Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:22, 29 May 2015

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/M

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

May 25

Long periscope?

Would it be possible to build a periscope that is say, 100 miles long so you could see things that far away as if you were in the same room. Or is that more of a telescope of sorts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.140.226 (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, perhaps using something like fiber optic cables which you called a periscope. But not in the traditional sense of the word, since the light would attenuate to a uniform blackness over such a distance. μηδείς (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Medeis says, it would be like looking at something 100 miles away... Just through a tube. Dismas|^(talk) 23:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly you can do that - but these days a camera, a long wire and a TV is easier! The glass that they use for optical fibre is amazingly clear (0.2dB/km according to our article)- so you'd get a reasonably bright image - but to maintain a focussed image over that distance would require that the light bounces repeatedly off the sides of the fibre. This means that you need a lot of fibres to maintain a complete image - and hence the result is going to be very pixelated. Obviously you're not reasonably able to pull a few million optical fibres over 100 miles - and without doing that, you just get better images with a digital camera. I suppose a 100 mile long telescope (or periscope...it makes no practical difference) would be possible. But the attenuation of the light due to the air inside the tube would require you to pump the air out - and the precision with which the pipe would have to be straight and the lenses perpendicular and free of even the slightest vibration would be daunting. Electronics just do it better. SteveBaker (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IF you were looking into somebody else's room with a 100 mile long telescope, the vision would be distorted, due to the the rotation of the earth, and the telescope itself may be broken by window frames, etc. You would also need planning permission from the city council. If you really want to spy on someone 100 miles away, install TeamViewer on their PC, and remotely switch on their webcam. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 01:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How would the rotation of the Earth distort anything? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he meant "curvature"? Given it is assumed by definition that periscopes have mirros/things to deal with angles, I wasn't too worried about pointing that out. μηδείς (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - that's what I'd assume too - and in that case, you could (in the case of a thought-experiment like this) dig a straight tunnel to carry the tube that started out at the surface, gradually increased in depth and then shallowed out to appear at the surface 100 miles away. That's not a problem in principle...and might actually make it easier to pump most of the air out of the tube to preserve optical clarity. But there are plenty of other issues here. SteveBaker (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and to make it clear, my original answer implied the use of multiple cables of optic fibers, each in essence a pixel, not just one fibre. Kind of like a very long compound eye. μηδείς (talk) 01:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing conflicts.

With ISIS in the news again, my question is how they are able to make such rapid and swift progress against two formally powerful countries. CNN or Fox just don't go into context.

My main reference being the siege of Stalingrad. I mean, hundreds of thousands if not over a million perished during this conflict. The size and scale of the Eastern Front makes the ISIS skirmishes and battles look like something straight out of kindergarten.

Yet, ISIS are probably only slightly better equipped than the Soviets were, excluded the thousands of tanks. Slightly better than rag tag. And they survive a sustained, comprehensive aerial bombardment by the most powerful air force ever known. How!?

Then they take Palymra against an army that has powerful T72 tanks.

Is there something we dont know in this co flict? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.140.226 (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The main difference is that this bombing is not carpet bombing, it's very limited targeting drone strikes. The goal is to kill only ISIS fighters without killing civilians. In carpet bombing, you just kill everyone in the area. That's far more effective militarily, although you still need massive land forces to use in combination. Most of the land forces just aren't up to the task. You have a weak central government in Iraq, which has purged all the Sunnis from it's officer ranks, leaving it weakened and demoralized. You have Shiite militias, which really only care to fight when in Shia areas. And in Syria you have the much weakened government, due to years of civil war. The Kurds have done an effective job, but again only in Kurdish areas. It's going to take competent troops, which probably means Western troops, to get the job done. And since ISIS will probably behead or burn alive any prisoners, it would require overwhelming numbers to ensure that they never have the local superiority in numbers which might allow them to take prisoners. StuRat (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may have noticed that little is said about them until they take an oil producing site. There is only one viable resource in the region: oil. They can take 100 cities that do not produce oil and the concern is low. If they take a city that produces or refines oil, concern is high. From an American perspective (I assume you are American because you mention CNN/Fox), we are not overly concerned as long as the oil keeps flowing at a good price. We don't really have a need to one religious sect to rule over another. It reminds me of a quote from the Iraq-Iran war: The only problem is that we cannot have both sides lose. 199.15.144.250 (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here in the US I hear about them when they commit a massacre or destroy antiquities. StuRat (talk) 12:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When they commit a massacre or destroy antiquities, look at where they are. For example, radical Islam in Nigeria was not notable until they kidnapped a bunch of girls from a major oil producing area. Suddenly, they are in the news. Similarly, we didn't hear much about Ethiopian pirates until they captured a oil tanker. Suddenly, they are a major threat. 199.15.144.250 (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody outside of Erbil has ever given a shit about Erbil. At least not for Erbil's sake. Poor abundant Erbil. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:26, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

I agree that access to oil is an important concern, but not because the US wants that oil. It's difficult to imagine American refineries being set up in that area anytime soon due to all the violence there, especially with home US oil and gas production way up due to fracking, keeping the prices low. And if ISIS sells it on the world market, that still has the effect of increasing the world oil supply and keeping prices down. The concern is that ISIS then makes lots of money off selling the oil, which they'll use to expand.

Also note that US troops in Afghanistan continue to make the news whenever there are deaths or a battle, even though there's no oil there. StuRat (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The oil and its machinery are in the general area. America doesn't want all the oil itself, but control (or at least influence) over the business end. If ISIS takes some oil and oil makes ISIS expand, ISIS reaches more oil. If ISIS fully expands within its claimed zone, and still doesn't agree with American policies by then, it's game over. So yeah, they'll fight them on any front, even the bone dry ones and in the spirit world. We hear about a lot of those fights, but hard to say "whenever" without considering the ones we don't hear about.

It's not all about the oil, though, because gas is interesting, too. And there's the tiny fact that, regardless of goals or even who's fighting who, virtually all of the military budget of the United States goes back into American corporations. If the economy stops expanding, that's also game over (or something ominous, anyway.) InedibleHulk (talk) 07:20, May 29, 2015 (UTC)

The main difference between ISIS and the government forces that are their main adversaries (outside Kurdish areas) is one of motivation. Fighters for ISIS believe that their cause is holy, and that if they die, they will go straight to paradise as heroes meriting reward. Their commitment is strong. As a result, ISIS is able to use tactics like sending armored vehicles to force their way to positions, then exploding the vehicles once they reach their positions, killing the ISIS fighters in the vehicle as well as their opponents, and allowing other ISIS fighters to then advance and take the positions. [1][2] Government forces in the region are fighting for corrupt governments lacking in legitimacy and simply lack the fervor to stand against ISIS fighters willing to risk everything. Given the choice between dying in defense of their corrupt government or fleeing to safety, they tend to flee to safety. By contrast, ISIS fighters willingly sacrifice their lives. As for bombing, another factor is that most of ISIS's opponents (including US forces) are concerned about minimizing civilian casualties, whereas for ISIS, their cause is more important than individual lives. [3] That allows ISIS to act more ruthlessly and with little restraint, whereas humanitarian concerns constrain U.S. and allied forces. Marco polo (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between minimizing civilian casualties and minimizing acknowledgment of civilian casualties. The numbers in Civilian casualties in the war in Afghanistan (2001–present), Casualties of the Iraq War and Drone strikes in Pakistan aren't exactly consistent, but even the lowball counts smoke ISIS' death toll (excluding those killed when the US bombs a suspected ISIS target, then gives ISIS credit for apparently being there).

And let's not forget, aside from murder, intolerance and all that, a huge part of ISIS' mission is getting rid of those guys the West used to be mad at for killing even more civilians than America does. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:47, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

You're comparing multiple wars over a decade and a half with a single, recent conflict, in the case of ISIS. Also, I suspect that many ISIS massacres aren't reported, as there are no surviving witnesses or anyone allowed to investigate. StuRat (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm comparing a bunch of conflicts, all under the same terror roof. Which one were you thinking of? ISIS is a latecomer, at least under that name, so they'll naturally have some catching up to do, but their formation itself was largely based on (and is sustained by) all sorts of people killing all sorts of civilians. Same general area. Many drone (and "normal air") strikes aren't reported for the same reason. That's why sites like Naming the Dead have to exist. Dead men tell no tales, no matter who kills them. Women and children, neither. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:17, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing surprising here. The US got nowhere in Vietnam against a guerilla army so they left. The USSR fought a war of attrition in Afghanistan and quit. Funny how when the military get it wrong abroad the government often collapses (USSR, Argentina, Portugal). In Iraq the US are pulling their punches. They didn't assist in the liberation of Tikrit bacause Iranian - backed militia were involved. They weren't very active in Syria recently when Daesh were advancing in regime - held areas. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 08:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does the OP understand the difference between "formally" and "formerly?" Edison (talk) 05:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, given the context. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:27, May 29, 2015 (UTC)

May 27

How long was the IRT Third Avenue Line (redux)?

On May 20, Metrophil44 asked:

How long was the IRT Third Avenue Line?

I wondered how long this line was, but I can't find the length in the article. -- Metrophil44 (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I wrote in the thread:

I haven't found a source for the actual length but have asked a knowledgeable friend. Stay tuned. --174.88.135.200 (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC), corrected 21:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC).

I now have an answer, but it's from a knowledgeable friend of my friend, not from a published source, and I didn't get permission to attribute it. So this should be the correct information but I don't have a suitable reference for it to be used on Wikipedia. According to this unpublished information, the sections of the line were:

From	To	Miles
South Ferry	Chatham Sq.	1.3
City Hall	Chatham Sq.	1.3
Chatham Sq.	149th St.	8.4
149th St.	Gun Hill Rd.	5.5
Fordham Rd.	Bronx Park	0.3

Making 15.2 mi (24.5 km) end to end, plus 1.6 mi (2.6 km) in branches.

I was also given official lengths of the different Manhattan Railway el lines as given out by their chief engineer's office in 1909, but this was before the Dual Contracts extensions and therefore does not represent the final extent of the Third Avenue line.

Manhattan:

Line	Miles
Second Avenue	7.44
Third Avenue	9.34
Sixth Avenue	10.89
Ninth Avenue	4.78
Suburban	0.15
Total	32.60

Bronx:

Suburban	5.08

I hope this is useful. --174.88.135.200 (talk) 22:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These numbers are extremely precise, implying your friend's friend has a source. Is there some reason he can't simply name the source, MTA Museum Brochure, or whatever? μηδείς (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ipanema_(brand)

There's no article for the Brazilian sandals brand Ipanema. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.111.224.70 (talk) 05:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear that the Portuguese Wikipedia has such an article either. Their disambiguation page, pt:Ipanema, contains no footwear entries. -- ToE 06:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to create the article yourself! The Portuguese Wikipedia does have an article on Grendene who own and make the brand. Nanonic (talk) 06:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But (s)he can't! Feel free to participate in the RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposal to change the focus of pending changes to change things. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Living brain outside the body

What would the owner of that particular brain experience?

Seeing as we can sustain whole organs outside of the human body, if we did the same with a brain, is it possible at all to theorize what it would experience? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.140.226 (talk) 09:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just dreaming, really. Not having access to the external functions of stimuli like touch, taste, smell, hearing, and sight, it couldn't do anything else. It would simply be just like being asleep. 82.35.216.24 (talk) 10:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It might be possible to provide it with nerve inputs. We have a cochlear implant and visual prosthesis that work that way now, so it certainly is possible. StuRat (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isolated brain and William and Mary. DuncanHill (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madness, and death, in short order. μηδείς (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stating from the get go that this is impossible, it would most likely be exquisite torture, and not just like being asleep. Compare with phantom pain and phantom limb. Although exact mechanisms are still being studied and disputed, it is likely that a combination of irritated severed nerve endings and mal-adaptation in the cortex case pain and other sensory sensations in the missing body part. That is just in one body part, and can sometimes already be crippling. Now imagine that for a whole body..... I guess you could argue that with the medical technology required to keep a disembodied brain alive (Clarke's three laws|indistinguishable from magic?), you could compensate for these things, but that is firmly in the realm of sci-fi. Fgf10 (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly; madness and death in short order. It's like asking what would a kidney do in a toilet, or a liver do in a swimming pool. Brains are organs, not magical gum drop chocolate fairy thingumies. μηδείς (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, the OP specified that we have the magical ability to keep the brain alive, which means no death. If that wasn't the case, even madness couldn't occur, as there would be no conciousness without the rest of the body. Fgf10 (talk) 07:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which is essentially what I said. The brain would just be in a dream state. There may be some sort of phantom limb syndrome at some point, but why do we not have that when we are asleep? When we are asleep, we can dream and do whatever we want, but our brains are disconnected from the body (so that we don't act out the dreams). KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 07:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How the heck could you possibly know that? You don't - please stop writing from your own personal guesses. SteveBaker (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK everyone - how do we know any of the things we're claiming here? What is the source of these pieces of claimed knowledge? Everyone here is just thinking shit up and guessing? The brain is VERY poorly understood - the importance of all of the connections with the rest of the body are not well understood. We don't understand how consciousness works - we don't even have an established definition for the term. So how could we even remotely guess an answer. Please stop doing that. Unless you have some kind of evidence from some kind of human trial - the only correct answer here is "We Don't Know"...all else is bullshit.

SteveBaker (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to take time off the RefDesk. As you say below, this is a Reference Desk, not a tabloid, and certainly swearing is not acceptable. Take a break, relax, and come back when you are ready to join into the spirit of things. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 18:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is this crap about stopping people saying "shit"? It's not, nowadays, regarded as foul language when used as Steve does above. DuncanHill (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When pigs fly. Assuming magical abilities is outside the purview of this desk. μηδείς (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I heard a drama on the radio recently done by Orson Wells about a Mr Donovan whose brain was sustained in a vat by an irresponsible doctor. The brain acquired the ability to force the doctor to do inappropriate things and it all ended badly.Edison (talk) 05:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Fair Use" or "Public Domain"

The photos on your site. How do I tell if they are "Fair Use" or "Public Domain"?

I am writing a trivia book and would like to use some of your photos, but I am not sure if I will have a copyright issue. It seems if I am reading correctly, the information on your site is "Fair Use" or "Public Domain" as long as I cite the source. Please advise and also let me know if this is not the case, how do I find out who to contact for permission to use a photo? Thanks

D. L. Milner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlmilner (talk • contribs) 16:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested in reusing content from Wikipedia, especially images, please read Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content which contains details on how to do so. There is a section in there on reusing Wikipedia images, which also links to some longer reading if you have further questions. If you have any more specific questions regarding reuse of Wikipedia content, please let us know! --Jayron 32 16:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Each picture has a different copyright status. All images have a description page; click on the large blue button at the bottom-right with the text "More details" to see it. That page will indicate what the copyright status is. Some pictures are Public Domain, some Fair Use (so they are owned by a third party), and some are on various copy-left licenses, mainly Creative Commons or GNU Free Document License. For example, the picture of the Taj Mahal is file:Taj_Mahal_in_March_2004.jpg, and it is GFDL. 19:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LongHairedFop (talk • contribs)

There's no such thing as a "fair use image". Fair use is a set of (poorly defined) limitations on the power of copyright holders to restrict what you do with their works. The copyright owner can't choose to make an image "not fair use". Uses can be fair use or not; images can't. If an image on Wikipedia has a fair-use box in the "licensing" section, that only applies to a particular use of that image on Wikipedia. It says nothing about your rights.

Also, there's no such thing as "public domain as long as I cite the source". If something is in the public domain, it is not copyrighted and there are no copyright restrictions on its use. If an image's page doesn't explicitly say that it is in the public domain, it isn't. -- BenRG (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that last sentence is probably not quite true. I would wager there are quite a few public-domain images on WP servers that are not identified as such. But you would have to find that out some other way.

(Note that the converse is not necessarily safe either — anyone can mark an image as public domain; it's a simple edit. It doesn't make it true.) --Trovatore (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for "public domain so long as I cite the source", the asker is presumably referring to the various atrribution-required licenses used, where the image is free to use if you give attribution (not actually public domain, since the copyright holder still owns the image, they just let you use it). Any Creative Commons license with "BY" in the summary (e.g. CC-BY) has this condition, though it may have additional ones (e.g. CC-BY-SA, which requires you to share any work using the image under an equivalent license - which would require you to freely license your trivia book, so anyone could copy from it so long as they give you credit). MChesterMC (talk) 08:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 28

Halloween and Autumn

Why is Halloween in autumn?

117.120.18.136 (talk) 05:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not, not Down Here anyway. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's scary. The crops die and winter comes. Nobody (aside from Australians, of course) wonders about ghosts and skeletons in spring. That's a time to live. See Halloween for details. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:31, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why wouldn't it be? It's not necessarily tied to some other season. That said, it's roots are based around harvest festivals of pagans. Harvesting is normally done in late summer and autumn. I'm a bit confused by the question and not really sure why you would think it should be in some other season. Dismas|^(talk) 05:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read the question as suggesting they chose the wrong season for Halloween to fall in. The OP just wants to know why it is so. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's the only time you can get pumpkins. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 06:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. If we're going with why it has to stay in autumn, it gets dark sooner than it used to, so kids with early bedtimes can still have some gloomy fun, without freezing to actual death. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:12, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

Boring reason: All Hallows' Eve is in autumn because All Hallows' Day is in autumn. Less boring reason: on the old Celtic calendar it's the beginning of the winter half of the year, when the life of summer is fading and thoughts turn to mortality. —Tamfang (talk) 07:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So why is All Hallows Day (All Saints Day to us) in Autumn? Saints' days are usually the day of their death (their birthday in Christ) but John the Baptist has two - his Nativity on 24 June and his Decollation on 29 August. And why 8 December for the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary and 8 September for her nativity? 156.61.250.250 (talk) 08:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nativity comes roughly 9 months after conception. Same reason that Christmas Day is 9 months after the Annunciation (or Lady Day, 25 March). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We knew that already [4]. The question is why that particular pair of days rather than one of the other possible 364 pairs. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 11:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What Dismas said above. The original occasion was the pre-Christian New Year in North West Europe. Speculatively because of the fact that it was Autumn, the days were lengthening and Winter was approaching, questions of mortality came to mind, and it came to be thought that the world of the afterlife then drew closest to ours, such that we should think of, and might be able to communicate to/with, the dead: certain formal celebrations and rites were performed. Surviving relics of such beliefs survive in modern secular culture in the form of ghost story-telling traditions, use of scary turnip- or pumpkin-carved lanterns, various customs such as trick-or-treating, use of bonfires (now mostly transferred in England to by a few days to November 5th) and so on (as well as debatably accurate revivals of the original celebrations by Neo-pagans such as myself).

When Christianity arrived, it attempted to subsume such beliefs into its own worldview (as it did with other pagan celebrations around the Winter Solstice - Christmas, the Spring Equinox - Easter, and so on.) This particular re-interpretation was called All Saints Day as a parallel to the Pagans' all departed spirits, or in older terminology All Hallows Day, preceded by All Hallows Eve aka Halloween: note that "e'en" is an old variant of the word even(ing) and that the Pagan day (as for example the Jewish and Muslim day in ritual terms, began at the previous sunset. in Mexico, the not dissimilar though presumably independent pagan customs surrounding the Day of the Dead have similarly been partially subsumed by All Saints Day. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Disasters in Christmas

Are there any hurricanes, tornadoes or bushfires in Christmas?

117.120.18.136 (talk) 05:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's just another day, as far as Earth cares. These tornadoes happened around the same time the TV said the world was ending. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:24, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

Here's the Black Christmas. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:26, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

And then the hurricane. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:27, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

Cyclone Tracy. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2005 massive earthquake (knocking the Earth out of orbit) and tsunami, on Dec. 26th. Does that count? Maybe it was a day late for Christmas, but it ruined my birthday (Dec. 27th). KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 06:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"knocking the Earth out of orbit" is a bit of an exaggeration. 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami is the link we needed. The orbit changed EXCEEDINGLY subtly...less than a centimeter. Energy releases of all kinds alter our orbit minutely - so this was far from special in that regard. It happened in 2004, not 2005 - and it was the day after Xmas in the time zone where it happened and even though it was an incredible earthquake, the energy released was only about half of the largest ever nuclear weapon explosion. With around a quarter million people dead or missing as a direct result - the fate of your birthday is hardly relevant. This is a reference desk, not a tabloid newspaper, please stick to the facts. SteveBaker (talk) 06:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I got the year wrong. Sorry about that, Mr. Angry. Now shall we get back to the original question? (And I mentioned my birthday because I was in the f**king area at the time). KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 07:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not angry - I'm merely concerned that contributors here take just a little care to get their facts straight and to avoid exaggeration. What you wrote was almost entirely untrue - and you CLEARLY hadn't even tried to find a decent link for your answer or you'd have been reminded of the correct year. I'm just asking that you slow down a little and do some basic fact-checking. SteveBaker (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2003 Bam earthquake - ok so it was a day late but the OP said "in Christmas" not "on Christmas" or "at Christmas"...--TammyMoet (talk) 11:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For what's it worth, Boxing Day is inextricably linked to Christmas Day, at least to those who observe it. Can't return gifts you didn't get, and generally can't find Christmas gifts that cheap before. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:24, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

Which Christmas? There's an Island in Australia, and in the US alone we have

Christmas, Gila County, Arizona
Christmas, Orange County, Florida
Christmas, Lawrence County, Kentucky
Christmas, Alger County, Michigan
Christmas, Bolivar County, Mississippi
Christmas City, Utah County, Utah
Christmas Cove, Lincoln County, Maine
Christmas Valley, Lake County, Oregon

μηδείς (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't pretend to be stupid. That's for those who play the sophomore par excellence. Remember? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid (or pretending) or not, a Michigan guy shot another dead in Christmas, then crashed his car and died about fifteen minutes later near Wetmore last July. It wasn't exactly a disaster, but disastrous for at least two families. See also Christmas in July. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:07, May 29, 2015 (UTC)

Given the OP said "in Christmas" I thought the research was both interesting, and in good faith. Orange County, Florida has certainly been hit by hurricanes and tornadoes. Just nothing recent. Oddly enough, the OP's an Aussie. μηδείς (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind it. If it's not what he meant, he can easily ignore it. If it happens to be, it's very helpful. For those just strolling by, it's a free lesson in something they probably wouldn't have looked for themselves. Even trivial, loosely-related knowledge is power. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:33, May 29, 2015 (UTC)

The OP's question is ambiguous. However, if μηδείς is correct in identifying the OP as "an Aussie" then the question is almost certainly about the Australian Territory of Christmas Island particularly as that is the location of Christmas Island Immigration Reception and Processing Centre and, in Australia, for over a decade, hardly a week can go by without that island being named in the press in connection with immigration policy and issues. As to cyclones & hurricanes, Christmas Island is subject to tropical cyclones as the weather section in the article explains. If you want more details the Australian Bureau of Meteorology may have more details as may the equivalent authority in Republic of Indonesia due to the island's remoteness from the Australian mainland and proximity to Indonesia. As to bushfires, the island is 10 degrees south of the equator and has a climate significantly different to mainland Australia. A tropical climate with less temperature variation. It is not noted for bushfires although I believe I recollect that there were some limited fires (not necessarily bushfires) several years ago when some detainees escaped the detention centre. Lanyon (talk) 05:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Black Murderers

In the U.S, particularly Southern states like Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, are black people more like to get executed for the homicide of a white person. Than, lets say a white man killing a black person. Especially if the white person argues self defence. And is there some law stipulates juries must be an equal mix, rather than all white (or all black vs a white person) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.140.226 (talk) 08:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest this is hatted (by someone who knows how) as it is not a request for a factual answer. This is not a chat room designed to debate possible racial prejudice... gazhiley 10:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a request for factual information to me - a breakdown of sentencing for homicides according to the ethnicity of perpetrator and victim, and laws on jury composition. DuncanHill (talk) 10:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well each to their own DuncanHill, but as a frequent viewer of this desk this question has a tinge of chat/debate about it... "are black people more like to get executed" - how can we factually respond to that? We can answer what the number of each ethnicity is executed, from a factual viewpoint, but to answer the question are they more 'likely' (I assume that is what the OP meant) is a matter of opinion... Surely it depends on the level of the crime and priors etc? The judicial system should hopefully look past the colour of someone's skin and base the result purely on the facts... Frankly, I am amazed this "question" has had as much response as it has... gazhiley 09:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well to start with, Amnesty International USA refer to a study by Yale University saying that "African-American defendants receive the death penalty at three times the rate of white defendants in cases where the victims are white". Our article Race and crime in the United States states "Federal Prosecutors of African American and Hispanic defendants are twice as likely to push for mandatory minimum sentences, leading to longer sentences and disparities in incarceration rates for federal offenses", referenced to Univ. of Michigan Law & Economics, Empirical Legal Studies Center. DuncanHill (talk) 10:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Jury selection in the United States has some interesting points, including the Duke University study "black defendants (81%) are significantly more likely than whites (66%) to be convicted when there are no potential black jurors in the pool. Even with only one black member of the jury pool, conviction rates are almost identical (71% for blacks and 73% for whites). While 64% of cases had at least one black potential juror in the pool, only 28% of all trials had one or more black members on the seated jury." DuncanHill (talk) 11:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Report by the Equal Justice Initiative - "Some district attorney’s offices explicitly train prosecutors to exclude racial minorities from jury service and teach them how to mask racial bias to avoid a finding that anti-discrimination laws have been violated." DuncanHill (talk) 11:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And we have an article All-white jury. DuncanHill (talk) 11:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of people executed in Alabama, ~~List of people executed in Mississippi~~ and ~~Capital punishment in Florida#List of individuals executed since 1979~~ might be worth a look. One has a race column. But no, they don't provide a full picture, including who was not executed, and who had shadows of doubt in their trials. It's something, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:15, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

May 29

@@ Line 268: / Line 268: @@
 :*Looks like a request for factual information to me - a breakdown of sentencing for homicides according to the ethnicity of perpetrator and victim, and laws on jury composition. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 10:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
+::* Well each to their own [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]], but as a frequent viewer of this desk this question has a tinge of chat/debate about it... "are black people more like to get executed" - how can we factually respond to that? We can answer what the number of each ethnicity is executed, from a factual viewpoint, but to answer the question are they more 'likely' (I assume that is what the OP meant) is a matter of opinion... ''Surely'' it depends on the level of the crime and priors etc? The judicial system should hopefully look past the colour of someone's skin and base the result purely on the facts... Frankly, I am amazed this "question" has had as much response as it has... [[User:gazhiley|<font color="green">gaz</font><font color="red">hiley</font>]] 09:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 :OK, well to start with, [http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-and-race Amnesty International USA] refer to a study by [[Yale University]] saying that "African-American defendants receive the death penalty at three times the rate of white defendants in cases where the victims are white". Our article [[Race and crime in the United States]] states "Federal Prosecutors of African American and Hispanic defendants are twice as likely to push for mandatory minimum sentences, leading to longer sentences and disparities in incarceration rates for federal offenses", referenced to Univ. of Michigan Law & Economics, Empirical Legal Studies Center. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 10:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)