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.
I recently read the article List of cities in Germany by population, which states that the top five cities in Germany by population are 1. Berlin, 2. Hamburg, 3. Munich, 4. Cologne and 5. Frankfurt am Main. Now I have known for several years that Berlin is the most populous city and Munich is the third most populous city in Germany, but up to now I had always assumed Frankfurt am Main was the second most populous city. I don't know where I could have got this idea. Has Frankfurt ever been the second most populous city in Germany? Is it ranked second, behind only Berlin, by any other criterion? JIP | Talk00:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Frankfurt is the hub of the second largestmetropolitan area in Germany, even though by corporate limits as a singular city it is only the fifth largest city. Even then, depending on how "metropolitan area" is defined, it is only the third largest; the Ruhr-Dusseldorf-Cologne region is actually the largest in the country, but only when counted as a single region; apparently some definitions break this region up into three smaller regions, which pushes Frankfurt into second place. --Jayron3202:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to what Jayron wrote: Things like Frankfurt Airport (one of the busiest for decades) or the city's position as finance centre etc. might also have contributed to your perception. Yet Frankfurt has been behind Munich and Hamburg for a long time. It was never on second place in the Bundesrepublik either (i.e. before 1990). ---Sluzzelintalk08:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
None of the members of those groups have pet polar bears.
Less than 50% of the people involved have names that begin with the letter 'Z'.
None of the people involved have ever swam more than 3 miles along the Yarlung Tsangpo River in Tibet.
The point being that there are an infinite number of facts available. What you need are useful, pertinent facts...and this homework question isn't so much about you knowing three random facts about these groups - it's actually a means to have you read about them and form some ideas of your own. That's the real reason why we're not allowed to help you with homework questions unless you've shown us that you've put in some effort of your own and gotten stuck on finding an answer. If you wish to grow up to be a knowledgeable, well-read, intelligent, well-rounded individual, you need to be widely read - and (most importantly) to gain the habit of enjoying to learn and to seek out more information. SteveBaker (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Convertible bond, premium, new TSLA convertible bonds
Ok, Tesla Motors issued $800M convertible bonds, 0.25% interest rate, 42.5% premium with 5 years expiration.
But how it works from the investor point of view and what is the premium?
I mean lets say investor John spent $1000. Tesla received $1k. Tesla will pay "coupons", $2.50 yearly to John.
If TSLA plummets from $250 to $10, how much Tesla will pay John at the end of 5 years period? $1000? Or $1425? Probably just a grand, but what is a premium then?
If TSLA raises from $250 to $500 in two years, and John decide to convert at that point, how many shares he will get? He dose not need to pay anything at the time of conversion, correct?
Some explanations I read on the net say that companies limit upside potential of convertible bonds by reserving the right to "call" convertible bond if share price is too high. How dose that limit potential of conv. bond? If for example Tesla call conv. bond early, bond holder get shares, and upside potential would still be unlimited for him. I'm not understanding something, but not sure what I'm not understanding.
Here is the link to TSLA SEC filling: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000119312514074411/d683441dfwp.htm 50.100.191.18 (talk) 08:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This means that the investor will get $2.50 per year for five years and then $1425 at the end of the period. I don't know how the conversion would work, but the other parts of your description suggest that the bond would be convertible to a fixed number of shares. (If the conversion was based on current value then Tesla would not face any risk that would require "calling in" the bond.) You are right that the upside potential after the bond is called would still be unlimited, but that's the same unlimited potential any shareholder has -- it doesn't impose any extra cost on the bond issuer. Looie496 (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first part is actually totally incorrect. The investors would only get $1000 (the face value) at the end of the period and not $1425. The conversion premium is just a measure of how much the conversion price exceeds the current price of the share. In a simplified manner, it means that it will be worthwile for the investors to convert the bonds if the share price rises by at least 42.5%.129.178.88.85 (talk) 07:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One possible scenario is if market interest rates fall or issuer's credit rating improves, and so issuer decides to refinance at a lower interest rate. Not likely in current market conditions, but it's a possible scenario in general. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Foreign exchange reserves and current account surpluses
I have limited knowledge of macroecon so this paragraph is hard for me to understand:
"Unlike the deficit-prone emerging economies that are now in trouble -– whose imbalances are strikingly reminiscent of those in the Asian economies that were hit by the late-1990's financial crisis -– China runs a current-account surplus. As a result, there is no risk of portfolio outflows resulting from the Fed's tapering of its monthly asset purchases. And, of course, China's outsize backstop of $3.8 trillion in foreign-exchange reserves provides ample insurance in the event of intensified financial contagion."
1. Why are the large foreign exchange reserves of China a backstop?
2. Why would there need to be a backstop if the current account surplus were depleted?
It's hard to be sure without seeing more of the context, but I think probably what the passage is trying to say is that if for some reason China gets into economic difficulties and their stocks and currency start to lose value, they will be able to use their foreign currency reserves to shore up their economy. It's basically the same as the reason why a person with millions in the bank is less worried about an economic downturn than a person who is living from day to day. Looie496 (talk) 15:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article is basically right, and Looie496's last sentence is a good summary. China now is very different from the countries who suffered the 1997 Asian financial crisis. China's and other Asian states policy are now guided by a desire to not repeat that crisis and is a kind of mercantilism, keeping currency values low, exports high and accumulating piles of dollars. Back then, Hot money often seeking higher yields by the Carry trade, and foolish policies and speculation in countries like Thailand etc made them owe a lot of dollars, often by trying to support dollar currency pegs by issuing high yielding dollar denominated debt. They eventually wound up short of dollars, and couldn't get enough immediately. So the international loan-sharking institutions (Jonathan Kwitny's accurate description) seized the opportunity to arrange for Western "investors" to procure valuable properties at fire-sale prices. Chinese foreign reserves can be used to pay foreign debts denominated in dollars, particularly to buy imports and to maintain the foreign exchange value of the renminbi. So it is a backstop against this kind of crisis, and against a fall in the renminbi - which China rather tends to keep down, not up. So the article is correct when it says that China has nothing to fear from the Fed raising interest rates, thereby making the higher Chinese rates, e.g. a carry trade, less attractive, because China will have no trouble keeping its currency pegged at its current value. It doesn't have too much to do with China's domestic economy, which they can keep moving ahead if it falters by repeating the 2008-2009 Chinese economic stimulus program - except that the size of the foreign reserves allow them to ignore any (unlikely, theoretical and probably minor) negative effect of such stimulus on exchange rates. John Z (talk) 07:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks John for a very clear explanation. But it raises some new questions for me. If there were another large loan stimulus and the loans could not be repaid creating a banking crisis, the negative effect on the economy would not be at all reflected on the currency? And couldn't the foreign exchange reserves also be used to provide banks in crisis with support? Gullabile (talk) 06:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
.
China runs a merchandise trade surplus sufficient to cover its services and net transfers deficits (i.e., a current-account surplus). Portfolio flows and foreign direct investment are part of the capital account. The reason there is no risk of capital flight ‘due to Fed tapering’ is that China has US$3.8 trillion in foreign exchange reserves, equal to about 90 months worth of imports (the benchmark for getting worried is 3-6 months). The reserves, the largest in the world, provide assurance that if investors want to exchange renminbi for dollars, there will be enough dollars to go around, even after considerations such as paying for imports, repaying debt and interest and other international financial obligations (dividends and royalties, for example).
If the country were running a current-account deficit, it would also be running a capital account surplus, or drawing down on its reserves. If an economy is dependent on short-term investment (portfolio inflows) to off-set a current-account deficit, it is vulnerable to risks such as contagion. If such flows stop, the country would have to reduce its imports quickly (increasing exports isn’t quick) to avoid defaulting on payments. Holding sufficient foreign exchange reserves – which should never be confused with 'the government’s money' – provides a cushion such that quick changes in capital flows need not be addressed under pressure. (Since these reserves are not the government’s money, there is no means by which they might be used to deal with a banking crisis.)
While money may leave China for many reasons, including attractive opportunities elsewhere, a falling Rmb:US$ exchange rate or political developments, the problem encountered by several Asian economies in 1997-98 was a rapid depletion of foreign exchange reserves brought about (for the most part) by artificially strong currencies permitting lower-than-realistic interest rates in an environment of minimal capital controls. See Impossible trinity.
The notion of the US having such a massive crisis that it could not repay its debts is a fallacy. The debt is in US dollars, and the government has the right to produce as many dollars as it needs. While investors may not like it, or may even refuse to take the dollar, they have no recourse to receiving payment in some other currency as the debt is denominated in US dollars. The possible impact on China would be multi-faceted, including a collapse of exports to its largest customer and perhaps an uncomfortable surge in the value of the renminbi.DOR (HK) (talk) 07:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Russia has had troops in Ukraine for some time now, and yet there was no formal declaration of war. Ukraine has put its troops on full military alert, buy thankfully no shots have been fired. However, today, Russia demanded the surrender of the Ukrainian military by 03:00 GMT, or face out an all-out Crimea-wide assault. Would this demand (not the actual assault) be considered to be a declaration of war? Is there any protocol to decide this? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK)16:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you call it, it's a standard formulation. In WWI, Austria-Hungary had made several demands on Serbia in response to serbian nationals assassinating the archduke. The had until a certain time to meet those demands, and when they didn't Austria began firing across he border. Likewise, in the West, when it became clear Germany was mobilized with troops about to cross into the neutral Low Countries, Britain notified Germany they had until a certain time to cease troop movements, or a state of war would exist, which was then announced to the public when the Germans continued to advance. In the Iraq war we gave Saddam until a certain time to step down. When he didn't, Bush declared hostilities had commenced. Russian acts already amount to an act of war.
Putin's basically acting from a position of strength so he can say the Ukrainians were given a chance to back down, but didn't. Kind of like already having grabbed a woman and put your hand on her mouth telling he if he removes it and she screams he'll have to kill her. A brutal act in the form of a pretend courtesy. μηδείς (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On top of that, there are various definitions of war. The definition in the "Encyclopia of War, latest edition", if I recommend correctly, require a certain level casualties to be included there. I am hoping this conflict will not meet that criteria, but I admit to an optimistic view. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In 1982, the UK and Argentina spent several months in full-blown combat without either side declaring war on the other - it wasn't even called "The Falklands War" until after the shooting had stopped, it was a "conflict" while it was in progress. Alansplodge (talk) 11:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Same applies in America. The US Constitution gives Congress only ability to make war which has been declared only five times, last WW2. Normally the President just tells the military what to do, and then within a few weeks or months has to ask Congress for the money. In Ireland, parliament, government and the UN Security Council all have to agree to a war declaration.--92.25.228.93 (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Will 1 in 28 citizens of New Orleans be murdered, based on a rate of 53.2 per 100k?
If I said 1 in 28 of New Orleans residents will be murdered in his lifetime, is that valid? What we do know is in 2012 New Orleans murder rate was 53.2 per 100,000. [1] All I did was use a life expectancy of 68 years, then calculate 68 * 53.2/100,000 = 0.036 (3.6%) which roughly is one in twenty-eight.
This assumes the life expectancy and murder rate will hold steady of the next 68 years.
However, I notice that nobody, not even the most strident antigun activist ever uses this cumulative risk calculation for murder expectancy over a lifetime, even though it is an attention-getting statistic. Are there other problems with this calculation that I am missing? Thanks. (Please just dont repeat the life expectancy and murder rate realistically cannot be constant over 68 years, I realise that.) There is probably more that I am missing. Nobody uses this metric. Thanks Jojo Fiver (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they'd be able to discuss any issues with the math better over there. Even if the math works, the whole concept seems a bit overly simplified. It assumes crime remains constant and the population stable. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The numbers this was derived from is that New Orleans saw 193 murders over the course of a single year and a population of 362,874 people. So one person was murdered for every 1880 people living there. According to List of U.S. states by life expectancy, the people of Louisiana have a life expectancy of 75.7 years. So if that year was statistically typical - we'd expect a one in 25 chance (4%) of being murdered. According to List of causes of death by rate, the worldwide chance of dying from "violence" (broadly construed) is 0.9% - so this 4% rate of murder as cause of death is certainly fairly alarming.
However, this is a very tricky statistical matter. Your life expectancy varies dramatically depending on how old you already are - and I'm sure that murders are not evenly distributed throughout the age range.
Any prediction of how many will die from murder who are now living has to be based on a model predicting the future rate 80 years out or so. That takes into account a huge number of arbitrary assumptions, people who will move to and away from NO, future internal population growth and death rates from other causes, political, economic, and social and cultural changes. In the future most people will probably be killed by poisonous drones and weapons of mass destruction, think the opening and closing scenes of Dune.
Calculating that rate and the change in it over time up until now is a question of brute summation of historical data. That info may be available somewhere. μηδείς (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The Better Angels of our Nature" by Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker (2011) has voluminous data on historical murder rates from the paleolithic times to the present in its endnotes and a comprehensive bibliography to find more. Sevastopol Dude (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
March 4
Titanic crew "kit"
Resolved
– 03:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I've been editing a few RMS Titanic related articles and have come across a few mentions of crew members' "kit" (which, of course they lost, apparently at their own expense). (E.g.: controversy regarding Sir Cosmo Duff-Gordon on Lifeboat 1) Since I am curious as to what exactly a "crew kit" entails, I assume other readers might as well, and thought I could add an {{efn}} for that. My research skills seem to be inadequate in this instance. ~Assistance with finding sourced answers will be appreciated! ~Eric the Inadequate: 71.20.250.51 (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a description of two different sailor's kits, from around the same time period from the 1860s [2]. Pretty much what you'd expect: jacket, towel etc. Perhaps a decent starting point. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! I should be able to generalize a bit (uniforms, related clothing and accessories, -or something like that) which I already assumed to be the case, but wouldn't add without a source. ::The source also generally describes the contents of seamen's chests from 1908 and 1930. ~Eric theThankful: 71.20.250.51 (talk) modified:21:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
City of Molalla Or Signs
I have noticed that the City has posted SERVICE VEHICLES ONLY on most side streets. Is this a advisory or restrictive sign??
They don't specify weigh restrictions or truck restrictions on most of the side streets that have these signs, but I have been told that the City would cite Me if I drove my MT log truck on these streets. What is the legal definition of these signs?? Then problem I have run into is parking my MT log truck at the Stagecoach Motel while in town. WestateCo WestateCo (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Chinese Law Cases
I am looking for Chinese court cases on civil law issues, particularly contract law cases. I am also looking for Internet articles on Chinese contract law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.141.115.253 (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck with that. You'll find far more on Macao, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Chinese-speaking Singapore than mainland China. They're basically Portuguese, English, pre-Communist Chinese and English in that order. A sense of justice even somewhere the Chinese Communist Party is uninterested (football scores, employment in a foreign company, for example) still increase the same elsewhere. The Chinese Communist Party consider that a threat to their power. Whilst the Chinese justice industry is growing massively (2,600 lawyers work for Dacheng Law, see WP article on Largest Chinese law firms list), a Japanese or South Korean lawyer is still going to be unimpressed. Another measure is comparing Sundaresh Menon, Rai Hau-min and Hironobu Takesaki to Zhou Qiang (Singaporean, Taiwanese, Japanese and Chinese Chief Justices). The first three have good degrees and (varyingly) detailed legal backgrounds in their articles here. The Chinese Chief Justice has spent most of his career in the Chinese Communist Party. --92.25.228.93 (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Steps to the Cristo Rei of Dili in East Timor
The Cristo Rei of Dili is located at the top of a set of about 500 stairs. The stairs are very irregular in height and width. Consequently they are potentially very dangerous for users. Is there any background to design/construction of these steps that will explain why they are uneven? Other steps I've used in other parts of the world have been even and therefore relatively safe.
Thanks,
Garry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.42.88.2 (talk) 03:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Separation Standards in ATC
Can we apply track separation to an aircraft established on specified track within CONTROL airspace with another aircraft established on required track but in UNCONTROL airspace — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.26.127.143 (talk) 07:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why do people like to scold vulgarities?
So I have heard enough of vulgarities, but I am curious to why some people use it in their daily life as normal language and that they do not know how to control?
Neurologist Antonio Damasio noted that despite loss of language due to damages to the language areas of the brain, patients were still often managed to swear. "Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain". (I just added to article, thank you for the link, Colfine). It is something that many on brain damage wards can testify to. It seems hard to control in these cases, and perhaps it is also hard to control in normal life, since it does not appear to be exclusively under the control of the standard language centers. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that it is common. It is a symptom of some people with Tourette's; but I don't know that it is all that common. Most people with Tourette's don't swear uncontrollably, but have other sorts of tics; the swearing thing is attention grabbing, so people tend to remember it, and thus falsely assume that "Tourette's = that weird disease that makes people swear all the time". It isn't really, except in a few memorable cases. The article you cited notes directly, in the lead "this symptom is present in only a small minority of people with Tourette's" --Jayron3214:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
People simply like to scold. See the talk page. Why vulgarities would be something to scold is that as mentioned above, the brain treats them as something more primitive than abstract speech. Consider Fred Flintstone can mock curse by grumbling with /r/s and low vowels in a way that sounds like a dog growling, but you never hear mock cursing with tweets and lisping sounds. μηδείς (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In defence of people who swear - there is evidence that it can help to relieve stress - and in a famous Mythbuster's episode, they seem to have sucessfully (although not rigorously) shown that cursing aloud will allow a person to tolerate more pain than using mild language. This Scientific American article seems to back that up. So it does seem that saying things that are designed to shock others helps people in some situations. This is plenty enough reason for people to do it - and a very good reason for those other people not to scold them for doing it. However, it occurs to me that if the swearing did not produce the expected reaction in others, it might not work as stress/pain relief. SteveBaker (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I virtually always use some form of "fuck" when I hurt myself, but it seems automatic (alone or not). If there's any reasoning, it's quicker than I can follow. Because of that, I'm not sure if it helps the pain. But it makes sense. InedibleHulk(talk) 01:52, March 5, 2014 (UTC)
As an aside, a native English speaker would not say 'to scold vulgarities' if what was meant was 'to use vulgarities'. Scolding vulgarities sounds like criticising their use - 'Jason! Don't use such foul language in front of Aunt Susie!'. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't make a generalization that the brain "treats them as something more primitive." Maybe there's something to that statement when trying to explain why those with certain neurological afflictions can swear (to explain that, maybe, a lifetime connecting the utterance of a sound with certain emotional expressions allows it to operate on a somewhat different level), but otherwise these are words! They have meanings and uses; they're tools for expression that sometimes communicate better than other words. People have trouble controlling their use when the words become part of their regular vocabulary (lots of people spend considerable time around people who don't care about appropriately used swearing). If you were used to using a certain vocabulary and then asked to alter it because certain words offend some people's sensibilities, then yes it may be difficult to control -- and not just for people with tourette's. Likewise if I requested you stop using the word "very" or "great" because it offends me, you might have some trouble controlling it, too. It takes considerable conditioning to be aware of communicative tools at your disposal while refraining from using them. ...Of course you could argue if there weren't people offended by swearing, at least some of the usefulness would cease. --— Rhododendritestalk | 01:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BBC requires Flash
Is there no Law in the UK that requires the BBC to let people watch the videos without forcing them to install Adobe Flash to view a video (like this)? 78.35.207.52 (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a US American, I'm confused as to why there would be such a law in the UK. Adobe Flash is one of the most common pieces of video software available. Why would there be a law requiring something else? Dismas|(talk)11:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, no such law. Why would there be? It's just an annoying policy decision of the BBC, along with some other websites, but it's their website, so their choice. Dbfirs12:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought, since the BBC is a public broadcaster they are required by law to make their programs accessible to all and not only to people that have installed Proprietary software, but seemingly this is not the case. 78.35.207.52 (talk) 12:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can contact the BBC to make a complaint at this page. People there are far more likely to be able to provide answers to your questions and/or act on your request than anyone here. --Jayron3213:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no difference between installing Flash and using a web browser to access the site, or even in using a TV to access programmes broadcast by the BBC. Really. In order to access a broadcast from the BBC you have to have a TV and you have to have Freeview (or an equivalent service such as Sky). That's all. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the OP is suspicious of Flash itself, as any TV of any brand or any browser is sufficient to access BBC program, but Flash is the only software allowed. If the OP is patient, HTML5 codecs will eventually replace Flash and it will no longer be an issue. Mingmingla (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC standard media player does support HTML5 video where available (e.g. on iOS), as does the new iPlayer. Did you try uninstalling Flash and trying? It does seem that Flash is still used by default in places (and some archived content may use not use the standard player). As [[3]] points out that development is ongoing. This being said, Flash video is still supported on more devices (e.g. IE8) -- to the point that not supporting Flash video would, in fact, be a bigger accessibility concern especially in some critical groups. As for legality, the OP may be referring to either to Equality Act 2010 or the BBC Charter, both of which have some force in law of course (not that anyone would be arrested). Clearly this is something being worked on, but any complaint to the link provided above would no doubt get a response, and the cost that Capita will charge to handle the complaint will go a long way to ensuring your license fee is spent. 92.28.77.132 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Photographs of airplanes in flight
I saw this picture on the Internet today. See here: [4]. It made me wonder, how are such photos taken? Are they actually photos that are taken as they appear? How is this accomplished? Or is a photo taken of a plane, and then that photo is photo-shopped into a background of air and clouds? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They just fly alongside with another plane. One thing that's clear from this genre of photo is that there isn't much perspective forshortening of the airplane in the photo - which probably means that it was taken with a telephoto lens. That means that the plane doing the photography could be quite a long way away. Another clue is that very often the aircraft in the picture is in a somewhat nose-up attitude. That usually happens because they are flying very slowly - even though they are at cruise altitude. That suggests that a slower plane is doing the photography and struggling to keep up with the speed of the big passenger plane...which would make sense if they just hired a light aircraft to take the pictures from. SteveBaker (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sky-level photos and films of airplanes have been around for quite a few generations before photoshop was around. Some of the pictures could be fake, but it's like you said - you just send another plane up to take the picture or film. No mystery there. I suppose what would help is a third plane taking pictures of the first two. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Уважаемая администрация Википедии, мы обращаемся к вам от имени жителей Украины с просьбой добавить в смайлы по ресурсу (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emoji флаг Украины, так как там уже есть другие флаги, нам кажется это целесообразным. (хочеться использывать даный смайл в одной из социальных сетей, которая полбзуеться даный ресурс). Заранее спасибо. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Андрей Голляк (talk • contribs) 22:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This, as per Google Translate: "Request to the Administration: Dear administration Wikipedia, we are writing to you on behalf of residents of Ukraine to add emoticons on a resource (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emoji flag of Ukraine, as already there are other flags, we think it appropriate. (wants MĀ danyj smile in one of the social networks that polbzuetsya danyj resource). thanks in advance." Not everything translates, but it's enough to get the idea. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) My browser translate tool renders this as "Dear administration Wikipedia, we are writing to you on behalf of residents of Ukraine to add emoticons on a resource (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emoji flag of Ukraine, as already there are other flags, we think it appropriate. ( wants MĀ danyj smile in one of the social networks that polbzuetsya danyj resource). Thanks in advance".
I'm not sure what they're asking, but I think they want the Ukrainian flag added to the list of ten flags mentioned in Emoji#places. (In my browser, most of the Unicode characters in that article don't display anyway, so I don't know what is supposed to appear beside the countries mentioned). It's not clear to me whether there is any significance to the particular 10 countries listed there, but I'm guessing that they are just an arbitrary set chosen for the purpose of illustration; in which case the set I would not recommend adding any more countries. I may be misunderstanding, though. --ColinFine (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the OP wants us to add the emoji for Ukraine's flag to that article. It seems like a reasonable request if it exists and other nations' are listed. The request is in Russian with a few grammatical errors, maybe typo's polbzuyet'sja might perhaps be a typo for something like "to be published" I don't know what danyj is supposed to mean, but Дальний is Russian for distant. Wikipedia and only wikipedia has been loading extremely slow for me tonight and last night, and I can't view the unicode, so I hope someone like User:JackofOz or User:Любослов Езыкин can help. μηδείς (talk) 05:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe "полбзуеться даный ресурс" should be "пользуется данный ресурс", and the words in brackets mean "the given smile needs to be used in one of the social networks which the given resource uses". That's amazingly clunky, but I don't know enough of the context to render it any more fluently. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]06:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that link. However, it shows me that they are not necessarily official, as there are differences in some of the abbreviations. (e.g., STO cf. STK for Stoke, and MNC cf. MCI for Man City.) → Michael JⓉⒸⓂ14:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who was the one that said:
I may be drunk tonight but tomorrow I will be sober and you will still be ugly. (Please show reference!)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.90.62 (talk) 03:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a version of that was said by W.C. Fields in the movie It's a Gift. The exact quote in that film was, "You're crazy! And I'm drunk. But I'll be sober tomorrow and you'll be crazy for the rest of your life!" ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe W.C.Fields stole it from Winston Churchill:
Bessie Braddock: "Sir, you are drunk."
Winston Churchill: "I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly."
The Braddock article concedes that another woman has also been attributed. It would be interesting to know whether the Fields or Churchill thing came first (for Fields it was 1934), and to find out whether it's a really old joke that Churchill and Fields might have run across independently. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 04:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I see that I had misquoted Fields. The exact quote, following on the other guy exclaiming, "You're drunk!", is as follows: "Yeah, and you're crazy; and I'll be sober tomorrow and ... you'll be crazy for the rest of your life!" ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Men's and women's razors
Typical men's disposable razor bladesWomen's disposable blade with "bumpers" all around the blade
Nearly every time I'm in the shower, I look up at my or my wife's razor and wonder why women's razors are so much bulkier than men's. At right is a selection of various men's razor blade refills. I use a Gillette Mach3 and my wife uses whatever Gillette calls their women's model. Where the blades clip onto the handles are the same and the blades interchangeable which makes packing for a trip a bit simpler. The women's blades though have much more plastic all the way around the blades. The cartridge is basically oval shaped with what I think of as "bumpers" all around the blade. What is the purpose of so much bulk? I could imagine that if a woman were to shave her pubic region then the extra plastic would get in the way of getting into tight spots like where the leg meets the pubic area. I especially noticed this when I recently ran out of blades and had to borrow my wife's razor. I found it very hard to cut the whiskers just under my nostrils.
As a side note, while trying to research this and find an image of a women's razor I went to the Gillette web site and could not find any women's products. I know they make them but could not find them on the site. I don't remember any "guy mode" in my browser settings, so I wonder how women are to find info about their razors on Gillette's site.
Why is this......different than this?Jayron is right that a lot of it is marketing. However, I think there is some actual utility to the different designs. Put simply, they have different use cases. The idea is that women's razors are (primarily) for shaving legs, while men's razors are (primarily) for shaving faces. Now, I'm sure you know that faces and legs are rather different things, but here's the key distinctions for shaving: compared to a face, legs have much more surface area, and much less curvature. So, the plastic float/bumper makes it more efficient to shave a large, relatively flat shin, while a smaller blade head makes it easier to shave e.g. the philtrum area. Some brands even have soap/lubricant embedded in the pads, so that you don't need to reapply shaving cream to the leg as you go. Also, the grips are different for a reason. Have you ever tried to shave your legs? Bending over at awkward angles, a nice big handle on women's razors helps keep a good grip. But, for shaving a face, you want a smaller handle, allowing for greater dexterity. Finally, I do know women who just buy men's razors, and men who use women's. It's not like they fail to work if your gender does not match the razor's. As for me, I don't shave much at all, but I am concerned about the razor blade singularity[5]. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the marketing front, men's razors are marketed differently from women's, in ways which pander to the ad men's impressions of what will make a product sell. For men: technical details, an angular shape, many blades, male colours (blue, grey, black), avoidance of razor burn, and the impression that your favourite sports or movie hero uses the same product. For women: it would appear to be that the razor won't leave gashes all over your legs, it is a female colour (pink) with a more rounded and feminine shape (presumably so your man won't want to use it on his face), and a close enough shave that silk clothing won't cling to your stubbly legs. Astronaut (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The hair on women's legs is tougher, and therefore harder to cut, than the hair on men's faces. It needs tougher machinery. (Sorry ladies.) HiLo48 (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi All,
I am trying to help out in a couple of areas and one issue has been raised which I can not find out whether it can be done on wiki or not.
The issue; a large listing has many links to the source information all URL's start with something like "http://www.example/sever/locale/" and then there are a reference number and a status i.e. "1234/44/made" making a final link of "http://www.example/sever/locale/1234/44/made".
So, the question is, can I declare the url as a variable and reference the variable in wiki text to reduce the overall size and making load times faster, less resource hungry etc.
Thank you The Original Filfi (talk) 10:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikitext cannot define variables in Wikipedia. Something similar could be achieved by creating a template, for example so {{sever|1234/44/made}} produces http://www.example/sever/locale/1234/44/made. I don't recommend this if all the template does is make part of the url, but if it does more like format a reference then it could be useful, especially if the source is also of use in other pages. A template would be more resource hungry than just writing the full url in the wikitext. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are stupid
Can someone direct me to an article that explores the position that, because human brains are finite, it is therefore impossible for any human brain (or set of brains working together collectively) ever to comprehend and understand the whole of reality? There must be a term for this, but, being particularly stupid today, I can't think what it is. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That answer only relates to capacity to store memories. My question is over the capacity to understand reality. We would not expect, say, dogs, or earthworms, to understand as much about reality as we humans do. But, there must be a limit to our capacity to understand. It is not infinite - but, the complexities of reality may well be infinite. Where has this been discussed? It's probably a philosophical question more than a scientific one, which is why I am asking on this desk. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of, but that's really not much more than a facile aphorism. Have philosophers and scientists never seriously considered this? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How fundamental do you want to get? The earliest philosophy I know of relating to "unknowable nature of true reality" is the allegory of the cave. It doesn't specifically get at the "finite human brain" issue, but it does come to the same conclusion: all we can ever see or know are merely shadows. I don't keep up much with modern philosophy, but I think the cave has been periodically discussed and analyzed throughout history. Check SEP coverage here [7], and also see the general topics of metaphysics and ontology. Between the SEP and the references to our articles, you can spend months or years tackling this issue. If you just want a short expression though, it's the "allegory of the cave" SemanticMantis (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The claim is a self-refuting idea. To say that the nature of reality is unknowable is to make a claim of knowledge about the nature of reality. It's the sort of thing that sounds interesting in Philosophy 101. Adults come to realize that qualified statements like "there are things I don't know" are much more useful. See unknown unknowns. μηδείς (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am an adult. You are not addressing the question I was asking - though you are agreeing with me by implying that there may be aspects of reality that no human can ever know. The previous answers are interesting, thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't agree that there are aspects of reality which no human (i.e., sentience) can ever know, just facts that might be out of the grasp of individual perception. For example, there may be planets so far away they are outside our light-cone and hence forever over the horizon to us. That doesn't mean that the planets themselves are unknowable. There may be things like the big bang that we can't experience directly, but we can still know about them. There's either the semi-mystical claim that certain things are Unknowable in capitals as such, which is self-refuting, since it is itself a claim to knowledge, or there is the trivial claim that some brute facts are unavailable to me, like whether there was a fly on he pizza before I picked it up at the shop. But those are trivial matters not dealing with things that are Unknowable with a capital unk. μηδείς (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, a human brain (with a finite number of possible 'states' it can be in) does not have the capacity (for example) to know the precise location of every atom in a kilogram of hydrogen gas - much less the entire universe...and even less, the historical position of every atom that's currently in that container over the past 14 million years. So clearly we can't "know" even a microscopic fraction of everything there is to know.
However, we might (possibly) be able to "understand everything". It's quite plausible to believe that sometime in the next hundred years, physicists will discover a single, tiny, beautiful equation that does indeed describe absolutely everything...many believe it'll happen in their lifetimes. But therein lies the problem. Knowing the equation that encapsulates all of everything doesn't help you to know what your wife wants for her birthday next tuesday. Turning that knowledge into something useful is impossible in most cases.
On a practical level, we don't need to examine the orbit of every planet in the visible universe to understand their motions about the parent star...in that case, the laws of gravitation are completely able to summarize all of that motion into a single, tiny, beautiful equation and for us to be able to use that equation to tell us where Jupiter will be six months from now with incredible precision.
Furthermore, human brains don't have to hold all of that information. There is more (by far) information in Wikipedia right now than one person could read in a lifetime - but we don't need to read it all in order to "have" that information. If I don't happen to recall the orbital period of Jupiter, I can find it out using my knowledge of which buttons to press to get that information. What becomes important is not our raw knowledge - but the 'meta-knowledge' of how to find the actual knowledge if and when we need it. Anyone who works on these reference desks for any amount of time will attest to the fact that while we may not be smarter than the people who come here to ask questions, our ability to use search engines and other techniques to find information allows us to be more effective than our questioners in finding answers. Meta-knowledge is king here.
Humanity is moving from needing knowledge to needing meta-knowledge - skills like picking the right phrase to get Google to spit out what you need will get you further than simply trying to memorize a bunch of facts. That's a change that started when humans first invented the library - and has been gradually increasing in importance ever since. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveBaker (talk • contribs)
Even if we knew the fundamental rules about nature consider this, the people elected to government are in the main quite bright by normal human standards, and yet they spend their time doing really stupid things. How is that ever going to be fixed without another million years of evolution? If we tried to fix ourselves by tinkering with our genes we'd be bound to do something totally stupid and disastrous. Dmcq (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note sure if the OP is looking for a debate here or elsewhere, but the (seemingly) combative stance doesn't help what is otherwise a worthy discussion. Since they asked for further reading, I'll suggest a possible starting point: epistemology. My first thought was about the German concept of weltunschaaung, what we may call worldview. At a gut level, I can see no contradiction in saying the 'whole of reality' is fundamentally unknowable -- you don't have to know what (or how much) you don't know in order to know you don't know. El duderino(abides)07:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recharge electric car while stationary with on board engine
The BMW i3 is a range-extended electric car. It does 100 miles on electric, and another 100 miles on petrol. The petrol is only meant to be a backup - it's supposed to be used on electric only normally. For this sort of car (not necessarily that model), could somebody use the petrol engine to recharge the batteries with the car stopped like an on board generator? I imagine it would need a bit of reprogramming to do it.
Or expanded: fill it, charge it, drive 100 electric miles, drive another 100 petrol miles, fill it, run the engine in the same place for a few hours to recharge the battery, fill it, and drive another 200 miles? --92.25.228.93 (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well the engine would need to power the radiator and prevent the engine overheating, however as an occasional use for going on holiday, for example.--92.25.228.93 (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You would need to fill up "one and a bit" times to fully charge the batteries because of the cooling pump and fan and other energy losses. The "bit" might turn out to be a large proportion of a full tank. Does anyone have some figures for efficiency in using a car engine for battery charging? I would be surprised if it was much more than 50%, meaning that almost two tankfuls might be needed just for one full charge. Dbfirs17:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look at his feet, the purpose of the stirrups and the strap around the horse's belly is to allow him to gain purchase. (I am not up on the names of all the equipment. Keep in mind also that the picture is depicting a dynamic event with various bodies with momentum, not a static pose. μηδείς (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps because the ability to freeze action at a moment in time was a product of photography - before that, artists had to guess what was going on. No artist was able to correctly depict a galloping horse's legs until Eadweard Muybridge produced Sallie Gardner at a Gallop in 1878. Alansplodge (talk)
Artist's conception
Surprisingly, I haven't been able to find an authoritative source for a definition or explanation of the common term: artist's conception. It is fundamentally related to Concept art, but the term is not mentioned in the article, and I wouldn't want to add it without citing a "reliable source". I believe there is a distinction that is not derivable from the component terms artist + conception. Using, Art dictionaries and glossaries indexed by the OneLook® search engine: shows that all 116 sources don't recognize the term "artist's conception". (Btw, there is a related discussion over at Wiktionary). — Preceding query added by 71.20.250.51 (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, one could argue that anyIllustration rendered by a traditional artist (for example, the Napoleon picture above) qualifies as an "artist's conception". The term is typically used in reference to entities that don't exist yet, such as buildings in the planning phase; or things that used to exist but don't anymore, such as the Colossus of Rhodes; or things for which there is no photographic evidence, such as surface details of Pluto. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's really no different here - Napoleon probably never did sit on a rearing white horse while dressed in full ceremonial regalia and an impressively dramatic bright red cloak on a steep mountainside that happened to have his name carved into the rocks right beneath his feet. It's just the artist's concept of what that would hypothetically look like if that's how Napoleon had happened to cross the St.Bernard pass. It's just like an architect might create a conceptual drawing of what some building might look like before it's built. The term "Concept art" means almost the same thing, work that an artist puts together very quickly in order that the guys with the money can decide whether it's what they want the artist to make "for real". But you may be thinking of "Conceptual art" - which is something completely different (as our article says, it is "art in which the concept(s) or idea(s) involved in the work take precedence over traditional aesthetic and material concerns". SteveBaker (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I just checked OED and it's not there (which is ...odd). I believe I've seen an explanation of the term at NASA.gov, as they use the phrase and the material all the time. At a quick search of the site, I can't find it (just lots of examples), but if you have time to look there it might pay off. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OP, you say "I believe there is a distinction that is not derivable from the component terms artist + conception". The evidence - or lack thereof - would seem to suggest your premise is flawed. Whenever I've seen the term used, and it's been in the sorts of cases listed by Baseball Bugs above, it's meant exactly what you'd think it means from the meanings of the two words. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]22:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So... without a proper source, how can I discuss (pro or con) whether <whatever> does, or does not, qualify as an "artist's conception"; artist could be very broadly defined, etc. — And if I attempted to add something at the Concept art article relating to this subject, there is likely (with good reason) for somebody to add tag: [Citation needed]. — Preceding artistic comment added by 71.20.250.51 (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I don't think it requires that degree of rigour. If I sketch my idea of what Los Angeles would look like after being hit by a H-bomb, nobody could gainsay that it is my conception, and since I am the artist, it is ipso facto this artist's conception. A different artist may well have a different and equally valid conception. When it comes to structures of which we have some information about their dimensions - Noah's Ark, for example - the conception would need to incorporate that information, but could otherwise vary depending on the artist. I've seen many drawings of the supposed Noah's Ark over the years, and the Colossus of Rhodes, the Tower of Babel etc etc. but I've never felt the need to go to some impeccable source to check the details. Same with children's drawings and paintings: They paint things in a way that adults don't. They have a child's conception of stuff. We don't tell them they're wrong just because of that. Generally, we think it's very cute and loveable. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]23:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what distinction the OP is going for, except perhaps that it would be fair to say that some artists ("concept artists"?) have a particular flair for reading blueprints or specs and turning those into more easily accessible illustrations for general consumption. Having clicked through a few related articles, it seems to me that there's both a ton of minute variation and a lot of overlap in the various fields. Matt Deres (talk) 03:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! The key phrase in the article is "when no other accurate representation is available" -- I think the OP's point of contention is that we would usually say "artist's impression/conception" for e.g. a painting of distant planet (ideally informed by scientific descriptions), but, we would not usually call a regular landscape painting an artist's conception (even though it would technically qualify in terms of the component words.) -- perhaps a distinction of denotation/connotation? SemanticMantis (talk) 15:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
March 6
factual figures on how many people receiving welfare benefits in USA
Well, at least your joke has the saving grace that you linked to the punchline. The US has a 39% federal corporate rate plus up to 15% state and local, while the UK and Australia have 20%, and Canada has 16% federal and up to 15% provincial. The moribund Japan has a 38% national rate but no local tax. No country in the world has as high a total corporate tax burden as the US. μηδείς (talk) 02:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The hatted material may be indirect, but I don't think its necessarily irrelevant. Inequalities in the corporate tax, tax subsidies loke those to Solyndra, and bailouts of certain industries like TARP are all relevant. μηδείς (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Only if you're trying to make a backhanded political statement. If you're trying to actually directly answer the OPs question about the number of persons who receive welfare benefits from the U.S. government. Calling other forms of government funding or subsidies "welfare" confuses the situation unnecessarily. Doing so is useful only when trying to make a political statement of some sort, not when answering an earnest question. The question didn't really ask anything about corporate subsidies. --Jayron3206:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But the funny part is both Bugs and I have diametrically, almost violently (believe me, I'd smack him), opposed political views. The relevant part here seems to be that certain corporations are getting government benefits or exemptions that other corporations and/or individuals aren't. We agree to that fact, although we might not agree on the explanation or justificiation given for it. I don't actually mind this being hatted, since anyone who cares will simply read the hatted material. μηδείς (talk) 06:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem with the question is that it doesn't define what welfare is. If welfare is "any money collected by the government in taxes and then paid back to the citizens as direct cash payouts or the equivalent to cash payouts" the answer becomes vanishingly close to 100%; the only people who don't collect any government welfare benefits ever are those who die before they are eligible to collect Social Security and Medicare. Essentially everyone who reaches retirement age collects welfare in the U.S. People like to redefine welfare to include "People who collect money from the government who aren't me", but fundamentally, all American citizens who live to the proper age are eligible for welfare. Now, if the OP has specific questions about specific government programs we can answer more meaningfully. --Jayron3202:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If Scotland were to become independent, it has been said by EU officials that Scotland would have to re-apply if it wanted to become part of the EU. This implies that by leaving the UK, Scotland would also be leaving the EU, at least temporarily.
In such a case, what would happen to UK nationals living/working in Scotland? Would they need a residence/work visa? And vice-versa. What about EU 'nationals' resident in Scotland? Scottish nationals resident/working in EU member states?
Everything I have seen on news and analysis sites suggests that nobody actually knows, because all of this is speculative and needs to be hashed out. So it will depend on what is decided at the time, if Scotland becomes independent. If the vote is "yes", there will be a lot of working on the practical and legal details, including answering exactly this sort of question, before it actually happens. That's also why there are so many views on what Scotland's economic situation would be. 85.255.233.40 (talk) 07:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The details of continuity of (or application for) EU membership will almost certainly be clarified and resolved before Scotland finally achieves independence and separates from the remainder of the UK. A "yes" vote would be only the start of a very long process of separation. Dbfirs13:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The most logical way to handle it is to accelerate their entry into the EU and/or slow their independence so that the two happen simultaneously. This would avoid a great deal of hassle in leaving the EU and then rejoining it. Successor states in general often maintain their old treaties, etc., during the transition period, with an exception for some violent revolutions. StuRat (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(EC)Well, yes, Stu, that is what I was thinking - it's the most logical and easy way forward for a smooth transition for all parties involved. I just wonder if our colleagues in Brussels can handle it - after all, they let Germany in twice before the EU even existed ("Brussels welcomes careful Panzer drivers"). However, there are laws that govern this sort of thing, and I doubt Ukraine would be happy that their application for joining the EU has been postponed, while a little country like Scotland can be hurried in, trying desperately to seek a monetary union with the UK Sterling and not the Euro. Even Russia is speaking to Scotland to negotiate a union with them in the Russian Federation. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK)22:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The most logical way for the "No" campaign to proceed is to put the thought into Scottish people's minds that their comfy world will be thrown into utter chaos if they vote "Yes". Which may very well be true. It certainly won't do us (South of the Border) a lot of good and we don't even get to vote. Alansplodge (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Logic really has little to do with this and there has been much written on the varying opinions of different parties, many of whom are not disinterested. StuRat's suggestion is exactly what the Nationalists propose, but it's not clear that their proposal can be put into action even with the whole-hearted support of the UK government.
Just on a point of order, it's debatable whether an independent Scotland could be accurately decribed as a successor state of the UK as the UK would continue to exist; it would simply no longer include the territory of Scotland. Compare the velvet divorce of the Czech Republic and Slovakia, where Czechoslovakia ceased to exist and the two new states were admitted to the UN as newly created states, or the dissolution of the Soviet Union where the Russian Federation assumed the role of successor state, inheriting the USSR's UN membership with the agreement of the other former Soviet states. Neither of these patterns apply here. What international duties etc. Scotland would assume would be partly down to negotiations pending independence.
However, Scotland's membership of the EU is clearly not only a matter for Scotland and rUK (as the remainder of the UK is being referred to in many news reports). The rest of the EU would have a say in this. It's undoubtedly the case that as EU law and treaties now stand, there is no mechanism for a country that separates from an existing member to become a new EU member seamlessly [9]. The Scottish Nationalists maintain [10] that they would negotiate to amend the Treaty on European Union between a Yes vote and independence, by which they mean in reality, the UK would seek the agreement of all other EU states for the treaty to be amended in such a way as to allow Scotland to "remain" within the EU upon independence. This is of course perfectly possible - the treaty is what the signatories agree it is and contains (in Article 48 [11]) the means to revise the treaty providing all EU members agree the change and ratify it. Whether it is politically probable is another matter. The Spanish, for example, are reported to be disinclined to support any action which would make it easier for Catalonian nationalists to seek independence [12]. This is not the same as arguing that Spain - or some other state - would, at some later date, block the (re-)admission of an independent Scotland that had ceased to be part of the EU when it ceased to be part of the UK, but it does suggest that the Nationalist case in Scotland's Future that Scotland could negotiate a "smooth transition to independent EU membership [...] on the day Scotland becomes an independent country" p.220 is yet to be proven. There is certainly little explanation of how this would actually work in that 670 page document.
This BBC News site has lots of comment on the many different opinions on many of these issues. People, especially those outside the UK who may not have been following the debates, may wish to browse the site before posting unreferenced opinion. Valiantis (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to all of KageTora's questions is that we don't know what would happen. However, we do know what the answers to each of those questions depends on. 1) "What would happen to UK nationals living/working in Scotland? Would they need a residence/work visa?" That would depend on the actions of the Scottish parliament between the vote and the actual date of independence, and perhaps on negotiations with representatives of the Westminster parliament, where the West Lothian question would meanwhile have become a much more serious issue. 2) "And vice-versa." That would depend on the actions of the Westminster parliament, having faced possible constitutional challenges over the West Lothian question, and possibly on negotiations with representatives of Scotland. One scenario is that the UK and Scotland agree on open borders and free movement of labor. Another scenario is that existing non-national residents are grandfathered in and given automatic residence visas, perhaps with a deadline for naturalization, exit, or a fresh visa application. A third scenario is an acrimonious period of mutual deportation, but that is hard to imagine as it would probably not be popular with the constituents of either government, many of whose families would be adversely affected. 3 "What about EU 'nationals' resident in Scotland? Scottish nationals resident/working in EU member states?" That would depend on negotiations between Edinburgh and Brussels. Ultimately it might depend on how adversarial Spain chose to be. If Spain's government decided to make a painful example of Scotland to discourage Catalan independence, it might be able to block extension of the EU's freedom of movement to Scotland, in which case Scottish nationals might face a deadline to leave EU countries, obtain a visa on the same footing as other non-EU nationals, or face legal jeopardy. In which case, Scotland might respond equivalently toward EU nationals. On the other hand, Scotland might find a way to appease or circumvent Spanish opposition and remain within the EU zone of freedom of movement and residence. Again, we just don't know. Marco polo (talk) 02:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And any "why" questions gets into why we evolved that way. I suspect that it has to do with clothes. That is, since we started wearing clothes, the need for body hair for warmth was reduced, and it remained a liability by allowing places for parasites to hide, so it gradually reduced to a minimal amount, due to evolutionary pressure. Head and facial hair, on the other hand, was still important because we left our heads at least partially uncovered to see, hear, breath, and speak. (Men have more facial hair than women, as an age and gender marker, and perhaps because men were likely to spend more time outside hunting, while women stayed closer to home.) StuRat (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry StuRat. Your explanation seems to bend evolution to fit your argument. There is a wide variation in the occurrence of body hair on different ethnic types. There are some African and Papuan New Guinea aboriginal people who wear little clothes and also appear to have little body hair. How does male baldness fit in to your theory? I suspect our evolution is not so simplistic. Richard Avery (talk) 08:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And furthermore, StuRat, what are you suggestion as the mechanism of selection which is supposed to have brought about that evolution? External parasites don't usually kill you. --ColinFine (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Our article Hair addresses most of these questions, and our article Androgenic hair addresses more of them. In fact, facial hair does not grow faster than scalp hair. Pubic hair, like facial hair, is androgenic hair, which grows to a shorter length before it stops growing than scalp hair does. If you were to shave pubic hair, you would see a growth pattern similar to that of facial hair. When it isn't shaved, it may appear not to grow; however, people constantly shed pubic hairs, and new hairs are constantly growing to replace them. As for the question of why some people have more body hair than others, we don't really know for sure, but some evidence points toward sexual selection. Body hair may have resulted in greater sexual success for men in some parts of the world than in others. The incidence of body hair is highest in the Mediterranean region, and is low among indigenous Siberians, and this suggests that the relatively higher incidence of body hair among male Europeans cannot be explained or solely explained by the need for insulation in a cold climate. The evidence suggests that the ancestors of people lost most of their body hair around 3 million years ago, but that our ancestors didn't start wearing clothing until about 100,000 years ago. So, the lack of body hair can't be explained by the use of clothing. Marco polo (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have just measured my own DBS clearance. It is 207.5mm wide by 404 mm deep (approx 8 3/16" x 15 7/16"), a fraction narrower than A4 and considerably longer. This includes the upper portion containing the recipient's address for posting, which is an integral part of the document. It feels slightly rougher along the long edges than the short, suggesting the possibility that it is continuous stationery, but this could also be due to the direction of the grain of the heavyweight watermarked paper used - I can't be sure. I cannot find any specific reference to paper this size elsewhere. Bearing in mind the importance of these certificates and the potential safeguarding implications of a successful forgery, it is quite possible that they have been deliberately designed to use a nonstandard paper size. - Karenjc(talk)18:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Smell of Sleep
Odd title, I know, it's just I have never heard anyone talk about this before. I have noticed that a bedroom always has a distinctive smell after someone has been sleeping in there for a few hours or so. I find this interesting because there is no such smell when the person has been in there for a few hours and not sleeping. I don't know if anyone has noticed this before, but if you have, please feel free to shed light on the reason for this. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK)17:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it matters. I was once a pubescent teenager, but I was never aware of this issue then. However, I have two sons who went through this stage, and who had separate rooms, and the smell that emanated from their rooms in the mornings was often quite something. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]05:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just say the "special use" to which Catherine legendarily put her stallion (note: a mare would not have done) was not remotely in the mind of Richard III. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]18:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One possible source I can suggest is dried saliva, as drooling may be a characteristic behavior in sleep among people not known to do so in a waking state. -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Site that meets these criteria
"We don't answer questions for opinion, prediction or debate," says this page at the top. Trust me, that's not what I'm looking for - all I want for the following is a consensus or consensi found online. Plus, I'm trying to find out this information for a friend.
Resolved
Thank you! Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 10:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
1) Yes
2) No
3) Maybe
.jpg)