Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

Welcome to the miscellaneous 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 20

Why aren't electrical panels waterproofed where flooding is a possibility?

I find it inexcusable that in the Fukushima nuclear disaster, there was not more protection for the electrical equipment in event of a tsunami. Likewise in the Costa Concordia disaster the cruise ship apparently lost all engine power a minute after being opened to the sea, preventing it from maneuvering. True, in that case maybe it saved a thousand lives by preventing the idiots in charge of the ship from sailing it far out to sea and instead leaving the wind to blow it to land It seems to me that electrical cables are generally well insulated, and while the equipment at the end of it might well be leaky, they should only short out circuit by circuit, leaving some better protected or better located circuits unaffected - if the central cabinet were simply waterproofed. Even an imperfect seal should prevent an outage for some minutes during a disaster. So why isn't this done?

Waterproofing stops water leaking into something, but it doesn't help deal with the immense force involved in a tsunami. Also, both the backup generators in Fukushima and the engines in the Costa Concordia worked by burning fuel - that requires oxygen. If they are underwater, they aren't going to work however watertight they are (and if you make them completely watertight, they would also be air tight and wouldn't work when they're not underwater either). --Tango (talk) 12:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You wouldn't really expect a tsunami to occur really to be fair. Mrlittleirish 13:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

But Fukushima was designed with a high wall against tsunamis -- just not high enough. They could afford a few extra precautions. The force was probably only a few feet of water - not a full atm of pressure, I would presume, and I think of electrical cabinets being built rather sturdily. And while the engines and generators required air intakes, I'm skeptical that they sucked it in straight from the middle of the engine room or basement - I bet there was a shaft going somewhere, which could also be waterproofed. Even if that wasn't done, any battery backup at all would prevent a shutdown for some time. Wnt (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not just the weight of the water, it's the speed it is moving with. You would need an incredibly large battery to run a nuclear cooling system for a useful length of time (the cooling system needs to run for several days after a SCRAM, at least, although I guess a few hours would give you time to get something else ready - even a few hours would take a ridiculously large battery, though). You might use batteries to power the pumps while you are waiting for the generators to get up to full power, but that's it. --Tango (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't the force of the tsunami was mostly taken by the concrete, with water only draining into the basement, rather than smashing through the walls ? Waterproofing is problematic though, because of the difficulty in testing it. Short of submerging the system in water periodically, how would you detect if leaks exist ? Placing all vital system above the possible waterline seems far more sensible. StuRat (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

That would be inefficient, though, since it would mean you had to pump the water you are using as a coolant up a significant height. --Tango (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

True, and you also lose any possibility of gravity-fed emergency seawater cooling (which, unfortunately, the reactor wasn't designed to take advantage of, in any case). Keeping all possible electrical system above the waterline would be a good compromise, with only the portions required near the reactor being below the waterline, and waterproofed as best as they can be. The diesel generators, for example, should all have been above the waterline. StuRat (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Monticello has a reactor of the same style. They have their generators buried and watertight. (no idea on how they get the oxygen to them.) The Dry Cask storage containers are stored above the 1000-year flood plain. Basically, plants of this style in the US have been repeatedly upgraded over the years...and Fukushima should have been. --Onorem♠Dil 22:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

http://pueblopolitics.com/2011/03/would-a-nuclear-power-plant-be-safe-in-pueblo-county/ - No idea on the accuracy of the page, but ties in nicely to the question. --Onorem♠Dil 22:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) The tsunami did damage the buildings (water reached 15 meters high[1]), knocked out the salt water cooling pumps, and caused two fatalities at the plant. Rmhermen (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

That just said the buildings were flooded, not smashed open by the force of the tsunami. For example, the phrase "completely submerging the facilities' doors" implies that the doors remained intact and attached. StuRat (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

As for waterproofing ship electrical systems, the lights on the Titanic stayed on for some 2.5 hours, almost until the final plunge (probably until the boilers failed). I wonder how they managed this feat ? Apparently, whoever designed the electrical system was far better prepared for a disaster than those who placed the inadequate number of lifeboats. Of course, the risk of electrocution must be balanced against the need to provide lighting needed for passengers to evacuate, and the need for intra-ship communications and to send distress signals. StuRat (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The electrical equipment was in basements at the Fukushima plant, which is problematic when it it that near the ocean, at low elevation above sea level. It was quite foreseeable that the basement might become flooded, and that the cooling pumps would be disabled as a result. Countermeasures could have included gasketed doors and backup power to large sump pumps, to prevent flooding of the basement electrical controls until the water level outside had dropped. Certainly the emergency diesels could have been placed on elevated concrete structures, or could have been placed on nearby higher ground. Alternatively, emergency control circuits for backup pumps could have been elevated or placed on higher ground. Within the electrical space, it would be feasible to have gaskets sealing the circuit breaker and relay panels, but relays and circuitbreakers generate heat in normal operation, and some provision for cooling the sealed panels might be needed when there is zero air circulation. If all wire chases or conduits were sealed, maintenance would be more expensive, when conductors had to be added. It would be an expensive proposition to adapt a control room so that it still worked when it was full to the ceiling with seawater. The better plan would be to avoid filling the control room with seawater. Edison (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

And the best way to ensure that is to put the control room above the waterline. StuRat (talk) 01:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

South American pesticide

Anyone can explain to me details regarding South American pesticide and the information on its current pesticide market? also any information regarding agricultural pesticides in South America would be great. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrenzy (talk • contribs) 09:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. Roger (talk) 10:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Special name for this?

Is there a special name for when a song changes drastically mid-way, like the tempo, pace mood and often the lyrics too? Examples;

[2] [3]

95.91.36.113 (talk) 11:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you referring to a bridge (music)?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It depends on the exact type and the genre it happens in - it's a bridge if it happens in the middle, a coda if it happens at the end, a drop if it happens in techno or dubstep music, and so on. It's probably too varied to give it a general name. Smurrayinchester 14:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Buildings with many floors

To the best of my knowledge, the highest numbers of above/below-ground floors in a envisioned structure are 800 and 65, respectively. My questions:

1. Which envisioned structures have this numbers of above/below-ground floors?
2. Are there any envisioned structures with more above/below-ground floors?

--84.61.139.62 (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the highest numbers of above/below-ground floors in a existing structure are 163 (or 209) and 10, respectively. My questions:

1. Which existing structures have this numbers of above/below-ground floors?
2. Are there any existing structures with more above/below-ground floors?

--84.61.139.62 (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The X-Seed 4000 would have 800 above-ground floors if ever built, and it took just a minute to find out. I'm kind of working so I'll let others continue. --Ouro (blah blah) 15:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

For existing tall buildings, see this article: List of tallest buildings in the world RudolfRed (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The remaining structures are in Mexico City, Dubai, and Istanbul, respectively. --84.61.139.62 (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

See Proposed tall buildings and structures. StuRat (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Earthscraper, Burj Khalifa, and Istanbul Sapphire, respectively. --84.61.139.62 (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

What did Johnny Rebel do between 1970 and 2001?

So apparently, he made all those catchy country songs in the 1960s, then did absolutely nothing for over 30 years, then made ONE song (about 9/11)... Isn't that pretty odd? What did he do for those 30 years? Was he in prison or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk • contribs) 15:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not all that rare of a pattern. Musicians frequently get burnt out and do something else for many years, then, late in their life, possibly low on cash, they try for a come-back. StuRat (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't tell if this is trolling or not, but the "catchy country songs" of Johnny Rebel (singer) were apparently pro-KKK songs. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, obviously it must be "trolling" since "catchy country songs" cannot possibly be catchy and country songs if they are pro-KKK. And we all know that "trolling" means "anything that isn't exactly like my stupid, worthless mind wants it to be". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk • contribs) 01:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe Mr.98 didn't assume good faith, but that reaction was uncalled for. Vespine (talk) 04:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I will go on the record that I think referring to blatantly, disturbing racist songs as "catchy country songs" without any qualification looks like trolling to me, if it wasn't meant to be ironic, which is apparently the case. I don't have any problem with people asking about racists, of course, but I thought it might be worth pointing out that this was an unusual case. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Considering the history of Mr. Rebel himself on Wikipedia, one might want to question the initial question. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Huh? That's all I can reply to this. What on Earth do you mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk • contribs) 16:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I think TMotB is suggesting Johnny Rebel has a history of editing wikipedia. I'm not sure if there is clear cut evidence for this. Someone has been persistently spamming sites to buy Johnny Rebel CDs and also official sites associated with Johnny Rebel but I don't know for sure if it's JR. Of course if Johnny Rebel had persistently tried to use wikipedia to promote himself in the past, people wouldn't be surprised if it happens again. Nil Einne (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

People's classification of the US

Why is everytime somebody talks about America, whether to bash, praise or whatever, they're always referring to the US? Like, for example, a guy from Virginia or Florida goes to Canada, Mexico, or somewhere overseas like the UK or Australia, He is automatically address as an American instead of a US citizen or something more specific. This doesn't make any sense to me as is was my understanding that America was a continent and the US, Canada, Mexico, and everything below were nations.

Even when talks about illegal immigration, you'll hear things from US residents like "this is America, we speak English" or "Mexicans aren't Americans". So why is the generalization, that America only consists of the United States? Sarujo (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's the way it is. It is not intended as some kind of marginalisation of other nations. People from Canada are Canadians, people from Mexico are Mexicans, people from South America are Brazilians, Argentinians, Peruvians, etc. or maybe South Americans, and people from the United States of America are Americans. See the articles: Demonym and Exonym and endonym for the linguistic details. Astronaut (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It's just easier to say Americans than it is to say United Statesians, I suppose?--WaltCip (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The demonym article directly discusses this problem in Demonym#Cultural problems ... the two paragraphs starting with "The demonym for citizens of the United States of America suffers a similar problem..." Astronaut (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Calling people from the United States Americans in English is just a convention, or a commonly accepted thing. It probably came to be because, at least since about 1900, the United States has had far more influence and cultural presence in other English-speaking countries than any other country in the Americas. Thus, American became an easy shorthand for from the United States, since English speakers (except Canadians) had reason to refer to the United States far more often than any other country in the Americas. The other countries were the exception, to be referred to by their individual names, and they weren't seen as having much in common with "America" other than location. Canada is an interesting exception. Canadians do not generally object to calling things from the United States American even though they have just as much reason to feel slighted by the usage as Latin Americans. Perhaps the reason that Canadians have almost never called themselves American is because of that term's association with the neighbor to the south; Canadians wanted a distinct identity. Latin Americans probably object because the term America in Spanish refers to the entire Western Hemisphere. However, the same word can mean different things in two different languages, and that is the case here. It doesn't do much good to take offense. Marco polo (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Simple summary. We're using English. It's often not logical. HiLo48 (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Because we consider the name of our country to be America and United States to be the form of government. We do not refer to Federal Republicans (Germans) or United Statesians (Mexicans) Rmhermen (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

...or the Ukish. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The basic problem is that the US has no name of it's own, which is distinct from it's form of government (United States, which other nations also share) and continent (America, which many nations share). To make it unique, you need to say United States of America, and United States of American or USAian just don't flow. The US is sometimes referred to poetically as "Columbia", but calling people Columbians would cause massive confusion with Colombia. StuRat (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue goes deeper than just "Why are only this one country's people called Americans when that term could validly apply to anyone in North, Central and South America?". The question really should be "Why did they name this country United States of America in the first place, when the word America was already in use to refer to a much larger land mass?". But they did give it that name, and given that fact, what would be a better name for its people than "Americans"?

If Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand and Burma were to unite into a single nation called the "United States of Asia", there might be case for calling its people "Asians". In that case, though, there'd be ample scope for confusion since "Asian" normally refers to the entire continent of Asia. But "American" does NOT normally refer to the entire New World, unless the context dictates. If someone said "I'm an American", nobody would wonder if they were from Argentina, Guatemala, Canada, the USA or wherever else in the Americas. No, everybody would assume they meant the United States of America. Hence, there is no confusion - not in the English language. There may be confusion in Spanish or other languages, and they have to sort out that issue in their own way. But to apply that solution to English would be a case of fixing something that ain't broke. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

And "Asian" has other problems, too. Are Israelis "Asians" ? StuRat (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The "Holy Land" was once called "The Orient," as in the Oriental Institute. So perhaps Israelis could be called "orientals." Edison (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Citizens of the United States of America are Americans. Citizens of the United States of Mexico are Mexicans. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

There are unofficial names used internationally to refer to people from the USA. Some Yanks may find these offensive, but usually they are not intended as such.-gadfium 00:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Weirdly enough I find the fuller version of the rhyming slang to be less offensive than the Australian contraction thereof. I consider them both to be slurs though. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Please explain. I can take it. I'm just a dumb Yank. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yank => Septic Tank => Septic / Seppo / Sep. Septic isn't diminished, whereas seppo is. To my mind seppo just has more hate in it. Sep (singular) or Seps (collective) also makes sense. Tends, at least to my understanding, to only be applied to participants in the dominant culture in the USA, or that culture collectively. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Funny. You probably don't want to know what we call Brits. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

"Reliable allies"? --Dweller (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

What's annoying about foreigners' use of "Yank" or "yanqui" is that in America, a "Yankee" is a Northeasterner. Calling someone from Alabama a "Yankee" is like calling someone from Cornwall a Scot. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Or from Yankee Stadium. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Not particularly in the case of the rhyming slang, as it relates less to internal US geography, and more to the perceived qualities of States Uniteders in 1942. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't exactly unusual though - non-British people often use 'British' and 'English' as synonyms, and non-Dutch people often use 'the Netherlands' and 'Holland' as synonyms. If a region of a country is particularly prominent, it is unsurprising that foreigners will confuse one for the other. Often, the inhabitants of the country end up doing so too (think how many modern countries derive their name from that of a much smaller region, or even from an entirely different part of the world). 130.88.73.65 (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has yet linked in this discussion to the article about the subject: American (word).-gadfium 00:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

And even more appropriate: Names for United States citizens.-gadfium 00:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Also because we were Americans before the United States existed. Shadowjams (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

In Names on the Land George R. Stewart suggests that the US might have ended up with a better name during the Constitutional Convention, but: "There seems to be some kind of unimaginative quality in statesmen which makes them think that a name should describe, even at the expense of being awkward. Of the two chief men who might have argued for a better name, Franklin...was no longer vigorous, and Jefferson was in France." He goes on to say that there was some agitation for the adoption of "Columbia" around 1800, along with a few others—Washington Irving proposed "Appalachia" or "Alleghania". The Columbia effort resulted in that name being used for a number of counties, towns, cities, and a major river (via a ship's name), but "after 1819 Columbus was associated with a region in South America, and was no longer available as a national name". Stewart sums all this up by saying: "The makeshift establishment of the national name was the worst misfortune in our whole naming-history. Its too great length has consumed paper, ink, time, and energy. Its vagueness and inaccuracy have caused incalcuable misunderstanding, and bad feeling. Yet the trouble has never been acute enough to occasion an amendment to the Constitution..." Pfly (talk) 07:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, but I suspect it must go back to pre-independence, when there was no U.S. but there were the American colonies and British American colonists. I thought "americano" in Spanish was properly general, but Wiktionary doesn't agree with my recollection. Wnt (talk) 10:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

:::We could always take up GWB's practice, and refer to US citizens as 'Merkins' ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That's sort of the opposite of calling them Yanks. If you call them Merkins, you are intending to insult them, but they won't be offended and will probably compliment you on your good grasp of English.-gadfium 20:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

If anyone ever says "A penny for your thoughts", you can respond with "A merkin for your quim". They'll probably thank you.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Please amend Dr. Michael Aris's birthday.

Dear Sir/Madame,

How are you? I wish you are well and happy. Permit me to introduce myself. My name is Myint Kywe. My pen name is Myoma Myint Kywe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myoma_Myint_Kywe

I saw Dr. Michael Aris's biography in en.wikipedia.org who was husband of Burmese famous politician Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. I saw his birthday was 1 January 1937. But in following websites, I saw that Dr. Michael Aris's birthday is on 27.March.1946.

http://www.topyaps.com/top-10-people-who-died-on-their-birthday/

http://cdburma.tripod.com/Files/memorial.html

http://marriage.about.com/od/politics/p/Michael-Aris-And-Aung-San-Suu-Kyi-Marriage-Profile.htm

http://www.burmafund.org/Pathfinders/news/michael_aris.htm

http://www.ibiblio.org/obl/reg.burma/archives/199903/msg00531.html

I respect Dr. Michael Aris very much and I am very appreciate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's family.

Please can you amend true date of birth of Dr. Michael Aris?

Thanking you in anticipation. Thank you very much, Wikipedia!

Sincerely yours,

Myoma Myint Kywe

Burmese Writer and historian

61.90.93.237 (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking at Michael Aris, it arose from this apparent vandalism by an IP which I have reverted. However I have not used any of your sources as they don't seem reliable. The good thing is the external links (formerly) used in the article support the claim he died on his 53rd birthday which gives the date you suggested so I have used them as sources. In future, I suggest you ask these sort of question at WP:Help desk or use the article talk page Nil Einne (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Country versus Rock 'n roll?

In one episode of South Park, country (the music genre) and rock 'n roll are put against each other to represent "the conservatives" and "the liberals". But I thought that "the South" liked rock 'n roll even back in the days when it was a new genre, and it was played alongside of country and never was an "either you're with us or you're against us" kind of thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk • contribs) 23:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The history of the two genres is hopelessly complicated and isn't a black-and-white as a satire like South Park makes it out to be. Early rock-and-roll borrowed heavily from country music, and there was, has been, is, and probably always will be significant cross-over between the two genres. Take Ray Charles, who released the landmark album Modern Sounds in Country and Western Music which is considered one of the best albums ever made. Consider such genres as country-rock and southern rock with bands like The Eagles and Poco and Lynyrd Skynyrd and the Allman Brothers Band which blur the lines. Darius Rucker has a solo career as a country artist after leading the pop-rock band Hootie and the Blowfish. John Doe has a solo career as a country artist after leading the seminal LA punk band X. Garth Brooks began in rock music before transitioning to country (lets ignore the disaterous Chris Gaines fiasco). Eric Clapton loved country ("Bell Bottom Blues", "Lay Down Sally", etc.), as did Bob Dylan (Nashville Skyline). Both Elvis Presley and Johnny Cash are considered pioneers of both forms of music.

The political angle played up by South Park comes from the fact that Country music has an image of having a greater following in the Southern and Midwestern U.S., while Rock music is more associated with "the coasts"; roughly the same division that exists between "Red states" and "Blue States". Still, you get rock bands from the South, and not just southern rock (i.e. Pantera from Texas and Louisiana, 3 Doors Down from Mississippi), you get Country artists from the North and California, and even outside of the U.S. (Eddie Rabbit was from Brooklyn, Lee Greenwood is from California, Shania Twain is Canadian, Keith Urban is Australian). Lionel Richie had a productive song-writing partnership with Kenny Rogers. I could go on and on. Divisions between musical genres are much stronger among fans than among musicians, and you will find a lot more musicians which "cross over" between genres than fans that do, and politics knows no musical boundaries. Rock act Ted Nugent is a professed "conservative" (by the American definition) and country act The Dixie Chicks have been noted for taking "liberal" (by the American definition) political views. --Jayron32 23:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

South Park is often not a reliable source. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Trudat. --Jayron32 04:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The OP should listen to Brenda Lee's oft-played "Rockin' Around the Christmas Tree" and tell us whether it's more "rock and roll" or more "country". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I would disagree that the "country:rock :: conservatives:liberals" analogy is about territory. I would think that the association of country with conservatism and of rock with liberalism (or non-conservatism) is not region-dependent. The Allman Brothers were big backers of Jimmy Carter, for instance. Lynyrd Skynyrd -- the original Lynyrd Skynyrd -- wrote a song promoting gun control. It's just that country music is more popular with rural people and Southerners, who also happen to tend to be conservative. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that genres like rockabilly combine the two. StuRat (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

See also Jerry Lee Lewis. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It's also about race: country music is almost exclusively white, while founders of rock and roll were either black like Fats Domino, Little Richard, Ike Turner, or sounded black like Elvis Presley, and rock derived largely from black music like blues and jazz (although it also derived from country/bluegrass/folk/etc, rock obviously sounds less like country than country sounds like country, and even country now sounds "whiter" than in the 1940s and 1950s when jazz-inluenced genres like Western swing were big). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's not forget Charley Pride and Pat Boone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

best Pat Boone album ever. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

February 21

famous painters

who is Connie weiss? I got a painting of hers and I can't find any info about her. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.102.194.136 (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this the Connie Weiss you mean? Bielle (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Illegal Money Laundering.

Why don´t governments refresh their currencies more frequently to frustrate money launderers. I recall when the Euro was being introduced that the amount of Mafioso Lira that were exchanged in advance in return for foreign hotels and other property at knock-down prices was simply amazing, some stories I heard were hotels in Spain were changing hands at a Lira exchange rate of 40% or less? 83.49.81.35 (talk) 01:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Calling in a currency is a tremendous bother and decreases confidence in it. Keep in mind what you are saying is the money not turned in becomes valueless. It is not worth doing for the sake of annoying a few Mafiosos. By the way, all legacy currency banknotes valid on 1 January 2002 remained valid for at least ten years. I turned in around 20,000 lire in Milan a few years ago.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Not least because lots of money laundering isn't done with cash at all. It's often not guys with briefcases full of money, but offshore bank accounts, cash businesses with difficult-to-verify cashflows (which turn illegitimate cash into untraceable legal turnover), wire transfers through holding companies in uncooperative jurisdictions, and dodgy business deals and property purchases. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 01:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Generally, withdrawal of currency takes place when there is a change of currency, i.e., when France went from the old franc to the new franc and subsequently to the euro. US currency is valid back into the 19th century and all Bank of England notes from whenever are redeemable (I've redeemed ten shilling notes there, in poor enough condition that there is no premium); though the ones that were counterfeited may need to be authenticated. Historically, they withdrew Military Payment Certificates on short notice to prevent them from being used as currency offbase, there's an episode of MASH on the subject.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the questioner is asking more about replacing series of banknotes rather than the wholesale withdrawal of a currency, to which I would say that the answer is that it's simply too much trouble to replace a series of notes more frequently than every 10-20 years on average. For example, the Bank of England has just started replacing the £50 notes which were introduced in 1994 (which replaced the previous notes which were current between 1981 and 1996); there's usually a period of a few years when both the old and new notes circulate - though the Bank of England is fairly unusual in that it will redeem all notes ever issued, back to 1695, at face value. Even as respected a currency as the Swiss franc regularly makes its banknotes valueless, though after a long gap; I first visited the country in 1984, and the sixth series notes from 1975 which I used then were replaced between 1995-1998 and lose all their value in 2020 - though our article says there are still around 130 million francs worth of 500-franc notes of this series which haven't been turned in yet. When the fifth-series notes (from 1956) were demonetised in 2000, there were still over 244 million francs of notes out in the wild. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Most money is not on paper, just electronic. And there was no need to hurry for exchanging old European currencies for the Euro, since the old currencies can, even today, be exchanged for Euros. XPPaul (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This is NOT the case - some pre-Euro currencies' notes will remain exchangeable for Euros forever (e.g. Irish pound, Deutschemark, Austrian Schilling); Dutch guilder notes will be exchangeable until 2032; Portuguese escudo notes will be exchangeable until February 2022; Italian lire notes ceased to have any value in December 2011; French franc banknotes ceased to have value last week - 17 February 2012. Most countries' coins are already non-exchangeable. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I ask myself what would happen with the exchange of those still valid currencies if the euro falls apart. Would you be able to exchange your old currency into euro or only into the new currency of a expelled state? 88.14.192.178 (talk) 01:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

kitchen

(google.com.au link)

hi that world be classed as a open kitchen right thanks for the help if someone replys — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.233.148 (talk) 05:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that kitchen looks open to me. In my book any kitchen that is open to view by the customers is an open kitchen. Richard Avery (talk) 08:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Creative Commons 3.0 vs 2.0

Flickr does not have an option to license a photo under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. The License section at the right-hand side of a photo only allows a photo to be licensed under Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0). But in some examples, such as in this photo, the photographer has licensed their photo under both versions of CC license. I want to know how is it possible to copyright a single photo under both CC 2.0 and CC 3.0 licenses? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 05:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

If you own the copyright, you can licence the work however you want, including licencing it under multiple licences (not legal advice, of course). RudolfRed (talk) 06:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Jesus Christ life

DID JESUS CHRIST HAD A WIFE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.134.102.105 (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Mary Magdalene? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 13:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

General consensus (leaving aside the Christ-as-a-Myth component) is "no". Among dissenters, Mary Magdalene is probably the most common proposed wife. — Lomn 14:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless you consider nuns to be brides of Christ. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, we're well into the metaphorical at that point (and it would probably be more direct to note that the church collectively is referenced as the Bride of Christ). — Lomn 15:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing in the Bible stating that He had a wife. The dangerous nature of His mission might have precluded getting married. Just like with Pony Express riders. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm still grappling with the conflict between the header and the question. Is it about his life or his wife? He had a life but is said to have given it up for the salvation of mankind, so that they might all have eternal life. So, it's not "get a life" so much as "get an eternal life". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

"Just like with Pony Express riders" that is so funny, I think one of your best Bugs. Richard Avery (talk) 08:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

... the conflict between the header and the question ... You're not married are you. :-) Mitch Ames (talk) 13:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Heh. Not anymore, fortunately. I got me a life instead. No offence, sweetheart.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Poem makes no sense to me

Is this poem supposed to make any sense? It sure doesn't to me. =_=" Can anyone explain why it sounds to queer and is written with such queer punctuation and arrangment? http://www.poetry-archive.com/c/in_just.html 117.227.35.93 (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Our article, E._E._Cummings has some information in various places about his odd style of writing. You may wish to expand your range of adjectives, if you're studying poetry. You've used "queer" twice, and we can't tell if you mean "homosexual" or "odd". If the latter, it's a queer choice of words. If the former, the section on Cummings' marriages will tell you that you're incorrect. --Dweller (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

"Queer" is in the poem. I think older people always seem queer to younger people. Bus stop (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See E.e._cummings#Poetry. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Metre (poetry) may help: In poetry, metre (meter in American English) is the basic rhythmic structure of a verse or lines in verse. Though I can't discern any pattern of rhyme in the linked poem "in Just- by: e.e. cummings (1894-1962)". See also Jabberwocky. - 220 of ^Borg 18:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I am really out of my depth here, as I have no expertise in poetry, but poetry does not always operate on a logical, rational plane. Modern poetry in particular does not always "make sense" in a strictly logical way. It is often meant to evoke a feeling or a state of mind. I think that is the case here. I think Cummings is trying to evoke children's experience of springtime. Marco polo (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

As for his use of punctuation, spacing, etc., I think it's mostly just "weird for weirdness sake". Perhaps running together the names of "Eddie and Bill" is to show they are close friends who like to play marbles and pirates together, and "Betty and Isabel" are close friends who like to play hop-scotch and jump-rope. The description of the "baloonman" is a bit trickier. The way they change the description each time makes me think that different kids perceive him differently. I assume he sells balloons to children, as ice cream men do these days. StuRat (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

For an example of highly-intelligent sounding but nonsense poetry, you might find A Classic Ode intriguing. See WP:BOLLOCKS. 58.111.178.170 (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This reminds me of the Beatles song I am the Walrus, when John Lennon, having heard how much effort people put into analysing Beatles lyrics and finding hidden messages in them, decided to purposefully write as weird and nonsensical lyrics as possible. JIP | Talk 20:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's his point, though in all of cummings' work, playing with what the idea of poetry ought to be seems fairly implicit. Most modern poets, in my meager experience, are more concerned with how the words sound than what their strict meaning is. But I'm very much not a poetry buff or fan, so I could be very well quite wrong on this. But I think writing a poem (at least in its modern idiom) is generally speaking not an attempt to get across a whole lot of semantic meaning or information, and is usually an attempt to evoke emotions in the reader, which is a pretty different sort of endeavor. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It makes sense. It evokes springtime. It includes characters both old and young. Emphasis is placed on companionship. Frivolousness is evoked. In form it breaks convention, not being written properly, but the elements are there of a moment in time where lives intersect and where lives do not intersect but have the potential to intersect. There is no description of any interior (indoor) space—this is the outdoors, which is experienced most strongly when emerging from the indoors in the spring. Mud and puddles are present. The older "balloon-man" is "lame" and "goat-footed". But by occupation he is related to the games of the two pairs of opposite-gendered younger people. It is just an evocation of a situation that can occur annually. Bus stop (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Not only did we have to read that poem in junior high, they even played us a tape of cummings reciting it, and even he sounded like he thought it was kind of weird. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Here it is. Bus stop (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

See Free verse. --TammyMoet (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

To just add some detail, "wee" is a play on words, I think. Following on from "far and," you can't but hear "...wide" coming. One letter is enough, but a vowel sound left trailing sounds like an evocation of the word "wide" just left unfinished. Then it is interrupted and it clearly represents we ( inclusive?), that is, we and those other dudes mentioned next. Then at the end, the reader having already been tripped twice, and alerted to the awkward parsing of the words, the simpler meaning, unfinished "wide," runs off into thin air. I think the contrast (punning use and free use), and the unexpectedness at the end, is meant to strengthen the effect of "wee" and make it linger. Just a theory. IBE (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Help!

I just deleted my google account 5 minutes back and then remembered I had some really important mails in there that I forgot to forward to my other mail inbox. Is there anyway I revert the change or get my data back??!! 117.227.35.93 (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You might be able to follow these instructions, if you're quick. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! That worked. :) I'm so glad. 117.226.178.231 (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Movie clip?

Apparently, this: http://media.photobucket.com/image/harry%20potter/Dim94/harry_potter.jpg?o= is a screenshot of the movie. But I get the feeling it's photoshopped. Can anyone verify? The sites where this crops up says nothing in particular. And I can't locate which scene this was taken from in the original movie... 117.226.178.231 (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It's from Goblet of Fire and is photoshopped of course. Here is the original image (large file).--Cam (talk) 03:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, Harry Potter's arm would have to be broken to look like that. StuRat (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Or perhaps somebody just removed the bones. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

How many people are watching this particular page a day?

I have no idea at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk • contribs) 23:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, 1,840 registered editors have this page on their watchlist. That doesn't include the perhaps many others who (like me) just wander by occasionally. Deor (talk) 23:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Enough to remove your stupid questions some of the time, but not enough to remove them all of the time? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

If you're interested in the actual daily page views, see http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous. Reach Out to the Truth 00:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that page views are very different than unique visitors, especially on a participatory page like this (where I necessarily view it twice every time I write something in). My guess is less than 100 unique visitors account for those stats, but I don't really know. It is not hard to imagine that the hardcore Ref Deskers view this page at least 10 times a day. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

February 22

Why are casinos and slot machines and all that illegal in so many places?

Of all the things to make illegal, why is gambling one? Especially since alcohol is usually allowed everywhere, which must be far worse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk • contribs) 02:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

See the article Blue law. Doesn't exactly answer your question, but may be informative. Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 02:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

See Effects of Casino Gambling on Crime and Quality of Life in New Casino Jurisdictions(pdf), Casinos, Crime, and Community costs(pdf). A quick google search on "effect of casino on community" will give you many similar results. Royor (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

"Situations defined as real are real in their consequences." The fact that citizens believe crime has risen and that the rise is in some way due to the casino presence is important. (first pdf, p92). The second pdf concluded that the effect on crime is low shortly after a casino opens, and grows over time,(p1) (and in the long run) casinos increased all crimes except murder (p17). So to answer your question: gambling is illegal in some places because of the negative perception (whether real or not) and the very real long term social cost. As to alcohol, look at the US Prohibition - they tried it, didn't work. Royor (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Casinos have also historically offered almost unlimited possibilities for money laundering (almost all cash transactions, lots of room for "skim", hard to follow for tax purposes), which is why they have been so appealing to organized crime in the past. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Gambling can be every bit as addictive (and bankrupting) as drugs and alcohol. They tried banning alcohol. That didn't work. But it's regulated, as are drugs and alcohol. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

There are classed aspects to the selective banning of gambling. Totalisers have been state monopolies at times, illegal Starting Price bookmaking has been both a proletarian, and criminal, tradition. Lotteries are regularly run as state monopolies, occasionally even with the money generated ear marked for "public goods," such as the use of part of the UK lotteries to partly fund films. In other places such lotteries are used for consolidated revenue. Poker-machines used to be limited in NSW to clubs, as clubs were a system of semi-communal places. These days they're legal in pubs and clubs, and clubs and club alcohol licencing are as closely related to their social ancestor as the RSL is to a returned soldiers association. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Originally they were illegal because of the harm they caused to society. After all, unlike farming or manufacturing, they don't create any wealth, they just take it from some (mainly the poor gamblers) and give it to others (mainly the rich casino owners). However, in recent years, governments ceased to care about the harm to society, and now are mainly concerned with getting their "piece of the action". Thus, they legalize forms of gambling where they will profit the most, and keep other forms illegal. I like to call lottery tickets "paying your stupidity tax". StuRat (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Even though I agree with the sentiment I have to put up a Royor (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

There is definitely a common perception...or a stereotype...associated with customers/operators of casinos as being "undesirables." The mafia/money laundering aspect was mentioned in an above post, but there is also a popular belief by some that casinos/gambling/lotteries are, at the core, akin to a tax on the poor and/or uneducated (basically, highly-susceptible) people looking to get rich quick. Also of interest is that, in many cases lawmakers tend to "find reasons" or loopholes to legitimize gambling, because some of the positive aspects of casinos include job creation and increased tax revenue. In Mississippi for example, for a long time casinos were only allowed on Native American reservations, being that they were "outside of" the State's purview. Then riverboat gambling on navigable water ways was permitted, which eventually turned into casinos being built adjacent to waterways with a ditch (commonly called a moat) dug around them, to fulfill the "over water" requirement. Now, after Hurricane Katrina, Casinos are permitted to be built on land, but within a certain proximity of waterways, due to safety concerns (many water-based casinos were swept away during Katrina, most notably one- I thing the Beau Rivage- that "rolled over" on top of Hwy 90 in the storm surge). Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 04:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like God doesn't want them to gamble. :-) Which reminds me, I believe there are also religious objections to gambling. Having people hoping to get rich by gambling instead of working is definitely counter to the Puritan work ethic, for example.

Economists would also argue that "gambling" on the stock market is better for the nation, in that it provides positive rate of return (versus casinos) and also provides capital for corporations. But governments prefer gambling on the lottery, because the tax rate is higher. StuRat (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I question your premise. Is gambling completely (or almost completely) banned in significantly more countries than alcohol is completely (or almost completely) banned? Most countries regulate and license gambling in the same way as they regulate and license the sale of alcohol. --Tango (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Texas

I have heard that Texas has a provision in its State Constitution (or some such governing document) that allows for it to be divided into multiple, smaller states. Tue or myth? If true, what are the details? Has it ever been considered? Is this unique to Texas? (I read the article on Texas and didn't see anything about this, but its a rather large article, and I may have missed it.) Thanks! Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 02:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It is true. I think it is unique to Texas. See here [4] and here [5] RudolfRed (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Not to get off subject here, but the first link (Snopes) mentions that the "right to secede from the Union" is a myth. I had always took that to be fact, and much more "common knowledge" than the provision to divide into five states. Didn't Rick Perry mention something about Texas being able to secede in one of the debates (of course, that was Rick Perry...his grasp of governmental workings is not exactly one of his strong suits.):) Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 04:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Just because there is no mechanism set up to allow for secession doesn't mean it's prohibited. I imagine if all parties agreed (or at least the majority), we'd find a way to get it done. StuRat (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess it does seem kind of silly to include a "secession provision" into a statehood-agreement simply because if, for example, Texas decided on, and was firmly committed to, secession, they probably wouldn't give a shit whether the Federal Government thought it was legal or not (assuming that they were so firmly committed that they were willing to back it up, as the worst case scenario, with armed conflict You'd think that would be considered beforehand). But maybe I'm missing something. Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 04:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The page section Texas Annexation#Options for the formation of new states mentions a possible constitutional issue, if the splitting of Texas were ever actually attempted. Pfly (talk) 05:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The joke in Alaska is that if Texans can't get over it that when Alaska became a state Texas became the second-largest instead of the largest, we'll split Alaska in half and Texas can be the third largest. Course we also have our very own secessionists as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't this resolved in 1865? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Not really. Just because one attempt at secession resulted in war doesn't mean that all must. Heck, there are large parts of the nation I'd like to encourage to leave the Union. :-) StuRat (talk) 06:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

So, let's say California decided to secede from the U.S. b/c their environmental and civil liberty policies were at odds. And assuming that, if that were the case, California would not acknowledge any sort of U.S. supreme court ruling as having baring on the secession after the fact...do you not think the U.S. Fed would invoke military action to "bring them back in line?" What other alternatives would there be? Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 06:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I see many peaceful alternatives:

1) Allow them to become fully independent.

2) Form an EU style confederation, where CA is no longer under the US Constitution, but still maintains other key economic links.

3) Revise the laws in question to give CA more leeway. For example, trying to arrest Californians for the production, distribution, and sale of medical marijuana is one of the worst Federal policies. StuRat (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be a very similar situation as is currently happening with regards to Scottish independence. The legal position is very clear that Scotland can't unilaterally break away from the UK and all the major UK political parties are very clear that they don't think it would be in Scotland's interests or the interests of the rest of the UK for Scotland to break away, but everyone is agreed that if the Scottish people really want to then they will be allowed to. I would expect the rest of the US to view Calafornian independence in much the same way (although there are a few differences - Scotland was independant until 300 years ago, while Calafornia has never been a sovereign state, and the British tend to be a little more pragmatic than the Americans when it comes to patriotism). --Tango (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

California historians might disagree with part of that. See Republic of California (1846). Rmhermen (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

What an em-bear-assing mistake. :-) StuRat (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

That article doesn't remotely contradict what I said. It says "the "republic" never exercised any real authority, and it was never recognized by any nation". A 26-day revolt does not a sovereign state make. --Tango (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

As a practical matter, the federal government could deal with that fairly readily if it ever got to that very silly point by not allowing planes to enter California airspace, or trains. Refuse to clear people at the ports of entry. Have the Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco refuse to issue any money (not just currency) to California banks. Really, it would never get to force.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not 1861 any more. The United States has a long-standing tradition of supporting various independence movements in every corner of the planet. It consistently operates under the banner of self-determination of peoples to such a degree that it routinely uses the term "freedom fighters" to describe movements which should properly be labelled as "terrorists". (Some recent examples include Chechnya, Kosovo, and Kurdistan.) It's hard to imagine that the federal government would be willing (or even that it would have popular support) to conduct any hostile actions towards any state that tried to secede, assuming that secession is approved by a statewide referendum. --Itinerant1 (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm rather skeptical that anyone in the US called Chechnya a case of "freedom fighters". Do you have a source for this ? StuRat (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Google news archive search produces a number of sources dating 1992-2000, including articles in Chicago Tribune, New York Times, and Los Angeles Times, but almost all of them are paywalled.

There were, I think, two phases, before and after 9/11. Before 9/11, Chechens were often described by the media as "freedom fighters" or "separatists", the attention of the West was mostly on the alleged human rights abuses committed by Russians in Chechnya, and the White House was exhibiting a bad case of cognitive dissonance by claiming that Russia had sovereignty over the region, while at the same time firmly denouncing any military actions in the region (to the point of threatening sanctions.) Two weeks after 9/11, the White House came out and made a formal statement declaring that there are terrorist organizations in Chechnya with ties to Osama bin Laden. After that, Chechens increasingly became "terrorists" and "insurgents".--Itinerant1 (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

After the Beslan school hostage crisis it became apparent to all that they were terrorists, although the earlier apartment building bombings and theater take-over would be more than enough for me. StuRat (talk) 05:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

As for the Texas matter, the treaty provision did not place Texas under any different status than any other state for splitting. The provision allows Texas to be split with the consent of Congress and its legislature. But that's true of any state.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Reading between the lines, one could say that the wording of the treaty was a bit of a scam - basically extending Texas some theoretical "special privilege" that in fact every other state theoretically had as well. Sounds like Uncle Sam kinda put one over on them good ol' Texas boys. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Admittedly, I didn't read the whole thing, but I did skim through the Texas Constitution at http://www.constitution.legis.state.tx.us/ and I don't see any such provisions. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 07:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not in the state constitution (as far as I know), rather the Annexation of Texas Joint Resolution of Congress and Ordinance of the Convention of Texas. Pfly (talk) 07:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Medical license

Is a U.S. medical license recognised by other countries (except Canada), permitting the holder to practice medicine there without going through further exams? Thanks. --Gidip (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd expect it to vary by nation, with those which are able to perform their own certification being pickier than third world nations, in general. StuRat (talk) 04:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my old college roommate went, as a cosmetic surgeon in later life, down to Fiji as a volunteer to perform reconstructive surgery (cleft palates, thing like that), and had to be officially "invited" by the corresponding agency in Fiji (so he had to have papers). But it was really just a formality, and, from what I recall, was facilitated entirely by the Red Cross. Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 05:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

In Japan, the Medical Practitioners Act prohibits non-holder of a Japanese medical license to practice medicine. --Kusunose 10:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Most countries would require you to get a license to practice in that country, but they will usually recognise your existing training and qualifications as long as they aren't considered significantly easier or less complete than the local ones. --Tango (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

My brother graduated from an American medical school, but he says he would have to take exams to practice back in Canada. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the comments. Gidip (talk) 11:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Chinese astronomer with a Japanese name

I was in the imperial chinese history portal. There is a picture of a Chiinese astronomer 1600s but he has a Japanese name. Very confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.157.87 (talk) 09:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

And what is your question for the Reference Desk? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I browsed Portal:History of Imperial China and Portal:History of Imperial China/Selected biography but none of them seems to have a Japanese name. Please be more specific. --Kusunose 10:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Portal:History_of_Imperial_China currently has a picture of "A 1675 painting of Kuniyoshi Utagawa, a Chinese priest-astronomer". This is incorrectly labelled; Kuniyoshi Utagawa is the Japanese painter and Chicasei Goyô (Wu Yong) the subject: see [6]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

OP is refering to File:Utagawa Kuniyoshi, Portrait of Chicasei Goyô (Wu Yong) (1827–1830).jpg. This picture is shown on Portal:History of Imperial China. The image caption on the portal is misleading: it says “A 1675 painting of Kuniyoshi Utagawa, a Chinese priest-astronomer”. The image page suggests that the picture was painted by Utagawa Kuniyoshi, a 19th century Japanese painter; whereas the image depicts Chicasei Goyô who is also known as Wu Yong, a fictional Chinese astronomer who is described as having lived in the 12th century in the 15th century classical Chinese novel Water Margin. Thus there seem to be two errors in the description of the painting on the portal: firstly the date 1675 is probably wrong, secondly it confuses the painter with the person depicted; unless the errors are in the image description or the articles. – b_jonas 11:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I fixed it (be bold!) 59.108.42.46 (talk) 11:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

But hold on, "ca" is not a valid syllable in Japanese. IF "Chicasei" comes from his nickname as written in the label in the upper right hand corner of the painting, that is 智多星 ("a very clever star"), which should be chitasei, and the actual name should be "Go Yō", given that the first character is his surname and the second is his given name. The whole thing should, I think, be "Chitasei, Go Yō", and the corresponding Mandarin Chinese is "Zhiduoxing, Wu Yong". But I don't speak Japanese so I'll wait for a native Japanese speaker to confirm whether I'm reading it right. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, not in the biography section but in the selected picture section. I missed it. As for his name in Japanese, yes, his nickname is Chitasei and it should be "Chitasei Go Yō" in Hepburn romanization. Using a circumflex to indicate a long vowel is a feature of Kunrei-shiki romanization and Nihon-shiki romanization. --Kusunose 00:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so now what about the date in the caption? Should that say 1827? – b_jonas 08:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Research Project

Hello Wikipedians, My name is Raffaele and I'm a Master student in Social Anthropology at Goldsmiths College (University of London); I'm writing to ask for your help with my dissertation project: I'm currently looking at knowledge sharing practices and it would be extremely helpful to have a small contribution from you, as the biggest knowledge sharing community. I will only need a small amount of your precious time for a short interview. If you think it is something you would like to take part in, please let me know; I haven’t decide how to conduct the interviews yet, but probably I will send you a list of questions which you can decide to answer, or if you are based in London, or maybe in Europe, you could share your answer with me in front of a coffee! Thank you very much for taking the time Best RaffaeleRafTer (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Whilst there may be people on the ref-desk who'll happily take part in an interview on their knowledge sharing practices, they wouldn't be able to speak for Wikipedia. Wikipedia itself does have a contact us page Wikipedia:Contact_us where it suggests you can contact the founder Jimmy Wales. ny156uk (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

But then, again, does Jimmy Wales talk for Wikipedia any more than it's editors ? The nature of such a collaborative process is that "nobody is in charge". StuRat (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

As you'd know from your ethics committee application, soliciting for interviews in this way, particularly when the object of research has a formal interface for researchers and approved projects, is not a good thing. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Huh ? StuRat (talk) 01:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It's normal for an anthropologist to solicit interviews. Falconus^{p t c} 09:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

CERN

How on earth is the abbreviation for "The European Organization for Nuclear Research" become CERN? 117.227.51.48 (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Because it used to be the 'Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire' and when they changed the name, they kept the old acronym, because that's what everyone remembers. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You have to admit, CERN is easier to say (and less silly-sounding) than EONR. Sern vs. Ee-Oh-Ner. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it really a matter of "used to be", or is it just that the real name is the French one because that's the language they speak where it is, and the second name above is an English translation? HiLo48 (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

From CERN:"The acronym CERN originally stood, in French, for Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire (European Council for Nuclear Research), which was a provisional council for setting up the laboratory, established by 12 European governments in 1952. The acronym was retained for the new laboratory after the provisional council was dissolved, even though the name changed to the current Organisation Européenne pour la Recherche Nucléaire (European Organization for Nuclear Research) in 1954.[2]"99.245.35.136 (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Sern? I've always said "kern". There you go. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It is kertainly pronounced as /sern/, Jask of Og. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

But either way, still easier than EONR. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Do any of these help? --Dweller (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about the others, but I'm pretty sure the Scottish island is pronounced to rhyme with 'eye', which isn't how I would attempt to pronounce EONR. Though wouldn't the correct acronym be OERN? 130.88.99.218 (talk) 13:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

um, I mean the initial vowel is pronounced to rhyme with 'eye'. 130.88.99.218 (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Some of them definitely are pronounced more like EONR, eg the Russian ones. --Dweller (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Genisys Credit Union

I recently wrote an article on Genisys Credit Union, and I put down 1936 as the foundation date, because the majority of the sources and the organization itself use that year as the foundation date. Genisys Credit Union was actually created in 2008 as the result of a merger of two credit unions, T&C Federal Credit Union (which was founded in 1936) and USA Credit Union (which was founded in 1954). So 1936 is used because it is the date the oldest merged organization was founded. I am not sure if this the right place to ask, but what is common practice on Wikipedia? Is the date of the merger used as the foundation date, or is the original foundation date of the oldest organization used? Thank you for your time. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The general principle on Wikipedia is to go with the sources. This is just one of many examples of why infoboxes are a "bad thing". The true situation is easily explained in full in the article prose, but the infobox forces one to state a definite and single answer which will be misleading whichever date one chooses. SpinningSpark 21:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, you are right, this was not the right place. WP:EAR or WP:HD would have been better. SpinningSpark 22:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. So the best solution is to explain the conflict using prose? Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I would be tempted, if the infobox in question supports it, to list both dates, or neither. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 12:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Mae West Road, Fayette County, Pennsylvania

Why is there a Mae West Road in Fayette County, Pennsylvania? Wasn't Mae West from New York City? Or is the street named after another Mae West? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

People don't have to come from the place where the road is to be honoured in this way. See Stalin Road, Colchester, UK - Cucumber Mike (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Just like they honor Martin Luther King, Jr. by naming roads after him in the worst part of every big city. :-) StuRat (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's not common in America to name rural roads after controversial film stars from other states. (Not common to name streets after Stalin, either.) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to one up Mae West Road, there's the town of Jim Thorpe, Pennsylvania. I'm not sure Jim Thorpe ever visited the town while alive. Though he did while dead. --Jayron32 22:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It's also possible it was named indirectly after Mae West, as that name was adopted to describe WW2-era life jackets, which inflated in front of the chest on either side. Perhaps such life jackets were manufactured there, or saved the life of whoever named the road, etc. Or maybe the people who live there just want you to come up and see them sometime. StuRat (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

There's also one in Wisconsin. No indication as to why, though. She was from "Greenpernt", as she used to say. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a Roosevelt Road in Illinois, Michigan, Arkansas, New Hampshire, Scotland and Taiwan (among many others, I'm sure). DOR (HK) (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Some googling suggests that a number of roads around the country got nicknamed—and maybe in the case of the Pennsylvania one actually named—"Mae West" because they are "curvy". About a road in Wyoming: "...the tight curves of Skyline Drive (nicknamed the Mae West Road by the CCC boys)...".https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/NHLS/97001260_text This blog post, [7], about the road in Pennsylvania: "...a road they called Mae West because it was nothing but curves...". More research is required! Pfly (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

February 23

Removing laugh tracks

There are some programs I would like to watch, but I simply cannot abide laugh tracks. I know some people say that they don't even notice them after a while. Me, and all my life, it's like nails on a chalkboard. I don't know how people can stand it (it is not the sound—I like the sound of people laughing—it is the obstruction, the fakeness of it that immediately twangs my nerves and makes me turn off the program). I've never watched many sitcoms everyone else knows because of it. Is there any computer program out there or something that would allow me to remove just the soundtrack but not the other sounds? Also, am I unique in this regard?--108.46.103.88 (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't picture a way to reliable tell laughter in the laugh track from laughter of the characters, for example. So, I think a human would be needed to turn the volume down when the laugh track comes on. Another option might be to read the transcripts, instead, as long as it's not visual humor. StuRat (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I have an instant urge to hear the worst-offending sitcom laugh-tracks. I agree they are horrible but I crave them. Can you link to any good examples on YouTube? I doubt that any program can remove laugh-tracks if they are part of a mixed sound including something you want to hear. The sounds would be mingled. But perhaps I am mistaken, as I have zero expertise in this area. Thanks for the question. Bus stop (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Any really bad sitcom will have noticeably annoying laugh track. One I found rather unfunny was Kate and Allie, but, by all means, search for your most hated show. StuRat (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this question should be moved to the Computing reference desk. Bus stop (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I bet some really smart programmer could figure out a way to distinguish the sound profile of multiple laughs that make up a soundtrack from a single laugh and could invent software to do this, but like many things, innovation and mass publication follows demand. I don't think I'm typical and so, even if this technology exists, it probably has not been put out there for me to even find. I wonder if the program packaged as "laughtrack-less" versions would have commercial viability. Maybe CBS should put out a separate DVD set for laughtrack-less, The Big Bang Theory (which I watched 30 seconds of once after hearing it was a very good show before turning the dial in disgust). Oh well. At least today there are some comedy shows without the laugh track (it used to be that almost every sitcom had one).--108.46.103.88 (talk) 02:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You could also have multiple cast members laughing, or they could be watching a sit-com with a laugh track on TV within the scene. I think you might do best to reduce the volume on all laughs, since that wouldn't require the same degree of programming. StuRat (talk) 04:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Most of those sitcoms are taped/filmed before a live audience, although (as pointed out here a week or two ago also) the laughter might be "sweetened" a bit. And keep in mind that with weird shows like Big Bang Theory, the laugh track might be necessary in order to be clued in on when something is supposed to be funny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the laugh track, per se. It has it's uses, like when a sit-com normally filmed in front of a studio audience goes on location for an episode, where the sudden silence would seem odd (they could also show it to an audience later and loop the live laughter, I suppose). However, when they put excessive laughs after bad jokes, or even after every break in the conversation, that's when it gets annoying. StuRat (talk) 04:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

There is something funny about a laugh-track. Laughter is supposed to be spontaneous and irrepressible, not predictable and controllable. Real laughter is contagious, like yawning is. But a loop of the same uninspired laughing grates on one's ears. That alone could be funny if the jokes are unfunny and the laughter is obviously recorded and the same in each instance. But I think the Computer ref desk is where this question really should be asked. Bus stop (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Since I think automated solutions are likely to fail, here is a followup question: Does anyone know of a TV show with a laugh track, and when the TV show was issued on DVD, the laugh track was removed? Second followup: Does anyone know of a TV show on DVD where there's a menu option to turn the laugh track on or off? It's technically easy. I sort of doubt a lot of producers would want this because of the admission it is making. Comet Tuttle (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This should be technically quite easy for them to do, as long as they still have the original recordings on separate tracks. This could be done just like alternate spoken languages, or descriptive video. A bit trickier would be the option to turn the laugh track up or down, independently of the main volume. StuRat (talk) 04:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The Flintstones was originally aired with a laugh track. According to the article, Turner Broadcasting stripped the laugh track from the episodes when it reran them in the 90s. They then changed their mind and not only added the laugh track back but gave some episodes a new laugh track. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

M*A*S*H (TV series) had its laugh track removed when it was broadcast in the UK by the BBC. When I occasionally saw clips with laughter it seemed very strange and inappropriate. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, later seasons of MASH didn't have the laugh track, or at least they toned it down a bit. There were some seasons towards the middle where the producers agreed that scenes in the operating room wouldn't have a laugh track (due to the seriousness of the situation) and the writers, who hated the laugh track, would put all the jokes in the surgery scenes. At least, that's a story I remember thinking I heard once. Take it for what you will. --Jayron32 04:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried muting the sound and switching on the subtitles? I think that's the closest you'll ever get to what you are trying to do. Of course if enough people wrote to the producers and sponsors of these shows to point out how annoying the really quite ridiculous laugh track is (trying to convince us that people laugh after every single line?) it could make a difference.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It occurs to me that one reason for the laugh track might have been to help make a lone viewer feel like he had "company" - as with a movie theater, where (hopefully) the audience is laughing at the jokes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you would be better off asking about comedy programmes you might not have heard of that don't have laughter tracks? Out of interest, are you happy with shows filmed in front of a live audience, where you can hear the laughter, but there is actual audience participation? What if you watch TV as part of a reasonably large group, so there are real people laughing as well? The only other thing I can think of is to try and persevere - maybe after a few hours of watching these things, it won't be quite so unbearable. 130.88.99.218 (talk) 13:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

@the OP: it's not much help, but you might find some solace in watching Annie Hall. There's a scene in a TV production studio where someone is adding a laugh track to their show and Woody Allen's character shares your attitude. Tinfoilcat (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

If Annie Hall were a TV show instead of a theatrical movie, it might have had a laugh track. Again, a theatrical film is (hopefully) a shared experience with an audience, and no laugh track is "needed". This raises another question or two. Theatrical film comedies don't have laugh tracks added when they go to TV. And I don't think pay-channels such as HBO add laugh tracks, but I don't recall for sure. Maybe someone here knows. But I'm thinking this is a phenomenon confined primarily to over-the-air TV in both the USA and the UK. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

definition of folder management

i couldn't find the specific definition of folder management in the wikipedia. Please assist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.241.201.255 (talk) 07:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

We may be able to give better help if you explain the context of your question. The pages Folder (computing), Computer file management, and Category:File system management may be of some help to you. SpinningSpark 08:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Coffin shapes and calling coffins caskets?

So if I can recall, in America (and possibly Europe), there are coffins that are hexagon shaped or something, while they call the box-shaped ones caskets. But in my country, those hexagon shaped coffins are virtually non-existant, all the coffins I have seen are caskets, and we don't even call them caskets; we call them coffins. Is calling a box-shaped coffin a casket or those hexagon coffins common outside of North America or not? And why are they even shaped like that in the first place? For me, a box-shape is more logical. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The term "casket" actually means "small box", and was originally a euphemism for "coffin", which actually originally meant "basket".[8][9] As to the six-sided shape of cheap caskets/coffins, the bulge appears to have been designed to allow more room for the arms and shoulders, i.e. to more closely conform to a human's natural shape. If you google-image "six sided coffin" you'll see that that design is still in use, and one picture in particular, of a mummy case, illustrates what I'm getting at and suggests that design has been around for a long time. I suspect that coffins went to the rectangular shape for various reasons of convenience, not excluding the fact that they are less human-shaped and hence theoretically less "scary". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

At least according to wiktionary:casket, a casket is "the type of coffin with upholstery and a half-open lid". 130.88.99.218 (talk) 13:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Funny. In case you didn't know, they do close those lids before they plant the subject in the ground or the mausoleum. And after they take the tabloid photos. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Django would have been such a bad-ass if he had dragged an upholstered rectangular box behind. Astronaut (talk) 13:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

In the UK I've come across "casket" more as a container for ashes than as a coffin that someone would be buried in. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The usual term would be "urn", although that usage of "casket" is closer to its etymology than the way it's used in the USA. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably so if they wake up, they might have room to cough in - cue drum roll KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, you asked for it: It isn't the cough that carries you off, it's the coffin they carry you off in. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I was indeed waiting for that one KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The differences between an urn and a casket, in the UK, are in their shape and material. A "casket" is usually a wooden box - an "urn" is usually a vase or jar-shaped metal or plastic container, with lid - random examples here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Aha. And again, using a more accurate meaning of "casket" than the way Americans use it. I wonder if the wood and the pulverized bone ("ashes") would chemically interact over time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Unlikely, as they are generally lined with lead - a considerable health risk to the person interned therein. An urn is generally made of porcelain. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Keeping building or structure heights secret?

So I asked this question a few weeks ago, but I didn't get good responses, so I'm asking it again, while removing one question. So apparently there is this new building that will be built soon in Saudi Arabia called the Kingdom Tower which will be the tallest building in the world, and in true Middle Eastern fashion and in the spirit of Burj Khalifa, its exact height is being kept a secret (at least until it is finished, if it will ever be). I noticed that the recent buildings that keep or kept their heights secret like the aforementioned Burj Khalifa, the Nakheel Tower (now cancelled, meaning its height will never be known) and the Kingdom Tower are all in the Middle East, and the only other two that I know of (the Chrysler Building and the Empire State Building) were built almost 70 years ago (which was understandable, because the two buildings were in a race for the title of "World's Tallest Building"), after which, the practice seemed to have died down, until Burj Khalifa (then called Burj Dubai) came along.

My questions are:

• Was it Burj Khalifa that started this trend of keeping final heights secret, or did another building start it?
• Why are most of these buildings in the Middle East?
• Were there any notable buildings or structures built after the Empire State Building but before the Burj Khalifa that kept their height a secret?
• Are there any other buildings or structures aside from the aforementioned structures that keep or kept their height a secret?

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Dmcq's answer to your earlier question seemed to sum it up: "...they might be able to stick a little extra on the top to beat a rival if they learn their rivals intentions". ie. it is largely vanity. You obviously don't want to announce that you are building the world's tallest, only to be beaten at the last moment by a rival country/city/sheik. As for your other questions I have don't really know, but Dubai in the mid-2000s and New York in the early-1930s were going through building booms where possibly prestige was more important than other matters like cost, environment or safety. Astronaut (talk) 12:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's more than vanity. There are all sorts of possible tourist consequences to being "the tallest." I don't think "the second tallest" has the same ring to it. As a very small example, Burj Khalifa, not Shanghai World Financial Center, was the one that got to be in the latest Mission Impossible movie. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not aware that NY was particularly environmentally unfriendly in the world's tallest building quest. When the buildings were planned, there was a boom in New York and it was expected that the new buildings would be lucrative. Yes, the Depression altered that, for a time, especially with the ESB, though the observation deck revenue was a big help there. There was definitely an element of promotion, but I can't put it in the same league as Dubai (where I visited in 2009, when the boom was still going on). I won't opine on Dubai, there have been many articles about its problems.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

But wouldn't keeping heights secret normally be difficult? Aren't there supposed to be laws that requires building details, including heights, to be public information. Oh and as a counter-example to Burj Khalifa, One World Trade Center's height is not only public knowledge, it's intended to be symbolic (1776 feet). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

In the UK, you certainly wouldn't be able to keep the planned hieght a secret. Perhaps that's why it only happens in Middle Eastern countries. Alansplodge (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You could probably get a reasonably close estimate by measuring shadows. But not close enough to be able to build one foot higher with any certainty, I suppose that to be the idea. As for 1 WTC, special case, they are not trying to beat the highest but are trying for lots of symbolism, to which, I suppose, the place owes its very existence.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Or you could use a clinometer: "Uses - Measuring the height of a building, tree, or other feature using a vertical angle and a distance (determined by taping or pacing), using trigonometry." Alansplodge (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Where is this place in Ireland?

Can you identify the place in this picture which appears to be the ruin of an old church or abbey, perhaps. I have reason to believe it was shot in Mayo, but I am not certain. Thank you. — O'Dea (talk) 11:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Burriscarra Abbey in Carnacon, which is currently a redlink on List of abbeys and priories in Ireland#County Mayo -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right. I first found a view of it based on your answer, by finding a roughly similar perspective in Google Street View, and then I found a photograph online taken very close to the same point where my original picture was taken, and that confirmed it beyond doubt. Thank you; I am grateful for your help. — O'Dea (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Please don't post the same question on more than one reference desk. --ColinFine (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The question straddled categories. — O'Dea (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Many questions straddle categories; please pick one which seems appropriate. As it states in bold at the top of each reference desk, "Please, post your question on only one section of the reference desk." Warofdreams talk 17:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it does say that, but there are 15 items in bold at the top of the page, in addition to heavy black section headings, so all that emphasis means that if everything looks important, nothing really looks important, like crying "wolf". Perhaps the instructions should be whittled down and less bold used. Wikipedia instructions are very prolix when all you want is quick guidance: life is short. Also, the instruction you refer to falls under the heading, "When will I get an answer?" and I didn't read that because I wasn't worried about when. Perhaps the instruction could be resited under another heading? — O'Dea (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Easy my man. Almost all other posters seem to understand how it works and have no problems with the system. Life is short - but not so short that you can spend time complaining. Richard Avery (talk) 08:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Please do not make personal remarks, "my man", and confine them to the matter at hand. I was not complaining; I was responding to Warofdreams to explain how easy it is to miss an instruction when it falls under a heading that did not concern me (how long the reply might take). I took time to reply as a courtesy because I was addressed which does not imply that time is not short. I have no idea why you decided to become involved. — O'Dea (talk) 08:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

O'Dea, if you are not happy about the rules on this reference desk, don't use it. --Lgriot (talk) 09:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I assure you, Lgriot, that I am neither unhappy nor am I reliant on you for instruction. — O'Dea (talk) 10:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Guys, don't be assholes. It's easy to miss all sorts of instructions on Wikipedia, it's full of stupid pointless little rules. And it does absolutely no harm to post a question on two Reference Desks. O'Dea, this is not a problem at all. I think the "rule", such as it is, exists so that we can keep all the responses together in one place (it gets confusing if two different threads are occurring on two different desks, sometimes with completely different answers and information), and it's easier to put the question in the archives later if it is confined to a single Reference Desk page. So just remember that for next time, but don't worry about it this time. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Adam. When I received the information I sought on this Reference Desk, I expressed my gratitude and instantly removed my question from the other desk. The internet causes unhappy people to discharge wholly unnecessary squibs of irritation which contribute nothing whatsoever to the experience of humanity. — O'Dea (talk) 10:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Please can you edit and fill about biography of Myoma U Than Kywe?

Dear Sir/Madame, How do you do? I wish you are well and happy. Please you can amend and edit following biography about Myoma U Than Kywe with references. After you amend and edit, please can you fill the biography at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myoma_U_Than_Kywe

Thank you very much for your arrangement. Thanking you in anticipation. Many Thanks, Wikipedia!

Yours respectfully, Burmeseprincess Burmeseprincess (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed the text as it seems to be copied from here. Please refrain from posting copyrighted text on wikipedia. Jarkeld (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Made in U.S.A. logo

When did the Made in U.S.A. logo first appear on products? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.142.136 (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I just added a heading... --Ouro (blah blah) 19:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

February 24

Difference Between the Mentality of the American Military and the British Military

...or indeed, the rest of NATO. Why is it that the American Military have:

• So many incidents of friendly fire
• So many incidents of rape, not only of women, but also of children (especially in Japan and Korea)

Sure, there are isolated incidents in other parts of NATO, but why is it a pandemic in the US Military? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any statistics to back up your thesis? Off the top of my head, you also have to take into account that much more of the US military is stationed or fighting overseas than the British or NATO, so while there may be more publicized incidents, the actual rate per soldier may or may not be significantly different. Also, this is inevitable with any military force: they're not made up of angels. African peacekeeping forces have also been accused of serious crimes. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Googling the fact will bring up many many instances of American over-indulgence, and I am specifically concerned with Japan and Korea. As for friendly fire, my own unit in Kosovo lost two men to a heli attack. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

But the plural of anecdote is not "data." The question is whether the statistics actually bear out that the US and the UK/NATO have different rates. We still have yet to establish that 1. there are different rates and not just different totals (which would probably be skewed based on the number of American troops versus others), and 2. that publicity actually reflects reality. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact that American atrocities are considered newsworthy suggests that it's quite the opposite of a "pandemic". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I know what you are saying. If it's just 'normal' it would not be so much in the news, except that it's not american soldiers who are dying, and not women and underage kids of american decent being raped. It's world news, Bugs. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It's hard for world news to keep up on the atrocities committed by terrorists and brutal dictatorships. But America is expected to be on a higher moral road, so when our people commit atrocities, it's more newsworthy and shocking. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No, Bugs, Americans are made to think they are on the higher moral road, but most of the rest of the world thinks America is trying hard to build an empire. There are massive differences in how you lot are taught to see yourselves, and how the rest of the planet sees you. I am not anti-american, not at all, but I can understand how the rest feel, to a certain extent. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It's too easy to take offense to your statement for the following reasons - 1. The "sources" you are using to warrant your claims are no doubt from sensationalized and readily available news stories (see availability bias), 2. You are using those incidents to represent the entire U.S. military by calling it a "pandemic", and 3. You have framed your question in such a way as to get an answer that does not invalidate the premise of your claim.

But taking your question at face value, I would suggest that if such a claim were true, it would be due to U.S. forces being more active in many parts of the world than other armies, so there would be a higher proportion of incidents of this sort. Soldiers are engaged in extremely high-stress situations for extended periods of time. Also remember that the U.S. media has taken an active role in following around the military ever since the Vietnam War.--WaltCip (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Compare the data on United States military deployments with these outdated data on British deployments, which show the situation in 2008 before the British withdrawal from Iraq. There were about 26,000 British troops deployed outside of the UK, most of them "non-operational" (whatever that means) and stationed in countries without conflict. By contrast, the United States has 100,000 troops deployed in combat in Afghanistan alone. Several thousand more are in the Middle East, where they have to be prepared for combat at any time. The stress and the readiness for violence involved in combat deployments almost inevitably leads to regrettable violence against civilians. So, it would be surprising if there were not higher absolute numbers of U.S. troops guilty of violence against civilians. As others have said, we would need valid data on the relative rate of violence to accept the premise of your question, and the evidence should probably be adjusted for relative rates of deployment in combat. I would also strongly question your claim that "It is not woman and underage kids of American descent being raped." As you might notice from the data on U.S. military deployments, more than 1 million U.S. troops are stationed inside the United States. In fact, every year small numbers of these troops are in fact arrested for assaults on civilians off base. Some of these involve rape and some involve underage victims. This does not generate much news coverage in the United States, because it falls within the background noise of violent crime in this country. It doesn't attract global news coverage because U.S. troops are not accused of violence against citizens of an overseas "host" country. Do you have evidence indicating that no British soldier has ever been charged with rape or rape of an underage person? I doubt that such evidence exists. On the other, I think that there may be understandable resentment of the U.S. military presence in countries such as Japan (and especially in Okinawa) that leads the local media to focus on the occasional violent incident involving U.S. military personnel. Given the climate of resentment, media will focus on those incidents to increase readership or viewership. Because the U.K. is no longer a global hegemonic power, British troops do not generally face the same kind of resentment, and violent incidents by British troops will consequently not be as newsworthy. Marco polo (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is a pro-U.S. discussion of crimes by soldiers in Korea with some actual statistics. A long read with most of the meat far into the page. Rmhermen (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The perception I get from the British media is that the US military are quick to open fire, sometimes have a discipline problem and are culturally insensitive. Only yesterday I read that the Afghans have stopped having outdoor wedding parties for fear of being bombed by a remote controlled drone; that despite being present in a muslim country for 10 years, they still manage to set fire to copies of the Koran and today open fire on protesters, killing 12; and of the 6 British military personnel killed in 4 friendly-fire incidents since 2001 in Afghanistan, two of incidents (4 deaths) were by USAF aircraft. While the British military don't exactly have a spotless record, for example the behaviour of the Joint Forward Intelligence Team in Iraq, such things do seem to hit the news far less frequently than if the US military are involved. However, maybe someone else can find similar statistics where other NATO (but non-US) forces have messed up. Astronaut (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, those are multiple incidents (anecdotes), not statistics. They are not weighted for the number of U.S. troops versus British troops, number of U.S. flight sorties versus British, etc. Rmhermen (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

That is a valid point. We have List of U.S. friendly-fire incidents since 1945 with British victims. It says: "The topic has become prevalent in British culture due to some recent incidents, and is often satirically portrayed in the media." The fact that "Friendly fire from American allies killed as many British troops as the Iraqis during the 1991 Gulf War." was a big thing in the UK. Whether they really are more trigger happy than other nations is debatable; the US contributes the lion's share of resources to most NATO deployments. However, in the same conflict "35 of the 148 American servicemen and women who perished on the battlefield in the Persian Gulf War were killed inadvertently by their comrades, an extraordinary proportion...The Washington Post". Alansplodge (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

One important difference between the U.S. and U.K. armed forces is the length of combat deployments and the relative amount of time soldiers spend in combat deployments. Another important difference is the much greater use of reservists by the United States. Reservists are typically people with families and nonmilitary jobs who may not have expected lengthy overseas deployments. According to this study, the heavy use of reservists may be one reason why U.S. combat troops experience more stress than British troops. The same study points out that U.S. soldiers have combat deployments lasting 12 to 15 months, with 12 months off between combat. By contrast, British troops have combat deployments lasting only 6 months and totaling no more than 12 months out of 36. So U.S. troops are typically in combat situations at least half the time that they are in military service and for longer periods, while British troops have relatively short exposures to combat with longer breaks in between them. In essence, U.S. troops are driven more mercilessly than British troops, with resulting higher rates of mental illness. Now, I don't think we've yet seen hard evidence that U.S. troops cause a greater rate of damage to victims other than combat foes than British troops (per combattant), but if such evidence exists, the much higher stress and fatigue level of U.S. troops could account for it. Marco polo (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Some British friendly fire numbers: British soldiers attacked other British soldiers in Afghanistan 19 times in the last 3 1/2 years and attacked friendly Afghani forces at least ten times.[10] These aren't exactly small numbers of incidents even though the fatalities are quite low (0 Brit on Brit deaths, 7 Afghan deaths) Rmhermen (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I have re-read my question again, and it does appear to have provoked a discussion, which is not what we do here. I shall provide sources forthwith (late at night now, so it will have to be tomorrow). As for the fact that rapes occur in Japan and Korea on a near-daily basis, it was said above that it may be because the American military is the only army there. Sorry, this makes no sense, for two reasons. Both Japan and Korea also have an army each. Their own - and there are no recorded incidents of rape of 12-year-old girls by their forces. Secondly, is rape part of basic training in the American military? Of course it isn't. But the inhabitants of Okinawa may think differently. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

United States Forces Japan#Controversy lists two rapes of teenage girls, one in 1995 and the other in 2008, hardly "near-daily". It also states that the crime rate of U.S. servicemen in Okinawa Prefecture in 2008 was 14% that of Okinawan males. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

All crimes in total seem to be near-daily. See my link below. Also, the number of crimes committed may only be 14% of the local population, but what is the ratio of local Japanese to US military personnel? That needs to be taken into account. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, rapes by natives may tend not to be taken to court, much less reported. Many cultures cover such things up. StuRat (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Not in Japan, Stu. Sexual abuse is well reported across the islands, and happens so often there are even signs in the trains warning people from doing it (チカンはイカン！ is the 'pun' they use). Once it is reported (which admittedly may not be in 100% of cases), the legal system is such that it will go to court, and the defendant will be tried, even if the prosecutors drop the case, because the Police will try him. I worked for a number of years as an interpreter for the Police, and this was how the system worked, at least until 2007. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is a start, anyway. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No that isn't a start. Writing like that is the problem. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Saying US officers "commit rape and robbery by faking marriages" makes it clear that they consider any consensual sex outside of marriage to be rape. StuRat (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

doberman

I have a three year old Doberman who I feed complete solid foods only, yet he excreats very watery (non solid) poo. His food is "working dog 19 + Protec. Am I feeding him incorrectly ?

Kind Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.6.164 (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You need to take him to a veterinarian. We can't really give such advice here. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please, take him to a vet. And you may want to ask specifically about the food. The fact that Protec can't keep their website up and registered would concern me. Dismas|^(talk) 14:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, is your dog actually a working dog ? Very few are these days (most are pets). I imagine the working dog formulation has more calories than the average dog should get. StuRat (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

What is kuttapuchi?

There are some dead links to it around, and Google hasn't turned up anything. onyx³²¹ 13:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you give us some context? Where are you seeing the word? Rojomoke (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the OP meant kattupuchi which is probably a South Indian word. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 03:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Leigon of Merit

Staff,

I was reviewing your listing of recipients regarding the Legion of Merit and noted that my name was not listed. I was awarded the Legion of Merit in April 2007. Please let me know how I can get my name inserted to your listing. Thank you and great work!

Carlos Weckmann Jr. Sergeant Major (Ret.) 1st Marine Division United States Marine Corps — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.126.50.129 (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The Legion of Merit article only lists notable recipients who meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability and can supply references from reliable sources which will allow readers to verify that notability. Ideally, you will already have a Wikipedia article written about you, but if not Wikipedia's policy on biographies is a good guide on how one should be written, though that is probably better left to someone without a conflict of interest. Astronaut (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Prices without sales taxes

Why do businesses in the US show prices without sales taxes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.31.146.38 (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011_May_16#Sales_tax_and_laundry. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It is just the custom. When sales taxes were introduced, merchants wanted customers to know how much of their bill went to the merchant and how much went to the government. Merchants were opposed to sales taxes because 1) they thought it would hurt business, and 2) collecting the tax imposed a burden on the merchants. I suspect that not including the tax in the marked price of products started out as a kind of passive protest and just became the custom. Another issue is that people are more likely to buy a product whose price appears to be $7.99 than they are if it is marked with its post tax price (of, say, $8.47 in a jurisdiction with a 6% sales tax). Finally, my understanding is that in some European countries it is illegal to mark a product with anything other than the post-tax price. No such law exists in the United States (partly because of the political power of merchants). Marco polo (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

And again the tax rates may vary by several percent at stores within a few miles of each other, giving stores in those higher taxing areas a competitive disadvantage that is easily neutralized if everyone posts the pre-tax price. Rmhermen (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I always though that the lottery was a tax on people that are bad at math... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

They even downright lie in some of their ads, when they say something like "You can walk in with only X dollars, and walk out with Y", when you can't actually do that, as the sales tax has to be paid first. StuRat (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Surely there are consumer protection laws (e.g. prohibitions on misleading advertising) that can then be invoked. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe so, but due to regulatory capture, US protection agencies aren't likely to act unless shamed into it by a media report on a severe case. StuRat (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Usually it will say "plus tax" in the fine print. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I've heard this on radio ads, where no small print is possible. StuRat (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Consider the following logistics nightmare: Your job is to print the color advert to be inserted in all of this week's Sunday papers within 250 miles of Chicago. There is no federal sales tax, but Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Iowa, and Wisconsin will ALL have a different state sales tax rate; any of 100 counties may have their own little fund-raising surcharges to subsidise their local convention center, NFL stadium, or NBA arena; even certain cities like Chicago may have a city tax that's different between downtown and the suburbs, and certainly from Madison Wisconsin. Add to that, that some of those taxing jurisdictions may have different RATES on some of the products -- food vs clothing vs kitchen utensils, for example. Then,

• Customizing the inserts for each individual store, which is just about what you'd have to do, if not absolutely impossible is prohibitively expensive, and highly error-prone even if you tried it.
• Frankly, like Marco Polo said, we're used to it; it's exactly what we expect.

It is absolutely NOTHING like the completely-uniform situation one would find in, for example, Australia :-).

--DaHorsesMouth (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

At the very least, they could say the price is "X + TAX", rather than claiming it is "X" alone. StuRat (talk) 04:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is nearly so difficult as some people make it. Sure, from the seller's point of view, they'd rather show you a lower price than you'll actually pay, and they'd rather pretend that you'll pay the same price at difderent locations. But, if forced to by law or market forces, it wouldn't be that hard to implement. Ads might be tricky, but the prices on the shelves and on the products are easily adjusted. The computer at the tills already calculates all the different rates of tax to work out the price of a given item, and it wouldn't be any more complicated to use the same system to create price labels. Then you stick the labels on the shelves and products, just like you do already: no more error prone.

All it would take is one brave play by a supermarket willing to make "we tell you the real price" "no nasty surprises" a selling point (blanket advertising everywhere), and everyone else would have to follow. 86.161.214.73 (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Retail prices in the UK must include VAT, but business-to-business prices are nearly always quoted without VAT. It's just a convention, and it's easy to adjust to either system. Before 1973, the UK purchase tax on "luxury goods" was sometimes shown separately, but most stores showed the inclusive price because the wartime rate of 33% made a big difference to whether the item could be afforded. Dbfirs 19:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I have seen several places that say "we pay your sales tax", thus eliminating any complex label requirements. I also wonder why they can't put electronic LCD tags on the edges of shelves. Each could be adjusted automatically to reflect the current price, with sales tax, without the need for them to be replaced each week. StuRat (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Electronic tickets and borders

If you travel to some country which requires having a return ticket, how can they check at the border if an electronic ticket is valid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.31.146.38 (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

They can ask the airline.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

In practice, they probably don't do a rigorous check on most passengers but are satisfied with a printed receipt if the passenger is not simply waved through. However, a government could certainly require an airline to offer its border police access to the airline's database as a condition for operating in that country. Marco polo (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Idiocracy the movie and South Carolina

In one scene of the movie "Idiocracy", a person shouts "SOUTH CAROLINA! WHAT'S UP!" out of the blue. What is this a reference to? Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Halo Remake and 3D TV hack for 2 players on the same full screen?

Does anyone here know if Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary supports that weird ugly 3D hack which allows both players to see their own full 2D screen while playing on the same console? Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Critical thinking

A while ago, I asked a question about Johnny Rebel and what he's been doing for the 30 years or so when he made no songs. Several people seemed to suggest that this old man would vandalize/spam Wikipedia with ads for his records. First, this sounds unlikely to begin with. Secondly, isn't this typically something you'd expect somebody who wants the spammed party to look BAD to do? I strongly question the critical thinking of Wikipedians. You seem to take things as facts based on nothing more than a "feeling". I've seen other statements which I *know* are wrong here and elsewhere. It's very frustrating that people are like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk • contribs) 18:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You really should raise that issue on the talk page. The reference desks are for questions and answers. Looie496 (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Opinionated screeds are not the purpose of the Talk page, either. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, "feeling"s don't come into it. We're interested in verifiable information from reliable sources. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually only one person seemed to suggest it and only in a fairly roundabout way (so roundabout that you didn't understand until I explained what was likely meant). In any case, we get a lot of spammers on wikipedia. Some of them very well be people trying to make the party they are spamming on 'behalf of' look bad. But some of them likely are the party the spam is for. If you have any real experience with the internet, you'd likely know there are plenty of people who really do spam, no matter how bad it may make them look. (Often they don't care if they believe it will help them.) In the particular case of JR, I don't think spamming is going to significantly change people's opinions of him, as opinions are likely already very polarised due to other issues.

However as I said earlier, there's no clear evidence it was JR. And I'm not sure if anyone really intended to suggest otherwise. Although if it isn't him, I suspect it's much more likely it's some 'dedicated' fan or similar rather then someone trying to make him look bad. From my experience, people who deal with spam all the time on wikipedia are usually careful not to say the spam is coming from anyone in particular, without evidence (and often it's not clear cut) since they are fully are there are other possibilities like the 2 discussed here.

Note that it also usually doesn't matter who the spam is coming from. Whether the spam is from a competitor, the party which the spam is promoting, or someone else completely, ultimately the fact remains, we don't want that stuff on wikipedia. So we do our best to stop it, including blacklisting a site if necessary (usually this doesn't cause much collateral damage since the site isn't wanted elsewhere and we can whitelist where necessary). If you look at the blacklist I think it says somewhere we're not saying the owners of the site were/are spamming, simply that someone has been spamming the site (or the site is a very likely spam target), so we're trying to limit damage.

Nil Einne (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Are foreigners allowed to join the Greek navy?

Can non-Greeks join the Greek navy? And is speaking Greek a requirement? I can't read Greek, so I can't find this information anywhere online. Thanks. -Elmer Clark (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Surely some Greek language ability is required. How else can they train you? They can't be expected to have English-speaking trainers on hand for cases like yours. Also, considering recent cuts to the Greek defense budget, I strongly doubt that the Greek navy is actively recruiting any but the most desirable sailors, meaning Greek-speaking Greeks, and probably only those with additional qualifications. Marco polo (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Not just training, how would they give you orders? And how would you give orders to anyone you commanded? I think the lack of any information about joining the Greek navy that isn't in Greek is a pretty big clue as well... --Tango (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Why would someone, who isn't Greek and doesn't speak Greek on the top of that, want to join the Greek navy? 88.14.192.178 (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You can probably expect a broadly equal situation to exist, so checkout the UK navy eligibility requirements. Sadly, despite the fact we're all friends now, we're not yet at the point of actually allowing free movement of people and jobs - at least in the UK case, you have to be British/Irish/Commonwealth. (Any EU citizen can, of course, become eligible by living here for five years and becoming a citizen). Astonishingly enough, the Greek Navy does actually answer some qs on its English language website - including contact details of who to ask if you want to know more. Good luck! --Saalstin (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe not so astonishing. There are a large number of Greeks who migrated to other countries like Australia, Canada and the USA, many as babes in arms. They remain dual Greek citizens even though many of them cannot speak Greek well, in some cases not at all. Presumably the Greek government could not refuse their application to join the armed forces merely on the basis of lack of hellenophony. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Why would you presume that? Pretty much all jobs require that you be able to speak the language that is used in the job. I would expect the primary language used in the Greek navy is Greek... --Tango (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

See Conscription in Greece#Draft evaders and citizens living abroad. I've heard many stories about people who were born in Greece but have lived overseas virtually all their life, and are afraid to ever go back to visit the land of their ancestors for fear of being considered to have "repatriated" for the purposes of national service. So, it isn't even about whether the person is interested in joining up or not; it's about what Greek law requires of its citizens, no matter where in the world they may live or how many decades it may be since they last lived in Greece. --m Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Most armies will take non-natives - they need the personnel. I tried to join the Japanese army (JSDL JSDF), but it turned out I was a month too old (just turned 28) - the only reason I was refused. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

You have to be 27 or under to write XML? ;)--Saalstin (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

To write XML? No idea what you mean there. I was going for entry-level ranks, not officer-level, and 27 is the maximum, apparently. As a foreigner, I couldn't join at officer-level, despite having been a lieutanant in the UK TA. Pity, really, because the unit I was trying to join was sent to Iraq a couple of years later, to work alongside British and Dutch forces. I would have been a great help, being fluent in Japanese. Still, they got the job done. Good on them. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

JSDL doesn't link to where you think. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, fixed. no idea why I put 'L' at the end. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Global climate changes, research

Where could one check to inquire whether there is any credible research or studies being conducted on the effects of electronic airwave transmissions may or may not be causing global interference with climate change? Is it possible that global climate conditions are adversely being affected by people using all wireless transmission devices? It would be interesting to see if any credible research is being conducted, and whether such finding would be made public should these studies be determined to show positive effect on climate change. 21:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonder viking (talk • contribs)

Before any research could be done you would first need some theory as to how this could be. That is, what is the mechanism by which they would cause global warming ? By contrast, greenhouse gases can be shown to cause temperature increases, due to the greenhouse effect, in a lab. Also, if radio waves, etc., warmed the atmosphere, they would lose a lot of energy in the process, and thus wouldn't travel very far, but we know that they do. StuRat (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

credible research on the topic of diversity & tolerance

Where can one check to inquire about credible Research or Studies being conducted on the psychological overtones of religious bigotry, and hypocrisy among world Religious Leaders? Does the world have any Global Organization which investigates and gives credible theories about confronting bigotry and hypocrisy among Religious Leaders? Do World Religious Leaders of Faith in a Supreme Being actually recognize the diversity of tolerance for Godliness in a world and Universe of infinite magnitude? What research is ongoing among the world’s religious & civic leaders, who might strive for world peace and religious tolerance?21:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonder viking (talk • contribs) 21:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonder viking (talk • contribs)

DNFTT, I think. --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

However, we can refer the OP to The Elders and to our article on them. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

February 25

Origin of this picture? (Naked back skin but nothing "nude".)

http://i.imgur.com/Js62I.jpg I often see this on female blogs. It annoys me to a great extent and I wish to know where it comes from originally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk • contribs) 02:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks good.  :) There's something on the web that I think is called Tineye and which might help you find the origin of the photo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I have nothing wrong with the pic either.  ;) Here are the TinEye results by the way. And if I had to guess, I'd say it's from a PETA ad. Dismas|^(talk) 04:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Google now has image search too, and, in this situation, it proves to be more helpful. It takes me to this link, which attributes the pic to the outtakes of Heidi Klum's 2003 GQ photoshoot.--Itinerant1 (talk) 08:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Purpose of "freedom caskets"?

What is the history behind and the purpose of the many beautiful and richly decorated so-called Freedom Caskets created in Britain and France in some past century? I have seen many pictures of them, but can't seem to find a definition or purpose.72.220.170.126 (talk) 05:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably to remind us that freedom isn't free. RudolfRed (talk) 06:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

They appear to be containers holding paraphenalia regarding the freedom of the city, as in this one here. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Generally in the UK, they seem to hold an illuminated scroll. This page shows the caskets and scrolls presented to the Lancashire Fusiliers who had been granted the freedom of towns with which they were closely associated. The example linked by TammyMoet contains a symbolic key. Alansplodge (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Four wheel bad, two wheel good

We use a four-wheel drive Ford F150 to get to and from work. Our roads are frozen sand/gravel covered with ice and snow. The speed limit in town in 40 km/h (25 mph) and 60 km/h (37 mph) on the airport road. The supervisor says that four-wheel can be used in town, this avoids sliding through stop signs, but on the airport road, which has less snow and ice, two-wheel must be used. The reason given is that the high speed on the airport road will cause excessive damage to the truck. Now I could understand that running in four-wheel will cause extra wear and tear on the vehicle, and of course higher gas usage, but I'm not sure that going from 40 to 60 is going to cause excessive damage. Can anyone confirm this either way? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds plausible. In some cars with a switchable 2 - 4 wheels you just use the 4 wheels on slippery ground since they don't have a central differential that lets each axle rotate at different speed around corners. At a higher speed that would tear and wear the system more intensively, besides the additional gasoline consumption. XPPaul (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

To me this sounds like an urban legend, given that there are cars (e.g. Subaru) where the four-wheel drive simply can't be turned off, even at 100 mph. However, I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a dumb design by Ford. If it is the latter, it should be mentioned explicitly in the owner's manual. Itinerant1 (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Part-time four wheel drive and full-time four wheel drive are different systems, with different limitations. There's also all-wheel drive, which is even better. StuRat (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said, not all 4 wheel cars have a central differential. Look here for the confirmation: Four-wheel_drive#4WD_versus_AWD. And do drive 4W only when needed. XPPaul (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, not an urban legend, nor a dumb design, but a system optimised for best traction at low speed in tricky conditions (other manufacturers also sell part-time four-wheel drive vehicles). It would be wise to follow the manufacturers' advice. Dbfirs 19:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Although, on occasions when the airport road is icy, I'd use 4WD there, too. StuRat (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

When life gives you lemons...

Why, in the phrase "when life gives you lemons, make lemonade", are lemons considered bad? Hammer Raccoon (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Lemons are sour, and unpleasant to eat. Lemonade is sweet, and pleasant to drink --Saalstin (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Lemon (slang): A defective or inadequate item.[11].--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Any idea where that particular usage derives from? Hammer Raccoon (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The phrase doesn't really require lemons to be bad, just that they're not what you wanted. The phrase is just saying to make the most of what you have. --Tango (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The point is that lemons alone aren't as useful as other fruits. While you can eat apples, oranges, and bananas straight, you probably don't want to eat a lemon straight. StuRat (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I like the follow-up: "Of course, this assumes that life will also give you water, sugar, glasses, ice cubes, and a pitcher. If not, go suck a lemon. " StuRat (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The voice in the Duck Song

How did he get his voice like that? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtN1YnoL46Q — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk • contribs) 16:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

A clue is the guitar. To me, the sound of the chords suggests very strongly that the song was originally recorded in D, and played back a little faster, changing the key to F. The pitch of the singer's voice of course is raised correspondingly, and importantly, its timbre changes, producing the slightly weird sound. To check if this were the case, I recorded the song from the audio of the youtube clip, and slowed it down by 15.91% in Audacity, and listened to the result. The result was a normal-sounding male voice, and guitar chords that I could easily follow in D, reproducing the exact inversions that are used (the G is sometimes played with G on the E string as the highest note, sometimes with D on the B string as the highest note, E string muted). Conclusion: recorded in D, sped up by 15.91%. By using such a small speed-up, the singer achieves getting a strange "ducky" timbre to his voice without sounding like the chipmunks. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 17:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Very useful. Thanks.Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Stupid battlefield fighting back in the day

Why would they fight like this? Why stand in a line and just take the bullets? Why not spread out in groups and hide and fire in intervals, or maybe even forget about the useless muskets altogether and just attack in close combat, or at least mix it up a bit? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTz-kUVvQEY&feature=player_detailpage#t=293s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk • contribs) 17:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Muskets were very inaccurate. A wall of bullets stood more chance of hitting a few guys if fired all together. Also, they didn't all fight like that. There were light infantry, who took cover, and sharpshooters, who also took cover. This is just the very aptly named Line Infantry. Also, hand-to-hand did happen on occasion, which is why they had bayonets. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Why would a wall of bullets have a bigger chance of hitting something? Wouldn't shooting the muskets one by one have the same chance? And what about the higher chance of getting hit, when standing in line with other soldiers? So far I know, these standing in line had little pragmatic reasons; being more a kind of honor thing for the commander, who would use his soldiers like chess figures. No wonder that guerrilla fighting techniques were invented. XPPaul (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

If you are in a company formation of 150 men, you are more likely to run if 80 all drop simultaneously from enemy fire, than if they are all getting picked off one by one. It was all about hitting the enemy hard and fast, and making them scared of you, not killing them as such. This is what the wall of bullets was all about. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec x2)There are many reason early modern warfare took this form, which seems so counter intuitive, given that contemporary combat is based so much on maneuver and cover. Tradition is one part of the puzzle. Premodern warfare had a ritualistic aspect that had yet to be completely replaced with modern pragmatism during the time of the Revolution. Another issue is control. Dispersed groups are very hard to synchronize without modern communications equipment. Given that training was nothing like it is today, soldiers were really only expected to pay attention to what the men directly surrounding them were doing. There was very little emphasis on individual initiative at anything but the command level. Personally I think this is related to feudalism, which placed such emphasis on status, they really didn't give much credit to the common soldier. Democratic/capitalist thinking places more value on individuals and gave more individual responsibility to soldiers. The accuracy of the weapons was also a big issue. Those muskets couldn't really hit anything reliably, the only way for them to be effective was en mass. A four or five man squad armed with muskets really isn't a threat to anyone, but a 150 man regiment could be a real terror. This is particularly relevant when cavalry is involved. Dispersed groups not only can't hit the charging cavalry, they are also much more vulnerable. As accuracy and rate of fire increased dispersed formations and cover gained favor. My final point is that that type of combat really wasn't that effective against armies using more contemporary tactics. Armies trained to operate in those types of mass formations run into serious trouble against guerrilla hit and run tactics. Which is something that happened in the revolution and is illustrated in other scenes in the movie you link to. --Daniel 18:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

One more item. Don't discount the psychological aspects. It isn't all about killing the most enemies. It is about forcing them from the field, which in early modern warfare, was generally accomplished more by routing the enemy rather than elimination. Keeping your troops bunched together gives them more confidence and presents a more impressive front to the enemy. --Daniel 18:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

One thing to consider is that if your side started using modern methods (hiding behind cover), then the enemy would, too. Thus, there really wouldn't be any advantage to doing so. (The American Revolution may have been a bit of an exception, since the British didn't take the Americans as a serious threat, so didn't think it was necessary to "stoop to their level".) So, in general there wouldn't be a military advantage to changing methods, but you could predict more civilian casualties when your forces are hidden, as the enemy will then fire at any movement they see, which could very well be civilians who have taken cover. So, you have the disadvantage of more civilian deaths with no corresponding advantage. In extreme cases, like the Boer Wars, these type of hit-and-run methods also resulted in civilians being put in concentration camps, if they were suspected of helping the enemy. Then, by WW1, we got to full-scale trench warfare, which resulted in a horrific stalemate. It would have been better had they fought in lines and determined the winner far faster, with many fewer deaths. StuRat (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point about the American Revolution. I always wondered why they went back to the old tactics in the American Civil War, despite having used more 'modern' tactics in the Revolution to beat the world's most powerful army (at the time). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

There were bushwhackers in the Civil War, too. But keep in mind that disciplined armies more often succeed against undisciplined ones. You can't have large, gigantic armies of guerilla fighters. Guerilla war is an asymmetrical form of warfare, which more describes the Revolution than the Civil War. (Civil War strategy is all over the map, of course. The Northern generals by and large fought conservative, Napoleonic-style warfare, hoping that their numerical superiority would win out. The Southern generals added more speed and cunning to their attack to make up for their disadvantages. The Generals on both sides who "thought outside the box" are still the ones we talk about today — Lee, Grant, Jackson, Sherman. The ones who didn't — McClellan being the most famous example — are talked about only as being dolts.) The thing is, with the Civil War, the various tactics actually worked — they allowed the armies on both sides to take ground and hold it. It killed a lot of folks, but it wasn't a stalemate like WWI, where the defensive developments (machine guns, fast artillery) really offset the offensive developments. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

{EC} No Daniel, I'm sure they fought in close formation like this only because it worked. As you say "the only way for them to be effective was en mass". (actually 150 men is a company, the standard fighting unit was a battalion of 6 to 800). The usual technique was to exchange vollies until one side decided that they had an advantage and a bayonet charge would follow. The film Barry Lyndon shows it better. Napoleon revolutionised this type of combat by attacking in dense columns which didn't stop to exchange volleys. However, the British found that sticking to the old-fashioned line formation could be an effective counter if your musketry was good enough. We had very effective results with this at the Battle of Balaclava in 1856, the famous "thin red line tipped with steel" where a single infantry battalion repulsed an entire Russian cavalry division. You can see the effect of concentrated fire in the film Zulu YouTube clip depicting an action in 1879 using single-shot rifles. The advent of the repeating magazine rifle spelled the end of close-order fighting as the British found out at the Battle of Modder River in the Second Boer War. We were rather ahead of the game on this at the start of WWI; at the Battle of Mons in 1914, the German infantry advancing in Napoleonic columns singing hymns were met with rapid rifle fire from British troops firing from concealed positions. It didn't take them long to catch up though. Alansplodge (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

You have your units mixed up - in the time of line infantry you usually had regiments of about 500 men divided into 10 companies, each of about 50 men.[12] As well as independent companies of quite random numbers of soldiers. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Depends. Some regiments (particularly in the American Civil War) consisted of a single battalion, which was also called a company, and would have as little as 150 men at full strength (and most units were never at full strength). Other regiments, in the Napoleonic Wars, for example, could consist of up to 10 or even 20 thousand men. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That is a later time period than line infantry with muskets, though. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

(EC) I would agree with the answers above. Even as late as the Zulu War, the British still used the same line formation (complete with red jackets so people in space could see them), and they were massacred at the Battle of Isandhlwana (check out Zulu Dawn on Youtube if you are interested). This all began to change with the advent of the machine-gun. However, similar tactics still prevailed in the early years of WW1. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like we're on the same page, Alan ;) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I still don't get it... why not at least kneel down and make yourself a smaller target? Or have a few people standing in front of the musketeers holding large shields? See Medieval warfare#Rise of infantry: "Bowmen were extended in thin lines and protected and screened by pits (as at the Battle of Bannockburn), staves or trenches." Archers knew better than to just stand in the open and fire, why did musketeers not use the same tactics? --Tango (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)