Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/M

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

September 25

Anti-tampering device for laws

You've probably heard of anti-tampering devices for high explosives, which make it detonate if someone tries to defuse it. My question is, can there be a similar (legal) device for laws, to prevent certain parts from being amended? For example, a clause which states that if a certain part of the law is amended in a certain way, the whole law thereby becomes null and void -- would that be possible? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:EDA1:6DA2:2F4C:8E0A (talk) 08:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Human laws are made by humans through various political processes: any law-making body which had the authority to make a law with such a clause in it would necessarily possess the power to undo it at a later date. You could argue that there are such clauses in the laws of nature, or in divine laws - but there is no way to do that in human law. Wymspen (talk) 11:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about preventing certain parts of the law from being amended only during deliberations, before the law is passed (or not)? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:EDA1:6DA2:2F4C:8E0A (talk) 11:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Parliamentary sovereignty, which is sometimes stated that "Parliament can make no law that binds any future Parliament". Every law can be undone. Even in countries like the United States, which a clearer, explicit separation of powers, there are procedures for changing literally every law, even those written into the United States Constitution (see Article Five of the United States Constitution). All laws can be changed at any time for any reason, given sufficient political will. There is nothing which is not possible, for any given definition of "possible". No provisions that prevent future changes to any law are strictly binding, such provisions are only subject to the will of future political bodies to abiding by them. --Jayron 32 12:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However, you might be interested to read up on Super stare decisis.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)But it takes a certain amount of effort to change a ring - fenced provision. Members of Parliament are proactive - if a potential mischief becomes apparent in the course of a debate they will legislate to deal with it. If it found that legislation is not working as intended one of the available options when amending legislation is being discussed is to simply repeal it. A very strong option is to insert a sunset clause. Some laws can be amended by Statutory Instrument, which bypasses the normal procedure, but this can only be done if the original law (the "enabling legislation") permits it. Another method is to state that a law can only come into force upon the happening of a specified event. For example, the Easter Act 1928 can only be activated if the churches agree its provisions. This is not going to happen.

It's commonplace, when the law is thought to be one thing and judges decide otherwise, that amending legislation is passed to nullify the decision and return the law to what it was believed to be. 92.8.220.234 (talk) 12:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with anything Jayron32 said but the best example would probably be those countries with Eternity clauses (which doesn't include the US). There is also the wider issue of Entrenched clauses, however that also covers clauses which simply make it more difficult, including cases like NZ where such clauses may exist, but as our article states it's generally accepted that the parliamentary sovereignty means that parliament could simply repeal the legislation that entrenches certain provisions. Nil Einne (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis is probably one famous example of the consequences of such matters, although as our article sort of states, one issue there is the actually provisions for what how to handle the situation where a president seemed to violate these articles didn't seem to be well laid out. There are cases like Article 4 of the Constitution of Turkey which not only forbid amending certain provisions, but forbid proposing or suggesting to amend them. I seem to recall there was a case where this came up but can't seem to find it. Nil Einne (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The US Constitution has a provision or two which are forbidden to be amended, but otherwise it's pretty much fair game for amending. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, we have Sovereignty of Parliament (specifically Parliamentary sovereignty in the United Kingdom), so apart from that principle, nothing is immutable. Alansplodge (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you describe which provisions of the US constitution can't be amended? Our entrenches clause article linked above doesn't really seem to suggest there is such a thing. It mentions that the doctrine of separation of powers "is entrenched in the Constitution by a vesting clause" in the first 3 articles, but while our articles don't say this directly, it doesn't sound like this means it's forbidden to amend the parts which establish this principle. It also says that Article V of the US Constititution prevents certain provisions from being amended but only until 1808 which is long since passed. It also says that article 5 "has been intepreted to require unanimous ratification of any amendment altering the composition of the United States Senate", but not that amendments that deal with the area are completely forbidden. (The specific wording is

no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's the one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can't make it impossible, but you can make it more difficult:

A) Under contract law, see severability.

B) Constitutionality means that only laws permitted by the Constitution (and it's Amendments) may be enforced. Typically, the Constitution is designed to be more difficult to modify than regular laws, such as requiring a supermajority. For example, the US Amendment creating the Prohibition of alcohol just said what will be illegal, it didn't set penalties. That was done by enabling legislation, which was then easier to modify than the Amendment. So, effectively, they said "You can change the penalty for X, but you can't make it legal" with a normal law. But there is a flaw there, that if the penalty is low enough, and enforcement unfunded, it's as if it was legal.

C) Michigan lawmakers have an interesting trick to subvert the will of the people. All laws passed by the legislature are Constitutionally liable to be overturned by proposals submitted to the general population, unless those laws include fund allocations. Therefore, the legislators just tack on some absurd tiny fund allocation, to every unpopular bill they pass, to make it bullet-proof.

D) The more common problem of an X-Y linkage is not that both are passed, and then the Y part repealed, but rather that X is passed with the promise of Y, but Y never happens. For example, the promise that if Obamacare is repealed, a better medical care system that serves everyone for free at no cost to anyone will then be passed (this one is, of course, impossible). Or that if a trade treaty is put into place which will ship all manufacturing jobs to China, that those employees who lose their jobs will be compensated accordingly (possible, but expensive). The way to prevent this situation is to vote down any version of X which does not include Y right along with it. StuRat (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those of you who went to Sunday School will remember Daniel, who was thrown into a den of lions when he had a run-in with King Darius. Darius was a nice chap really, but had to go ahead with the throwing-to-the-lions thing because "the law of the Medes and Persians is, That no decree nor statute which the king establisheth may be changed". [1] It seems a rather flawed system to me. Alansplodge (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is, of course, the American Articles of Confederation which preceded the Constitution. It required a unanimous vote of the 13 Colonies to be amended: "[T]he Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."

When the much more centralized Constitution was drafted, they simply ignored the text of the Articles of Confederation, and added a clause that the new Constitution would take effect once 2/3 of the states had passed it, which indeed happened without any historically significant dissent--all 13 States did eventually ratify the new document. μηδείς (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[un-indent] This is all very fascinating information, but I have a rather more specific question: I am currently working on a draft bill to protect freedom of expression on the internet, and my problem is that one provision I have to include (one dealing with the definition of protected free speech and the exceptions from it) could, if amended in certain ways (in fact, simply by tacking on two or three more clauses to that section), completely undo the very purpose of the legislation. So, I'm looking for ways to prevent or at least hinder amending that particular clause (without necessarily doing the same for the rest of the bill, although if I could, that would be great!) 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:3805:A6E1:1618:EEB8 (talk) 06:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the best you can do is make it tamper evident. That is, state explicitly in the bill description that modifying those sections will completely undermine the spirit and meaning of the bill. If you could get whoever introduces the bill to state for the record that he will withdraw the bill (if allowed) if that modification is made, or at least withdraw his support, that would help, too.

It sounds like you are already aware that if politicians are opposed to popular measure X, one way to get their way is to actually pass an extremely weak bill, supposedly supporting X. They can then oppose any future strong bills supporting X, arguing that we already have a bill that supports X. Yet another way to subvert the will of the majority and instead support whatever special interest is lining their pockets. StuRat (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A perceived problem with the European Union was that there was no way out. That is why Article 50 was drafted. There doesn't seem to be any way out of the European Monetary Union either (apart from being ejected for failure to obey the rules). People who are on companies' mailing lists sometimes find the only way they can get off is to annoy them in some way (they then get blacklisted and offers cease).

Isn't legislation in America (apart from the usual channels) instituted by a citizen drawing up a proposal and then submitting it to a referendum? Then I would imagine it would have to be formally adopted by some legislature, and the members could do whatever they wanted to it. 92.8.220.234 (talk) 12:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only in some states, and then only for state laws. See Initiatives and referendums in the United States. Most laws, at the state and especially at the Federal level, are written by ~~corportations for the purpose of maximizing their profits~~ lobbyists. They get those laws passed by ~~bribery~~ campaign donations. --Jayron 32 17:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See my item C above for one way Michigan gets around this requirement. There are others, like getting it thrown out because "the language is unclear", or because a tiny portion of the signatures are found to be invalid. They also know to only toss them out the last day that proposals can be accepted, so that there is no time to fix the proposal and resubmit. If all else fails, a sympathetic clerk, or one in need of cash, can be convinced to misfile the proposal. StuRat (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was the exact case in my Father's town. An illegal bill was passed hiring for new positions and raising the pay of the sitting town governors when they had not yet passed a legally mandated budget, that by state law, had to be passed as the first item of business as the new session began in January, before any other bill. The town took up a petition to mandate a referendum, and on the last day referenda could be filed, the town clerk disqualified the petition as having 100 invalid signatures. μηδείς (talk) 02:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[un-indent] Thanks, all! I guess that other than getting the bill's sponsor in Congress to withdraw the bill if it gets weakened in certain ways (which is hard but possible, with the new wave of public accountability sweeping the House, though not so much the Senate so far), my best bet would be to make the clauses in question into entrenched provisions. Which begs the question: How does one do that in a federal bill? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:3805:A6E1:1618:EEB8 (talk) 11:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with laws is that they are just words, no different from prayers in essences; they express wishes, but don't enforce themselves. Laws are even worse, since they are the work of committees, and you have to pass them to find out what is in them. μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Veeck once said that when a governing body passes a rule, the first thing they do is try to figure out ways around it. He was talking about MLB owners, but it could apply anywhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly seemed to be the case when Prohibition passed in the US. StuRat (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We even got a mobster sent as a diplomat to the Court of St. James, a president, an attorney general, a failed invasion, a war in SE Asia, two assassinations and a girl drowned in a Senator's back seat out of that amendment, just to mention a few things. μηδείς (talk) 02:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Astonishingly, nothing in our article supports the mobster story.DOR (HK) (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories#Organized crime conspiracy does. Alansplodge (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 27

US blackout fatalities

North Korea conducting EMP attack over the US would result in blackout over much of the country. I saw it in one article that an EMP attack over the US could result in up to 90% of US deaths. I don't believe that it would kill this many people. During the great blackout people can readily find ways to survive without electricity for months or years, while getting assistance from other countries or regions that still have power. So cash in the opinions of how many fatalities could be resulted from the EMP attack. Planet Star 04:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's your source ? It seems completely wrong in all sorts of ways. There's the ability of NK to deliver missiles over the US, the existence of EMP warheads for those missiles, the idea that this could cause such a long blackout, and the idea that it would cause so many fatalities. What exactly would be the mechanism for those fatalities ? StuRat (talk) 04:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smartphone, video game and internet withdrawal: it's not a pretty way to go. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes suffer from video game withdrawal, but I'm still very much alive! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:3805:A6E1:1618:EEB8 (talk) 11:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdotal evidence. Those who die of video game withdrawal aren't around to post to Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EMP attacks are very small scale. The largest EMP attack available to any country right now is a high-altitude nuclear explosion. That might be enough to disable a medium-sized city, but it would not take out a nation (maybe one of those single-city nations that only exist for trivia questions). Assume that someone were to take out all power for New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. That would mean that three nuclear strikes hit the United States and exploded at high altitude. Why? Why not nuke the cities? OK. Go with the EMP strike even though it makes no sense... So, those three cities are without power and, quickly, radioactive material rains down on the cities. The people won't be worrying about playing Pokemon Go. They will be suffering from radiation sickness. The rest of the nation will be flooded with an onslaught of "Is the radiation gonna blow your way!?!?" sensationalistic news and there won't be any late-night talk shows to watch (they all come from New York, LA, and Chicago). We'd likely cancel professional sports for a short time. That would suck. I figure most people would be asking why nobody bombed Washington DC. Perhaps the bad dudes realize that taking out the politicians would solve most of the problems in the nation. In the end, this answer becomes more absurd than the original question. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 12:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of guessing, go to Nuclear electromagnetic pulse and read about the results of actual nuclear EMP tests and the predictions based upon calculations. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out a place in that article where it makes it clear what damage will be done over what radius? When the Russians tested high altitude EMP, the ground radius was much smaller than the blast radius. When we have solar blasts that cause EMP, the ground radius is usually nearly zero with very large radius of impact on the atmosphere. There are a lot of pictures that like to show the entire U.S. under a blue curve, but they lack information explaining that curve means. So, it comes down to what I think is a very simple question: If a 50 megaton nuke (average in size) explodes 100 miles above Central Park in New York City, how far away will all power services be blasted? Will Los Angeles lose power? There should be a theoretical radius, but there is so much alarmist idiocy on the Internet, finding useful information is extremely difficult. Note: U.S. tests have shown that the EMP's ability to knock out power is limited. Starfish Prime had an EMP that went out at least 800 miles, but after 100 miles, the EMP wasn't very dangerous. At 800 miles, it popped some light bulbs and burned of a microwave antenna. It didn't kill the power grid in any way. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article [2], the 90% deaths claim actually originates from the science fiction novel One Second After. Former Congressman Roscoe Bartlett apparently relied on this novel when describing the potential risk of an EMP to American society. And of course, once he did that, the story made the rounds whether or not the claims were justified. Dragons flight (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I read the novel, the 90% claim was based on general societal breakdown and the lack of farming skills, medical care and the rule of law, over a period of one year. The protagonist's daughter dies an agonizing death from type I diabetes shortly before the military can restore order. The blast itself kills no one directly. μηδείς (talk) 01:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If a religion can be based on a sci-fi book, I suppose anything is possible. StuRat (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

@StuRat: That is not a religion. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it is officially a religion according to the US government: Scientology#Scientology_as_a_religion. 01:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Fortunately, anyone can believe in Belgium, China or Italy instead. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:09, September 29, 2017 (UTC)

That book seemed to assume most of our allies were taken out, too, except Mexico. If they weren't, I would expect generators, new wiring, fuel, etc., to be delivered over the course of the next few months from the allies. The main concern they listed was lack of food, but there would be fresh foods for a few days, until they spoiled, then canned foods, salamis, etc., then people who lived near orchards, etc., could go pick their own food. If the situation got desperate, there would be people eating family pets, I suppose, cooked over a campfire. And the average American has enough extra fat on them to last a couple months without food, in any case.

I should think the lack of water and sewage treatment would be the more serious problem. Boiling river water would make it safe enough, but the fuel to boil it with (propane, gasoline, wood) might be hard to find, after a while. StuRat (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's less a question of how to keep food fresh as it is how to distribute it. Supermarkets run out real fast during Truckers' strikes. If we accept the premise that all mechanization will fail during an attack, there would be no realistic way of getting food into cities. ApLundell (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have a crabapple tree, which is just considered an annoyance now, but we could resort to eating them if we got hungry enough. Then we have Canada geese all over the place, which would make a nice meal for a family (maybe several). They are so bold now, we could just walk over and hit them with a bat, but I suspect they would become harder to kill after the first few. There are many such hidden food sources around. StuRat (talk) 00:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eating crab apples is a bad idea if there's a shortage of toilet paper :-) "Every Susquehanna toddler knew that eating crab apple raw was guaranteed to bring on the Green Apple Quick Step". Native American Speakers of the Eastern Woodlands (p. 58) Alansplodge (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diesel trucks and tractors are immune to EMP, so food will still be able to be grown and (in daytime only) delivered. 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:3805:A6E1:1618:EEB8 (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are they immune ? As with gasoline engines, I can believe that old versions lacked electronics, but I'd have to suspect that new ones do. StuRat (talk) 01:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think Diesels would be easier to convert to run without their electrical system. Which in the mythical all-destroying EMP scenario would be immensely useful. I dunno if it's realistic to imagine entire fleets of trucks being converted, though. I don't have a good idea of how many people would be capable of and available to do that work. ApLundell (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in such a disaster that crabapple tree might be handy ... for you. But, a huge percentage of Americans live in cities and/or in suburbs too dense for that sort of thing.

But even so, I think you'd find that you exhaust the local fruit trees really quickly, even if the disaster happens in exactly the right season. There's a reason hunter-gatherers were nomads instead of hunkering down permanently in the middle of a grove of fruit trees.

One Tree produces 20-200kg of apples.[3] Apples are 500cal per kilo.[4] Assuming a 2000 cal diet (Can't skimp on this, you're going to be working outdoors.) that's 4 kilos per person per day. So your tree will produce 5 to 50 person-days per year. A decorative crab-apple tree will be on the low end of that range, and this assumes no losses to insects, squirrels, etc.
A goose might have 2000 cal of usable meat on it. So add one person-day per goose you manage to bag.
If you know your local edible plants without consulting Wikipedia, or if there's a good fishing hole nearby, you may be able to scavange a bit more, but that will take time that you could be dedicating to Apples and Geese, and you won't be the only person with that idea. So those resources will go fast.
In cities, I imagine there'd suddenly be a lot less pigeons, but it wouldn't help. Believe it or not, New York has more people than pigeons, so even eating all of them wouldn't feed the city for even a single day.

If the disaster happened any time other than early autumn, the apples, and perhaps the migratory geese, would not be available.

Doing the math, we start to see why before industrialization over 90% of the workforce[5] were full-time farmers (and other food-producers). They weren't doing that because they were bored and the TV hadn't been invented yet. They were doing it because that's what's required to stay fed. The idea that you could just slip back into that lifestyle with what you happen to have on hand is so optimistic that it's just a fantasy. ApLundell (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, this was all the long way of saying that the idea that we're surrounded by "hidden food sources" might be a good way to keep your diet nutritionally diverse during a depression, but expecting hunting/gathering to be the primary food source for a modern population is crazy. The math doesn't even come close to working. ApLundell (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't suggest it would be a permanent food source, just that it would prevent starvation long enough for rescuers from elsewhere to bring in supplies, re-establish the power grid, etc. And I'd expect less than 2000 calories a day, with people slowly losing weight, until that happened. Also, a Canada Goose is larger than your average goose, so I'd expect more usable meat. I wouldn't suggest using it as a calorie source so much as a protein source. Crabapples, canned goods, etc., can provide the calories. (I also stockpile red kidney beans and tomato paste for chili. I have about 100 cans of each right now.) StuRat (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, some preppers have large stocks of canned food. But most people will be out of food by the end of the week if the shops close. (And modern urban shops are perpetually about two days from being out of stock on most items.)

The fact that a few semi-preppers out in the subburbs with apples trees in their yard and geese flying overhead could survive months, doesn't negate the fact that our great population centers would very quickly be full of starving people.

Exploiting the local "hidden food" would not noticably help in a place like NYC. It's a nice idea, but the math doesn't work. NYC cannot feed 8 million hunter/gatherers for even a day.

ApLundell (talk) 15:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to me with what 209.149.113.5 is saying. The size of the nuclear blast is too small to feel the blast and EMP over great swath of America as the blast is only a tiny portion of the size of Usmerica. Usmerica doing EMP attack on North Korea would probably take out power over the whole country as it is small enough. Planet Star 22:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to point out that there is a big difference between the radius of the explosion, the radius of EMP that will disable the power grid, and the radius of EMP that will be measurable. I'm sure that if a nuke goes off in New York, it will be measurable in LA. I just don't see any evidence that it will disable the power grid in LA. According to previous experiments, it may be a minor annoyance in Chicago. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't there a page for this person?

I'm 99% sure that I created a page for the Danish law expert Peter Leif Vesterdorf (Peter L. Vesterdorf) not too long ago, but it isn't there now. I can't find it in the deletion log, either.

I'd say he merits a page, since he's well known from the media - usually referred to as "a/the leading expert" - and the author of a number of books, some of which have been translated into other languages and have been internationally recognised as important works of reference. He was also included in the Danish Who's Who (Kraks Blå Bog) some years ago, and has received the Order of Dannebrog. In other words, I don't see why a page about him would've been deleted.

I should mention that I'm a family member of Peter L. Vesterdorf's, and I'm aware that that fact might raise suspicions of bias - but I assure you I'd never write a Wikipedia article about him (or indeed anyone) in anything but a completely neutral, factual tone. And in any case, as I said, the article doesn't seem to be in the deletion log, so I'm confused. Can anyone enlighten me? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.71.142.50 (talk)

Your IP address has no other edits to the English Wikipedia and I can find no trace of the name here. A similar IP address added the name to a list of students in the Danish Wikipedia in 2015: [6]. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 28

Scary - Are Aileen Wuornos Words Predicted

request for comment/debate on youtube video, not for references--WP:NOTAFORUM

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi. Is Wuornos predicting the big Nuke for 2019, now after North Korea, Iran and Trump ? Listen to her at 5:50 in this Clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9ytpB-lOBQ 2001:7E8:D206:4501:C8C5:364:8499:AC6D (talk) 11:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Aileen Wuornos died in 2002, so she's not predicting anything for 2019. Nyttend (talk) 01:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you watch the video? She predicts that "you're all going to get nuked in 2019". Akld guy (talk) 03:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did she make any other predictions that came true? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know and I don't care. She made a prediction. The OP didn't ask whether she had a track record of being right. Akld guy (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can predict anything. What's special about this? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the OP's asking. Why are you so argumentative? Akld guy (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the OP's asking. The OP's arguing that the ravings of a serial killer are somehow significant. The OP (or you, if it's you) needs to clarify why they think it matters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on now, don't suggest that I'm trolling by sockpuppeting when you can see that the OP is located in Luxembourg and I'm in Auckland, New Zealand. That's a personal attack. Akld guy (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I merely thought you might have posted while logged out. No sockpuppetry allegation, no personal attack. I don't know where either of you is based. As to the OP's question, it's rather silly, and I just want to know what's so special about a serial killer making a "prediction", or more to the point, why it matters. It's really just a debate-forum type of question, and should have been deleted on-sight. Maybe too late now. Referencing what Jack said below, if Wuornos had also "predicted" that Trump would be president and that we might be on the verge of war with North Korea, then that might be something of an attention-getter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For those who don't know how to determine location, click on the ip's number to get to his/her Contributions page, then click on "Geolocate" at the bottom. This can be done at most ips' Contributions pages. Akld guy (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she is saying we're all going to be nuked in 2019, but whether that has anything to do with Trump, North Korea or Iraq is anyone's guess. Was she known as some sort of seer/psychic, in amongst her murderous activities? Do you have any rational basis to consider her words "scary"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, she was an psychotic serial killer, and we have nothing scholarly or referenced to say about this--it's essentially clickbait, and certainly not a subject of research or a way to improve the project. The only "source" is the video itself of a raving lunatic just prior to her execution. μηδείς (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does any jurisdiction require that donations to politicians be anonymous ?

This would serve a function similar to anonymous votes. That is, elected politicians wouldn't be able to discriminate against people who voted against them or who didn't given them money. The mechanism could be a gov org which accepts the contributions then passes them on to the designated recipients anonymously. A side benefit would be that politicians wouldn't need to evaluate the suitability of donors, and then return contributions from white supremists, etc. If politicians asks if you've contributed to them before agreeing to meet, you could just lie and say you had, but hopefully asking the Q would be illegal, too. StuRat (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the reverse is usually true, especially over a certain amount. The Obama campaign was fined a record amount in 2013 over illegal donations, including foreign contributions, contributions made without proof of the 3 digit security code (to show actual possession of the card) accepting more than the $46,000 limit from individual donors and suspected robo-donations where large amounts are broken up into smaller batches of prepaid cards to avoid detection. US News ABC. μηδείς (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of "Cutts"

Does anybody know the origin of Cutts as a first name? I couldn't find any appropriate etymological information for the given name.--Tuchiel (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard it used as a first name, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's much more common as a last name (see Cutts (surname)). Various more-or-less reliable online sites claim its origin is from the first name Cuthbert and the saint of that name, but it could also be a modified spelling of a foreign surname (e.g. Kotz or Katz). --Xuxl (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Xuxl: Okay, thanks a lot!--Tuchiel (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Curved window panes

Is there a name for those rectangular curved glass panes: File:FreihofSulz2.jpg? --тнояsтеn ⇔ 20:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are called blown-glass panes, as they were cut from round blown glass. Making flat panes of any great size was not possible until the industrial revolution. This article on antique panes discusses the two types, crown and cylinder panes. μηδείς (talk) 02:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but that is something different. Those rectangular panes are not mouth-blown but formed from flat panes (heated in oven and formed in a mould by gravity). In German it is called Wölbglas. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 07:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found Crown glass (window), but that's also blown. --Wrongfilter (talk) 07:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a special form of curved glass ([7], [8], [9], [10]). --тнояsтеn ⇔ 12:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wölbglas isn't curved, it's slumped. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They're the German equivalent of the 1970s British fascination for bullseye glass.

Window glass used to be difficult to make, expensive and showed artifacts of its manufacture. The more visible the artifact, the cheaper each pane. Often a building would have its best panes at the front, most distorted at the back, or in a basement. There were two main manufacturing processes, mouth blowing a sphere, cutting it to a disc and spinning it to thin it (crown glass) or mouth blowing a cylinder, cutting and unrolling it (hand cylinder glass). Britain favoured crown glass, mainland Europe favoured cylinder (this was largely influenced by the fuel used and the type of glass furnace).

German glass artifacts were about the planes being curved. Although this was a single curvature, and sometimes (for cheap glass) a third curved edge, it was rare to have four curved edges and unknown where this was on a non-rectangular panel.

In time, an affectation developed for these curved edges. They became a feature of some cabinetry (I think Austria was the centre of this) although that was plate glass, cast, ground and polished. In modern times, the idea of curved edge panes has become a kitsch feature for domestic glass. It's now moulded deliberately that way, by slumping over a steel frame, to any size or shape needed.

It makes as much sense as Britain's phase of faux Dickensiana where every front window became a curved bay full of obscured bullseyes. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Found de:Diskussion:Butzenscheibe--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion mainly deals with blown glass. Is тнояsтеn satisfied that he has answered his own question with Wölbglas? Googling that I found images but not text in English, and one forum in French complaining they could not find the French term for Wölbglas! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 18:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for the English term. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 17:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't an English equivalent for the glass, so there isn't an equivalent term. Our nearest would be bevelled glass, which is thick plate glass, ground and polished. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I've never seen glass like that in the UK and Google couldn't find me any. It seems to be a German peculiarity. Alansplodge (talk) 09:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 29

Truss type

I found this unusual truss bridge a couple of weeks ago while hiking. What kind of truss is it? Unless I'm confused, the structure is basically

/|\|\|\|X|/|/|/|\/\

It doesn't seem to match anything in Commons:Category:Truss bridge drawings. Maybe it's just an ad hoc bridge that some NPS crew built because it was what the foreman thought would work? Nyttend (talk) 01:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my guess, and mind you I'm no a bridge expert. I imagine it's a combo of a few things. Note where the bridge bolts down to the earth. On one side it happens diagonally, and the other vertically. I don't think that's a structure decision so much as a practical one. Without those, it looks like a normal Pratt (I think). The difference is in the X in the middle, I'm guessing that was an aesthetic addition. Granted I could be completely wrong, but it's an interesting question. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 04:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pratt truss The diagonals slope downwards to make a V, thus they're in tension and it's a Pratt. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baked goods or pastry?

If I was to walk into a bakery store in Scotland and asked for 6 Americans, what would I get? My grandson saw this on some UK TV show. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of them. I live in England, but spend a fair amount of time in Edinburgh. --ColinFine (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any chance that he remembers what show it was CambridgeBayWeather? I've been Googling various word combinations and it looks like something is "lost in the translations" :-) If not hopefully someone else will know. MarnetteD|Talk 00:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He said it was Impractical Jokers UK. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 02:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blank looks. Dbfirs 09:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to observe that slang in the UK can be extremely localised. Any widespread usage might have resulted in an internet presence, which we have so far failed to detect. Alansplodge (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many years ago I saw an episode of a show called "You've Been Framed!" The setup usually plays out in the clip. What happened when the reporter asked the question? 82.14.24.95 (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blind people and hallucinations

Do blind people get visual hallucinations (e.g. when using LSD)? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What did you get when you searched for blind people hallucinations in Google? In my case, it found this and this and this among many others. Matt Deres (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I googled it in my own language and the results were rather unimpressive. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 230th and final result I see appears to be "Online USA Drugstore: Viagra spray Pfizer money back guaranteed", but when I click it, it morphs into AWC Drugstore, run by the iMENA Group from Dubai Media City. I didn't even know media cities were real. Quite impressive. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:20, September 29, 2017 (UTC)

I'll just give Oliver Sacks as a blanket source who discusses many hallucinations in people with damage to their sight, But while people who go blind after a certain age can report or be found to suffer from visual hallucinations, people who are blind from birth have undeveloped visual cortices, (see Matt's second source above) mostly reused for other purposes (especially hearing) and although they might imaginably experience visual-type qualia, there would be no common reference point for us to compare or communicate such things.

In other words, never having seen a rose, they might hypothetically experience red when they touch soft things, but never having seen a rose or anything red they could not say, oh, I see the color of a rose when I touch my cotton bedclothes. μηδείς (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 30