Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

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.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

February 22

Books on arguments against I.D. and Young Earth Creationism

What are some good books written by scholars with arguments against Intelligent design and Young Earth Creationism? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Fairly few - most just lay out the evidence for the standard theory. Most of Dawkins is good, with The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution being particularly on-topic. Or look over the TalkOrigins Archive, which has an index to nearly every creationist claim and its refutation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I love The Selfish Gene for the science and The Ancestor's Tale for a fascinating if slightly outdated story consumable by the chapter. 66.108.223.179 (talk) 04:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Stephen_Jay_Gould wrote several books that, while not explicitly addressing Intelligent Design, do argue against the premise that a world as complicated as ours must have a designer. This topic (purposeful design vs. spontaneous order) is also addressed in a different way by the economist Vernon_L._Smith in Rationality in Economics: Constructivist and Ecological Models. The entry on emergence might also help.

is this stuff true?

is all this stuff true http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/02/20/magazine/mind-secrets.html?src=me&ref=homepage about the history of memory training and how memory exercises were considered on par with grammar and arithmetic? I never heard it before... 109.128.213.73 (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Didn't click on the link, but I once read part of a book called "The Memory Palace of Matteo Ricci" which is kind of about that; there's some discussion at Method of loci... AnonMoos (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

There were some books by Harry Lorayne that were popular in the 20th century about this too. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 04:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Much of it is definitely true. The best book on this, I think, is The Art of Memory by Frances A. Yates. Our own article on the Art of memory summarizes a lot of the history. Looie496 (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Cross of nail.....coventry cathedral

I have a cross of nails on a woden base. "He lives" is carved into the wood. There is a plate engraved "Cross of nails coventry cathedral coventry england on the wood base. My grandfather had it. He lived in newfoundland canada.

How did he come to get this, where does it come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.165.13 (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The Cross of Nails does seem to be strongly associated with Coventry Cathedral - see this section of our article. The destruction of the cathedral on the night of 14th November 1940 during the Coventry Blitz was a hugely significant psychological moment of the Second World War. DuncanHill (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

As to how your grandfather came to acquire it, perhaps someone gave it him as a present: such items are sold by the Cathedral as souvenirs! --TammyMoet (talk) 10:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I would love to find out when these souvenirs were handed out, how much he paid and how he came to know of them (advertising?). He has never been in England, so he would of received it by mail. I beleive he received it in the 1950"s. ANyone have insight?

Antony Flew (former atheist)

What is the relationship between Antony Flew and the Atheist Agenda?
—Wavelength (talk) 07:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It is you who added the link in the first place, so maybe you can tell us? I can tell you what the probable cause for the removal was - it seems like a logical fallacy (argument from authority?) in the vein of: "This prominent atheist says he was mistaken and started believing in God, hence the AA is also mistaken and should start believing in God." I also think your other addition of "state atheism" to the See also section of the AA article was questionable to say the least - no one is arguing that articles on insignificant little local churches should have "Theocracy" in their See also sections, and likewise an insignificant little local atheist gathering shouldn't have state atheism linked to them either. TomorrowTime (talk) 11:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's not forget Antony's brother Juan, the ornithologist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Cue rimshot. Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 15:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that Antony Flew, as an atheist, was known especially for promoting atheism. It seems to me that the Atheist Agenda is known especially for promoting atheism. Therefore, it seems to me that the promotion of atheism is a primary characteristic shared by Antony Flew when he was an atheist and by the Atheist Agenda now. (His subsequent conversion is irrelevant to that comparison.) I posted the question because I reasoned that someone might have seen or might see some important details that I had missed.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Ice is known primarily for being cold. It seems to me that space is known especially for being cold. What is the relationship between ice and space? Just because two things share a (not especially unusual) characteristic, doesn't mean they are related. Why have you asked if he is related to the Atheist Agenda rather than any of the other groups or people who promote atheism? 86.163.4.79 (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.—Wavelength (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually I did notice some import details you missed. In particular, it seems to me someone didn't even read the articles they tried to link together. "However, in 2004 he stated an allegiance to deism" ... "The Atheist Agenda is an organization founded in 2005". Nil Einne (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.—Wavelength (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Bryony Worthington, Baroness Worthington

Who is the father of her baby? Kittybrewster ☎ 09:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

A quick Google search doesn't seem to find much in the way of personal details, and in any case, I don't think the paternity of non-notable children is really an appropriate topic for Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me rephrase it. Is Bryony Worthington married; and if so, to whom? Kittybrewster ☎ 15:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I checked a few other likely sources (Debrett's People of Today, KnowUK, etc), but couldn't find any info. I suspect it's too soon since her elevation to the peerage, and she wasn't very well known before then. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I added some more info to the article yesterday, but found nothing about her recent relationships - although, quite interestingly, it seems she was once in a relationship with comedian Rhod Gilbert (unless there is more than one Bryony Worthington, of course). Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Poem written in response to "House by the Side of the Road"

I used to have a book of poems which contained "House by the Side of the Road" by Sam Walter Foss. The book also contained a poem that was written in response to "House by the Side of the Road," which basically took the position that one should be in the road interacting with people rather than watching them pass by. Do you know who wrote that response poem, its title, or anything else that might help me find it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.50.170 (talk) 13:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Using Google Books, I find that the book you are looking for is The best loved poems of the American people by Hazel Felleman, Random House, 1936. It contains House by the Side of the Road as well as, on page 106, a poem called Crowded Ways of Life by Walter S. Gresham, with a note saying it was written in response to to the Foss poem and a theme as you describe. Looie496 (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Trust fund kids

Is a trust fund bad for your kids? I mean, if your kids do not have to earn never ever their own money, will that make them necessarily immature and ill-adapted? It is certainly said that this is common, but most people that say so don't have any first hand experience, so it doesn't have to be true. I tend to see a parallel between climbing a mountain/driving with your car to the top of the mountain. The first demands more from you, but it's more rewarding and allows you to grow as a person. 77.231.17.82 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC).

The mountain analogy would be an argument for a child to voluntarily relinquish a trust fund. If what is under consideration is to refuse the child the option of a trust fund, though, the analogy needs modifying. It would more closely correspond to arbitrarily refusing to drive a person up a mountain - moreover, arbitrarily refusing to drive a close family member up a mountain, obliging them to walk instead. This seems likely to have a negative effect on their immediate happiness and on your relationship. As for the effect on their personality in later life: quite apart from the likely negative effect on the personality of any festering resentment towards one's parent, it's common for children to believe that the formation of their personality is their own business, which is a more general form of the same question of who rightfully gets to decide the child's means of transport. 81.131.10.8 (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

That's an odd perspective. Seems like you're talking about a situation where a trust fund is taken away from the child, whereas the OP is talking about not setting one up. As someone brought up by parents who accumulated quite a lot of wealth, but who made it clear to me from an early age that the intention was never to leave us money, there's never been any resentment about that. We know the money is for them to enjoy, and give away, and that they've done their best to help us get set up to live our own lives. Why would we resent not having a load of unearnt money so we never had to work? We've been fortunate as it is, why resent not having even more advantages that (according to the beliefs we were raised with) would not be good for our personal development? We will be left personal items we care about: the money is intended to have been spent. 86.163.4.79 (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Taking things for granted, no matter what, can make you unhappy. However, a trust fund could be granted under certain conditions: up the age of 21, in case of disability or as a retirement fund. You don't have to convert your children into spoiled princes with your money, and yes, climbing a mountain is more rewarding than driving up a mountain, walking is more rewarding than being pushed in a wheelchair. People need a certain level of activity. Quest09 (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I've certainly met mature and well-adapted trust fund kids (they're swarming where I work). I've met people who were obviously trust fund kids as kids, who have become rather important and mature and influential people today. This is just anecdata, though, I don't know the actual numbers. The one thing I've noticed is common to all former trust fund kids is that they have a very hard time relating to what it is like to have very little money — they honestly just don't seem to get, at a deep level, what it's like to live month to month, which most non-trust fund kids have experienced at some time in their lives. In my experience that is only a big problem if you put said trust fund kids in charge of the incomes of more marginal people; they're more likely to say, "oh, what's an extra few hundred dollars?" without realizing that can mean the difference between paying heating bills for some people (even people who are ostensibly middle class). --Mr.98 (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me guess Mr.98, you work at a private bank, managing private funds? 212.169.183.15 (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't I wish. No, much worse: higher education. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You'll find immature folks along all classes. Having a secure income doesn't make you necessarily a bad person. However, you won't relate to problems of people who do not have this sort of problems (like Mr.98 points out), but you could also say the same of people born male relating to problems of female, non-disable relating to disable, or heteros relating to problems of homos. The list is infinite. We all have our limitations. 212.169.183.15 (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The author of Hagakure asserts that there are two things that will spoil a man's character: riches and fame. He also states that only people who are dependant on others to at least age thirty will come to any good. Vranak (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Some famous billionaire (I can't remember which one) once said "I plan to leave my kids enough that they can do anything, but not so much that they can do nothing." I quite liked that. Rather difficult to achieve in practice, though... --Tango (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems like the attitude of Warren Buffet. The idea above, of a fund tied to a purpose, like retirement, seems as a good option of taking care of your kids without spoiling them. A similar situation, but much more common, are entrepreneurs' kids who inherit the company of the parents. That implies being responsible for something, at least. 212.169.188.107 (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment of only giving the kids money for worthy causes, like education, paying for medical bills, retirement, etc. I could extend that to basic housing, clothing, and transportation, but, if they want a Park Avenue penthouse, a Ferrari, strands of diamonds, and a dog that fits in a purse, they will have to earn those personally. (Also provide females with lots of free panties, because female celebs always seem to be lacking those. :-) ) StuRat (talk) 05:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the evidence, there are people who have achieved significant things despite living on an unearned private income: playboy-poet Frederick Seidel is one of the best-known living examples, and before him Henry James, Wyndham Lewis, artist John Piper, poet and writer Siegfried Sassoon, adventuress and writer Anne Blunt, 15th Baroness Wentworth, poet Sacheverell Sitwell, and many other members of the upper classes. I've excluded people who died young or definitely can't be said to have had good lives: Jane Austen never had to work for a living, though she did die of illness aged 42. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry about the kids. The grandkids are the problem; traditionally, it's the grandkids who squander the fortune. (Trust funds, of course, exist in order to try to prevent them from squandering the fortune.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Freemasonic countess in the 18th-century?

Exactly how many other examples of women eccepted in to regular freemasons are there except Elizabeth Aldworth? I just read a (Swedish language) book about secret societies. In the chapter about the freemasons, there was a short notice about another woman than Aldworth, who was also a full member of a regular freemasonic lodge. A Hungarian Countess by the name of Brankoczy was accepted in to the freemasons in the 18th-century, during the reign of Maria Theresia. The reason for this was, reportedly, that Brankoczy had inherited her father's title and position as the head of his family, and was therefore counted as a man and a count rather than a countess. She was inducted by a local lodge, and when the main lodge of Hungary heard of this, she was cast out again. According to the book, she was one of only two women confirmed to have been inducted to the regular freemasons in accordance to the same rituals as men. Unfortunately, this notice was very short, only a few lines, and really didn't say any more than above. Can anyone confirm this? What was her full name and who was she? The book only briefly mentione her as "Countess Brankoczy". When did she live and when was she inducted to the freemasons? --Aciram (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

A lot depends on who you talk to. First, we have to ask what you mean by "regular"... Freemasonry is not a single unified thing, and there is a lot of disagreement as to what "regular" means. Under the form of Freemasonry that is in the majority in Britain and the United States, women are excluded (and lodges that accept women are deemed "irregular"). There are lots of stories and anecdotes of women who were initiated in the early years of the fraternity, but Aldworth is the only one that can be confirmed though actual documentation. However there are minority Masonic groups in each country that have always accepted women (and these groups consider themselves to be "regular"). In Europe co-ed Masonic bodies are much more common (see our article on Continental Freemasonry). Male-only Freemasonry is actually in the minority.

As for the specific case ... Countess Brankoczy is probably another "legend". There isn't really much evidence that she actually existed. It is certainly possible... but we are not sure. (And it is also possible that she is a conglomeration of several women who joined a lodge that went co-ed.) Blueboar (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You'll find some information at our page on Freemasonry and women, but few of the claims made there are supported by references. Caveat lector. --Antiquary (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I would also recommend "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Freemasonry" by S. Brent Morris (don't let the name deter you... While the book is designed to be an introductory level overview, Brent Morris is a very highly respected authority on Freemasonry). Chapter 7 discusses the issue of Women and Freemasonry, and mentions some of the women who have been made Masons (in various masonic bodies). Unfortunately he does not mention Countess Brankowczy. 18:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Symbols of Hyrule

This is an image of the Triforce, a powerful, ancient magical object in the Legend of Zelda series. An image of it appears on the backs of the hands of the main characters like this. The royal family of the game also incorporate it into their symbol, which looks something like this.

A friend of mine claims that the Triforce imagery doesn't look very ancient. He's challenged me to try to find real-life ancient symbols like it (his specific line was "show me one symbol from ancient times that incorporates three triangles, or similar, and yellow"). I've been Googling, but ancient symbols are hardly my speciality. I was wondering if anyone knows of any other symbols anything like the Triforce? Or would you agree that three golden triangles just doesn't look very ancient? He was unable to be specific as to what about it was specifically un-ancient, only that it looked like the radioactivity hazard symbol. Vimescarrot (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

How about this? --Mr.98 (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if this is ancient enough, and it's also not yellow, but how about the clan crest of the Hojo clan? TomorrowTime (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

(EC) The examples above are great, and Shigeru_Miyamoto likely would have been familiar with the Hojo crest when he designed the triforce. Also, I think the OP would do well to research African patterns. This example [1] is only a few hundred years old, but I suspect the style goes back much further. As a bonus, it seems very similar to the art in the opening sequence of "wind waker", which IMO did a great job of simulating ancient-feeling art. FWIW, I think the triforce is plenty ancient feeling. Though it's not repeated, it forms the basis of one of the Wallpaper_groups, which in general have quite a long history. Ndebele_house_painting may give you further leads. SemanticMantis (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

How about the triskelion? It's not exactly a triangle, but sort of... Adam Bishop (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it an example of tiling by regular polygons, specifically triangular tiling? There's a heraldic term...--Wetman (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Such a field might be blazoned as "Barry bendy dexter and sinister," "Barry lozengy" or "Barry pily," according to this, and the specific emblem might be "A Pile Inverted Or Voided of a Pile" [Explicatory addendum: in modern non-heraldic English that means "An Upright Triangle, Gold, with an Inverted Triangle pierced through it], but I'm open to correction. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

In art and math, we call the arrangement a tessellation. The Hyrule image is a tessellation of equilateral triangles. This technique has been used in mosaics and opus sectile for thousands of years. Your friend asks an almost impossible request: find a three yellow triangle tessellation which has been preserved for centuries and concerning which a picture exists on the internet and which copies the modern invention of a Japanese video game designer. One example can be found in the ancient port city of Ostia outside of Rome.[2] It isn't yellow and it doesn't contain a single set of three triangles, but the design was not unknown. The hyrule triangle can be folded to form a tetrahedron, which was known to Plato, Euclid and all the ancient mathematicians that came after them. Indeed, pyramids are an ancient design. The hyrule symbol is not completely alien to anything ever thought of before, but then again it is a modern design from a modern mind. In that sense it is both modern and ancient at the same time. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for all the responses. Much appreciated. Especially interesting was the crest of the Hojo clan...very similar. Pyramids were something that was brought up in the discussion, too. Vimescarrot (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

HMS Joanna

Hello, I'm looking for information on a ship named HMS Joanna. I believe it was under construction but scrapped before it was built. Does anyone have more details? Thanks 86.174.95.191 (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

There was, I believe, a now-closed nightclub in Southsea, Portsmouth called Joanna's which, because of the high proportion of Naval personnel among its clientele, was nicknamed "HMS Joanna." Is it possible that this is the basis of your source(s)? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant! --Wetman (talk) 02:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I should note that, though a peripheral Scummer with many Skate and Turktown friends, I actually found that out by googling :-) ! 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Time for a bit of background information to my question. I'm working on a novel which I have provisionally titled HMS Joanna, but on telling a friend about it yesterday, was advised I couldn't use the name because it was already in use. I was then told that a ship named HMS Joanna had been commissioned, but that work had been stopped before it was finished. Thanks for the possible explanation. It sounds feasible, and I've Googled the name since yesterday and found references to the nightclub. I've also found a USS Joanna which was written off as "unaccounted for abroad" in 1920 after serving with the US Navy during World War I, and I'm wondering now if this is the ship to which my friend was referring. 81.151.51.40 (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see why there being a ship of the same name would preclude the novel having the name. I think your friend may be being massively over-cautious. Good luck with the novel. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Also, British warships aren't commissioned until after their acceptance trial. An incomplete ship wouldn't be commissioned. Alansplodge (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks both, for the good wishes and the information on sea trials, etc. The book is in its early stages of development, so it will be a few years before I'm finished I suspect. Interestingly I note Alistair Maclean used HMS Ulysses as a title and we've had several ships using that name, so I guess I shouldn't have a problem with HMS Joanna. 81.151.53.213 (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

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^[3] (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.^[4] It turns out that this blog was recommended and followed by Anders Breivik, who carried out attacks on July 22 2011.^[5] 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.[6] In any case, the tower matched the movie as of mid-May [7] 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 [8]) 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)

February 24

Animorphs 37 reference

I don't know if anybody knows (or cares) about Animorphs anymore (I still do!), but it's worth a shot...

OK, I remember reading the 37th Animorphs book a while ago, which includes chapters about Jake's old relative who fought in the Civil War alongside the Animorphs chapters. In one of the chapters, a battalion of black troops are being trained for battle by this war captain who teaches them to shoot a gun. I thought that chapter was really cool, until I watched Glory for a university class and saw almost the exact same gun-training scene -- the black soldiers are all excited to learn to shoot, one of the soldiers hits one of the tin cans lined up as targets and is praised by his friends, the captain starts yelling at him to reload, and fires into the air while he's yelling, making the black guy jump, there's a lot of tension in the air, then the captain says something like, "when you're on the battlefield, with shots flying all around you, a good solider can shoot three times in one minute and make every shot count." Glory was made in 1989 and the 37th Animorphs book was made in 2000, so... the movie definitely came first. It's just strange how similar it is :-) Would that be copyright infringement, or does copyright not extend to situations, just to actual quotes? Maybe both the movie and the book got it from the same historical event? I do know that this one was likely ghostwritten, as were most of the books past #20.

Jonathan ^talk 02:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyright does apply to situations, not just to quotes. The question is one of degree, though; a single semi-similar but still fairly generic scene of a much longer work in a different medium, as in this case, is not going to be remotely enough for copyright infringement to be established in the courts. —SeekingAnswers (reply) 12:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That's right, probably unless the scene were copied from Glory quite exactly. How "exactly" the scene needs to resemble the Glory scene in order to infringe the Glory copyrights is unfortunately (for the RD) something for the courts to decide. If the scene idea is the same but the scenes do differ, see Idea-expression divide. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

AS Glory was based on reality,maybe so was Animorphs based on a historical event so no copyrite problem perhaps.Hotclaws (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hitler

Was Hitler a good man or bad man? --MonkeyEditWow (talk) 02:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Both and neither. You have to define "good" and "bad" to answer that question. Neither good or bad is a factual issue by itself. -- kainaw™ 02:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If 99% of people define massacring civilians as bad, then Hitler was bad. StuRat (talk) 06:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a non-sequitur. Not that I'm defending what he did for a micro-second, but even in Hitler's case, how do we make the link "bad deeds = bad person"? We can't. All of us have done what we would call "bad deeds", yet none of us likes to think of himself as a bad person. If there's a distinction between actions and their agent in the case of the vast generality of humanity, why is this no longer the case with the Hitlers of the world? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

By that standard there are no bad people at all. Personally I would say if someone does more bad than good then they are a "bad person". And if less, then they did "bad deeds". Yes, that does require me to judge the quantity of "bad deeds" vs "good deeds", but I'm OK with that requirement. I couldn't calculate a precise number for that, but it is possible to say which was more in Hitler's case. So yes I can say that Hitler was a "bad man". (But he probably did not think that of himself - not sure if that was part of your question.) Ariel. (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

How do you weight "good" and "bad"? Was Jefferson, the slaveholder, a good or a bad man? He owned slaves every day of his adult live, but he only beat them occasionally. In between, he prepared for the ethnocide of native American culture, offering Indians the choice between assimilation, expulsion, and death. Oh, and he wrote some of the most fundamental words on the Rights of Man and founded one of the first secular universities. Very few people perceive themselves as "bad" - they always find some way of justifying their actions, at least in their own mind. It's usually harder, but more fruitful to find out their actual motivations. I really like what Harry Turtledove did with the American Empire and Settling Accounts series, highlighting how "normal", even sympathetic characters developed to be cogs in a machine that did terrible things. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

@ Ariel: OK, maybe there are no "bad" people at all, and likewise no "good" people. The US Declaration of Independence was on to the right idea, with "all men are created equal". Not "some men are bad, but everyone else is good", or whatever. Laws punish people for committing bad acts; the act itself can't be punished, so the next best thing is the person responsible; but no law ever says "The perpetrator of X act is a bad person", or "Those who pay their tax in full and on time are good people". No, the whole notion of personal badness or goodness is something we get fed as children, but adults can do better than that. Even Wikipedia has rules about discussing the behaviour of editors, not the editors personally. Editors can get banned or suspended on the basis of their specific behaviours, not because they are "bad" people. Weighing up a person's deeds and deciding that, on balance, they're either "good" or "bad" people, will never have legs. What if someone just scrapes through - are they "marginally good"? No, that approach can't work. And even then, we cannot possibly know all of anyone's deeds, just the most obvious and visible ones; reducing a person down to a handful of public deeds, as if that was all there was to the person, is doing a VAST disservice to the infinite complexity of humans. So, to the OP I say that we can look at the death and suffering Hitler brought about, and wonder how any human could ever do that, and seek to understand so that it can never happen again, and punish those responsible who are still around to be punished. That's more than enough to be getting on with for the next millenium. We don't need to be sidetracked by questions of whether any of the perpetrators were good or bad, because (a) there will never be universal agreement (witness the rise of the neo-Nazis and latter-day Hitler worshippers), but even if there were, (b) it doesn't change anything and is a waste of time. All it does is allow people like us sit back smugly in our comfy chairs in the knowledge that "we're not like that", while watching massacres and earthquakes and famines on TV and doing not a damn thing to help the victims. Sleep well tonight. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 17:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I work every day to avoid any children I can being fed that notion. It is an amazingly unhelpful notion that screws a lot of people up, and you can watch people imposing it on children everywhere you look. Every child is a good child, although they sometimes do wrong things :) Luckily, I get to convey this to a good number of them. 86.166.42.200 (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

By that logic, we also have to classify Churchill and FDR as "bad people" (Firebombing of Dresden) not to mention Harry Truman (Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki). It's very hard to draw an objective bright line good/bad distinction which doesn't put some people on the "wrong" side of it, with people saying "well, yes, I did say those acts made you a bad person, but it doesn't count because he did it for a good reason", which basically kicks the definition back to "good people are ones where I like their actions/motivations, and bad people are those where I dislike them." -- 174.24.194.184 (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Though it has to be noted that the atomic bombs, firebombings, etc., killed maybe a million or so civilians total. That's a lot. But it's a fair number smaller than the death camps. Both of those actions were arguably means to an end (however ineffectual the firebombings may have been in that regard) that would have saved lives in the aggregate, according to their logic. It's very hard to apply that to the Holocaust. Even the Nazis essentially admitted that they were only killing the Jews because transporting them somewhere else was inconvenient for them right at that moment. They had no illusions that killing them all off would somehow win the war or save lives or anything like that. I think I'm willing to go on the record saying that I think Hitler was, on the whole, a "bad man" while Churchill, FDR, and Truman were, at most, "expedient, often inhumane" people. I think there's a pretty significant difference. (I'll bite and put Stalin in the "bad man" category as well, while I'm at it.) I can relate to the kinds of expedient decisions that the Allies made, or even that the Germans made in the context of the actual war (e.g. the V-rockets, Blitz, etc.). I have a hard time relating to the Holocaust, which is just something else entirely. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Which Hitler? LANTZY^TALK 03:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The one with the funny mustache ? StuRat (talk) 06:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeh, he started his career in silent films. Speaking of films, in the credits of one of the Naked Gun series, there's a credit for "Best Boy", which is a term for a member of the production crew, and then there's a credit for "Worst Boy" which is listed as "Adolf Hitler". Perhaps that will answer the OP's question? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

While ultimately Hitler turned out to not very nice at all, some amazingly positive things happened during the earlier years of his time in charge of Germany. The advances in technology were impressive. Anyone who has seen the recently compiled colour movies of Germany from those times has to be impressed by the technical quality. He implemented very aggressive anti-smoking campaigns. Shame about the war. HiLo48 (talk) 11:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Whenever I hear unanimous sentiment that so-and-so was 'evil' or 'bad' I am inclined to consider the alternate point of view. I find Time magazine's approach to be more respectable -- they named him the Man of the Year in 1938. Vranak (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Him being Time Person of the Year has nothing to do with an "alternate point of view". They choose the person who, "for better or for worse, ...has done the most to influence the events of the year." Hitler certainly fit that description. If I recall correctly, Osama Bin Laden was on the short list for man of the year in 2001 (beat by Giuliani). Staecker (talk) 13:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

And Stalin won it twice, (which humorously is one more time then Obama). Googlemeister (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This entire discussion reminds me of the view a journalist took to sum up Robert McConnell, who was alleged to have committed a series of horrific sectarian killings and bombings in both Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic: "Robert may have murdered the Reaveys, but to his family he was the man who looked after his sick brother and disabled sister".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Gilbert and Sullivan's "A Policeman's Lot" illustrates that this "look for the bright side" concept, toward a seemingly reprehensible individual, is nothing new. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

See Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany and Animal welfare in Nazi Germany. And "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life". ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If Adolf Hitler has left to the human race any important writings or recorded speeches, they can be studied by psychoanalysts and by the general public. Some people might find some of the content to be intellectual "garbage".

—Wavelength (talk) 16:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that Hitler commanded the greatest number, in modern history, of gatherings of people to hear him speak? {Sorry, cannot find a positive reference among the article pages of Adolf Hitler). MacOfJesus (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hitler was a bad man. Here are 61,500 references, most of them supporting my claim. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

He got to power democratically with, I think one vote. He was popular. So if he is seen as bad, is what brought him to power also suspect? MacOfJesus (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The way Germany was treated by the British and the French following WWI created the environment in which it was possible or a Hitler to come to power and to be "popular". If the USA had been as strong and influential in 1918 as it was to become in 1945, maybe there would not have been a "need" for a Hitler. Interestingly, he was such an out-there demagogue that he's easy to demonize, and the Germans have had a tendency, I think, to scapegoat him. He didn't do all his stuff by himself; he had lots and lots of help. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well said! I believe that his "monster meetings" in Berlin were the largest of any in modern times, although I cannot find a reference anywhere of this! I think also, we should be sceptical of democracy too, for this was the system that gave him leverage. MacOfJesus (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, then we should consider whether his grandmothers and grandfathers were evil, because, you know, they caused him to exist, and each of them ended up supplying about 25% of Hitler's DNA. We should also consider whether sauerkraut and schnitzel are evil, because in the end, proteins and carbohydrates from these dubiously foreign foodstuffs composed a significant portion of Hitler's mass. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Does anybody else think we've been successfully baited by a troll? --140.180.5.122 (talk) 08:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Given that the OP has precisely that one entry, very possibly. But it's an interesting question, not especially a troll-like question as I see it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Every human person is capable of the greatest good and the greatest evil. This is not necessarly taken from religion but philosophy and psychology. Any action can be good or bad depending on the motivation of the actors involved. Hence, democracy can be used for evil intention. We should begin by defining evil and bad. Who was the philosopher who defined dirt as "matter out of place"? Who said: "There is no such thing as a bad boy"? All of this, I have said, is taken from my study of Philosophy. You will find my answers in Socrates, Aristotle and the pre-Christian Philosophers. MacOfJesus (talk) 10:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Please forgive me for coming in again. The Scholastic Philosophers defined it in as: "privatio boni". This is a fundamental principle. I am sure if you put in privatio boni you will get the evidence. There are a lot of other article pages where this principle was challenged and referred to by great thinkers, but defined it differently. (I have written on one). MacOfJesus (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Please forgive me the second time, for coming in on this. I think it important for the record! I think it was Socrates who said: "It is better to be robbed, than to rob!" "It is better to be killed than to kill!". Socrates did not write his words down but his hearers did. (Thanks to all for the opportunity of airing this important point). MacOfJesus (talk) 12:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yuon

Reading about Cambodia, especially in relation to the period of the Pol Pot's regime, I often encountered the word "yuon", used as noun, or adjective. I could find little or no explanation about it on the internet. I think it denotes some group of people considered enemies by the regime. But I'm not sure if it refers to ethnic (khmer of Sino-Vietnamese origin?), cultural, or ideologic distinction; nor if it is a pejorative form (maybe). It is sometimes found in the expression "youn mind in khmer body" -quite a dreadful accuse to be addressed, in khmer rouge's times. I do not know if it is connected with the dissident, former KR, Hou Yuon, too.

Can anybody explain this term? Thanks a lot. --pma 08:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It means "Vietnamese", sometimes perjoratively. Google finds this in the first few hits. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 09:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Semi-structural economic model

What is a "semi-structural" model in economics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.158.15 (talk) 09:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Might it have something to do with Structuralist economics? --Jayron32 04:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It might also have something to do with applying the Freudian Structural model of psychology to economics... --Jayron32 04:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Or, finally, it could be a data-analysis tool based on Semi-structured models. If you gave some context, it might be easier to nail down what you are asking. --Jayron32 04:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The OP must mean the data analysis one. First you need to understand what structural equation modelling is. I think it is statistical modelling that uses only independent variables that could plausibly have a causal effect on the dependent variable. Then allow some of the constraints on variables to be relaxed, and you have a semi-structural model. You might get a better explanation from the maths reference desk. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Correct pronounciation of "ICE"

What is the correct way (that is, the way the agency itself pronounces it) to pronounce "ICE", the abbreviation for Immigration and Customs Enforcement? As one word "ice", as in frozen water? Or like "FBI", "DEA", "CIA", etc., as three spelled-out letters, "I-C-E" / "I see ee"? —SeekingAnswers (reply) 11:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I found a long funeral monologue by the director of the ICE on their web site: eventually, as I expected, he uses the name of the organization. Eventually he says "ice", like frozen water, at which point I stopped listening to the video. You can listen to the whole thing, it's under "videos" on the front page, it's the first video right now: [9]. You could listen to the whole thing to see if he ever says it the other way as well (i.e. that there are two competing pronunciations, even in the same speaker. This is is possible). At the start of the speech he uses the name of the organization in full. 217.136.146.233 (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I've always heard it pronounced ICE, as-in-frozen-water. Seems like their recruitment videos agree. ^Avic_ennasis @ 23:38, 21 Adar I 5771 / 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Please answer

I posted a previous thread about Dieter Dengler. If he was captured and held as a prisoner by Pathet Lao, why he was "greeted as a celebrity by the Pathet Lao" after his rescue? No one answered the previous thread, please answer, it will be a great help. Thanks! --Jortonmol (talk) 12:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there anyone there? --Jortonmol (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Chances are no one knows. Sorry. Schyler! (one language) 14:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) There are plenty of people here, but apparently none that know for sure the answer to your question. I will however suggest a possiblity.

When two countries are in military conflict they may dislike each other as countries, but they, and in particular their military personnel, may retain respect for individuals in the opponent's military forces who display bravery, fortitude and other admirable qualities - military people often feel they have more in common with their military opponents than with their own civilian population, since they share the same situations and hardships (ObOR: a sentiment which my career-soldier father has repeatedly mentioned to me). As a single example out of many possibilities, RAF and Luftwaffe pilots shot down in WW2 were not infrequently entertained to a civilized dinner in the Officers' Mess of their vanquishers before being interrogated and sent to POW Camp.

In Dengler's case, he was captured and escaped in 1966, and was "greeted as a celebrity" on returning to Laos in 1977, eleven years later when (to greatly simplify a complex process) the military (though not political) conflict between the USA and Laos had ended and the Pathet Lao had achieved most of their political aims within Laos. Having in emotional terms 'defeated' his country, the USA, they may no longer have seen him as representing any threat, and felt free to acknowledge his personal achievement in escaping and surviving.

The above may be totally off beam, but perhaps someone with more direct information, and/or access to a relevant reference such as this recent book, will now come along and improve on it. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems quite probable to me. 11 years is a long time. Enemies become curious. Robert Oppenheimer was greeted as a celebrity when he visited Japan in the 1960s, as an example. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems probably to me too. Eventually, many US combatants went back to Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia and were welcomed there. That had hardly begun in 1977, in fact I think US citizens weren't meant to visit Laos. So his visit may have been regarded as a publicity coup by the government there. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Mutual Fund vs Index Fund

I know almost nothing about finance, but I'm getting to the age where I should start putting my money in something other than a savings account. Most of the advice I can find (eg | example), says that managed funds are a fool's game, and simple index funds are the way to go. Is this true? Black Carrot (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well some managed funds are quite costly in their fees to you such that you are fighting an uphill battle to get great returns if that is what you mean. Googlemeister (talk) 14:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

And comparing mutual funds to index funds leads to the conclusion that the former are not outperforming the market, normally. Although some, like Madoff's fund could outperform the market for a certain time, ... Quest09 (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

What you have written is indeed pretty common advice; here's a typical article on the subject from The Motley Fool. However, I would caution you that it's not ever clear on any given day (or in any given month...) that stock investing is "the way to go" at all; you would have lost money if you had invested in index funds immediately before the bursting of the Dot-com bubble in March of 2000, or immediately before the financial crisis (2007–present) of the last few years; and no doubt many of the investment advice blogs and websites and magazines out there would have still been beating the drum of the bulls, egging you on to buy stock index funds. Warren Buffett always recommends the book The Intelligent Investor for beginners, as do I. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You should definitely consult a financial planner (and not one paid on commissions from products he or she sells). If you are middle-age or older, it is quite likely that the majority of your investments should not be in stocks (the classic allocation is to put 100% - your age in equities and the rest in non-equities (bonds and such)). In the long run (25+ years) equities (stocks) have always outperformed bonds. However, in the short run (which here can be up to 10 years) they have lost money, and in the very short run (3 - 5 years) they have lost a LOT of money. The closer you are to retirement, the less volatility you want in your portfolio, because you don't have another decade for your assets to regain the 50% of value they just lost in one bad day of trading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.186.80.1 (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

APY

I'm confused by the numbers I see for insured investment options: | Example Rate Sheet. Wherever I look, things like CDs get at best 1.5%-2% APY, more likely something like 0.2%. Isn't that guaranteed to lose about 1-3% per year to inflation? Black Carrot (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I am not sure of your location, but at least according to the US government, inflation is very low on the order of 1%. Granted they seem to take out all of the items like food and fuel costs, so their estimate is relatively useless to us consumers. Googlemeister (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Black Carrot linked to a US bank, so we're going to assume he or she is in the US. As Googlemeister claimed, the latest inflation figures from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, from a week ago, say that prices (specifically, using the "all items index") over the last 12 months have increased 1.6%. A CD returning 1.6% breaks even for you, and the return is guaranteed, because of the FDIC insurance. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Line-item vetoes and what?

What do we call the legislative tactic that the line-item veto is meant to combat? The article doesn't specify, and rider doesn't quite sound right. In general, I want something similar to the rider — a provision unrelated to the primary subject of the bill that's thrown in to allow it to be passed because the overall bill can't not be passed. Nyttend (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Line-item veto is specifically meant to eliminate riders. There are specific types of riders that it is supposed to stop - commonly the ones referred to as "pork". For example, a bill is passed and sent to the President to save the children (or some other thing that he has to accept or look evil for a veto). A rider is attached to give everyone in Congress a raise. Another rider is added to give free childcare to everyone in Congress. Another rider is added to throw a big party for everyone in Congress. Another rider is added to include free plastic surgery to the many free medical benefits for everyone in Congress. All that pork can get a veto while accepting the main bill. -- kainaw™ 14:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You need to substitute "Governor" for "President". A number of state constitutions allow the Governor to do line-item vetoes. There is no such provision at the federal level. The President either accepts the entire bill, or none of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I assumed that the questioner was asking about an area where line-item veto does not exist - otherwise it wouldn't be in debate. There's a continual debate that the President should have a line-item veto, but it cannot happen in the current U.S. government. -- kainaw™ 15:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I assumed the OP was asking what the purpose of line-item veto is, and you answered it well. I was just pointing out that it's only certain state governors that can do this. The U.S. President is not allowed to. I can't speak to non-U.S. governments' rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Presidential use of the line-item veto is not an open and shut case. While the common consensus is that the President can not use a line-item veto, the Constitution does not explicitly forbid it. Thus there are a few scholars who believe that the President could use it if he wanted to. It has never been tested, and thus never ruled on by the court. Blueboar (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it has been ruled by the Supreme Court and District Courts. Most recently in 1998. It violates the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution. The Constitution must be amended for the President to have line-item veto. -- kainaw™ 16:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Clinton v. City of New York covers the Supreme Court's ruling against line-item vetos in 1998. -- kainaw™ 16:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I was not aware of Clinton v NYC. Thanks for the link. Blueboar (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Multiple social classes?

Is there a "multiple social classes" sociology model? Dividing the society in two or three social classes, according to income, seems not to catch the diversity of modern societies. A more accurate view would have to include dichotomies like educated-uneducated, national-foreigner, race, and many other factors. Quest09 (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Isn't three "multiple"? Have you had a look at social class for the various models? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

No, three is not multiple. Multiple means many for me. The article does not talk about multiple social classes. It is focuses on the traditional 2-3 class model, with subdivisions. Today, people interact in a more complex way, change from one society to the other (and come back) and have multiple identities in different situations. Quest09 (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

"Multiple" means "more than one". Even two is multiple. --Tango (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Geodemographic segmentation is based on the more complex classification you describe. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I like that. Quest09 (talk)

There are a number of different models. Marx' theory, for instance, posits multiple classes of people interacting dynamically (in fact, the modern 'upper/lower' economic split is an overly-simplified derivative of his more sophisticated system). sociologists and anthropologists often theorize complex structures in which economic, racial, geographical, cultural, and religious 'classes' interact in very complex ways. The simple economic dichotomy, however, is easier to understand, and often used for low-level academic instruction and journalistic purposes. --Ludwigs2 17:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Avoiding stagflation despite oil price increases

1) Is stagflation worse than inflation? 2) Is it possible for economists and central bankers to stimulate the economy so that unemployment decreases despite eg increases in oil prices? How would they do it? Thanks 92.15.14.192 (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

(1) Yes, stagnation plus inflation is worse than inflation alone, at least if the rate of inflation is given. (2) Yes, but there may be a price to pay in terms of inflation. The basic way for central bankers to stimulate the economy is by increasing the amount of money in circulation, either by lending it at low interest rates or by having the government buy stuff -- but increasing the amount of money in circulation is intrinsically inflationary. Looie496 (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The only known solution to stagflation is the monetarist one as used by Paul Volcker in the US in the late 70s/early 80s and by Margaret Thatcher's government in the UK. This involves raising interest rates and optionally cutting government spending, thus restricting the money supply, and lowering inflation at the cost of unemployment and reduced economic growth. Getting rid of stagflation in a painless way seems very difficult. It is uncertain if Keynesian deficit spending can really end a period of stagflation (it failed in the UK and USA in the late 70s): governments will find it hard to borrow money and therefore may be forced to raise interest rates anyway. The current British government is using the monetarist approach of slashing state spending with increased pressure to raise interest rates as well; Obama seems caught in a position where he's unable to do anything.[10][11][12][13] --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

If stagflaton is worse than inflation, then wouldnt more quantitative easing be the way to go? Particularly since the big debts from propping up the banks would be automatically reduced by inflation. The number of people who really live off their cash savings in a bank must be tiny, so most people would welcome having the real value of their debts reduced. Perhaps the arguement for maintaining almost zero inflation is that it encourages real production rather than speculation, but it seems so easy to slip across the line into deflation, recession, and depression. 92.29.115.47 (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Royal lineage of Alimi's royal family from Ilorin in Kwara State

The following is a repost from Wikipedia Help Desk:

Am a young man of 36 years old, am sure to be a Nigerian but not sure of my state. I lost my dad two years ago but the unfortunate thing was that he did not complete the story be he died but from the little I know General Yakubu Gowon can be of great help. MY STORY : According to my Dad, my grand father was from a royal family from Ilorin in Kwara State to be specific from Alimi's Family then there was an issue of royal title concerning who will the next Emir of Ilorin then which my father claimed should be the turn of his dad but was turned down by then head of state General Yakubu Gowon as a result of this my Dad decided to disclaim Ilorin. Am only using this medium to plead with Yakubu Gowon to please assit me to locate my family from Alimi's family from Ilorin since my dad did not allow any of his children to associate with Ilorin though have been to Ilorin but that was before he told me the story. -- Bolarge (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Royal family connections usually have a place in Wikipedia. Yakubu Gowon was the Head of State of Nigeria 1 August 1966 – 29 July 1975 and User:Bolarge's grandfather, who was part of the Alimi royal family from Ilorin, Nigeria, was in line to be a next Emir of Ilorin some time during 1 August 1966 – 29 July 1975. In 1974, the 9th Emir of Ilorin was Alhaji (Dr) Zulkarnaini Gambari. So, the grandfather was in line to be perhaps the 7th, 8th, or 9th Emir of Ilorin. Any help you can offer in figuring out the royal family connection between Alimi's family from Ilorin and the grandchildren of the above noted grandfather would be most appreciated. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

High-speed train in the US (or lack thereof)

Why are high-speed trains much more common in Europe than in the US? It is clear to me that linking LA to NYC would be an engineering tour-de-force. However, the area NYC-Boston-Chicago-Toronto is densely populated, with a high income per capita, wouldn't they want to avoid the sexual harassment of the airport security controls and push for high-speed trains? 77.231.17.82 (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment: How often people do people travel from LA to NYC? --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

310,856 per month fly between New York JFK airport and Los Angeles, per World's busiest passenger air routes or about 10,200 per day, in 60 flights per day. The flight time is about 5 hours, per [14]. Early checkin for TSA groping and travel times to airports far from downtowns make actual door to door times quite a bit longer. Rail terminals are often in downtown areas. If a small percentage chose high speed rail, it could fill a daily train or trains. Google maps says the 2800 mile trip could be driven in 44 hours, implying an average speed of 63.4 mph (good luck with that). A 300 mph train would take 9.3 hours excepting scheduled stops. A 90 mph train would take 31 hours. Edison (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Because the US Train network is less extensive than Europe's. It is also much more a Freight transportation network than a public transport network, whereas (again) in Europe there is Freight but also a hell of a lot of passengers. (will try find something to back these claims up!!) ny156uk (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Europeans don't run their trains on their traditional train network, but they've built a new high-speed network, so it's not an issue if the US train network is less extensive. The question remains: why didn't the US build a high-speed train network and put high-speed trains on it? 77.231.17.82 (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There is the Acela Express, which goes from Boston to DC. The problem there is that the service is expensive and the demand is fairly low. It's not a lot cheaper than taking a plane, and not a lot faster than taking a bus or a car. It is not exactly the most assuring story for enthusiasts of high speed US rail. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Acela is high speed for the US, but as high speed goes compared to Europe, it is about as fast as molasses. I think it has an average speed of around 65 mph (105 kph). Of course that is fast compared to the rest of passenger city-city rail. My last Amtrak trip was 700 miles and took 36 hours. Googlemeister (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, an article on everything -- High-speed rail in the United States.

Our article doesn't answer some of the questions. There are two main reasons why we don't have much in the way of high-speed rail in the United States, and several lesser reasons. First, European high-speed rail stations connect high-speed trains with dense local transit networks that cover virtually all urbanized areas in western Europe, allowing a traveler to use high-speed rail to reach virtually any destination in urbanized western Europe conveniently without driving. This convenience boosts demand for high-speed trains, and the increased volume of travel on the high-speed infrastructure minimizes overhead costs per ticket, keeping the cost of high-speed rail travel in Europe down. By contrast, even in the highly urbanized Northeast of the United States, large areas are virtually inaccessible by public transportation, or served only by infrequent and inconvenient bus routes. Only the urban cores of a few cities, such as Boston, New York, and Washington in the Northeast, San Francisco on the West Coast, and Chicago in the Midwest, have public transportation infrastructures that would allow high-speed rail travelers to reach a reasonable range of destinations without driving. Even in the New York urban area, because of sprawl and dispersed location patterns, a majority of residents and businesses are in suburban locations without convenient and frequent public transit connections. As a result, most potential high-speed rail travelers in the northeastern United States will have to drive to and/or from the high-speed rail station, which, however, is inevitably located in a congested urban core without convenient or inexpensive parking. Then, there is the problem of arranging car transportation when the traveler arrives at the remote high-speed terminal. As a result, even in the Northeast, most travelers either drive, since this allows them to have needed car transportation at both ends of their trip, or fly and rent a car at the remote airport. The second main reason follows from the first. Because there is such a small constituency for high-speed rail travel even in the most urbanized and densely populated parts of the United States, its cost per passenger is high, and there is limited political support even in these regions for the subsidies that would be required to make high-speed rail price-competitive with car, bus, or air travel. The complete unviability of high-speed rail in most parts of the United States means that there is a lack of political support for such subsidies at the national level. Lesser reasons why high-speed rail hardly exists in the United States include popular and political cultures that prioritize individual car and air travel and an aversion to taxation for the construction of infrastructure such as the high-speed networks that governments in Europe have built. Marco polo (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

A major reason has to do with simple political decision-making. In the 1950s, the U.S., largely for defense reasons, made highway-building a major national priority. No similar prioritization was made for passenger rail, and passenger-rail subsidies have remained low in the U.S., both compared to other countries and compared to spending on road and air travel. Obama has made a big push for high-speed rail but has run into objections from right-wing state administrations that have rejected the money allocated for their states. Conservatives seem to argue that viable passenger rail is some kind of airy-fairy pipe dream. Another argument is that passenger rail is a "19th-century technology," which kind of ignores the fact that the internal-combustion engine is as well. Europeans have maintained passenger rail as a priority and also heavily taxed gasoline, making auto travel a less-attractive alternative. One can argue, as Macro polo has, that passenger rail is not viable in the U.S. for geographic reasons, and I don't mean to start a debate, but it is largely a chicken-and-egg thing. U.S. cities have developed in an auto-centric manner largely because of highway-building and land-use policies that have encouraged such development. If cities were linked with appropriate forms of rail transport, accompanied by land-use policies encouraging dense development around stations, a larger market for rail travel would develop. Even without those widespread changes, it's hard to argue that high-speed rail, if funded at the kind of levels road and air travel are, wouldn't be popular for heavily traveled medium-distance routes like Chicago-to-Detroit or Tampa-to-Miami that are annoying to drive but not worth the hassle and expense of flying. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

If rail travel were to become a primary mode of transportation, it's a good bet that security clearance lines would be set up just as they are for airplanes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to object that comment. I recently rode THSR, (Taiwan, no terror) and there was not the slightest bit of security. Japan has frequent suicides on train tracks–the Toei Shinjuku Line was temporarily shut down for that. Shinkansen trains rarely have that kind of indecent. I'm tempted to put infor that comment because I'm not entirely sure But since the US is now a "target" for terrorism, it just might happen. --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It is actually rather difficult to drive a hijacked train anywhere other than the intended destination, so I suspect security concerns would be a little lower. As Mwalcoff says, this is a chicken-and-egg situation, and the US seems to have had a brief period when the railroads united the country, followed by decades of neglect. I suspect that rising fuel prices may again make rail travel more attractive. Also, if one takes into account the overall journey time, rather than just the time 'in the air', a system that gets you from A to B a little slower than one that gets you from 10 miles outside A to 15 miles outside B may actually be quicker overall - and a darned sight less stressful. Time for a rethink? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, in Germany I go through full security at the airport, but I just turn up at the train station with an open ticket (only because I'm not poor enough and/or too stupid to plan my travel times to get one of the heavily discounted train-bound tickets), walk to the platform, and into the train to find a seat. No lines (though there may be clumps or queues (yeah, sure, as if we were British ;-) at the doors in times of heavy occupancy). Some neighboring countries like Belgium or France require seat reservations for high speed trains, but those are anonymous and again checked during the ride, not when boarding. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

On the Eurostar, which I imagine has tougher security checks than most trains because (1) it is an international train line, (2) is high profile and (2) uses a key piece of international infrastructure the disabling of which would have a potentially large impact -- there is security in the form of bag x-rays and airport security doors. However, the security is only to check for explosives and firearms, and not for knives, forks, nail clippers or bottled water.

Travelling by rail rather than air also has the added advantage that you are not subject to moronic luggage piece restrictions. I once had to put three small bags into a huge canvas bag to go through Heathrow airport just because the powers that be decided one large bag is less likely to contain a bomb than three small ones. On the same trip I had to dismantle my carry on bag and rearrange the contents into a standardised rectangular prism because the powers that be decided that a rectangular prism was less likely to contain a bomb than a backpack shaped like, um, a backpack. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I used to work for Eurostar, we had a lot of people who would make bookings and then ask how big a car they could bring. I always told them that so long as it they could lift it unaided they shouldn't have any problems. DuncanHill (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

God forbid traveling by air might be more efficient... put a bird on it. Shadowjams (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I've always suspected that the fragmented ownership of the tracks in the USA was an impediment to investment in high speed trains. In most European countries the trck has been owned by a single body for a considerable time, making investment in the sort of track and signalling upgrades needed for HST easier than when tracks are owned by a multitude of competing companies. DuncanHill (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Ya, fragmented ownership, aka free markets... is a super pain in the ass for government run ventures. Shadowjams (talk) 12:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)`

The "single body" in most European countries is the government. I believe the people who pay for it should have the money riding on it. I'm not so sure that's the case in the areas you're talking about. Shadowjams (talk) 13:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think high-speed rail is wonderful, and I wish that the United States had it. However, I don't think that you can reject my argument by saying it's a chicken-egg issue. It might have been a chicken-egg issue about 100 years ago, when US urbanization patterns began to diverge from European urbanization patterns with the introduction of mass automobile ownership in the US and development policies based on auto transport. (Mass auto ownership didn't reach Europe until 40 years later, but even then European development policies favored rail and compact, clustered development patterns.) However, given the very different urban geography of the United States and western Europe and the complete dependence of US urban development on private auto transport, there is no way that high-speed rail can be as economical or successful as it is in Europe. The only way to make high-speed rail work in the United States as it does in Europe would be to bulldoze much of the US suburban environment, build a much denser urban landscape clustered around nodes supplied with an extensive transit infrastructure feeding the high-speed train stations, and force people to relocate. This would cost literally trillions of dollars that the United States doesn't have and would require a degree of coercion that is impossible under our present political system. I wish that high-speed rail made sense in the United States today, but I'm afraid that it doesn't. A much greater priority would be to first build a much more extensive local and regional transit infrastructure and enact policies favoring denser, transit-centered development. After such policies have been allowed to work for 30 or 40 years, then the United States might be ready for high-speed rail that would make economic and transportation sense. Marco polo (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts: Acela really doesn't get to stay at high speeds. It even has to slow down to 60 miles an hour at times. The US train infrastructure isn't really developed–and like other countries, we've "adapted" to our cars, like the Brits are use their buses a lot. I recently checked my news ticker: high-speed rail rejected in Florida. Low ridership is an established concern in the U.S., after all, Acela's daily boardings total to only 8,000. Taiwan High Speed Rail is successful because it's needed as there's no quick way to travel around the country state (I am forced to change "country" to state: see political status of Taiwan. Before that, there was only the Taiwan Railway Administration, a bunch of slow trains. I recently rode the THSR from Hsinchu to Kaohsiung–a trip of 270 miles, took and hour, cost about $US30 per person. Acela is expensive, yet it's one of Amtrak's only profitable services. --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Air travel: Air travel is more expensive, but quicker that HSR. However, HSR is slower than air travel. THSR beat out all the major intercity routes in Taiwan. In Japan, the E5 Series Shinkansen train tickets were booked out in 10 seconds, which is something you don't see in the U.S. --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Because of the security checks et al, isn't the usual idea that air travel is only quicker if the time for the trip by HSR is over 3-4 hours? Nil Einne (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I've taken several long distance Amtrak trips, and noted that there were frequent slowdowns since they use track maintained by numerous railroads for freight traffic. The passenger trains sometimes had to wait on a siding for a freight train, which had higher priority. US passenger trains in the 1930's and 1940s could go much faster than today, with 70 or 90 mph speed limits back then. I am horrified by discussion of grade level "Emerging High-Speed Rail" with highway traffic crossing tracks at grade crossings. No "advanced crossing gate" can remove a truck stopped in the crossing. Crossings are too close together and speeds (110 mph proposed) are too fast to allow a train to stop in time, unless the engineer has video of the crossings ahead and the crossings are cleared in time to allow a stopping of the train when there is an obstacle present. I have seen an Amtrak come to a screeching halt from 60 mph or so when they spotted a truck loaded with steel which was stopped in the crossing. At proposed US "high speed," the train would have inevitably hit the truck and likely killed everyone on the train. Only elevated tracks, with level separation from cars and trucks, makes the least sense for truly high speed rail. Similarly, a saboteur or terrorist could easily disturb the ground level tracks approaching a railroad bridge, with readily available devices, without being observed and kill everyone on a 110 or 150 mph high speed train, far more easily than he could bring down a jet. It would be easier to monitor an elevated train structure for intruders. Edison (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, THSR is almost always elevated or underground. It avoids all roads, tunnels through mountains and goes on 10-mile bridges, but never at-grade. The idea of at-grade crossings into highways is horrid. Next-Gen High-Speed Rail, (PDF can be found at [15]) is reasonable to use a route where trains on that route don't run. --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Being European I find strange the associations Americans make regarding high-speed train - only 100 mph, at-grade crossing, hijacking... Maybe these are the reasons why Americans don't have high-speed. Quest09 (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

People seem to have a strange idea of the lack of survivability of a high-speed train crash. Last Wednesday was the 4th anniversary of the Grayrigg derailment when a Pendolino train came off the track at 96 mph - despite the train being a write-off, only one person was killed out of the 105 people on the train. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

What version of the bible would Inazo Nitobe likely have used?

I'm doing some work on Nitobe's Bushido, and there is a section (on disembowelment, whodathunkit?) where he quotes a string of passages from the bible where the word "bowel" or "bowels" are used in the sense of the spiritual center of man, like "the offspring of your bowels" and similar examples. I found that modern versions of the bible have amended the use of "bowel" in this sense and none of the examples use the word anymore. Nitobe is using too few words for me to figure out exactly which translation of the bible he was using (he's just quoting phrases, essentially), but in the interest of exactness (granted, bordering on nitpicking) I'd like to know exactly what bible translation he was using. Does anyone know? It could possibly be figured out from the strain of Christianity he would have followed (he was apparently converted by a Methodist Episcopal missionary from the US), but I can make no head or tails of the myriad offshoots of Christianity in the US or of their taste in holy book translations. TomorrowTime (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Presumably, the King James Version, as Nitobe predates most "modern" translations. For the use of "bowels" therein, see these search results. The American Standard Version is also a possibility, as it retains "bowels" in most, if not all, of those uses; but it was much less widely used. Deor (talk) 11:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I imagined it would probably be KJV, knowing little else about the US offshoots of Christianity other than they seem to have a heavy KJV fetish. I just wanted to make sure, and as I said, it's really not that important for the project I'm doing, I'm borderline nitpicking anyway. TomorrowTime (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Red Square

Behind Lenin's tomb in Red Square, and behind the line of very famous Soviet leaders, is a line of plaques that mark the cremations (I believe) of important Soviet-era people. They do, however, appear to stop when the death date is 1975 or 1976. Was there a particular reason? - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 22:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Kremlin Wall Necropolis, they didn't end then but that is when it became a protected monument and there were only a few after. meltBanana 22:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

February 25

Makkin wor Cheryl tak proper like

This article in British pseudo-newspaper The Daily Mail alleges that "geordie songbird" Cheryl Cole's Newcastle accent could breach US broadcasting (I assume FCC) regulations, saying "if viewers in the U.S. can't understand what she's saying, the show will be in breach of strict U.S. TV regulations." While I appreciate that network executives might ask Ms. Cole to Atlanticise her speech somewhat, would her occasional dialectical excursions really be "illegal"; or is this merely the Mail's usual febrile view of "foreigners" as some admixture of stupid and evil? 90.220.118.193 (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I've seen subtitles used on American TV for English people who are far easier to understand than Cheryl Cole. They could do the same for her. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I seriously doubt there is any FCC rule like this. If it were illegal to air someone with a thick regional British accent, both PBS and BBC America would have been shut years ago. Blueboar (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the usual Daily Mail 'anything for a story to justify the pictures' article - clearly there isn't anything important for a newspaper to report on at the moment (yeah, right...). Actually, Ms Cole's Geordie accent isn't that difficult, even for a wet southern b******d like me, so I doubt our transatlantic cousins will find her totally unintelligible - whether she ever says anything important enough to be worth understanding is another issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, Brian Johnson's Geordie accent is just as thick and incomphensible, and he's been heard on American TV and radio for years. The U.S. broadcasting rules aren't nearly as strict as they were in the past (after about 10 PM most of the seven deadly words can be heard freely, some even during the daytime), though being "incomprehensible" has never been, AFAIK, a reason for censoring someone, even under the strictest rules. The Daily Mail appears to be practicing the time-honored journalistic tradition known as "making shit up." --Jayron32 04:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I have little idea of who she is, so I looked her up on YouTube to find a clip of her speaking. I, for one, can understand her without any problem at all, so I don't see what issue any US broadcaster would have. That's assuming the story in the Daily Mail is correct, which it isn't. I've also seen native Americans (small "N") such as those from the South with thick marble-mouthed accents get subtitles because the producers of the show felt that other Americans might have a hard time understanding them. Dismas|^(talk) 04:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The Americans certainly didn't find it hard to comprehend John Lennon's scouse accent when he made his famous "Jesus remark".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bigger than Jesus comment appeared in print, in more-or-less standard English. Anyway, I don't think many Americans understood the bit about the thick and ordinary disciples being the ones who ruined it. DuncanHill (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

They weren't allowed to think for themselves after the media took it completely out of context and all the fundamentalist churchmen pounced on it as an excuse to crucify the "devil-driven and devil-begotten" rock and roll.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

And of course they all immediately turned their backs on rock and roll and it is generally loathed in the USA to this day. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course they did not. My parents continued to criticise the antics of Mick Jagger on the Ed Sullivan show (whilst not switching the channel, mind) in the meanwhile giving me money to buy their records. Then again, my parents were NOT fundamentalists and we lived among the palm trees of Venice in fantastic LA.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure Americans are allowed to think for themselves, it's just a sizeable (and very loud) minority of them find it easier not to. DuncanHill (talk) 13:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem with Lennon's comment is that the media did not bother to print his entire statement. I wonder how much they are to blame for fundamentalist Mark David Chapman's later obsession with Lennon?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The line in the original article: "A source said: 'If audiences and contestants can't understand her, it is actually a regulatory offence.'" As stated above, this is nonsense; there is no such FCC rule. A search of the FCC website suggested they're more concerned that their own directives are understandable than whether broadcasters are understandable (which is all as it should be IMO). Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

If this is the "Cheryl Cole" who has Youtube videos of "Fight for this love," "Parachute," and "Three words" then everything she says would be perfectly intelligible to the average midwestern US listener. More so in fact than many videos by minority US residents.The clip cited above of her speaking rather than singing does have quite an accent: "Sōmetāmes..." rather than "Sometimes...(with a diphthong i)" and "Wok" instead of "Whack." In the US years ago we had actor Jim Nabors who spoke with a hick/rural/Gomer Pyle accent, but sang with no accent. Edison (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

āā

Old motto of the University of Bologna?

According to University of Bologna, the university changed its motto in 2000. What was the old motto? I can't find it in the article history or the talk page, and Google gives me absolutely nothing at all. Nyttend (talk) 05:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I tried Google Books and a few different ones came up; "Libertas", although that may have been the motto of the city itself, "Petrus ubique pater, legum Bononia mater" ("St. Peter is the father of laws, Bologna the mother" - since Bologna was famous for its legal school), "alma mater studiorum" ("nourishing mother of studies"), or "Bononia docet" ("Bologna teaches"). Adam Bishop (talk) 10:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Mullah compaign by Khaksar movement not mentioned in the article.

Allamah Mashriqi had written a lot against the Mullah or Mowlvi. A pamphalet titled 'Mowlvi ka Mazhab' was published by the Khaksar Party and sold in public places at a price of a 'Taka' (a two-paisa coin then prevalent) with an interesting catchphrase 'Mowlvi ka Mazhab, Takey Takey'. But nothing is mentioned about it in the article. I would like to read that pamphlet if any body can provide it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.142.11 (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be a request for more information to be added to Khaksars. Have you looked at all the references and external links in that article? There are quite a lot of them and they should be able to take you to further information. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Could it perhaps be listed as "Maulvi Ka Ghalat Mazhab" in Allama Mashriqi's works? WikiDao ☯ 21:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

seed capital demand curve

If you were an investor considering a hotshot team who was pitching an idea that they say they are in a position to grow to a valuation of approximately $2.6billion within 5 years (Internet company) and are currently seeking seed capital from you, then if you believe their claim as to the potential of the company, what seed amoutn:

• Would you consider too low to invest seed money in
• Would you consider a good value for the opportunity presented
• Consider somewhat pricy for being only a seed investmnet
• Consider an overpriced request.

These are very general metrics, and of course you can price in whatever risk discount etc. you want. The point is, you believe the team, so that if they don't get the capital from you, but from someone else, you are not surprised if the whole company is sold to google for $2b three years from now (after further rounds of funding of course!). Given that underlying assumption, I am interested in vague answers to the above four questions. Please don't tell me "that is impossible to answer". If it were impossible to answer, then the following anjswers would not be wrong:

“

• If the team were asking for $7.50 (seven dollars and fifty cents), then you would not take them seriously. However, over seven dollars of investment sought is a serious seed investment request.
• $1,000 would be a good value, if they can really turn it into $2.6B.
• If the two person team is asking for over $1billion in seed money, that is is somewhat pricy.
• $4billion in investment for a valuation at $2.6billion would be an overpriced request. $3 billion for the chance to lose 0.4 billion over three years is, however, not necessarily out of the question.

”

The above answers are obviously wrong. So, if they're obviously wrong, that means you cannot reply by saying "it is impossible to give any kind of range." So, in light of the fact that it is not impossible, it is therefore possible for you to give me general answers to my questions.

Thanks. 109.128.175.163 (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

One possible way of estimating the upper limit of what you should invest would be to estimate what interest rate you would require for such a high risk investment, and then calculate the NPV of the money you expect to recieve in the future. The lower limit could be whatever you can get awayu with. But they should have shown you a business plan that shows you the amount of money they need. If they havnt done so then they are either con-artistes or incompetent. Be warned, most of these kind of things lose money. 92.29.115.47 (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm on the other side of the table actually. I want to know, if I have an idea that is worth $2.6B within three years, then what is the lowest amount of SEED (not first-round) capital I can get away with asking? Obviously it's not $5,000 - it has to be more. How much more? (approx.) 109.128.175.163 (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

So you are the "hotshot team"? You should have a business plan which details exactly what you are going to spend the money on. It seems odd that you seem to think you could use any amount, rather than the amount that was needed. If you only need a few thousand to get your billion-dollar business going, then you would raise the money yourself rather than giving away billions of pounds in the future for peanuts now. If you didnt do that, then an investor would think you were not committed or fraudulent. If Dragon's Den is available in your part of the world (Wow! I never expected they'd have a version in Afghanistan of all places, unless that's vandalism), then I would watch that to see the mistakes people make when pitching to investors. I'm not aware of any difference between "seed" or "first round" money - its all money. 92.24.188.45 (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "raise it myself"? I am able to build up a billion dollar company by working 120 hours and sleeping 6. All day and all night I code. If I did anything less than that, I would have nothing. So, there is no option to do both. Either I code day and night with seed money, or I don't make this project. 109.128.175.163 (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You can raise money by a variety of methods including: credit cards, savings, borrowing from friends and relatives, remortgaging, selling possessions, and so on. Doing this would not take much time. If you believe you are going to make billions, then it is surely a no-brainer, since it would be dumb to give away a large proportion of that future billionaire income for a few thousand now. Not raising the money yourself suggests that you do not really beieve it will work. It is expected that people would use their own equity before asking others for money. 92.28.247.68 (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The reason it's impossible to answer is that you haven't given us any information about the venture or about the levels of risk involved. Because you have not, both of the answers below are reasonable:

• An investor would never invest under $2.15 billion in this venture, because you're in the conventional milling business, and no miller has ever made more than a 5% return, compounded annually, and if you ask for less, then you are showing that you are an idiot.
• An investor would never invest over $50,000 in this venture, because your plan is to finally create a cold fusion reactor out of materials you can buy at the local grocery store, and if you ask for more, then because it's obvious you don't need the money to buy distilled water and baking soda, you're planning to just fleece the investor, who's showing he's an idiot if he gambles away more than $50,000 of his pocket money.

Without more information, the only answer that can be given definitively is the rather useless-to-you answer that you can't ask them for more than $2.498 billion, because 100% of investors would instead choose to just pop the money in 1% money market funds and have a sky-high probability they will have $2.6 million in five years. I also have to echo 92 that the fact you are going about this backwards indicates that you probably don't have a very good plan in place, and need some advice from an expert (rather than strangers on the Reference Desk). Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The most important factor is going to be the risk involved, which will be added to the nominal Discount_rate. Assume I will receive 2.6B from an annuity in 3 years, with no risk of default, and can expect to earn 5% annual (hey, I'm optimistic) on my investments during this period. There's no risk, so the discount rate just accounts for inflation. The continous discount factor is 0.8607, so the money is worth 2.24B today. I will purchase the annuity for less than this amount, and not purchase it for more than this amount. Now assume a low risk of default (say 5%), so my discount rate totals 10%. Now I'll only pay 1.93B for the annuity. Since taking a company from shoestring to 2.6B in just 3 years will involve a (cough) fair amount of risk, the rate you should use would be even greater.

I think an investor would expect at the very least a 50%, 100%, 1000% or more return per year for this kind of thing, since most of the time they will lose their money. (There is a financial formula which calculates the interest rate when defaults occur - I forget the details but its used to determine credit card interest rates for example). The OP really needs to write a business plan and work out exactly the amount of money needed; and then if you are so sure its a winner, then raise that money yourself before turning to an investor. The chances of turning a few thousand into billions in five years must be less than one in a thousand, perhaps one in a million. 92.28.247.68 (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

People here don't seem to get that the question is about seed funding. The chances of turning a "few thousand" into a project that will get a sizeable first round of funding, which can be leveraged into a company that will get an even more sizeable second round of funding, which can be leveraged into growth and revenue resulting in a third round of funding, or even IPO, that is close to the amount in question, are NOT as bad as all that. 109.128.175.163 (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

. Obviously you think it's a good chance: it's your pet project. Marnanel (talk) 12:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

King's College and the police

Last night, Cambridgeshire police followed two people into King's College and made two forcible arrests. An official of the College was quoted as saying: "The police were told by the Vice-Provost, the Admissions Tutor, and numerous porters that they had absolutely not been given permission to be on college property. The police willfully disregarded everything that they said."

Why do King's have the ability to tell the police to leave? None of the reports explain this point. Suggestions I have heard so far include:

1. it is a right King's have particularly because of their royal foundation
2. it is the same as the right I would have to tell the police to leave my house in the absence of a warrant
3. there are areas under the jurisdiction of the Cambridge University Constabulary which are not under the jurisdiction of Cambridgeshire police

None of these came with any citations to back them, and I was rather curious. So I thought I would ask you lot. Any clues? Marnanel (talk) 13:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Can't give you any citations, but I know that when my dad was at Oxford, the police were not allowed onto college property without permission. Offences within the university were dealt with by the university. DuncanHill (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Cambridge University Constabulary and proctor have some more information. DuncanHill (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, even if those two people were crossing an official country border, police would not stop following them and arresting them. A complete different scenario would be entering a private premise to investigate something. Quest09 (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That's the right of hot pursuit which is relevant to issues of jurisdiction. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It has been reported in the local press (Coventry, Warwickshire) that police from Coventry have to stop chasing criminals when they cross the county boundary because they are leaving the West Midlands Police force area and are no longer their responsibility. I have no idea how accurate this is, but as a resident of Warwickshire I have to say it wouldn't surprise me. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Our article Town and gown may be of interest in this matter. Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I've also seen such cases of police officers stopping at a boundary. However, only in fiction. Otherwise, criminals would have an easy game: steal on one side and flee to the other. 212.169.184.39 (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

What country would allow foreign police to enter without permission and arrest people they were chasing? The US, Mexico, and Canada have never acknowledged such a right, and I can't think of reported cases of such cross-national border hot pursuit in the 20th century or later, except for military actions such as the US army chasing Pancho Villa, or certain drug interdiction agreements between the US and Mexico. The pursuit is not taken as an innate right of the pursuing nation, and diplomatic protest would be likely. It would likely be protested as a border violation and kidnapping by the country whose sovereignty was slighted. Police from one country in the Western Hemisphere are usually accompanied by local police to make an arrest, because the visitors lack arrest powers in another country. Administrative subdivisions within a country are less problematic, since there are likely to be agreements between US states, or state laws permitting police from one city or county to continue pursuit into the neighboring one. Has the EU might have set up such agreements between neighbor countries? Edison (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the EU does have such an agreement, it's Article 41 of the Schengen Convention (if you want to look it up!). There are restrictions, which basically boil down to having to let the local police handle it if at all possible, but were necessary it is allowed. --Tango (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the situation in Britain, but in the US every law enforcement entity has a territorial jurisdiction, and cannot make arrests outside it. Problems arise from this very frequently, not just in fiction. Looie496 (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The US does have laws allowing hot pursuit, though, does it? Perhaps the police outside their jurisdiction would have to just detain the suspect(s) until the local police arrive, but you certainly can't escape the police just by crossing a state line as they do in the movies. --Tango (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Police officers in Home Office forces in England and Wales have jurisdiction throughout England and Wales (section 30(1) of the Police Act 1996). They are entitled to enter police areas other than their own and exercise their powers in those areas (and often do so - in particular the City of London Police often operate outside the City of London, and officers of the Metropolitan Police in the departments that operate nationally regularly exercise powers outside London). The main police powers of entry without warrant are the common law power to enter to prevent a breach of the peace and those under section 17 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The latter grants power to enter premises, amongst other things, to arrest a person for an indictable offence or for certain other specified offences. It's not clear from the limited facts given what offences the police might have been considering, so it's difficult to say whether they were acting within these provisions. But I can't think of any reason why the college authorities would feel they have the power simply to deny the police entry if they're exercising these powers. (Perhaps there's an informal agreement between the university and Cambridgeshire Constabulary that the officers didn't follow?) Proteus (Talk) 20:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The two universities are governed by their own statutes and charters, and these do include what would be described as "police matters". It is entirely likely that at Cambridge the college or university authorities still have the right to deny entrance to "outsiders", whether in wooden-hats or not. As noted in the town and gown article linked above, universities have something of a tradition as sanctuaries, where "normal" law enforcement does not apply. DuncanHill (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Entirely possibly, but anyone asserting so should really be able to point to the actual statute providing this exemption from the general law, which it seems from the discussion above (and from the discussions that Marnanel seems to have had before asking the question) no one has yet been able to locate. (And I would imagine it would have to be pretty explicit to overrule the wording of an Act of Parliament.) Proteus (Talk) 21:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I've had a quick look through the Statutes and Ordinances of the University of Cambridge, but can't find anything relevant. It may be that I just haven't looked in the right section, though. Most of the "law enforcement"-type bits seem to be conferring power to punish members of the university, not excluding the powers of other people. Proteus (Talk) 21:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

France invading Spain/UK

Would it be easier for France to invade Spain or the UK? In both cases, there is an obvious geographical barrier to be crossed. At a first glance a sea a lessen impediment than a range of mountains. Quest09 (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The Alps were not an impediment to the armies of King Charles VIII of France when they invaded Italy at the end of the 15th century, and the Pyrenees are not as formidible. The last successful French invasion of England was in 1066.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Historically, you are right, mountains were less of a barrier than seas. But, would that still hold true for a modern army? Quest09 (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

In a modern war the invasion would be carried out by massive aerial bombardments, so barriers of mountains or sea become irrelevent.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Massive aerial bombardment has failed to be a war-winner many times despite the optomistic claims of air chiefs - see Battle of Britain, Bombings of Germany, Vietnam War, Gulf War, Invasion of Iraq - it's usually boots on the ground that count in the end. Alansplodge (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Depends on the military/ political objective that one wants to achieve. Offensive air operations can only have a destructive effect, if one wants to exploit territory and natural resources then one must plan to mitigate for that in occupation. Boots on the ground are the only way to take and hold ground although offensive air can have a suppressive effect. A key element of targeteering is identifying how to have a delivery effect that supports the land incursion in a way that's easily rectified once one has taken the ground.

Essentially occupying forces still need power, potable water, sanitation, shelter etc.

ALR (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

France has attempted to invade Spain on a number of occasions (most recently Napoleon's Spanish campaign, King Louis XVIII in 1823, etc.). Never successfully, mind you, but the obstacle presented by the Pyrenees, which are traversed by numerous roads and passes, is much less problematic than the English channel. However, invading England from France is logistically pretty equivalent to D-Day, so it's not impossible. The real question is, why would France even contemplate either scenario today ? --Xuxl (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this not reason enough! English sparkling wine beats French champagne to top title--Aspro (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I doubt there would be any motivation for France to invade any other EU country. A less hypothetical question would be: is it easier to invade Libya by sea or by land? As a matter of fact, I think that modern armies are able to deploy complete platoons, with tanks and everything, by air. So, forget about crossing seas, climbing mountains or D-Days. 212.169.184.39 (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It would be extremely difficult to deploy by air. A single division is around 15,000 people. That is 50 flights of large aircraft. Next you will need to bring equipment for them. Sure you might be able to carry one or two tanks on a flight, but an armored division would have hundreds of tanks. Then there is the question of capturing and securing aircraft landing facilities. I just don't see how you could pull it off without using ships or roads, especially when it comes to logistics. I mean flying fuel in for tanks would be a fools errand. Googlemeister (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

And how was Afghanistan invaded? Did the US, UK, Germany, & co. deploy their troops by ship? I know that they get supplies via Pakistan, but did they also came there through Pakistan? 212.169.176.233 (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

None of these countries is prepared to either invade or defend against the invasion from the others. During the Cold War, Western Europe was set up to defend against a Soviet ground invasion, but since the early 1990s those resources have been put elsewhere (for the most part). None of these countries would have anything to gain from this kind of disastrous expedition, with their closely tied economies and similar social structures, so the likelihood of this happening anytime soon is near zero. The OPs real question (I think) is whether it is easier to mount a modern invasion against a nation with similar military capacity across difficult mountains or sea channels. Both are major barriers to ground combat divisions, which are required to effect a real invasion. (You can bomb form the air all you want, but governments can dig in and wait it out while the international community puts pressure on you to stop killing civilians.) That being said, mountains like the Pyrenees are much easier to cross than something like the English Channel. The Pyrenees have passes and roads which while difficult would still be usable by an invading army. A modern invasion is a very complex thing and would certainly consist (if possible) of air, sea and land routes being used to some degree, regardless of the geography. The UK's lack of a land route means it would be more difficult to invade (all else being equal). For more information on this topic I suggest taking a look at our articles on D-Day, Operation Sea Lion (the proposed Nazi invasion of the UK) and Seven Days to the River Rhine (A Soviet plan to invade Western Germany). If you can find it, I also recommend Sir John Hackett's book The Third Wold War: August 1985, which gives an intersting perspective on invasions in Europe and is actually a pretty decent read. --Daniel 16:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This isn't relevent to the OP's question but I wanted to add that Eleanor of Aquitaine crossed the Pyrenees on horseback to bring her granddaughter from Spain....at the age of 80!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Her granddaughter was 80? Blimey, how old was Eleanor?! DuncanHill (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it was Eleanor who was 80 years old. Her granddaughter, Blanche of Castile was about 11 or 12, I believe. Eleanor was sent to escort Blanche from Spain to wed Louis VIII of France.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It really comes down to a question of control of the sea. You can't get an army across the English channel unless you can at least temporarily control the water there. Historically England has focused its energy on being the strongest at sea, with much less energy going into creating a strong land army. None of the land nations of Europe have had the option of doing that. The thing about the mountain barrier is that the forces required to seize control of it are the same forces required to actually invade the country. Looie496 (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

To add to the list of invasions, Caesar invaded Britain from Gaul, as had, presumably, all of the previous inhabitants of the islands. Of course Angles, etc, invaded from the mainland. There were other French invasions after 1066, in 1216 for example, and of course it worked the other way as much of France was occupied by the English during the Hundred Years' War. There were also invasions of Spain across the Pyrenees. Charlemagne did it, and there was large-ish invasion in 1086-87 that never really amounted to anything. I'm not so sure about Spain, but I think neither invasion route is especially difficult, and such invasions are probably more frequent than we realize. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Historically, France fought many times against Spain in wars, but they didn't often fight Spain in Spain, often the great Valois/Hapsburg (and later Bourbon/Hapsburg) conflicts occured in Italy or the Low Countries instead of Spain proper. One interesting invasion of Spain by France occured during the Peninsular War. The French basically snuck into the country under the guise of enforcing the Treaty of Fontainebleau (1807) against Portugal. The Spanish basically let the French in, and once there, Napoleon double crossed the Spanish. It required no actual invasion across the defended Pyrenees, since the French didn't really start the war until after the Spanish had let them in peacefully. The war went really disasterously for Napoleon, as he underestimated how royally pissed the Spanish people would be over the issue. So it has occasionally happened that Franch has invaded Spain proper. But as noted, during the Ancien Regime and prior, these were usually wars against the Hapsburgs and not Spain per se, so there often wasn't much need for France to invade Spain itself. --Jayron32 04:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't just the Spanish that won the Peninsular War - they had some help. Alansplodge (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Literature & fear of death

Who knows literature works which inspire the fear of death, and most of its readers confessed that after that they have more anxiousness about death. Flakture (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Edgar Allen Poe? Stephen King? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

References, Bugs? This is a reference desk. He's not just asking for horror authors. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not how I read it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh Lord, there are so many. One that stands out, for me at least, is The Red Badge of Courage. Looie496 (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bible? Quest09 (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Sartres The Wall, about a man awaiting his execution, it sent shivers down my spine when I was reading it the first time. Dostoevskys Crime and Punishment is another classic in the same vein that conveys the impressions of a doomed person pretty forcefully. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess that is a main theme of existentialist literature as Saddhiyama refers to. I also think of The Big Sleep and other works of that genre. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

When I was a young girl, it was Alcott's Little Women prompted by the chapter where Beth March dies. The last book I read which made me fear death was Kafka's The Trial. All of us are eventually dispatched to oblivion with the same nonchalance shown to Josef K. by his executioners.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I vaguely recall reading about being buried alive, or concerning ghouls. Anything which suggests that death will be worse than just oblivion. I'm not sure if novels like Dracula or Camus's The Outsider increase the fear of death. 92.28.245.149 (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Leonid Andreyev's Lazarus did it for me. Still makes me shudder thirty years later. Karenjc 18:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Gnome in the Lord of the Rings

I'm almost sure, but not completely, that there are no gnomes in the Lord of the Ring. Is that true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.231.17.82 (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There are hobbits, isn't that gnome-like enough? Quest09 (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Gnomes are very different from hobbits. Nothing is called a 'gnome' in LoTR, and nothing is even that close, though Tolkien's dwarves do have an affinity for earth and stone. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There's no place for gnomes. There's no place for gnomes. [tap ruby slippers] Clarityfiend (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Gnome, Gnome on the range...--Aspro (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Was this question inspired by two sections above, which mentions the the Gnoman conquest of 1066?--Aspro (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There may be gnomes on the moon however, because Neil Armstrong said he was stepping on where Gnome Man has been before. --Aspro (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That's correct, The Lord of the Rings is gnomeless. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Robert Fosters The Complete Guide to Middle-earth contains no entry for "gnome". --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There were gnomes in his earlier writings but he edited them out, probably because gnomes are far sillier than hobbits Noldor#Other versions of the legendarium meltBanana 22:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure if one looked hard enough, one could find plenty of gnomes in LOTR. —Angr (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

frankly, I am shocked at the ignominious treatment this question has received. --Ludwigs2 22:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

death

thumb|right|200px|Oooooooooooooooo! Could you be dead and not know it? 109.128.175.163 (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

If you believe in ghosts, then there is Category:Ghost films, which includes several movies in which at least one ghost does not know they're dead. Strangely, I don't see a category or article Ghosts in fiction for the written counterpart. Category:Ghosts might be of interest, too. Of course, there has never been any evidence that ghosts exist, and if you can prove they do, James Randi has US$1 million ready to hand to you. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)According to the article death it is "the termination of the biological functions that sustain a living organism". So scientifically speaking there would not be a situation where you had a "you" beyond death that could question whether you were alive or dead. But there are a lot of religions that dispute this and claim various versions of life after death, so it is not a question that has an unanimous answer. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That assumes the identification of "you" with an "organism". There isn't really any "scientifically speaking" on that question. Science has really nothing to say about what constitutes "you". --Trovatore (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course it has. The scientific understanding of consciousness, is that it is a product of brain activity. When brain activity cease, that is the "termination of the biological functions", then "you" as a function of consciousness cease to exist. The dispute related to this question only really begins on the question of "soul" and "afterlife", concepts that science is not really involved in, as it is not a field that is measurable. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The question of phenomenal consciousness, or qualia, is really not accessible to science at all — there is no way to tell if another being has or lacks phenomenal consciousness. All science can really talk about is whether the entity behaves as though conscious. --Trovatore (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes they can. Scientific consensus is that consciousness (it links to your phenomenal consciousness) involves physical activity (preferably brain activity), and that is something that can be measured fairly easy. As I said, afterlife is not for science, and the discussion the definition of that is still disputed amongst the various religions. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Browsing the article clinical death may be helpful. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Those are the neurological correlates of consciousness, not phenomenal consciousness itself. Phenomenal consciousness links to consciousness but is more specific — it refers specifically to the subjective experience of consciousness, not to the nerve activity nor to the observable behavior. This is explained further down in the text. --Trovatore (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that you could not possibly be dead. If there is any question, then you are alive. But if "Am I alive?" is not a meaningful question, that means you cannot be dead.

Am I alive -> Yes. Therefore, death is an impossibility. There is no dead state. I cannot die. But that is absurd: of course I can die, and be dead. Therefore, our premise must be flawed, and there must be a possibility that you are dead. Since we have concluded that the answer to the question of whether you are alive is always "yes", therefore the answer is mistaken. In this state, you are dead and do not know it. In fact, every dead person does not know it. Lincoln doesn't realize he's dead. Jefferson doesn't. Plato doesn't. Socrates, nope. Nobody realizes they're dead. I cannot realize I'm dead either. My opinion will simply become false. Here are my opinions over time: t(0): I'm alive (right), t(1) I'm alive (right), t(2) I'm alive (wrong buddy you're dead). See where the death happened? All this is to say that death is no different from simply being mistaken. By extension, Fox News is the living dead. QED. Back to term paper.109.128.175.163 (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

From reading that nonsense I am beginning to suspect you are simply trolling. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you never studied philosophy? I am simply trying to work th eresponses I've gotten so far to their natural conclusion, just as I've seen in philosophy classes. The idea of a "you" or a "me" is already something distinct from the molecules of the body; it is perfectly reasonable to attribute thoughts to you whether you are alive or dead. For example, Socrates has a philosophy. It's his. Einstein has an understanding of the physics of the world. Not that he is practicing it at the moment, as he is quite dead, but the understanding is quite his. 109.128.175.163 (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You are not even close to the "philosophy" of either Socrates or Einstein. Busted. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I knew a man who had severe heart disease, and who died three times (in hospital settings) before the final irreversible time. He said there was some consciousness while he was dead, with the "white tunnel" and all that has been written about, while he was "dead." I suppose his story would be best interpreted as "He was dead and he DID know it." Charles I probably felt the same way, for a bit, after his head was chopped off. Edison (talk) 03:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

No, a better interpretation would be that he wasn't really "dead" till he was really dead. This rubbish about people dying X times on the operating table but making a full recovery is just that - rubbish. They can call it "clinical" death or whatever else - but it isn't any form of death (of which there is only one - death) until it's a permanent state of non-existence. If the conventional definition of death has to be altered to conform to my view, so be it. Have the necessary arrangements made, please, Jeeves. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 04:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

There was a film starring Bruce Willis based on this. Who knows? We may all be dead and not realise it. It's equally possible reality is merely a dream (or nightmare!) and our dreams reality. I posed the question before regarding parallel time and other possible dimensions. Remember the universe is without limits......--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You might also be interested in our article on the notion "Cogito ergo sum" (which suggests that if you know you are dead then you must be mistaken;). WikiDao ☯ 18:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

British military bases in US

How many British military bases are there in the United States? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.75.101 (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there were any?AerobicFox (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

What? No precautions against the perfidious neighbours to the north? The closest I can find in Category:British Army bases is Warwick Camp (Bermuda). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There are no British military owned bases in the US. There are a number of British military personnel either on active duty (e.g. the RAF/USAF pilot exchange program) or working as liaisons in various locations (Pentagon, Cheyenne Mountain, USSTRATCOM, AUTEC, those posted to HMS Saker etc). Some arms of the British Armed Forces share areas of American bases (2 piers at Pearl Harbour, shared pens in Submarine bases) and train on US establishments such as Fort Hood. There are also some regiments such as No. 39 Squadron RAF that are based solely in the USA. Nanonic (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

"There are no British military owned bases in the US"... that we know of. 109.128.175.163 (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

British military bases are not allowed in the US because of that incident of the British military burning down the White House. US bases are allowed in the UK because the US military never burned down Buckingham Palace (or the Houses of Parliament.) Edison (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

That's blatant bullshit. There are American military bases in the UK because there are American interests in Europe, historically (World War II, Cold War). The US had some very good reasons for wanting its troops and equipment close to Europe, and thus Russia/Soviet Union. The U.K. has no historical enemies in the Americas it needs to keep close to (AFAIK, there is no Anglo-Mexican tension to worry about) so there's really no impending need for the British to have a permanent military presense in the U.S. proper. --Jayron32 03:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry you are unable to detect humor. UK bases in the US would actually be highly welcome, since they would help to balance the outflow of currency presently occurring because of the US defending Europe and the UK from whatever might menace them, long after the end of the Soviet threat, at the expense of US taxpayers. It should be noted that Europe and the UK have a far larger population and a larger economy than the US, and should be capable of defending themselves by now. Edison (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the most proximate reason for American bases being on UK soil is that the UK government agreed to them being there. It wasn't as if the US just set them up there because they had good reason. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 04:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

True, but the reason that the U.S. asked to put them there in the first place is that they had an interest in doing so. I'm not terribly sure that the U.K. has ever had the need to put a military base in the U.S.; there's none here because a) The U.K. never asked to put one here because b) they have no need to. The agreement between the governments is secondary to the need itself. Yes, the U.K. government allowed it to happen, but the converse (that the U.S. does not allow reciprocal bases for the U.K. on United States soil) isn't necessarily the case; its quite likely that the U.K. has no impending need to have permanent facilities in the U.S. The implied question in this discussion seems to be that there is some inherent unfairness in that the U.S. has military installations in other counties, while other countries do not have installations in the U.S. This is most likely because those countries don't have the need to have installations in the U.S., not because the U.S. refuses to allow them or something like that. Before we can ask "Why does the U.S. think it can have military installations in other countries, but not allow other countries to have military installations in the U.S.?" we need to ask "Why would other countries need military installations in the U.S.?" --Jayron32 04:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a minor point about US bases in the UK - although US forces are based in the UK all the bases and installations are still British and under British control, hence the main American transport base is RAF Mildenhall and not Mildenhall AFB. MilborneOne (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Are there not bombing ranges that are used for practice and training by the RAF, certainly in Canada and perhaps in the US also? 92.28.245.149 (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Bombing ranges and facilities in the United States are regularly used by NATO and foreign forces not just the RAF. MilborneOne (talk) 15:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Notably the Red Flag exercises[16] at Nellis AFB. Alansplodge (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

February 26

Poland

Is Poland in Eastern Europe or Central Europe? --75.15.161.185 (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• See our articles on Central Europe and Eastern Europe. What is "central" or "eastern" in Europe has always been a somewhat slippery concept. But the short answer is: both. --M@rēino 03:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• • To explain a little more in detail about the "slipperiness", the question is somewhat politically colored (something I would have never learned had I not gotten to witness the rather rediculous levels of nationalistic conflicts at Wikipedia articles first hand) in the sense that "Eastern Europe" has become a euphemism for "Russia". As I said, I wouldn't have used to have known that before coming to Wikipedia, but it seems that over the past several decades, as countries have tried to distance themselves from Russia politically they have started to wish to stop being considered part of "Eastern Europe". Until about 1990, "Eastern Europe" meant everything east of the Iron Curtain, so Poland was squarly in Eastern Europe. Since the democratization of many former Soviet satelites, the concept of "Central Europe", including countries like Poland the former Czechoslovakia, has been applied to them more and more, as they attempt to distance themselves from the old idea of what Eastern Europe was. --Jayron32 03:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

East Europe has often been used as a synonym for the East Bloc. So in some sense, you could say that the area that is now Poland was in Central Europe until 1945, in East Europe from 1945 to 1990, and then in Central Europe again after that. The term "central Europe" was not much used during the Cold War, I think. Jørgen (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Depending on whom you ask in Europe, you get different answers. From a Portuguese position, Poland is quite East, so Easter Europe. From the Baltic, however, they are quite center, so Central Europe. Germans, for example, want to take some distance from Poles, so they consider themselves Western Europe, and Poland East, avoiding putting them into the same category (Central East Europe). Quest09 (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

These categories are essentially political. Finland is located to the east of several eastern European countries, but is nevertheless a West European state. Prior to the Cold War there was a concept of Mitteleuropa ('Middle Europe'), which identified a largely German sphere of interest (Germany, Austria, Hungary, etc.). The ethnic composition was quite different then, what is today Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, etc. had large German- and Yiddish-speaking populations. The demographic shifts during and following WWII meant that more ethnically homogeneous nation states were formed. The border of Slavic predominance was moved westwards, and thus large parts of Europe were now "east". After 1991 there has been a concerted and politically motivated effort to revive the "Central Europe" concept. The success of the effort is so and so. People in Western Europe still largely refer to the former Eastern Bloc countries as "Eastern Europe", whilst people living in these countries are more keen on using the "Central Europe" name. --Soman (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

OMG

Resolved

What does OMG mean in this context? STANSFELD, Capt. Logan Sutherland, O.M.G., of Flockton Manor, Yorkshire. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

"Oh My God"!!! Sorry Kitty, I just couldn't resist this. Honestly, I did a Google and came up zero.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Spelling mistake? CMG? Kittybrewster ☎ 10:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Eureka! Order of St Michael and St George, an order of chivalry founded in the 19th century. The initials are CMG.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a spelling mistake, Kitty. The closest correct postnominal would be CMG (easy to misread as OMG, I guess).

Actually, the first thing that occurred to me was Order of Malta and Gozo, but there's no such thing, only an Order of Malta. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it's definitely Order of St Michael and St George as that was the first thing that came up when I did a Google with CMG.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Confirmation - Captain Logan Sutherland Stansfeld, RN, was appointed CMG on 3 June 1916: Supplement to the London Gazette, 3 June 1916, p.5561.

W. M. mason

In the context of Freemasonry, what is a W. M. (specific context)? SpinningSpark 11:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Worshipful Master.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Ta, SpinningSpark 19:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Front bench changes after Irish general elections?

Do smaller Irish political parties usually change their front bench in the aftermath of general elections to distribute portfolios towards the successful candidates? For instance, will the Fianna Fail front bench likely be overhauled to exclude representatives who lost their seats? If only one Green Party T.D. is elected, would they be expected to become leader? And so on, thanks. 83.70.253.29 (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You can't have a seat on the front bench if you don't have a seat at all, so yes, they'll have to form a new front bench made up of those that survived the election. --Tango (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Well my terminology might be a bit off, but I had in mind the shadow spokespeople, who don't necessarily need to be T.D.s it seems if Marc MacSharry is any indication. 83.70.253.29 (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, my knowledge is of Westminster, rather than Irish politics, but over here the shadow cabinet is always made up of current MPs and Lords. Roles like party chairman often go to people that aren't sitting in parliament, but you can't really be spokesperson for a policy area if you can't stand up and speak about that policy area when it is being debated. MacSharry is a member of the upper house, so while not a T.D. is still a sitting member of the Oireachtas. --Tango (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

2011 Libyan uprising

Reading this article, I am really surprised to see the death toll of pro-Gaddafi forces. How 5000 soldiers can be injured? I'm really curious about their fighting method. If it is urban warfare, death toll is very much possible, but they have advanced weaponry including aircraft. So why they are not using aircraft or tanks to quell the uprising? Do they posses missile? Just curious. --Goartoa (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

That "5000+ injured" figure is overall, not just for "pro-Gaddafi forces" (and in any case does not seem to be supported by the sources cited for it).

I don't think it is very clear yet to anyone what the exact extent of casualties is, but see the Casualties section of the article for other estimates.

My impression is that the "fighting method" on all sides is fairly chaotic right now, with some military personnel now with the opposition and some not, bands of foriegn mercenaries with machetes running around, Air Force pilots defecting to Malta with their aircraft rather than carry out orders to attack protesters, etc. Our article will be updated as things become clearer and more reliable sources start publishing more reliable casualty figures. WikiDao ☯ 17:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

German speaking Metallica-like bands?

Does anyone know any German speaking bands whose style is influenced by Metallica? --Belchman (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The only one I know of is Rammstein. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC) Just looked at their entry here, and Metallica isn't listed as one of their influences. However, my nephew is into both of these groups, and they sound pretty similar to me! You might find some of the links on their page useful too. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

"permission to speak freely"

surprised there's no article, but in the Military is there really such a thing as "permission to speak freely"? (as in movies) Can you tell me more about this? 109.128.182.182 (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

In many situations, a soldier would need permission from an officer to do a wide range of things not normally required of him/her. If they want permission to speak freely, that's what they'd have to ask for. If it's permission to kiss the officer, that's what they'd have to ask for. There's potentially no limit to what they could ask for, and I can't see that any particular request would make a suitable enyclopedia topic. I guess "permission to speak freely" occurs in movies a bit because soldiers are normally required to shut up and do what they're told, and only speak in order to answer a direct question. If the dramatic imperatives of the story require a character to expand on a direct court-room type answer, to give the bigger picture of some issue, then they'd have to be seen to ask permission first, so as not to violate military protocol. I'm sure there are many examples in films where there is little or no accuracy when depicting protocol, and much that's just made up for dramatic effect, but this is one thing that's easy for the filmmakers to do and it would reflect reality, more or less, depending on what their military technical advisers tell them. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks but I find your answer rather obscure. In the real military, do people really say that or don't they? 109.128.182.182 (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Middle East

Is Iran in the Middle East? What about the -stans? --75.15.161.185 (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  Traditional definition of the Middle East

  Greater Middle East

  Central Asia (sometimes associated with the Greater Middle East)

The Middle East is a region within Asia. "The -stans" are typically considered part of Asia, but not of the Middle East. Schyler! (one language) 22:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The middle east is usually as much a cultural designation as a geographic one - it generally refers to areas populated by semitic peoples (jews, arabs, and persians, mostly). The 'stans tend to have slavic or turkic populations, and farther east you get indic peoples. --Ludwigs2 22:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The term "Semitic peoples" is really almost completely and utterly meaningless when referring to modern populations (as opposed to tribesmen of 1000 B.C.). There are peoples who speak a Semitic language (this includes Arabs and some Jews, but NOT Persians). However, I'm not sure that speaking a Semitic language has much to do with the definition of the middle east -- Ethiopia is usually not included, despite all the Semitic language-speakers there, while Turkey and Iran often are included. AnonMoos (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Iran is included in the "Traditional definition of the Middle East" and the "-stans" are included in the concept (from a Western perspective) of a "Greater Middle East" (see map). WikiDao ☯ 00:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought that the Middle East meant the Arab countries and Israel. --75.15.161.185 (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Morocco is Arab, but not Middle East. Quest09 (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

As the Middle East article states, the term "Middle East" originally referred to the region including Iran and Afghanistan. The Arab countries and Turkey were called the "Near East." For some reason, the term "Middle East" migrated to cover what used to be called the Near East, leaving Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan kind of in a void between the Middle East and Central and South Asia. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Pistol Packing Mama

Can someone tell me something about the tune and song of this name. I have taken two mp3s from web one by Bing Crosby etc, and others by Big Jack Johnson and Al Dexter. But none of these matches the tune I am looking for. The exact tune I am looking for is sung by Raghubir Yadav while he plays a drug addicted urchin in Salaam Bombay film.  Jon Ascton  (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

February 27

Modern presidents

i think modern president's today are violating the constitution and is suject to impeachment with out gettting authorization from the congress to send out troops because, so many times we hear the president senging out troops for nothing and many died from the war because the president was trying to make a statement from the opposing side to see it his way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.68.121 (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

If you've come here hoping to have a discussion of what you said, you've come to the wrong place. There are plenty of other more suitable places for that.

If you had a question suitable for a reference desk, though ... -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Are we talking about USA, BTW ? I agree with what Jack of Oz says, you are almost soapboxing, however being especially specific and precise regarding your names/dates/parties/issues/incidents etc might make it a legitimate RD question....  Jon Ascton  (talk)

War Powers Act could be relevant... AnonMoos (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Precision is nice, but the most important thing is to actually ask a question... --Tango (talk) 01:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The US Constitution restricts to Congress the power to declare war, but gives the President authority to command troops during a war as commander in chief. The founders of the US did not want a President to be able to place the country at war for reasons that were clear only to him, since losing a war has, many times in history, led to a country losing its independence. Unfortunately, Presidents since 1941 have simply claimed "inherent powers" to direct troops into combat, as Truman did in the Korean "Conflict," or have asked for "war powers resolutions" based on some fraudulent claim ("The North Vietnamese attacked US destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin," "Saddam has Weapons of Mass destruction," etc.) The Presidents have then used these vague jingoistic resolutions to justify largescale war operations with no end in sight in some cases. The Congresses have generally been afraid to vote "No" for fear of being called unpatriotic. These undeclared wars seem unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court has been unwilling to make such a ruling. Edison (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

So much for not engaging soapboxers and discouraging them from spraying stuff at us. We're here to help those who seek to learn something. The OP didn't even ask something like "What do you think?". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

16 syllables

What is the name of the bengali poetry that consists of 16 syllables and it is like Haiku? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.124.52 (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

There are examples found at Rabindranath_Tagore#Poetry. Schyler! (one language) 04:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

bengali poetry

Is there a website that showcases how many types of poetry there are in Bengali literature? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.124.52 (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a very extensive article at Bengali poetry. Schyler! (one language) 04:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)