

2010 local level census data

Resolved

 – Got my answer here first. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 21:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I've seen people updating local, city-level populations for the states released so far (for example [6]) but for the life of me I cannot find this local of strictly population data anywhere (not on Factfinder2 searching for Moore, Oklahoma anyway, and google search isn't helping). Where can I find this level of data to fact check such changes? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If your state is one of the ones for which the Census Bureau has released detailed data, it should be in Factfinder. The problem is that Factfinder is rubbish, as far as usability is concerned. Not sure where else the data would be available. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I was able to find the population of Moore, Oklahoma (55,081) by choosing the 2010 redistricting data, then the state / population & housing subset. It's not an intuitive interface. And only 16 states appear in the dropdown list. --- OtherDave (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

End of the Iran-Iraq War

The Iran-Iraq War left Iraq with crushing debt (according to the article) but also with the fourth largest military in the world (according to Iraqi Armed Forces#Iran-Iraq War), with "an immense numerical superiority over Iran's forces in every category" (according to Iran-Iraq War).

Why did Iraq agree to the ceasefire instead of bulling forward and grabbing the original targets of its attack against Iran? (some of of which are mentioned in this article section)

It wasn't war weariness, as the 1990 Iraq invasion of Kuwait demonstrated a mere two years later. The Iran-Iraq War article sort of implies why Iran agreed to the ceasefire, but is silent about Iraq's side, especially since the ceasefire took place after a series of "devastating" Iraqi attacks against Iranian positions. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Iraq was suspected of using weapons of mass destruction on Kurds in northern Iraq. Because this was all inside of Iraq, the general attitude was to look the other way and keep supporting both sides in the war. Then, Iraq did the same to Kurds in Iran. That couldn't be easily overlooked. International pressure was on Iraq to quit the war. The combination of international pressure and a long-standing stalemate with Iran made the decision rather easy. Iraq quit the war without much gain in land or oil reserves, but the government achieved extensive damage against the Kurds and had the entire country scared of showing any opposition (less the weapons of mass destruction get dropped on your neighborhood). I find this a weird bit of history because it wasn't long after Iraq went on a Kurd-killing rampage that the United States general public was swept with the attitude that Iraq never ever had any weapons of mass destruction and wouldn't dare cause harm to anyone - we even had some Hollywood celebrities visit Iraq and tell everyone that they are the nicest guys you could ever meet. But, that's getting off on a very controversial tangent. -- kainaw™ 02:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you'll have to cite some sources, kainaw. The early years of the war were basically a big stalemate, yes; but the last part of the war seems to have gone all Iraq's way, and one would assume it would continue to do so. I'm skeptical "international pressure" has ever stopped a war. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The Suez Crisis certainly was stopped by international pressure - but maybe Iraq cared less than Britain and France. Alansplodge (talk) 13:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

From the article you linked: "Toward the end of the war, the land conflict regressed into stalemate largely because neither side had enough self-propelled artillery or air power to support ground advances." I do not read that as "Iraq had a huge military force that could easily sweep through Iran." International pressure came primarily in the form of U.N. Security Council Resolution 598. -- kainaw™ 14:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

After the initial fluid phase of Iraqi advances, the fighting settled down into a situation not totally different from WW1 trench warfare, but with the Iranians sending over waves of "basiji" suicide-attackers, while the Iraqi command felt it had to constrain its maneuvers so as to always make sure that the Iraqi foot-soldiers were under the immediate direct visible supervision of officers and/or political commissars 100% of the time when in contact with enemy forces. The Iraqis were also preoccupied with building up defensive sand walls and moats. If you were imagining that the situation was like a typical WW2 battlefield (with the Iraqis having more tanks and planes), I don't really think that was the case.

The whole thing was semi-pointless for Saddam, in that he launched the war for the purpose of quickly and easily overthrowing the "weak" ayatollah regime in Tehran, while grabbing off a lot of Iran's oil on the side. It fairly soon became clear that wasn't going to happen, and everything after that point was pretty much throwing good money after bad. In fact, one reason why Saddam launched the Kuwait adventure was to recoup Iraq's economic losses from the Iran war... AnonMoos (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

In reply to the original poster, I think you already answered your own question: Iraq had more pressing problems--its crushing debt. For Iraq, Kuwait was an "easy" invasion, whereas Iran was a "difficult" invasion that wasn't going to succeed, as had already been shown by the decade of trench warfare stalemate. —SeekingAnswers (reply) 12:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe this, and Kuwait probably seemed to be low-hanging fruit by comparison especially since so much of Iraq's war debt was held by Kuwait; but if you have a source to point to I'd appreciate it. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, SeekingAnswers. There are probably links to a lot of sources for that understanding to be found in the respective articles, CT. WikiDao ☯ 16:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

But, while Kuwait was a non-socially acceptable invasion, it was OK to mess with the evil empire of Iran. Quest09 (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Iran in 1980 was not an "evil empire" -- it was a revolutionary regime which refused to conform to basic norms of international legality (see the hostage crisis discussion section) and declared as its openly-avowed goal spreading Islamic extremism and destabilizing governments far and wide. Someone in the 1980s said that the bad thing about a Saddam-Khomeini war was that "both sides can't lose" (a remark recycled from ca. 1941 comments about the Hitler-Stalin war). AnonMoos (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Iran might not be a part of the axis of evil, but the US perception of that revolution was always as something evil happening. The hostage crisis simply confirmed this perception. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.231.17.82 (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I took Quest09's "evil empire" comment to be prefaced by "From the USA's point of view..." Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Getting an investor interested in a particular project.

Back when I was a teenager I worked for a small startup, and recently again took up contact again with the founder of that startup, and asked if he might be interested in a pre-seed stage project I'm working on. He said he might be, and asked me to send him details.

What is the appropriate kind of information here? I don't have some general prospectus I've made fishing for investors, my concentration has been on getting the technology right. Do investors, even sharp ones, even care about underlying technology? Or, is he really just asking for a business plan?

By the way this guy is now a millionaire many times over, the amount of capital our project (I work with a partner) can use in this, pre-seed stage is less than a few thousand dollars. If we got a check for $10,000, we wouldn't know what to do with it as we're working on the technology. But if we got a check for $3,000, we definitely would know what to do with it! We need that money, from our day jobs neither of us makes enough money to be able to focus proper attention on our project. In addition, it has a network aspect that is impossible for us to test without one very serious test server, which we would like to buy. So, now you have all the information. What I would like to know, is how to put that in the form an investor who I have a personal background with would appreciate / be interested in the most?

More generally, what kinds of advice is there for projects that are at this pre-seed stage?? I mean, I've seen a lot online about business plans etc, but nothing that relates to the seed stage. Thanks for any advice you might have on this question. Best, 109.128.211.187 (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Since you already have a personal relationship with the guy, and because the starting investment is so low, he can't be expecting you to write up a business plan of the sort that all those hysterical websites claim you need, need, need in order to start a business. But he will want to see your budget and schedule, and the budget should be a good solid budget demonstrating that you can ship your product before you run out of money. Use Microsoft Excel, with the rows being categories of expenses you're going to have, and the columns being months. By the way, do ask for the $10,000; you will go over budget; everyone does; the usual advice for startups seeking venture capital is to go ahead and ask for as much as you think the investors will contribute, because nobody can budget for the unforeseen. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

See Ask a Question - Startups.com.—Wavelength (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait a second, your day job doesn't leave you with enough time to work on the new project, but $3000 ($1500 each) would let you develop it? This is pretty unconvincing, as 1) $1500 can't obtain that much time for you; 2) if you've got the skills to develop a nontrivial technical product, you're probably already earning enough to get $1500 together (such as by putting it on a credit card). I've never been on the investor side of this type of proposition but $3000 just doesn't sound like a business venture. Even if it was, why give up equity for such a piddly amount? Also, unless your idea has really unusual requirements, big servers are going out of style (you accomplish scalability with lots of small servers, not a single giant one) so most servers are no more powerful than a typical PC or laptop. That suggests just using your PC as a server for early development, and going without any outside funding until you're ready to quit your job (at which point you'd ask for much more than $10k). You might like looking at ycombinator.com (Y Combinator, an incubator of small startups) for a sense of how the culture works, even if you're not going to approach them directly. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You write a short concise business plan. It should include an estimated cash-flow forecast, and calculation of the NPV and IRR. There are billions of books about writing business plans, but you could get a template for a business plan, and fill it in from your own knowledge. Doing the cash flow forecast may be the most difficult part, but if you cannot be specific about what you are going to spend the investor's money on, then they will be unlikely to be interested. As has been pointed out above, you should be able to raise $3000 yourselves, but you may also be wanting to use the investor's business and marketing expertise. 92.28.242.165 (talk) 12:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)