Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 February 25

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.

February 25

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

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

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

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

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

Wow, great job Itinerant1! --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 00:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Purpose of "freedom caskets"?

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

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

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

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

Four wheel bad, two wheel good

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It would be interesting (to us), if you could point your P H B supervisor in the direction of Wikipedia:Reference desk to explain where and how he came to this view. If he is right, he can turn round and say “I told you so” on the on the other hand this might not be a good idea -if it goes the other way. seen any more lights in the sky recently?. Of course, should you relocate to Hawaii this issue would no longer arise :-) P.S. Look in the owners manual. It may give a maximum speed for 4WD. It might be that this vehicle over steers or summit at higher speeds or the torque differential between front and back becomes ungainly. If so, then the moral of the story must be to always buy Japanese. --Aspro (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

They do get snow at the top of the volcanoes in HI. And at lower elevations there's always that pesky lava to drive through. :-) StuRat (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

And at that altitude, would not an infernal combustion engine (designed for sea level) be straining some-what, so as to cause one put it in to 2WD ( 4 WD takes up more power than 2WD). The carburettor would also need to be leaned off (engine would get hot otherwise) – thus giving even less power. Driving up and down volcanoes is a bit different from driving on the flat in cold Arctic regions. Best of all, the beach views of volley ball players on Hawaii makes such subjects as 4WD's fade into insignificance. Peoples minds turn to other things – or so I am reliably informed. Thus, this 'speed' issue (as I said) should not surface in the mind of the OP -as worthy of inquiry. Oh, on the other hand maybe he would ;-) Yet again, there is always the Kava bars to chill out in. What have the Inuits got to offer, other than raw liver!--Aspro (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

According to the movie The Savage Innocents, the Inuits had something quite special to offer guests: [1]. :-) StuRat (talk) 06:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Is the title a reference to Animal Farm? :D 117.227.106.186 (talk) 07:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I assume so. Perhaps we should have answered that "While all 4-wheel drives are equal, some are more equal than others". StuRat (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Well thanks everybody for the responses. XPPaul, I read through the 4 wheel drive article but missed the bit about the central differential. Asking the supervisor is not something that seems like a good idea to me. His orders are to be followed and no questioning is permitted. 117.227.106.186, yes but has little to do with anything. I rarely use the 4 wheel on the airport road as they tend to do a very good job of keeping it ice free. Thanks to StuRat and Aspro in their last comments for the use of French. Inuk is singular, Inuit is plural and Inuits is French and too much of this tonight means I should stop now. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It's there: "All-wheel drive (AWD) is most typically used to describe a "full time" 4WD which may be used on dry pavement. These systems must incorporate an inter-axle differential which allows the front and rear wheels to turn at different speeds. This eliminates driveline binding, wheel hop, and other driveline issues associated with the use of 4WD on dry pavement. Because all 4 tires in a full time AWD system are connected by a system of differentials"

even if it's called inter-axle. Anyway, don't drive 4w when 2w is enough. XPPaul (talk) 12:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

When life gives you lemons...

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

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

Lemon (slang): A defective or inadequate item.[2].--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

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

I think the original usage was cars. If you buy a car and find it spends more time in the shop than on the road, it's a lemon. If it's perfect in every way, it's a cherry. Should be pretty obvious why. --Trovatore (talk) 09:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Spell it out for the oblivious? Hah, is there a universal fruit hierarchy that I'm unaware of? Hammer Raccoon (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Because lemons are sour and cherries are sweet. --Trovatore (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

But the lemon tree is very pretty, and the lemon flower is sweet... Mitch Ames (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I enjoy eating lemon fruit straight, in small quantities. Like those lemon slices they put in your water glass at restaurants. I'll pull out one segment of a slice, maybe a triangular wedge up to a centimeter on a side and a few millimeters thick, and eat that. Eating a whole lemon at once is pretty tough to do, of course. --Trovatore (talk) 03:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

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

didn't I once read something about old chewing gum machines where you pull the lever and it picks three random flavours to throw out, wheels rolling on the front to come up with the pictures of what was won. a lemon along the list signified not winning anything, where another symbol represented a small jackpot, a little bit of gambling just for fun. Or, I could be completely wrong, it was a while ago now. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 09:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Certainly lemons used to be commonly used on "Fruit machines" aka "one-armed bandits", and if I recall correctly (over a span of more than 3 decades) a lemon in your scoring line often signified "no win": different models and manufacturers of course varied in such usages. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.102 (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The version I prefer: "When life gives you lemons, call me, I'll bring the salt and tequila!" Roger (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

This article may be enlightening. I had always assumed the term lemon = crappy car came from American attitudes towards the Citroën, (which sounds a lot like the French word for lemon: Citron), but from that article that connection is coincidental, and the connection between "lemon" and "substandard" dates to the early 20th century. --Jayron32 05:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

when life gives you lemons, make grape juice, sit back and let the world wonder how you did it. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I like that one, but prefer the Cave Johnson variant. "I don't want your damn lemons, what am I supposed to do with these?!?" UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Jayron! I'm glad the connection between lemons and substandard quality is as confusing to me as it is to etymologists. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

XKCD comic strip Fuck Grapefruit claims that lemon is the least taisty fruit among the 18 kinds of fruit surveyed. – b_jonas 11:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Pure and simple cultivarism. The world is a cruel seedless place. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The voice in the Duck Song

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

A clue is the guitar. To me, the sound of the chords suggests very strongly that the song was originally recorded in D, and played back a little faster, changing the key to F. The pitch of the singer's voice of course is raised correspondingly, and importantly, its timbre changes, producing the slightly weird sound. To check if this were the case, I recorded the song from the audio of the youtube clip, and slowed it down by 15.91% in Audacity, and listened to the result. The result was a normal-sounding male voice, and guitar chords that I could easily follow in D, reproducing the exact inversions that are used (the G is sometimes played with G on the E string as the highest note, sometimes with D on the B string as the highest note, E string muted). Conclusion: recorded in D, sped up by 15.91%. 18.92%. By using such a small speed-up, the singer achieves getting a strange "ducky" timbre to his voice without sounding like the chipmunks. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 17:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Just wanted to point out that the inverse of 15.91% down is 18.92% up. Solve the following equation (1 - down/100%) × (1 + up/100%) = 1. For example, the inverse of 50% down is 100% up. --Bavi H (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Struck out and corrected. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 12:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Stupid battlefield fighting back in the day

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have your units mixed up - in the time of line infantry you usually had regiments of about 500 men divided into 10 companies, each of about 50 men.[3] As well as independent companies of quite random numbers of soldiers. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The American Civil War? Sure they used line infantry, and some units only had muskets. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Muzzle-loading rifles were the standard issue of both sides in the American Civil War and the British Army of the time. Were there any units actually fielding only muskets? 75.41.110.52 (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, the Springfield Model 1861 was a Minié-type rifled musket, and was the most common infantry weapon in the American Civil War, whilst the Pattern 1853 Enfield was a muzzle-loading rifle-musket, and was the second most common infantry weapon in the American Civil War. Secondly, the the British Army was not involved in the American Civil War. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Doesn't happen often! Recent analysis of the Isandhlwana battlefield concluded that we lost because we were standing too far apart and couldn't concentrate our fire effectively. See Battle of Isandhlwana#Reasons for the British defeat. Alansplodge (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

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

You'd be surprised. Light infantry would deploy stakes - usually to shield artillery from direct attck from cavalry, but such tactics were used. Also, digging pits and trenches in front of your main body of men will impede their mobility. In medieval times, the entire army was not made up of bowmen. This is why it would be possible to shield them. In the musket age, you'd have 70% of the army made up of men with guns. Making them immobile would really cause problems for your battlefield management. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

"I still don't get it... why not at least kneel down and make yourself a smaller target?" Neither do I, which is why I think there is a ritualistic aspect. (Well there was kneeling during "fire by rank" drills, but no one knelt all the time) I think people are too quick to attribute military actions (both past and present) as purely pragmatic, when in actuality, they are often conducted according to a strict set of social norms and traditions. The era of line infantry was also the era of gentleman's warfare, where honorable conduct was of paramount importance (in some conflicts). That being said, it is difficult to reload long muskets while kneeling and impossible while laying prone. Nevertheless, if you put me in that line I'd get down whenever I wasn't reloading (or shitting myself), but I have a feeling it would be seen as cowardly even if it was effective. --Daniel 22:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

There certainly was a ritualistic aspect to it all, hence the bright uniforms, flags, and people in front playing musical instruments. It certainly was also a time of gentlemanly warfare, where generals fought each other personally, as if it were a chess game. Hiding and ambushing opponents was just not done, old chap. Have the men line up and fire. Jolly good show, what! In the first few years of WW1, things were still like that to a major extent, until people started to see sense and realise war is different now. This Monty Python sketch may be of interest. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm surpised no one has mentioned communications yet. It's pretty difficult to centrally coordinate multiple detached small units instantaneously with hand signals, semaphore flags and runners (basically unchanged since Julius Ceasar's day). Mobile field radio did a lot to make modern small-unit warfare possible. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Another aspect is the handling of the muskets. Soldiers where drilled to reload and fire at a very high cadence, always using the same steps, which involved biting open a paper cartridge, filling the powder into the muzzle, ramming down the paper wad, spitting in the bullet, ramming down again, priming the firing pan, and cocking the lock. Muskets can possibly be reloaded when prone, but not nearly as fast as by a man standing up and repeating the same drill over and over again. So a standing army (pun intended ;-) gave you maximal firepower. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Per Stephan Schulz, you can't get four rounds a minute en-masse while prone. Few people have talked about the other arms. Cavalry could only be effectively repulsed by mass action, either in fire or in square. Artillery's effect was limited to visual range only without spotted fire, making artillery's capacity to eliminate massed line or column limited. And of course the point of holding line is to prevent an overrun of your logistic areas, which are actually fairly close up. Break an opponent's line, and they can be forced to retreat onto a supply point. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, lying down for concealment and to minimise casualties was a tactic often used by the Duke of Wellington. "1,500 British Foot Guards under Maitland were lying down to protect themselves from the French artillery. As two battalions of Chasseurs approached, the second prong of the Imperial Guard's attack, Maitland's guardsmen rose and devastated them with point-blank volleys." But as you say, you can't easily reload a musket when you're lying down. You had to stand up to fight, hence Wellington's alleged command, "Up Guards and at 'em!"Alansplodge (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, when the French were attacking Hougoumont and La Haye Sainte in the same battle, it's interesting to note that the French troops did not attack in line formation (or column, as they usually preferred), as it was essentially an attack on concealed troops, concealed within farmhouse buildings, and they needed to breach the walls. The Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71 was also one in which the troops fought largely individually, as the battles were conducted in largely urban (as in town/village) areas, prohibiting the usual long lines of troops. I could bring up the French retreat from Russia in 1812, plagued by Russian troops all over the hills and everywhere. The line formation was certainly used to a great extent in the 18th and 19th centuries, but it was by no means the only tactic, as portrayed by Hollywood. Anyone who is interested in military tactics from that period may find watching the Sharpe (TV series) fascinating. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The French assault on these positions was by Tirailleurs, specialist skirmishers similar to the British Rifle Corps. Attacking a fortified position with line infantry would be "stupid" (to quote the OP). By the start of the 19th Century, all European armies had troops like these who were trained to fight in an irregular way. The German version were called Jägers. I suppose the Americans can take credit for introducing this style of combat. However, it was never going to be a battle winner. As soon as the going got tough, the skirmishers would take cover behind the lines, as they couldn't hold up massed infantry and were woefully vulnerable to cavalry attack. Alansplodge (talk) 11:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The matrix

Do we have an article that includes the whole dialogue of the architect when he meets neo, the long speech. 203.112.82.1 (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No. That would be a copyright violation and we respect copyright here. --Tango (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It is?--WaltCip (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. It is. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

How would it not be? --Tango (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Is the speech itself copyrighted? I have a hard time believing that. If the script is copyrighted, clearly partial excerpts of it can be posted on Wikiquote as seen below. Is there a standard that has to be met?--WaltCip (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course the speech itself is copyrighted. Brief passages may be cited for a given purpose, but a whole dialog cannot. It's relative, I know, but it's difficult to justicy citing larger passages as fair use. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The whole film is copyrighted, anyone using quotations from it is doing so under fair use and there is a limit to the amount that can be used. Wikiquote does have a policy on this but it's not very well enforced. Hut 8.5 18:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Google "the matrix" subtitles. 88.14.192.178 (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there anything on wikiquote? 148.197.81.179 (talk) 09:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

No. --Dismas|^(talk) 11:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they do have at least part of it (it's from The Matrix Reloaded, not The Matrix). Hut 8.5 18:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Did Beyoncé steal her "All the single ladies" dance form this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xufxKCC1NJ8&feature=related Looks like it, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk • contribs) 23:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)