Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 July 11

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 11

Downloading pirated material. America vs Canada

Why is it in the united states it seems that there is some type of fear hovered over downloading music and you can even be fined for doing so, yet in canada we can "freely" do it without fear of fines or lawsuits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivtv (talk • contribs) 02:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

For the same reason that nobody writes viruses to attack Macintosh computers. From the record company's point of view, having a legal team to deal with Canadian law to stop Canadian music pirates is probably not worth the expense. They would be well within their rights to sue in Canadian courts for copyright violations, and basic theft of services, but they don't because, at less than 10% of the U.S. population, it is much more financially lucrative to just concentrate on the U.S. pirates. In otherwords, the return on investment for prosecuting Canadian music thiefs is not good enough to justify it in the same way that it is in the U.S. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh no! Canada's actual population is almost 11% of the US population, so this must mean they are about to sue us all after all! --Anonymous (Canadian), 05:50 UTC, July 11, 2009.

Well that was quite the informative response and makes so much sense. Never thought of it that way.Ivtv (talk) 03:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Note also that the copyright law in Canada and US is significantly different in its treatment of music downloads:

• In 2003, the Canadian copyright board pronounced that downloading copyrighted music for private use "from peer-to-peer networks is legal in Canada, although uploading files is not". (see this article or page 21 of this report).
• In 2008 the Canadian government proposed to update the copyright law to bring it more in line with international norms, but AFAIK the changes haven't been enacted yet. (see the Copyright Reform Process website)

This difference in law may well explain why RIAA has not succeeded in suing Canadians for downloading copyrighted music (the economic principle explained by Jayron32, may also be a factor). Caveat: I am not a lawyer, and cannot attest under what conditions and circumstances downloading copyrighted music in Canada is legal and if there have been other changes in the law, so as usual, do it at your own risk! Abecedare (talk) 03:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, please do not construe my explanation as advice in any way. Who knows, maybe tomorrow the industry will start suing Canadians. As I noted, they would be well within their rights to do so, pursuant to the differences noted by Abecedare above. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 04:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I am not trying to justify any actions that I may or may not take part part in in reference the question asked. It was just for informational purposes. Personally I would enjoy getting sued for an insane amount of money seeing how I have very little assets and I would enjoy the 15 mins of fame. Was just curious after reading about swedens laws vs TPB. Ivtv (talk) 05:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to go with Jayron and assume it has to do with the size of Canada vs. U.S. It would be a little like organizing a major protest against fast food and focusing one's energies on White Castle. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe the size issue is the primary factor or even necessarily a large one in the lack of Canadian lawsuits. Lawsuits have been brought in countries with a smaller population [1] [2]. The primary reason is probably local laws, and the difficulty, cost and chance of success. As has been mentioned, Canada has various laws which make it far more difficult for actions to be brought, e.g. [3]. Here in NZ, the high cost of data has probably reduced the amount of file sharing, and our size is probably somewhat of a factor (but in pure population terms we aren't much smaller then Singapore and are much larger then Iceland) but another big issue is probably that I don't believe our ISPs have been that cooperative. I'm only aware of one ISP which is known to forward on notices of copyright infrigement and disconnect users after excessive notices (Xnet), the others have tended to ignore such requests and asked those making the notices to go to the police. Unless you can identify the person responsible for the internet account and contact them, how can you target anyone? There was a failed attempt to require disconnection, which likely would have required ISPs to forward on the legal notices they receive (but not necessarily reveal the customer details) which was abandoned after a mini-uprising. Remember if a country has strong privacy laws, and unless there's a clear law or legal order requiring the ISP to give up their customer details to people alleging copyright infrigement, the ISP is not liable to cooperate since that would put them at risk of lawsuits from customers. P.S. It's worth remembering the RIAA is obviously not going to be the ones bringing the lawsuit outside the US, e.g. Canada while part of North America and the Americas, is not America. The CRIA perhaps... Nil Einne (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Jayron is wrong in making the idiotic statement "having a legal team to deal with Canadian law to stop Canadian music pirates is probably not worth the expense". The Canadian recording industry brought a number of such lawsuits in 2004 but the Federal Court declined to order various ISPs to disclose the names of the John Doe defendants.[4] Citefixer1965 (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Then the Canadian courts were equally idiotic, because such a ruling essentially declares the concept of "copyright" as null and void. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Canada is a signatory of the Berne convention - they can't do that. SteveBaker (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, you don't know what you're talking about here. The court's decision[5] was based ultimately on a careful weighing of the strength of the evidence before it against the privacy rights of the ISP’s customers. But in any event, section 80 of the Copyright Act might well have been a valid defence to copyright infringement, in the context of copying music for private use, although it depends on whether the term “audio recording medium” encompasses a computer hard drive. Citefixer1965 (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If they decide that someone's "privacy" would be violated by working to uncover piracy, then the courts basically say "F.U." to copyright. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

So violation of privacy is always justified when working to uncover crime. I take it you'd be happy if, right now, a team of armed soldiers invaded your house to check you aren't harbouring illicit substances? Algebraist 01:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, you are still missing the point. If you read the decision you will see that the court did not say anything like "f.u." to copyright. What's important is to balance the strength of the evidence in each particular case against the privacy interests involved. In that case, the relevant evidence was all hearsay and therefore inadmissible. In a future case, if the evidence is strong enough to outweigh the privacy interest, then the court would order the ISPs to disclose the name and address sought. Citefixer1965 (talk) 02:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Burning a candle in washroom

Suppose if the ventilation fan in one's bathroom is broken and one is defecating and passing flatulence, would lighting a candle in the washroom help remove the unpleasant smell? Acceptable (talk) 03:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

A scented candle, sure. I can't see what a regular candle would do. It will cause some minor convection currents but that will just move the smells around the room. --Tango (talk) 03:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Would it burn off the methane? Acceptable (talk) 03:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Methane is flammable, but the unpleasant odor of flatus is caused by other compounds, like butyric acid, hydrogen sulphide and carbonyl sulphide. So the real question is whether those other compounds can be oxidized into different compounds that don’t smell bad. Red Act (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Mythbusters did it. If you look it up on their website, you can probably find the episode. In summation, the best that could be said was that the smell of the burning may mask the odor, but it did not appreciably lower the concentration of the offending compounds in the air. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 04:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Not surprising. Even if the compounds can be oxidized by the flame, they are dispersed through the air and this oxidization will only take place in one small place, affecting only a small part. There isn't enough concentration of the compounds for the reaction to propagate farther. Which is just as well. If a gas (methane, for example) is mixed with air in a room under conditions where a candle flame would be enough to start it oxidizing throughout the room, the result would be a gas explosion that could well destroy the whole building! Or as they say, do not try this at home! --Anonymous, 05:57 UTC, July 11, 2009.

It hasn't been mentioned so far, but methane is completely odourless. You only smell the gas in your house because they add stuff to it for that purpose. Vimescarrot (talk) 09:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

ANd interestingly enough, they generally add to it the same sort of compounds that make your farts stink. Which is why people mistakenly believe that farts smell like methane, or visa versa. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 13:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Gotta say I've never thought a gas leak smelled anything like my own, er, gas leaks. The additive is a mercaptan, iirc. —Tamfang (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that one of the more important features of a ventilation fan in a bathroom is not removable of odours, but removal of condensation to prevent things like damp and warping of ceilings etc. (I.e. if you have a broken fan it's advisable to get it fixed or make sure you open a window when using the shower/bath). ny156uk (talk) 13:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll second Ny156uk's suggestion, but will add that you don't have to light a candle to remove the smell, just strike a match. The smell of that sulfur and phosphorus is so sharp and distinct that it easily covers over any... other smells in there. But get the fan fixed anyway! Matt Deres (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Name of this Childish behaviour

A common behaviour I see mainly in children and sometimes in teenagers is characterized by the following: suppose the child is humming annoyingly, or otherwise doing an action that is annoying someone, that someone else, say a teacher, tells the child to stop. Instead of completely stopping the humming, the child hums more softly and quieter so as to assert his defiance of authority and show that "the teacher can't boss him around." What is this behaviour called? Acceptable (talk) 09:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Rebelliousness. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Being stubborn. Dismas|^(talk) 09:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Passive–aggressive behavior; really the teacher can boss him around (otherwise he'd just ignore the request altogether), but he complies with the request only as little as he thinks he can get away with, and makes a point of showing this. It's not full-on defiance, but it's the minimum possible compliance. 87.115.94.112 (talk) 10:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, another phrase that I run across in legal contexts is "mere compliance", where an entity complies with restrictions just far enough to avoid getting explicitly sanctioned for breaking them. ~ mazca ^talk 11:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. This behavior is by no means limited to children. I recall something Bill Veeck said about his fellow MLB club owners, which is also behavior observable in the general adult populace: "As soon as they pass a rule, they start figuring out ways around it." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Could it be called taunting? The youngster is daring the adult to demand that what is already almost inaudible be stopped completely. There is a form of intellectual behavior here that has to be admired. The child is challenging you to distinguish between your need to have a satisfying environment, free of annoying noises, and your need to assert authority. It is understood by all concerned parties that had the volume of the annoyance been at the secondary (lower) level from the start, there would have been no need for admonitions from the adult. The child is shifting the focus of the disagreement from that of disturbing noises to that of an adult's need to assert authority. It is probably best in this instance not to be outsmarted by the child. It is probably best to smile and say how wonderful the lower volume of humming is. Bus stop (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Handyman's secret weapon

And if that doesn't work, there's always the handyman's secret weapon. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

For a closer-to-home example of this kind of thing among presumed adults, check this out: [6] If only it were so easily handled in real life. (Hence the previous sentence.) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It's the pipsqueak version of working to rule. --Sean 15:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't it just be that the child doesn't understand why the adult could possibly find the humming annoying? Just a thought. ~AH1^(TCU) 09:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Did Asimov smoke?

I've been reading Isaac Asimov's books for a while and noticed that some (maybe most) of his characters are depicted smoking cigarettes, cigars or pipes. Was the good doctor a smoker himself? 88.242.145.177 (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears that he did not smoke. 152.16.59.190 (talk) 10:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been flipping through In Joy Still Felt, because I think there's a place in there somewhere where he says something like "I had never smoked and now I finally decided that I would no longer tolerate smoking in my home", but I couldn't find it. Maybe it was the wrong book or I was looking in the wrong part of his life. Anyway, I did find two other mentions that make it clear that he didn't smoke:

• Chapter 33, section 21, at a writers' conference:

John Ciardi held court before and after dinner and we all gathered around him for drinking, smoking, and talking. Since I neither drank nor smoked, I had to make up for it with the third item, and night after night, it became a matter of John and I one-upping each other. It was John who won, and at the very close, too...

• Chapter 39, section 6, at a dinner devoted to environmental causes:

The dinner was excellent, but after it was over, two cigars and three cigarettes were lit in my vicinity and I simply got up and left. I wrote a letter afterward to the man who had invited me and explained that I thought human beings who considered themselves committed to the preservation of the environment should not pollute and, far more important, should not pollute the air of their nonsmoking neighbors with carcinogenic smoke.

--Anonymous, 10:44 UTC, July 11, 2009.

I read that Mr Asimov was cremated. As such, the answers may have to be reconsidered. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

But in that case, he probably only smoked once. Googlemeister (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Silence

How does one practice talking less? sumal (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The same way as one practices anything else, by doing it lots. Try thinking about everything you are about to say before you say it and decide if it is actually worth saying. --Tango (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to nominate a "World Think Before You Speak Day". Richard Avery (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The trouble with thinking before speaking is that I never get the floor because no one else waits. —Tamfang (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Go to a religious "retreat" where nobody speaks. This will encourage you to also not speak. -- SGBailey (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Silence Is Golden. Be silent, or let your words be worth more than gold. 152.16.59.190 (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Learn the acronym WAIT (Why Am I Talking?) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Accept who you are and be it. Ivtv (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Or, since the reference desk is in a philosophical mood today: "Those who know don't talk. Those who talk don't know." At least according to Laozi. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

He said that? QED. SteveBaker (talk) 02:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I am quite sure he was perfectly aware of the inherent contradiction of that. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I dunno - he was a philosopher. If he'd thought about it, it would have been named "Laozi's paradox" by now. SteveBaker (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Socrates 86.140.144.220 (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"'Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt" - wikiquote attributes this to Mark Twain. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems like it might be inspired by a saying that was a paraphrase from Boethius: "si tacuisset, philosophus mansisset." ("If he had kept silent, he would have remained a philosopher.") . --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I do believe that this is one of the few questions for which the delicious Ring Lardner line is exactly appropriate: "Shut up," he explained. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear Power mistake

Why in the article about nuclear power Italy is considered a non nuclear state? Italian Parliament has already voted to start again with the nuclear program. The Gouvernment decided to build 8-9 new nuclear centres.4 are EPR. Above all Italy always had in the last years some reactors always on for civil and military researches (Base di S.Piero a Grado -Pisa). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giosue' Campi (talk • contribs) 16:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Having a nuclear program doesn't make you a nuclear state. The term is usually used to refer to nations that have nuclear weapons. As far as I know, Italy doesn't. --Tango (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Having nukes on paper-only is the ultimate in, if you'll pardon the ironic metaphor, "vaporware". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Italy is not trying to make nuclear weapons (they are signatories to the NPT and would suffer harsh penalties if they tried to), on paper or otherwise. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Signatories to the NPT that develop nukes suffer harsh penalties! Good one! Knee slapper! Tempshill (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Where's the joke? Only one country (North Korea) has ever violated the NPT in this fashion, and has suffered international ostracism and embargos as a result. Such penalties are certainly harsh enough to stop Italy even considering such a move. Algebraist 18:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If this is about electricity generated by nuclear reactors, Italy has no current commercial scale reactors runnnig. The "Nuclear power by country" template shows Italy in the 0 Mw category and the article discussing it is energy in Italy which oddly almost entirely discusses energy that Italy doesn't have. That will need to be expanded. Rmhermen (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Italy used to have power reactors, but has not for some time. According to List_of_nuclear_reactors#Italy, they have two TRIGA research reactors, but usually those by themselves don't count for whether your country is really a "nuclear state" or not (they allow for experiments but that is all). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

In the article there is the citation of referendum.With this new law the will of referendum is ended and Italy will have first nuclear reactors for power in 2013.About nuclear weapons Italy has( non officially ) nukes built in France and UK as also former Italian President of Republic Cossiga(He knows Italian Army more than me and you) declared several times.In the arsenal of La Spezia military haorbour Italy owns several Polaris A3 ready to be used (they can be carried also by ships).Check also other sources in Wikipedia.Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giosue' Campi (talk • contribs) 07:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine, but not nuclear weapons. That's what you need to be a "nuclear state". Not that I'm suggesting it's something to aspire to :-)

We'll try to stay/serene and calm/when Alabama/gets the bomb -- Tom Lehrer

--Trovatore (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, I guess I hadn't read beyond the first sentence. Really?? There are live nuclear weapons with Silvio's finger on the trigger?? If true, that's huge. --Trovatore (talk) 08:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they're Italian. I'm guessing it's a NATO weapons sharing thing. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 09:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know that in this place there were a lot of people that knew Italy much better than the former Homeland Minister, Prime Minister and also President of the Republic F.COSSIGA.It's very fine and interesting.The Polaris A3 in La Spezia aren't Nato shared.La Spezia is an italian Navy harbour.The problem is that all the people in the Italian Navy and in the Italian Air Force know it.My father was rocket operator in the Italian Air Force. Anyway the article about Nuclear power is old because the referendum about nuclear power is ended for Italy since the Parliament voted the new law.Giosue' Campi (talk) 21:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if it's true about the weapons, then in my (admittedly limited) understanding they are in violation of their obligations as non-nuclear signatories to the NPT. Therefore they presumably need to keep it quiet, and there aren't likely to be any reliable sources that assert this. --Trovatore (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a simple way to answer this. Does Italy, right now, today, have the capability of blowing up someone or something with a nuclear bomb? If the answer is "No", then they are not a nuclear power. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That's what you think in in your head but reality is different.I'm italian and i defy you in who knows better Italy,italian power and Italian Army.You can see also the Italian destroyer Garibaldi launching a Polaris 50 years ago in a photo.The Italian Navy was the first Navy testing Polaris on the sea on ships.Italy today has developed also a launcher derived from Scout rocket able to be used for small-medium satellites and also like Icbm. The article on nuclear power is old because the new law of the Parliament cancelled referendum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giosue' Campi (talk • contribs) 22:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If Italy had carried out nuclear tests, the world would know about it, whether they are Italian or not. --Tango (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Italy has nuclear weapons and similar.Check photos of italian destroyers launching Polaris A3.Italy developed (then stopped it) also another rocket (Alpha)MRMB.Today Italy has also a launcher very good to be used as Icbm.Italy has also a space base in front of Kenya (here launched in 50's Scouts)and onother one in Sardinia where testing big rockets.There are military secrets that a normal person on the common websites or books can't know.Secrets aren't only in Usa but also in Italy and in the whole EU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giosue' Campi (talk • contribs) 12:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Tango is right. It's pretty hard to not notice a nuclear explosion. Thanks, gENIUS101 13:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

To answer your original question: Italy is considered a non-nuclear state because it ratified the NNPT as a *non-nuclear state* in 1975. It's true that with NATO nuclear sharing they may sometimes put their hands on other people's weapons, but that is skirting the NNPT in such a way as to let them keep their non-nuclear state status. --Sean 15:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyway Italy has Polaris A3 in the Navy and also other kinds of rockets useful to launch nukes.In the world don't exist only Usa nukes or Nato shared.Come to La Spezia or in other italian military centres (may be centers for you)and i'll see you with the mouth open.It's hard thinking that also Italy can erase Usa or Russia.Have you checked the photos of the italian destroyer launching Polaris in 50's?Have you seen the new italian rocket derived from Scout? Anyway have you checked that italian law is changed and the citation of referendum in "nuclear power" article is old?By the answers i understood that you don't like too much Italy or EU and that you didn't check the new italian law.The article will rest very old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giosue' Campi (talk • contribs) 19:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Italy has Polaris missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, but I'm pretty certain (as is the rest of the world) it doesn't have any nuclear warheads to put in them. UGM-27 Polaris indicates that Polaris, in itself, is not nuclear. I can't comment on the power situation. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 20:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the assertion that they still have those missiles? The article doesn't, and my understanding was that they outfitted a single ship (the Giuseppe Garibaldi (not the aircraft carrier of the same name)) with their launchers; that boat was scrapped in 1971. It's hard to believe that Italy is steadfastly keeping 48 year old missiles with no launch platform and no warheads at the ready. --Sean 20:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The article says "The Italian Navy still holds a number of Polaris missiles in operational conditions, ready to use if necessary, stored in an airtight facility in the La Spezia Arsenal." which is the place mentioned below (no reliabkle source, but I'm no expert anyway). It is possible, whereas the shear amount of money to upkeep a nuclear arsenal, not to mention keeping it secret, is astronomical given the state of Italy's finances. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 10:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Keeping Polaris A3 rockets isn't a problem for italy.Today is much more a problem for Usa with the biggest world debt and a very critic financial situation mantaining nukes that are unuseful.Only EU states (no shared nukes of Nato) are able to destroy Earth by their nukes more than once.The Polaris A3 are in a secret deposit ready to be used in the Arsenal of La Spezia.This military port is allowed only to the Italian Army.You can ask more to Italian Navy or to some people that worked there.In La Spezia there are a lot of military secrets.Anyway i've seen that in Wikipedia in Italian and in English the article is right about Polaris A3.In La Spezia there are no Nato shared weapons or Us weapons. Also in Sardinia where are tested launcher for satellites only italian or EU soldiers can enter.The Vega launcher that derives from Scout (it's better than Scout)will be used to send in the space small-medium satellites from Kouru.The big ones satellites will be sent by Ariane V or Soyuz from Kouru.The Vega is useful also like Icbm.It can be launched also from sardinia and from San Marco basis in front of Kenya (Malindi).The former Italian President declared that Italy has nukes and he knows (like also high levels italian soldiers)better than everibody in the world the number and the kind.He said that Italy has nukes built in France and may be also in UK. In Italy the referendum that in 1986 stopped nuclear centrals is ended for ever with the new law voted by the Parliament.The first nuclear central will start in 2013 (EPR).I answer you Sean because you're the only one that is serious ,a lot of the other ones are a joke.I'm certain 110% that Italy has its own nukes and i think (i'm not sure ) that also other EU countries have nuclear weapons (excluded France and UK that officially have them).NNPT is only a piece of paper to make happy the pacifists and the people that think that only their nation has nukes.UN or Nato can do nothing. Israel has rockets able to hit Usa and also France,UK and Italy have. In Italy there's Vatican (Pope is the most powerful man in the world).Italy is able in this way (and also EU with France and UK)to hit all the world.Till 6 years ago Vatican didn't recognize Israel .Do you think that Italian state hadn't weapons to hit it or Usa were there were jeweish financial investments?It's a reality bigger than NNPT.Giosue' Campi (talk) 08:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

. Tempshill (talk) 06:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Please be serious or i haven't anymore time to lose in Wikipedia.Your comment some days ago was a joke and now you ask me citations.Military secrets aren't only in Usa but also In EU states or Russia.Do you explain me how is it possible to set a citation about the new italian law for the article "Nuclear power"?Yesterday evening ALL italian television presented the Minister for Production Claudio Scajola at the start of the new nuclear central that ENEL (italian company power that owns Slovakian power society and spanish Endesa with nuclear centrals) owns in Slowakia.It was built all by italian factories(the main are Ansaldo Energia and Finmeccanica).He said that the new law has already fixed the places in Italy to build 4 new centrals (EPR)within 2013.Ather 4 will be built within 2018 and they'll be built on japanese design.Another one will be built always as EPR.About italian rockets you can check a lot of websites (the most in italian but there someones also in english).You can check also an old italian cruiser Garibaldi firing Polaris A3. About Italian President declaretions you can have a source in RAINEWS24 ,the italian public television.Giosue' Campi (talk) 08:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw the article "Nuclear power" has been changed in the right way.Giosue' Campi (talk) 10:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

green architecture

can anyone tell me which country has the greatest number of "green" buildings? a country (it may also be a city, it doesn't matter) which is the most conscious about green architecture and sustainable building? i googled about it, but i got rankings of only US cities. so, it's limited to only the US. i want a worldiwde survey. please help me. thanx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.50.129.165 (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You could start with our article on Sustainable architecture which has a number of links in the references and external links section. If you follow these, you may find what you are looking for. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 19:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, for small communities (both in the U.S.) look at Greensburg, Kansas and Greater World Community. Rmhermen (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Traffic Lights

New traffic lights are made of dozens of LEDs arranged in a circular pattern, as opposed to old ones which were incandescent in nature. How many watts do each type consume? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.29.128 (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

According to this, the new ones consume 10–22 watts, while the old ones consume 135 watts. Theleftorium 20:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

They also have the advantage that a single LED failure will not render the light confusing/inoperable, unlike a bulb failure. Exxolon (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

And LED's have a much longer life than an incandescent - so they don't need to be replaced anything like as often. SteveBaker (talk) 02:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course, (Original anecdotal evidence here) many of the LED traffic lights around these parts have many segments non-functional. Sometimes as many as 50%! There seems to be two kinds of failures, the kind that only knocks out discrete LEDs, and the kind that takes out a whole contiguous segment of them.APL (talk) 03:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I consider it a "graceful failure" if a component fails (one LED) and the device still performs its function, though in a degraded (less bright) manner. It could in principle use multiple incandescent lights to provide a bit of redundancy, but I expect that, for economy, they use only one incandescent bulb per compartment. If a 130 volt rated bulb is operated at 120 volts, the lifetime will be greatly increased at a sacrifice of efficacy. Momentary high voltage or lightning surge would be more likely to destroy any number of LEDs than one incandescent filament. Edison (talk) 04:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You would know, right, Edison? ;-) Sorry, I couldn't help myself. How difficult is it to replace a traffic light bulb? It seems like it would be awfully difficult to find the right time of day/night to do so.--WaltCip (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's gotta be done sooner rather than later since you don't want to have a rush hour happen with a bum light. I've seen them replaced. They just get a guy out there in a reflective vest to direct traffic, put the truck in the intersection or wherever and raise another guy in a boom up to the light. A few minutes later it's changed and they're gone. Dismas|^(talk) 11:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)