Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

March 24

When weight is paramount on airlines, why don't any of them sell tickets by body weight?

By the pound? (After all, every pound appears to matter nowadays.)

This would give more overweight passengers extra incentive to lose more weight.

As you'll see in this video, airlines are finding 6 ways from Sunday methods to save on fuel costs: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42220638#42109773

Why don't they consider selling tickets by passengers' individual weights the next step? --70.179.169.115 (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Obese people would accuse them of discrimination and they would face lawsuits all over the place. BurtAlert (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

There are other products that are sold based on weight or girth. For example, XXL clothes often cost more. And airlines do charge extra if they determine that an extra seat is required. So, I don't think it would be illegal or they would lose lawsuits. However, many people would find being weighed by the airline to be humiliating, even those who aren't obese, and that's poor customer relations. Perhaps if they weighed you along with all your luggage, that would disguise your individual weight sufficiently to reduce embarrassment. And, of course, it's the total weight that the airline needs to know, anyway. It might spawn a market for lightweight luggage that looks incredibly heavy though (I've seen plastic luggage that looks like metal). StuRat (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

As you're hinting, a few years ago Southwest Airlines drew some negative attention by compelling some passengers they considered excessively large to buy two tickets. I don't know if they still have that policy, or if other airlines do it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Googling [airlines obesity policy] turns up several airlines that do, in fact, have such policies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's take a rather standard plane like the Boeing 737. Let's say our plane carries 200 people. Let's say 50% of them are men, 50% are women. The average male weight in the US (according to Body weight) is around 190 lb, average female is around 160 lb. So our base average weight is 19,260 lbs — let's assume that is what the current price point of aircraft seats is optimized for. Now the questions seem to me to be: Is the deviation from the average going to be enough to be worth charging more (e.g. will it have a measurable effect on fuel consumption)? Will the deviations towards the lower end of the scale account for that (for there are people who are under the average as well)? If not, what is the difference, and what does that translate into in terms of real costs for fuel? My statistics juggling isn't up to these last tasks, but I suspect this could be done with some data in hand and some statistical knowledge. If the monetary loss is negligible, the customer dissatisfaction at being charged for being overweight is probably not worth it. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

That's right, it would only result in more profit for the airline if either:

A) They use the change in pricing to hide a secret overall price increase.

B) They change consumer behavior, either by convincing people to lose weight or convincing lighter people fly more than heavy people.

And, of course, both of these would have to outweigh the profits lost by those people who would avoid flying on that airline due to the humiliation factor.StuRat (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, airlines use statistics to to make sure the plane will be safe up to a couple of standard errors above the average expected weight of the passengers. Since the number of passengers is reasonably big, it's extremely unlikely you'll get a sample that's enough of an outlier to make a difference. There are actually more problems with comfort than with weight - airline seats are optimized in the opposite direction, towards a minimum space allocation that an average sized adult can fit into with reasonable comfort, so large people cause discomfort both for themselves and the people they sit next to. Airlines would actually do better setting up separate sections of seats designed for particularly large and particularly small people, to balance out the comfort issues and maximize space allocation, but that would be an even worse public relations nightmare (I'm sorry ma'am, but we need to move you to the chubblet section, while your husband goes to that tiny persons' row; I'm sure you understand...) --Ludwigs2 01:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"This seat for compact models only." StuRat (talk) 03:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

How high is the humiliation factor compared to current arrangements whereby passengers regularly need to remove their shoes and belts, and empty out whatever's in their pockets, in order to get through security gates? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's different — that's equal for everyone. Depending on what's in your pockets, maybe, but that's under your control, and you know ahead of time. --Trovatore (talk) 03:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not an unheard-of notion; Bloomberg found one consultant who mentioned it as a possibility in this story, though it wasn't treated very seriously. Ludwigs2 above missed the point; this isn't about safety but because more weight means more fuel is needed to get the plane to the destination. As the consultant in that story states, all other freight is shipped with charges based on weight; the only reason humans aren't charged the same way is because of humiliation or distaste. I could see a crazy budget airline like RyanAir doing a test of weight-based pricing on a single route, and if they are able to eke out a sliver more profit than they do now, then other crazy budget airlines could maybe follow their lead. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Tuttle, statistically that makes no sense. The variance in weight of a single passenger is insignificant with respect to a 100,000lb aircraft, and the variability of the combined weight of 100-200 passengers is fairly small. Airlines might be bothered be the demonstrable increase in average weight of passengers (in the US, anyway), but no airline cuts its fuel margins that close to the wire. If this is anything at all, it is just a smokescreen for corporations angling for new avenues of profit. --Ludwigs2 07:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

But do we know this or are we just assuming it? I'm curious what the cost difference would be, in jet fuel, is for a long-haul flight if you have, say, a plane full of NBA players (Shaq clocks in at 325 lbs according to his page here), versus a plane full of schoolchildren. A Shaq plane (known as a Plane o' Shaqs in the trade) would be 65,000 lbs of passenger weight, compared to, I don't know, 16,000 lbs of schoolchildren? Does that 49,000 lbs make a significant difference in fuel efficiency in a flight from NYC to LAX? Obviously comparing polar opposites of the scale is not a way to make general policy, but if even that wouldn't matter much, then we know well enough to throw the general policy idea out the window. Knowing how much the most extreme case matters might give some benchmark into thinking about the more general case. All of this is separate, of course, from whether this is a good business idea or not. :-) --Mr.98 (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Mr.98: statistically speaking, getting a 'shaq plane' has a vanishingly small probability. total expected variation of a sample is the standard deviation times the square root of the sample size. 35lbs*sqrt(147) for a standard 727 gives an expected deviation of 425 pounds, meaning that the probability of getting more than a 1000 lb excess is less than 2% - getting the (roughly) 30000 lb excess you're implying above would be .00000000...%. even considering non-statistical factors - basketball and/or football teams all traveling together on a commercial flight, say - you'd still need maybe a dozen teams all flying together on the same airplane to make a noticeable impact (and for anything like that the teams would most likely charter a plane.) weight-safety statistics is a well-defined and frequently used tool - elevators, bridges, public buildings and skyscrapers are all designed to withstand the maximal expected weight of people and objects they are expected to hold - planes are no different, except that they have to add fuel considerations into the equations.

(a funny/scary story from san francisco: on the anniversary of the completion of the Golden Gate bridge, they closed the bridge to traffic and allowed people to walk across it. unfortunately, the politicians who did this were ignorant of engineering principles and sadly lacking in common sense; they did not realize that people en masse are far more dense than automobiles, or that allowing people to walk from both sides without traffic control would be likely to cause some confusion. and so they ended up with two solid walls of people from each end meeting in the middle of the bridge, unable to move further, while the bridge itself swayed and groaned under a load it was not designed to handle. They're just lucky it didn't collapse, plummeting thousands of people into the bay.) --Ludwigs2 15:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, that sounds a lot like an urban legend (actually, like the one where the local university library forgot to take into account the weight of the books). Our article says that 200,000 people walked across it during the opening festivities, with no mention of either a traffic jam or danger of collapse. I know you posted this mostly for humour, but can you provide a reference for your story? (And if it's a RS, maybe it should be added to the article). To be honest, I don't believe a word of it, but I've been wrong once or twice before... Matt Deres (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously it's not a likely thing — I didn't propose it as a likely thing! I proposed it as a thought experiment. I thought I was quite clear on that. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to point out that obesity is not the only factor that can make a person heavy. Some people are heavy not because they're obese but because they're tall. --Wrongfilter (talk) 08:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I recently took a couple of flights on Nature Air. They operate very small planes. They actually do have weight limits for passengers and their baggage, and they actually do weigh passengers and their baggage before issuing boarding passes and baggage claim checks. Their procedure is to weigh the baggage first, then ask the passenger to step onto the scale. That way, they are not weighing the passenger directly. However, I'm sure their computers can do the math. Marco polo (talk) 15:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Very small aircraft have load balancing concerns (sell large ones do too, it just takes a lot more to get there) so the weight of the person and of the luggage would need to be calculated separately if they are stored in separate parts of the aircraft if it is small. If would guess small here would mean 8 seats or so. Googlemeister (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I travelled a few times on a Loganair Britten-Norman Islander (8 passengers - 9 if you sit next to the pilot) and they weighed luggage and passengers separately and told everyone exactly where to sit on the plane, presumably for balance as you say. Mikenorton (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that all airlines have some passenger weight limit, as they can't just let a 500 lb person sit in a normal seat, it wouldn't work. StuRat (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

How about a reference on the Reference Desk? I am very disappointed that the last eight posts in this thread had no references, other than Matt Deres shooting down an urban legend; but instead consisted of just guesses and the application of logic, with no data, by non-pilots. Please, people, do not post if you don't have an answer or a significant advance toward one. A few minutes of googling yielded this thread, including references and actual math, in which it's calculated that on a Boeing 777, if jet fuel costs US$3 per gallon, it costs about 11 cents to fly 1 extra pound on a trip of 3300 nautical miles. (That's about the distance from Houston to Honolulu.) The extra cost for a passenger who is 10 pounds "overweight" over whatever number you choose is about a dollar. Another enterprising poster in the thread calculated that if all the passengers on their flights urinated before boarding the aircraft, the subtraction of a mere 4 ounces of weight from each passenger would save American Airlines some US$3.1 million annually (assuming 85% full planes, whereas the actual number these days is around 70%). Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for looking those up — very interesting. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

And what makes you think that none of those who responded are not pilots? Googlemeister (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Off topic question, but I'll answer: No pilot would have written any of the above answers. Pilots have a god complex and would have given a definitive answer immediately. Pilots would also be able to calculate this and would have just given a correct answer. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, most of your experience with pilots came from watching Top Gun. Googlemeister (talk) 12:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason is that the question of whether it would make economic sense for airlines to charge by the passenger pound simply doesn't come down to fuel calculations and standard deviations. That's rather missing the entire point (that people would refuse to fly on such a plane, on principal, and the airline would go under). I suppose, if there have been surveys about whether people would be willing to be weighed, then those links might be relevant. However, I doubt if this has been done, since common sense says that this idea "wouldn't fly". StuRat (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This was actually jokingly suggested by Air Asia X [1]. It caused comment some positive many (and usually more virulently) negative and eventually they just said they'd been misquoted [2] (as I said I think it was actually more of a joke that wasn't supposed to be reported seriously). As others have said a number of airlines will either deny boarding or require an extremely obese passenger to buy an extra seat as BB said a simple search will find them e.g. this North America oriented ref [3] or [4] [5] although you can also see from there that even that has caused controversy and legal issues. Having been on a plane where I was weighed (can't remember being required to sit anywhere but I think the weight ranges weren't that different) it's worth mentioning even in that case I still got a standard (reduced) luggage allowance and don't get charged extra due to your weight. (I'm not sure what happens if they find out they can't fly with all passengers and luggage, I expect it's rare. And possibly they have some unaccompanied luggage or other stuff they don't have to take anyway.) P.S. I suspect quite a number of people would be less annoyed by being weighed then being frisked or having to go thru a full body scan as happens in the US and seems to be expanding to the rest of the world. Nil Einne (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

They still allow unaccompanied luggage ? That's dangerous, as terrorists who don't want to blow themselves up are likely to send a bomb through that way, as in the Lockerbie bombing. StuRat (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean like with any cargo? But that reminds me of another point, if they really have nothing to leave behind I guess they may ask you to leave your luggage behind and bring it over on the next flight. Nil Einne (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

That depends on what you mean by "other cargo". Largo cargo shipment usually go by cargo plane. Yes, there's a risk there, but at least a plane full of passengers isn't killed. StuRat (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK most large passenger planes usually do carry other cargo. According to [6] it's actually the majority of freight cargo to the US (that is carried by passenger airlines). This isn't really that surprising, when you consider many of the passengers airlines have got into trouble for colluding on the costs of air freight in a number of countries [7] [8]. No point colluding if people don't have a reason to use you. BTW, when I said unaccompanied luggage I actually meant to include all cargo but your answer doesn't seem to be thinking of this which is what confused me. Nil Einne (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

By "luggage" I meant suitcases and such, things normally carried by passengers. StuRat (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes that's why I'm still confused why you think this is of greater risk then any other cargo. Nil Einne (talk) 07:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It's rather unusual behavior for somebody to choose to have their luggage fly on an airplane without them (with the exception of if the airport lost it and now needs to get it back to them). Therefore, in the US, at least, they don't allow unaccompanied luggage, since this raises a red flag (along with bombs having been planted in them in previous terrorist attacks). See the last paragraph here: [9]. StuRat (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be referring to something else. You're referring to cases when someone doesn't board the plane. AFAIK in most countries and airlines the luggage will be taken off the plane in such cases since it is obviously an issue when someone was expected to board but didn't. In any case, I'm pretty sure this isn't what is normally meant when someone refers to unaccompanied luggage as it is quite different from someone sending the luggage via airfreight with a company possibly their airline offering to deliver it to the destination at some stage (but where there is no guarantee what plane it will end up on) which is what is usually meant by unaccompanied luggage. This often happens in cases where someone has excess luggage but wants to pay less and doesn't mind so much when it arrives. An as far as I know this is allowed in the US [10] [11] as with all cargo please provide a ref if you are going to continue to claim it isn't allowed. (It's perhaps less common with the US given their system of going by number of bags with the weight only limited by what's considered acceptable for a bag but I presume it's done nevertheless.) As I said earlier, there's no reason why unaccompanied luggage is more risky then the plenty of other cargo which I guess we all now agree is a lot that travels by passenger airplanes. Nil Einne (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

What I refer to is also called "unaccompanied luggage", as my link shows, and is considered more of a risk than accompanied luggage (since many terrorists aren't suicidal) and other cargo (since knowing just what plane it will be on and when to detonate it would be tricky). StuRat (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Your ref is referring to luggage left in airports so is somewhat of a moot point since we were never discussing luggage left in airports (or if we were then this discussion is even more confusing then I thought). Nil Einne (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

That is not what I was talking about, no. As I said by the link, look at the LAST paragraph. StuRat (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry missed that part of both although I still wouldn't trust a ref that even refers to unattended luggage in airports (what everyone else calls it) as unaccompanied Nil Einne (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

As my final comment here, from my searches there doesn't seem to be any name for the luggage of a no-show perhaps because no one carries it any more. One of the concerns with such luggage appears to be unlike with real unaccompanied luggage i.e. that sent as unaccompanied luggage with airlines and destinations that allow it, it will have only received the security checks used for normal accompanied luggage which sometimes are less rigorous to those used for unaccompanied luggage (see for example [12] & [13] [14]). Or to put it a different way, it could be unaccompanied luggage but in most countries and airlines it isn't since it's taken off the plane before it can be considered such (calling it unaccompanied when the plane is still on the ground is a bit odd even if the passenger is MIA since you get into the issue of when it became unaccompanied) and part of the reason is because it may need to go thru more security checks before it's allowed as unaccompanied luggage. Of course as one of the refs note, accidents happen so some of it really does become unaccompanied luggage when the wrong bags are removed. Nil Einne (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

[15] suggests perhaps there is a ref on all unaccompanied luggage to the US although it is very recent 'From 9 November 2010' and the reasons and details are unclear from there. Note the ref suggests it's not a ban on unaccompanied luggage per se but simply 'restrictions on uplifting personal effects and household goods to and from the USA' which suggests to me these restrictions would apply for all cargo sent via passengers planes even those sent not as luggage. And perhaps if you were to say put a child's coffin in a suit case it would be allowed under TSA rules (whether an airline would allow it or not may be a different matter). Unless the TSA have a weird definition of 'personal effects' and 'household goods'... Nil Einne (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually while the coffin idea may work you need to meet other requirements [16]. (Note it's fairly obvious this relates to the recent Cargo planes bomb plot not the Pan Am Flight 103 even if the former appears to have involved new laser printers that weren't likely to have been considered 'household goods' or 'personal effects'.) However it does appear unaccompanied luggage will be fine provided you meet those requirements (including not transporting household good or personal effects). So if you are't from Yemen or Somalia and want to regularly transport say new laptops or new books or even new laser printers as unaccompanied to the luggage to the US you can do so provided you can convince an airline to do so for you (since you need to have a relationship anyway I guess it would be possible). Nil Einne (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Airlines are more concerned about the weight of a person's luggage than the weight of their bodies, which is why you get charged so much for heavy baggage and extra pieces. The uproar about fat people is more about volume and the comfort of passengers than safety on takeoff. If the pilot notices that every single person on board is the size of the incredible hulk, then they'll adjust their calculations for takeoff, but in a typical flight, the women cancel out the men and children cancel out the fatties and you get to your nice average weight range, I think it was something like 160lbs per occupied seat, though they may have adjusted it from when I worked at the airport, I remember my crew supervisors commenting about how the standards were from the 50s when people were slimmer whenever they saw a large person stressing the shocks.129.128.216.107 (talk) 01:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think airlines are more concerned about luggage weight, they just know they can weigh luggage without losing customers. StuRat (talk) 05:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see more than boycotts apply - an airline that discriminates against fat customers should be denied the opportunity to bid on slots at an airport, so as to ensure the availability of satisfactory flight options for all. Wnt (talk) 06:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Try saying that with a straight face when you are in the middle seat between 2 300 lb people. Googlemeister (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I recently saw one of those Air Crash Investigation or Seconds From Disaster shows on a documentary channel (sorry, can't remember exacly which episode of flight was the subject). In the crash featured in that episode, the aircraft failed to gain sufficient altitude and crashed into fields close to the airport. It stated the probable cause was the aircraft weight being higher than the maximum take-off weight. The investigation showed it was due to a number of factors including heavier than average passengers and a large amount of cargo. Apparently, airlines usually guess at something like 160lb per passenger, but the investigation showed the average passenger weight on that flight was somewhat higher. Added to that was the unusual seating pattern where almost everyone was seated in the last 20 rows to compensate for the heavy cargo load. Astronaut (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

"Artificial countries"

Present-day Libya is composed of three very different regions which were only brought together by the Italian colonisation in the first half of the 20th century. As such, it is an "artificial" country, one created only by outside influence. Why then is there all of a sudden a clamour not to let Libya break up in two parts if Gaddafi doesn't fall?--Leptictidium (mt) 07:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Libya is actually quite a bit less artificial than a number of countries in sub-Saharan Africa, and allowing unlimited scope to irredentism and secessionism would lead to general chaos (which is why the Organization for African Unity / African Union is very insistent on Uti Possidetis). Anyway, a North African state without access to the Mediterranean (such as a Fezzan-only state) would be unviable and almost certain to fail. In my opinion, the world would be far better off if Saudi-Arabia were split into three parts (Hejaz-Haramein, Hasa-Dahna-Gulf, and Nejd-Wahhabistan), rather than Libya... AnonMoos (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

And then there's Iraq, where Kurdistan could break off in the North, and possibly also "Shiite-istan" (East) and "Sunni-istan" (West). I think the problem is that any such divisions are likely to involve border skirmishes, at the least, between these new countries and possibly with neighboring existing countries. Kurdistan, for example, has claims in Turkey and Iran. StuRat (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ethiopia seems to remain viable, despite its loss of access to the Red Sea due to the secession of Eritrea. Corvus cornix_talk 22:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The answer to the question is (as said above) that this is not a "sudden clamour" - it has been the policy for everyone to try to keep all African countries together, at any price, since at least the sixties. Presumably one thought that any adjustment of borders would lead to a chain reaction and civil wars in all the other "artificial" countries. Hence, we have seen some nasty wars to keep countries together like the Biafra War and Katanga war. Only in the last ten years or so has this been somewhat altered, with Eritrea and South Sudan. (Namibia is sort of different as it always was a "separate" entity from ZA). However, still note that while Somaliland and Puntland is somewhat stable (at least one of them, I think) and run as independent nations, nobody recognize them internationally, so there is still a clear preference for keeping "artificial" countries together. Jørgen (talk) 09:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Supposing that all the Kurdish portions of various countries were able to split off and form their own nation, Kurdistan or whatever, what would their economy be based on? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Oil. Jørgen (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a theme in Card's Hidden Empire where a plague in Africa allows political boundaries to be redrawn along tribal lines. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Agriculture has potential in its large pasture lands on the plateaus both in animal rearing (sheep) and cereals . It would have large oil and gas fields in the Iraqi and Iranian territories and mining (copper and chromium) in its Turkish area. Energy production from the dammed rivers would be a substantial export. Tourism could also be developed. --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Computer discovery of two bishop checkmate?

I read this in the New Scientist mag about 2001. It had hitherto been thought impossible to checkmate in an endgame with a king and two bishops against a sole king. Then a computer found that a mate was possible with perfect play, indeed inevitable, but it took about 30 (or more) moves. I’m very vague on the details but I’m sure about a computer discovering a new mate. Can anyone throw light on this because there is nothing I can find in WP which tells this story? Myles325a (talk) 08:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Two bishop checkmate has been known for a long time - it didn't take a computer. See Pawnless chess endgame, Bishop and knight checkmate, and Two knights endgame for a couple of articles on this topic. I too have heard of a checkmate that was discovered by computer, so I did some searching and found http://www.gadycosteff.com/eg/eg96.pdf but I don't know if that's the one I (or you) heard about. Ariel. (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The article Tablebase surely is of interest regarding the question. Specifically, the section on Endgame Theory. Ariel has also pointed to the interesting article Pawnless chess endgame above. One case that could be what the OP was looking for is KBBKN (King and two Bishops against King and kNight, long thought to be a draw with perfect play, but has been shown to be a win for the stronger side most of the times).

For someone curious about this endgame, I just checked this site and the position White: Kb1,Ba4, Bg1; Black: Kf7, Nf8 (fen 5n2/5k2/8/8/B7/8/8/1K4B1), White to move, showed a checkmate exists in 66 moves (¡?). Pallida  Mors 20:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

interpretation of essays

is there any websites that interpret essays into simple sense in which I can understand? The essays are "The Geographical Pivot of History" by Halford Mackinder, "The Roosevelt Corollary" by Theodore Roosevelt, "Why Geopolitik?" by Karl Haushofer, "The Truman Doctrine" by Harry Truman, "The Sources of Soviet Conduct" by George F. Kennan, "Soviet Policy and World Politics" by Andrei Zhdanov, "The Brezhnev Doctrine" by Leonid Brezhnev, "The End of History" by Francis Fuyukuma, "The Clash of Civilizations?" by Samuel P. Huntington, "The Clash of Ignorance" by Edward W. Said, "The Pentagon's New Map" by Thomas P.M. Barnett, "The American Empire: The Burden" by Micheal Igntieff, "America, Right or Wrong" by Anatol Lieven, "The Coming Anarchy" by Robert D. Kaplan, "Reading Robert Kaplan's 'Coming Anarchy'" by Simon Dalby, "No Escape from Dependency: Looming Energy Crisis Overshadows Bush's Second Term" by Micheal T. Klare, "Oil and Blood: The Way to Take over the World" by Micheal Renner, "Canada in the 21st Century" by Jennifer M Welsh, "Letter to America" by Osama Bin Laden and "The clash of Barbarisms" by Gilbert Achar. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.107.196 (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

With essays like this, trying to find 'simple sense' interpretations is self-defeating. You will only find essays by people with strong opinions about the matters, and then you will have to read the essays and interpret them yourself anyway to figure out what those biases are.

more to the point - our information-lite world notwithstanding - you're doing yourself a disservice if you do stuff like this. The brain needs exercising just like muscles do. Yes, the first time few (or many) times you go into a gym it's painful and embarrassing how little you can lift, but over months you get stronger. Yes, interpreting essays like this is hard for someone who hasn't done a lot of it, and you're likely to be embarrassed by your efforts at it, but over time you get smarter about it. Trust me, by the time you're 30 (assuming you're a high-school kid with homework) you will be far, far happier with the results of the hours you'e spent thinking than with the results of the hours you might spend in the gym. --Ludwigs2 15:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If you are just learning English and find these essays very difficult, you can use them to improve your English. You will need some time, but read through each of them slowly. Identify words or phrases you don't understand. Look up the words in a dictionary. If you have trouble with phrases, you can type the phrases into Google, each surrounded with quotation marks, like this: "phrase you don't understand". See how the phrase has been used by others to learn what it means. When you have learned the words and phrases you didn't know, read the essay again. You should be able to understand the meaning this time. You might then read the essay a third time. Stop to take notes about the arguments in the essay or the point of view of the author. These notes will help you form your own interpretation of each essay. Learning to understand each essay will improve your knowledge of English, and the next essay will be a little easier to read. Marco polo (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

We have an article on the Truman Doctrine. We may have some other articles, too. Making sense of Osama might be tricky, though, if his thoughts are as random and crazy as Qaddafi. StuRat (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

At Trans Global Logistics UK - the leading International Vehicle Shipping Services in United Kingdom. Visit us at https://tglog.co.uk/ and reach out today to speak to one of our qualified team members who will walk you through every step of the shipping process

https://tglog.co.uk/

Why do you feel compelled to just say things you don't know anything about? Osama and Qaddafi have really essentially nothing in common in terms of their ideologies. Read the letter for yourself, it's not very long. You don't have to agree with him, of course, but the guy is fairly "rational" if you accept his axioms. Some of his axioms are loopy, to be sure, but they're not from Mars, like Qaddafi's. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

"Loopy" is what I'm talking about. And I have heard his (translated) speeches, which tend to ramble and get off into weirdness, too. Same for Qaddafi. So what makes you assume I know nothing about it ? StuRat (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Not to get too far afield, but the craziness of Osama's writings seems to come from his love of Ibn Taymiyya, who wrote in enormously long ranting screeds of text that could bore a judge, complete with invectives towards everyone, especially sufis. Qaddafi is probably trying to sound somewhat crazy, like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad out in Iran- that's not all genuine. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

See "The Geographical Pivot of History", "The Sources of Soviet Conduct", "The End of History and the Last Man", "The Clash of Civilizations?", "The Pentagon's New Map", and "The Coming Anarchy". StuRat (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Quick question

House rental guarantor

I am soon to be paying the deposit on renting a house, well, sharing the rent with a few other people at the moment. Anyway, one of these future housemates keeps mentioning something about a garanteur or garuanteor or something, (they can't spell it so I have no chance) and I'm thinking I have no idea what that is, and I really don't want to disappoint them or invalidate the contract or whatever, so I'm wondering if someone could let me know what this is and why it's so important that I haven't got one. 148.197.120.206 (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The guarantor is someone who promises to pay up if you don't pay what you owe. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If the person taking out a loan or a lease is under a specified age, some contracts require there to be a signature from a guarantor, promising to come to the party if the principal person defaults. It's ageist, sure, but is also common sense. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

That really was quick. I take it they mean if I decide to just not bother paying anything, for some reason? I couldn't imagine that ever happening, but then I guess that assertion wouldn't be enough for many people. 148.197.120.206 (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

When taking part in a group that is renting a place, the members of the group need a legal guarantee that everyone's part of the rent will be paid. Also, the owner of the place needs a legal guarantee that the total rent will be paid. If someone has poor credit (because of age, unemployment, poor credit history, etc...) it is normal to ask for a guarantor who has good credit. The guarantor is legally obligated to pay the rent if the person who is supposed to pay it doesn't make the payment for some reason. Usually, a guarantor is a person's parent. -- kainaw™ 19:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

All very interesting. I don't know what my credit rating is, but it should be quite reasonable. Chances are I'd have to lend my parents the money so they could pay it, that doesn't matter, does it? 148.197.120.206 (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It probably does matter, if the landlord is diligent at all. A landlord will normally try to find out whether the renters are really able to pay, and then find out whether any guarantors are able to pay. If nobody is able to pay then the landlord may decide it's too much of a risk and not rent to you, or tell you that you have to put down a larger deposit, or shrug and say it's fine. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Only indirectly, if it means that they are poor and have a lousy credit rating. One other concern the landlord may have is that renting to a group of people increases the chances that any one will fail to pay. A way around this is for him to rent only to one person, with a good credit rating, and the ability to pay the entire rent, and then allow that renter to sublet rooms. Another is to ask for guarantors from each individual renter. StuRat (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If local laws allow, landlords usually impose joint and several liability on all renters and co-signers/guarantors to a lease. (Effectively, joint and several liability means everyone signing the lease is a guarantor to everyone else.) In that case, rather than wanting to limit the number of people signing, there is an incentive to add everyone, as it increases the chances that at least one will be able to pay. Joint and several liability doesn't help the other renters, though, if one of them decides to skip out on the rent. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

However, legal requirements aside, if the one remaining tenant (let' s call him "flatulent Joe") is unable to pay, the landlord still loses out. StuRat (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Our article on co-signing explains the basic story, although it isn't very detailed. (By the way, please try to use meaningful titles when you post questions here.) Looie496 (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I added a useful subtitle. StuRat (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You wouldn't have to lend your parents any money. They don't have to pay anything unless you fail to pay your rent. As long as you pay your rent, they don't do anything. It's not just your credit rating a landlord would take into account. They are interested in your ability to pay, so they would usually want to see proof of income (a reference from your employer stating your salary or from your bank stating how much you pay into your account each month, that sort of thing). My mum is guarantor for my flat because I wanted to move in before I started my new job, so at that time I had no income. I knew I had enough saved up to pay the first month's rent and after that I would have plenty of money coming in, but I couldn't prove it so needed a guarantor. --Tango (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

March 25

modern satire

so nowadays you see people like matt stone and trey parker being compared to other satirists throughout history as a "contemporary swift" and whatnot.

my question is whether it's a unique phenomenon for a satirist to be compared to his predecessors, or if it's something that is always realized in retrospect. did people call swift the contemporary voltaire? voltaire the contemporary chaucer? chaucer the contemporary aristophanes? or is this a newer phenomenon? Jasonberger (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect comparisons of all forms go back as far as people do: "Grog not funny, Grog just rip-off Ugh". StuRat (talk) 05:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you meant "I suspect", StuRat. Yes, but I'm not sure that earlier ages had the sweep of history available to them for comparison the way we have today. They had "the classics", to be sure (whatever that meant in a given period) but apart from that very little writing, drama or music was available even from the previous generation, let alone a century before. (An example I'm thinking of is that Bach was all but forgotten until Mendelssohn "rediscovered" him less than a century after his death). --ColinFine (talk) 08:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, typo fixed. StuRat (talk) 08:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

First Crusade and the Jews of Bodrum, Turkey

I have a book on the Kaifeng Jews of China that recounts oral legends by their ancestors to a Chinese researcher during the 1980s. One legend claims the Jews were originally from Bodrum, Turkey and fled the Crusader armies to China in the 1060s (yes I know the Crusade kicked off in 1099). Researchers believe the Jews actually came from Persia to China as merchants, so the legend has no basis in history. I think the legend may have been influenced by a then newly translated book on the Crusades, but I am not sure which one it could possibly be. Are there any books on the First Crusade which mention Bodrum at all? If I can find one or two, I might be able to find out if any of them were translated into Chinese during the relevant time. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The First Crusade didn't go anywhere near Bodrum, but the Hospitallers built a castle there in the 14th century. I'm not sure what book would have been translated into Chinese, but in the 1980s the standard work on the First Crusade was the first volume of Steven Runciman's "History of the Crusades". (I've only glanced at it quickly just now, but I don't think Bodrum is mentioned in it.) Sorry, I will check further when I have some more time. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Halicarnassus was securely within the Byzantine empire in the 1060s, and was subsequently threatened by Seljuk Turks after the Battle of Manzikert in 1071... AnonMoos (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

French monarchy/titles......?

Hi! I am a French-Canadian, living in Japan. Following the devastating earthquake and tsunami on March 11, I want to help the people in northern Japan to the best of my ability. Therefore, my question: About 35 years ago, a woman connected to geneology in the French government, contacted my father and informed him that he was the inheritor, of a title of duke of a province (?) of France. My father did NOT want to have this (his)title recognized/registered, at that time. I have never considered using the title, myself, until now...... if I used the title to help get some kind of aid to the victims of the earthquake/tsunami in the north of Japan, I would like to get information about claiming/using the title. Any ideas as to where to begin? Thank you.Afrenchduke (talk) 02:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Title would be duc. See "extant" in incomplete List of French dukedoms.
Sleigh (talk) 04:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Be careful. It may be a scam. "Recognition" or "registration" might come with a big price tag. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

And how would having a title enable you to help Japan ? Maybe if you were a king, people might pay some attention to your appeal for charity, but for a duke, I'm skeptical. StuRat (talk) 05:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree; this sounds like a common scam. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no real French nobility anymore; there are still "titres de noblesse", but since 1835 they have no longer been connected to the ownership of land. It sounds like a scam to me as well, but if you have proof of a noble title, you could get in touch with the Ministry of Justice to make it "official."[17] All that would mean is that you would have the right to use it on official documents in France. See also the Association d'entraide de la noblesse française website and this article, which explains the history of the French nobility. Lesgles (talk) 05:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're a homeless man with newfound business savvy, how would you get back on your feet with no more than $10?

Let's assume that your company goes under and you lose your house, your good suits, and whatever else would easily help you re-land a career:

You either have $10 left in your fraying billfold, or you panhandle or visit a church and make a good enough friend with a congregation member or clergy to have them grant you a $10 bill.

With that $10, how would you turn that investment into a larger amount of money, and feed that return into more investments until it balloons into you getting a new place, vehicle, and suitable life for yourself?

If I ever get homeless in my soon-to-be post-college life, I would hope to know exactly how to get back on my feet.

(Let's assume that employers won't hire you just because you're homeless, or don't have good enough interview attire. Therefore, you'd be forced to somehow turn $10 into a growing pocketbook.)

Thank you,

--70.179.169.115 (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be asking where you can find magic beans. Anyone with 'business savvy' will understand that they don't exist. In order to make money, you need to be able to sell something: your labour, most likely. If I knew of a sure-fire way to turn $10 into more without effort, I'd either (a) do it myself, or (b) pay others to do it for me - the latter being the preferred method once you have the startup cash. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

(E.C.) Did I mention "without effort?" I hope not. I know it takes effort to buy apples at a discount grocery and sell them on the street for twice the price, but that's just a Great-Depression example; before people in most American places stopped trusting homeless-looking street vendors. (And my apples could rot before I managed to sell enough of them anyway. I'd need something that's robust and not as limited by time as perishable items though.)

Bus stop, so if the economy/conditions were bad enough not to be able to land employment, what would you do with the $10? --70.179.169.115 (talk) 04:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think apples would work, because nobody wants to buy food from somebody who looks diseased. Selling flowers at intersections might be a start. Many try that. Then there's "outsider art", where being a crazy old bum might help your "rep". StuRat (talk) 04:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Apple sales in the US Depression were a pyramid scam. The following are all tactics I have observed over the years. In the present day, "street people" (aggressive moochers) regularly enter my downtown church and ask for money. Many folks will give them $5 just to get them to leave quietly. Four churches, easily visited on a Sunday morning, would thus yield $20. Then a common scam is to request the fare for a ride on mass transit. The reason is "I have a job interview at the other end of the city, and I only need $2.25 for the transit fare to get there, and then I will become a productive member of society." Who could refuse such a plea? One can also sit outside a fast food restaurant shaking a cup and asking passersby for money to buy a sandwich. ("I haven't eaten for 3 days! Please have a heart!") A Big Mac costs about 3 or 4 dollars, a basic McD hamburger is a buck or so. If someone actually buys the sandwich and gives it to you, you could eat it (quite tasty) or if full, return it to the counter and demand a "refund" on the grounds that it "tastes terrible." An enterprising scammer should thus be able to accumulate $50 on a given day. Then take that to a thrift shop and buy a set of interview clothes, along with getting a haircut ($12 plus tip) and buying a razor and shaving cream and deodorant, as well as a $15 cell phone to receive callbacks from employers. A smelly, shaggy person with no phone contact number and no references is hard to place in a job. Big cities have facilities for a penniless person to take a shower and thus be presentable for interviewing. A public library will provide a computer and printer for preparing a resumė and researching companies who are hiring. A bit of "social engineering" should provide some good-hearted folks who will provide glowing fictitious or slightly prevaricating references, or an address of record to use on a job application. If you look and sound foreign, you could research suitable colleges which were destroyed in some civil war and "graduate" from there, with a created transcript, or buy a degree from one of the US diploma mills. Many jobs require no college degree. Even in this economy, there are part time jobs at stores paying $8 per hour for 30 hours work. The trick then is keeping low the expense for food and lodging while accumulating funds and networking. Contractors hire laborers as needed and pay pretty well for hard, sometimes dangerous work. Appearing sane, sober and washed as well as not having long shaggy hair and beard would help with many employers. Crashing with a friend and mooching for grub are promising tactics. Many immigrants to a country with poor language skills and no capital become cab drivers or deliver pizzas, but a deliverer needs a car, generally. Back in the day, I got a couple of "good" (at the time) entry level jobs just by showing up when thee person doing the hiring was in a bind because someone had just left or been fired, and the boss had to do the job until he hired a replacement. Timing is everything, and "No job openings" can change in an instant when someone leaves. There is a vast hidden job market, such that employers do not post vacancies because they do not want to receive 2,000 applications, but they are looking for someone with particular attributes. Being a clean and honest-seeming individual they wouldn't mind working with is a good start, and training and experience certainly help. Go get 'em, entrepreneur! Edison (talk) 04:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Faking a CV ("resume" I think in American english) by saying you worked somewhere which has now closed down and gone out of business (hence unverifiable) might be dishonest but ethically acceptable in some circumstances. 92.29.127.59 (talk) 10:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Not to my sense of ethics, it wouldn't. I would say the only time it would be ethical to lie on a CV would be if you know you'll be unjustifiably discriminated against if you tell the truth. Discriminating against someone that has no relevant work experience is entirely justified. --Tango (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You could sell a street newspaper. --Frumpo (talk) 10:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If you know how to bake and have access to a kitchen, you can invest your $10 in flour, sugar, eggs, milk, and flavorings, and bake and sell cakes. Or if you have access to a plot of land, you can invest it in seed and grow and sell flowers and vegetables. If you're not absolutely repulsive to look at and have low self esteem, you can invest your $10 in slutty clothes and become a prostitute. There's lots of ways to make money. Pais (talk) 11:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Though those three suggestions aren't exactly winners. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Only because you're looking at them individually... but consider a hooker who sold pies and flowers as a side business and there's no way you could lose. Guys would come over for the whoring, then pick up a pie to take home to the wife for dessert and a bouquet to apologize for being late. Everybody wins! Matt Deres (talk) 13:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

But is $10 enough to invest in pie ingredients, flower seeds, and slutty clothes? I suppose you could start with one of the three jobs and then expand to the others as you gain capital. Diversification is important in business, I think. Pais (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. - Hustler, not hooker. The OP's header does specify a homeless man. Pais (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Where I come from, "hustler" means a con-artist... --Tango (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this the basic premise of The Pursuit of Happyness (at least in part)? Astronaut (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Recall, though, that despite the presence of Horatio Alger and get-rich-quick stories (and how we Americans still love them!), they are exceedingly rare. They should not be seen as plausible models for success. The income disparity statistics alone show the falsehood of these kinds of myths. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

In Britain the local authority is required by law to give you accommodation (which could be b&b or if you are lucky a flat) if you were genuinely homeless. The state would give you money for rent on the flat, and give you money to live off, which includes being able to buy other things in addition to food. So you would have enough food, be clean, and able to afford a haircut.

My point is, you would have a physical address. So spent the $10 on a cheap mobile/cell phone from Tescos so that you have a phone number. Get an email address by using the free computers at your local library. As the state likes to help people to get a job, provided you were not fussy you could probably get a not very good minimum wage job quickly. You could get an interview suit very cheap from a charity shop, or the state would probably be willing to loan you the money to buy one. Then do evening classes to study to get qualifications that will earn you money such as accountancy, not arty-farty useless things like media-studies. You could take other qualifications, such as a degree as a mature stuident, full-time, which will give you something to do for three or more years and give you a fresh start. 92.28.242.170 (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you implying that the OP would not be wise to embark on a quest for an MA in History, Philosophy, Religion, or English?Edison (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, isnt that obvious? All of those subjects would have virtually no demand by employers. They would however give evidence of your ability, so they could be usefull for jobs that did not require any particular degree. Or they could be useful to teach those subjects. English might be useful in journalism, but I expect journalism qualifications would be preferred. 92.29.127.59 (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Given the most recent budget, I would be reluctant to say that 'the Government' is going to provide anything of the sort to people in exactly this situation over the coming years. I know of at least one, concrete example of a job-creation scheme which has had all its funding withdrawn, tipping the workers onto the dole. Given the tightening of the 'disability benefits' qualifications to exclude many people with serious, debilitating disabilities, I fully expect the papers next year to be full of stories of individuals and families who find the council has declared them 'intentionally' homeless, when of course they intended no such thing. All the qualifications processes are going to tighten, so as to give the impression of still providing the service at greatly reduced cost. Your local library is one of the first things on the block, unless you have a full staff of volunteers and somehow raise money for the bills, so no free internet and word processor! Have you not noticed what has been discussed in parliament and all the local newspapers for months? I mean, I know my area is going to be less badly hit than most (our CAB has funding to stay fully open about as far into the future as ever, unlike Birmingham's), but even we know it's going to hurt exactly this sort of thing.

Emergency loans and benefits from the state have a notorious waiting time, anyway, so it's not like you'd get the money for a suit when you needed it ;) Except now, you won't get it at all. 86.164.69.241 (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You're going to have to get a job, I'm afraid. If you have business savvy, you will impress your boss with your business acumen (unless of course he or she ends up firing you because you're telling him or her what to do all the time) and as you assume new responsibilities you will be granted responsibility for them until you are able to get promotions and raises, and get enough experience to get higher-level jobs in the same field, etc. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think in Britain you could go straight from being homeless to being a full-time student. That would give you the thinking time to think up some internet business that did not require any significant capital to start. 92.28.242.170 (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree. Spend the money on a suit ($10 can go a long way in a charity shop - it won't be a good suit, but it will be a suit) and then get some job interviews. --Tango (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

In supermarkets in Britain you can buy a suit for a very cheap price, although more like $50 than $10. 92.28.242.170 (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say supermarket, I said charity shop. Supermarkets sell new suits, I'm talking about buying one second hand. That is much, much cheaper. --Tango (talk) 12:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Why do the Brits use $ and not £? Interestingly curious... --70.179.169.115 (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Because the OP used $, because we assume most people reading use $, and because $10 is only about £6. 2.97.210.137 (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I would start Begging in a good location, such as Canada: according to our article, the median income is $638 CAD. If that didn't work, I'd buy One_red_paperclip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.186.80.1 (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Is that per month? Anyway, it's not weather-friendly; wouldn't many homeless die every year from the winter colds? --70.179.169.115 (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

US Healthcare: Federal support of HMOs?

Hello.

I was wondering how much the federal state subsidises HMOs (and MCOs in general). I tried giving [HMO] and other pages a read, but mostly they speak of the "national healthcare dollar". When I know that eg. US Medicaid administrative expenses are ~2% of their budget, it confuses me to see some write 7%. At some point, budgets are conflated, and I don't know which.

Also, I've heard HMOs can attempt to increase their subsidies from the federal gov't by inflating certain costs, so that their on-the-paper costs meet a certain criteria. Their deductible towards the state, if you will - the same way that many insurees have deductibles. Is this the only area where the feds sponsor HMOs?

Thank you.

80.213.11.105 (talk) 11:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I edited out my "Purchasing Power?" at the end of the title. I forgot to remove it. 80.213.11.105 (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "subsidize." HMOs don't get subsidies from the government like Amtrak does. But they do get government funds when the government pays for patients' healthcare, such as in the Medicaid program. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Your question suggests a misunderstanding of the US healthcare system. The system is mainly funded privately, by insurance contributions from individuals and their employers. Private insurance firms then pay healthcare providers (though individuals receiving the care also typically pay a fee at the point of care). Some Americans, however—mainly the poor and elderly—are covered by government insurance programs. These government programs pay healthcare providers (hospitals, HMOs, physicians) for care, just as private insurers and individuals do. The main government program for the elderly, Medicare, is funded by the federal government. The program for the poor, Medicaid, is jointly funded by the federal and state governments. Neither program specifically promotes HMOs over other healthcare providers, nor do their payments for services constitute subsidies in the usual sense (any more than the government payments to electric utilities for the cost of lighting government buildings are subsidies to those utilities). Marco polo (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, some jurisdictions have forced Medicaid recipients to join HMOs. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

List of Ulster Defence Regiment commanders

Resolved

Would anyone happen to have a list of or be able to point me to an online site that has a list of all the Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR) commanders since its formation in 1970? Thank you very much.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The History section of this site names a couple of them with dates. It also seems to have an active guestbook. Perhaps worth asking the question there? The Google results for 'UDR commanders' throws up a few more names. It might be possible to piece it together. Dalliance (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your link. An editor has since located their names and added them to the UDR article. Cheers!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Wouldnt it be a security risk for them? 92.29.127.59 (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Epilepsy

I just lost my Brother yesterday 24th march 2011,Age 35years, Doctor in Nigeria said to my parent to be using this drugs for him

1. Leukeran Tablets 2mg (Chlorambucil)
2. Alkeran Tablets 2mg (Melphalan)
3. Docetaxel Tablets
4. Irinotecan Tablets
5. Oxalipatin Tablets.

He always used all this tablets together since then,because he has epilepsy since early 90s and they finally take him to one private hospital for treatment in Octorber & Novermber 2010. All the Tablets finished two weeks ago and they can only find this two(Leukeran tablets & Alkeran Tablets) last week as they couldn,t find the remain Three Tablets in Lagos,he was using the two tablets until last saturday & Sunday when he got Epilepsy Action again & Again and he lost his voice,he couldn't speak till he die on Thurday morning 24th March 2011,Please help me!!! what could have happen to him during this process please?

Many Thanks Joseph Omotoso — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jossydove77 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

(Reformatted for better readability.) --Thomprod (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It's very sad that you lost your brother, but the ref desk cannot answer medical questions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are links to all those drugs: Leukeran Alkeran Docetaxel Irinotecan Oxaliplatin. Looking at those pages, those are all very serious cancer drugs! Nothing to do with epilepsy. I have a hard time believing your brother took all those drugs at once, and an even harder time believing he took them outside of a hospital setting. Ariel. (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Salary requirements for a position

How exactly would I go about finding out the standard salary requirements asked for a position? I'm looking at a job right now on CareerLink, and to my utter dismay, it states Please include salary expectations. Unfortunately, I've been out of work for several months now, and while I've worked in the field, I haven't worked as much as I would like to. It is a computer "desktop technician" job. 68.232.119.30 (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

What country are you in? In Australia, for example, such things are codified by the Industrial awards. In the USA, in most non-unionized industries, there are no general legal rules, but the Department of Labor maintains the database of the so-called "prevailing wages": http://icert.doleta.gov/ You need to search by occupation name (e.g. "Computer Support Specialist" or whatever) and geographical area (state, and then metropolitan area or county). This is not mandatory for employers, in general, but has to be used in certain situation, such as federal contracting, or hiring foreign workers. This is extremely detailed, and has both current-year and prior years' data, but lots of numbers seem to come from the thin air ("interpolation" or "extrapolation" of some kind?) - on an occasion, I was amused to find the prevailing wage for streetcar drivers in a state that has not had any streetcars for 50+ years. Still will give you some idea, though.

As a practical matter, though, when responding to a job ad you don't really have to include "salary expectations". If they like you enough to invite you for an interview, they'll do it whether you have provided "salary expectations" or not... If the question comes up during the interview, you can always ask them to make their offer first. -- Vmenkov (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It depends where you are and how much experience the job requires. Look at similar posts in similar organisations in your part of your country and you'll get an idea. Or ring a few recruitment consultancies that specialise in your field, in your city. If you're really stuck, you could indicate that you are "flexible" regarding salary, as you are "very keen to work for your organisation". --Dweller (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

1) I live in the United States (you can see it on my geolocate data next to my IP.
2) They did say to include it, so it would show terribly upon me as a candidate if I ignored it.
3) Good idea Dweller. I'm going to do some further reading and see if that's standard. 68.232.119.30 (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I am in the same position of pursing a new career. I discussed the salary issue with a representative from the local employment commission yesterday— she advised to not give a hard number, but to state that salary is negotiable. Here are two sites that look pretty good: [18] [19] ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

That is a great set of resources. I will have to spend a while reading that (*sigh*, I will be turning the application in later than I wanted to now... that's what I get for waiting til the last minute!). But seriously thank you all. I will leave this thread open in case anybody has any specific requirements they would recommend for someone in central Pennsylvania (see my geolocation) with a computer science degree, several years out of the field (poor career choices, not lack of talent), in a "desktop support" role where I'd drive around the state fixing people's computers (e.g., making Windows work, getting the printer up, networking, and internal support). 68.232.119.30 (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Another good source is Salary.com, which will provide an average salary for a specific location such as yours. The standard advice is not to state a specific minimum salary, but instead provide a range (knowing that the employer will focus on the bottom of your range), or to state, perhaps that you are looking for something in a general range around $X, but that the salary is negotiable depending on the details of the job. When stating X, take into account 1) the average local salary and 2) your relative inexperience, which would suggest that X should be maybe 15-20% below the average local salary. Marco polo (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way, you mention that you will be driving around the state. You don't need to bring this up in your cover letter, but during your interview you should find out how (or whether) they will reimburse you for your mileage, assuming that they expect you to use your own vehicle. According to this source, the standard mileage reimbursement rate this year is 51 cents per mile. During the interview you might say something like "I assume that you will reimburse me for mileage at the standard IRS rate. Can you confirm that?" If they do not reimburse, then you would have grounds to adjust your salary expectations accordingly. Marco polo (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure this response is way too late for you, but I hire this type of mobile desktop support position pretty regularly. I should point out that this is for mostly entry-level people in a very simple hardware-only support role in Vancouver BC (so a higher wage environment, but CDN dollars). For someone with A+ and a couple manufacturer certs, but no experience, $14-16 an hour is typical starting wage. With a couple years experience, $15-$19 is reasonable. In my business, hard-working and experienced printer techs are the real gems, so they can fetch $20+. Your comp. sci. degree would be helpful for software support, but frankly, in today's service delivery environment, most of that is done in a centralized helpdesk. If you're on the road, you're doing hardware. My advice is to concentrate on being hardworking, independent, trustworthy, good at keeping up with your paperwork and good with the end users. If you're dismayed by having to provide salary expectations, think about things to improve your confidence. Having low confidence while unemployed is something that I understand completely, but becomes a self-reinforcing loop eventually. NByz (talk) 05:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Student loans for mature students, UK

I heard from the radio that under a proposed new system for student loans, you have any debt cancelled when you reach age 51. Is this age fixed regardless of how old you are when you take a degree? I'm wondering what would happen if you are a mature student in your forties, fifties or sixties - and when I was a student I did know other students of those ages. Thanks 92.28.242.170 (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The standard student loan isn't available to mature students. I think there are schemes to support mature students, but they are separate. --Tango (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you give a citation for that Tango? I've looked on the direct.gov website which doesn't mention this. It does mention other schemes but they don't seem to be aimed at higher education. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... it appears I'm mistaken. This page says you can be any age and get the tuition fee loan and the age limit for the maintainance loan is 60. I think that's changed since I started university in 2005. (That was just before top-up fees were introduced, though, so it's not surprising things have changed.) I'm sure there will be something to stop people aged over 48 getting everything for free, but I don't know what the rules will be. --Tango (talk) 12:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Eastern europe holiday home investments

When it became possible to buy property in eastern europe, it was said they would make very good investments.

Was this actually true? Have people who bought holiday homes in eastern europe made significantly more money than they would have investing in somewhere in the UK?

Also, what about purchases made in france or Spain etc? Have these appreciated more than those in the UK? Thanks 92.28.242.170 (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

We are unable to give financial advice. Consult a professional, and pay him or her for services rendered. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Well that's a very silly answer. I havnt asked, and I'm not looking, for any financial advice. 92.15.1.33 (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Origin of a middle name

Can anyone figure out where Madeleine Bordallo's middle name comes from or what the "Z" stands for? --MZMcBride (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Zeien, says it was her father's last name, etymology obscure. meltBanana

Awesome, thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

March 26

Holocaust

How did the SA and SS know who was Jewish and where to look for them. Surely if your only a Jew from an ethnic perspective it would make it very hard for them to track you down. And I'm sure that once the leaders of the synagogues realised the precariousness of the Jews' situation they destroyed all their records relating to their congregation. So my question is how did they know. Obviously a few people their neighbours but in the majority of the time this doesn't seem to be the case; also, unless you were a practising Jew they wouldn't have noticed would they? My guess is that people who looked "Jewish", that is to say, semitic, were arrested. Thanks, Hadseys 00:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You assumption is based on a non-centralist census. As far as I can see census information in pre-war Germany was carried out in a centralised way. So it was not based on local religous authourities but local governmental authorities. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yeh but obviously if you wanna find out whose a jew you see whose coming out the synagogue? So maybe the rabbis encouraged their congregations to steer clear because synagogues keep their own records dont they. --Thanks, Hadseys 00:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

This answer to a similar question is unsourced but credible. Marco polo (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Did churches really provide fake baptism records for strangers? I hope they did. There was a similar question to this one here some time ago. 92.29.127.59 (talk) 10:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

In a police state, information is severely restricted, as is travel, so they might not have any idea what was happening, until it was too late. Bribing authorities might work for a while, but sooner or later the authorities' greed was likely to exceed the ability to pay. If they tried "passing" for non-Jews, they would need fake documents, as they had to present those periodically to the authorities. Another option was to hide, which required non-Jews who were willing to risk their lives to hide them and bring food and supplies. Escaping to a neutral or Allied nation was another possibility, but, since travel was difficult, this was normally only practical for those near a poorly guarded border. StuRat (talk) 01:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

At various points in the Nazi regime, Jews were allowed to emigrate, although after awhile they were essentially "taxed" so heavily that they would have to basically leave almost all of their assets behind if they were to be allowed out. Remember that the "Final Solution" was not fully implemented until 1942 — it wasn't necessarily the only way that the Nazis were going to deal with the Jews. We have a tendency to read the past backwards and say, heck, it's obvious from Mein Kampf that this was going to happen. But it's always a lot harder to figure out what's going on at the time, much less what will happen next. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Check out the book IBM and the Holocaust if you'd like a rather thorough account. It's really rather amazing. They had extremely adequate censuses in Germany, and had done a massive one in 1939 with the express point of identifying who was Jewish. They had the ability to put family records into computers, they could trace name changes, track genealogies, and, if I recall, in many instances they even had the cooperation with many in the Jewish community, which is rather awful in retrospect, but life is complicated like that (it is often the case that oppressed groups "cooperate" on the assumption that the results will be worse for all if they don't — in this case, that turned out not to be the case). It wasn't about "looking" Jewish or other such crudities — it was a very "modern" approach. One of the first really tragic uses of information technology. They could not have pulled off such an organized effort without it. (There are plenty of awful things you can do without IT, of course.) --Mr.98 (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Our article on the Vel' d'Hiv Roundup in France says "Until the German occupation of France in 1940, no roundup would have been possible because no census listing religions had been held in France since 1874. A German ordinance on 21 September 1940, however, forced Jewish people of the occupied zone to register at a police station or sub-prefectures. Nearly 150,000 registered in the department of the Seine, encompassing Paris and its immediate suburbs. Their names and addresses were kept by the French police."

Fear of the consequences of disobedience must have been a motivating factor. Jewish families would have been known in their local communities and possibly distinguished by distinctive surnames or occupations. For many people, suddenly pretending not to be Jewish was not an option. Alansplodge (talk) 02:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

My father, when the Nazis invaded his (Polish) village in 1939, was herded into the town square along with all the other males under 65, at which point they were all ordered to drop their pants. An acquaintance of his, who happened to be circumsized (but not Jewish) was led away with the other Jewish men - to God knows where. 121.44.248.32 (talk) 05:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed worth noting that the Nazi's approach in Poland was often much cruder than their approach in Germany and France. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in the East they didn't seem to bother with passing laws and keeping records, so, in D&D terms, they were "chaotic evil" in the East and "lawful evil" in the West. StuRat (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Although the circumcision check is depicted in at least two French films about the era - Au Revoir les Enfants and Un Sac de Billes. Alansplodge (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That's what people in India did when there were tensions between Hindus and Muslims as well; it's not just the Nazis who resorted to checking for foreskins to determine religion. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Ahnenpass has the answer regarding public servants. The Nazis do cared about lineage way before the final solution - on 1942. Anyone working as a public servant would have been labeled as Jewish/non-Jewish. It was simply too late for most for trying to pass as a non-Jew. Quest09 (talk) 12:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The cases of Jews passing as Aryans (e.g. Europa Europa) are usually those who are completely cut off from their families and traditional communities in some way. This should not surprise us — the entire means of identification (for this purpose or any other) are generally connected to one's embeddedness in society. It's certainly not realistic that entire communities could suddenly give themselves new identities without being recognized, to suddenly disconnect themselves from all of the paperwork that binds them to their history. We tend to think of the 1940s as being a much more "free form" time in terms of papers, records, etc., but it is really not true, especially not in Germany, where the modern bureaucracy was born. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you aware of the article page: Star of David, under the paragraph: "Holocaust"? Many did escape: "Scarlet Pimpernel", for example, a nick-name given to the one who organised their escape. MacOfJesus (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems the Nazis often used a thin end of the wedge tactic. At first they have very minor restrictions, but these got worse and worse. In the days of sparse and controlled media, it woyuld not be easy to guess what was going to happen. 92.15.1.33 (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Season by Hemisphere

During the months around January in the Northern Hemisphere, e.g. around the US, the season is called Winter. In the southern hemisphere, e.g. Australia, during the same month--while they experience warm weather--do they call the season Winter as well, or do they call it summer? Lord Arador (talk) 09:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

We Australians call the warm months summer and the cool months winter, just like you. They just happen 6 months out of phase with the northern hemisphere. HiLo48 (talk) 09:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

If you think about it, words like "wintery" and "summery" denote cold and warm weather respectively. We share (sort of) the same language, so it'd get terribly confusing if "summery" to us meant what "wintery" means to you, and vice-versa. So, as HiLo says, we very sensibly have our summer when it's hot, and our winter when it's cold. But despite this, much of our Christmas paraphernalia down here is about snowmen, fir trees, people all rugged up and cosy in woollen jumpers, chestnuts roasting on open fires, heavy Santa Claus suits and all the rest - which are utterly and completely inappropriate for our climate here at that time of year, which is decidedly hot. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

One important point - we don't use the name Fall for the season after Summer. We use the British name of Autumn. HiLo48 (talk) 09:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

In Britain the first day of spring is traditionally said to be the 21st of March - see Spring (season). However this makes the first day of summer far too late, on the 21st. June, although I understand that this is used in North America. In southern England, at least, May is definately part of summer. Which makes it difficult to split the seasons into four three-month periods, as August is summer too. The way I prefer to spilt the months up is: Spring - February, March, April. Summer - May, June, July, August, September. Autumn - October, November. Winter - December, January. For me, in mild south-eastern England, spring begins on St Valentines Day on the 14th. February, and September is late summer with many fine sunny warm days. In more northerly parts of England, at higher elevations, then these seasons do not hold. The natural markers are: trees leaves going brown - beginning of autumn; trees have lost all leaves - winter; flowers appearing - spring; trees all in leaf - summer. 92.29.127.59 (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry mate, May is Spring in southern England however you look at it. May Day is a traditional spring festival. Some trees are not even in leaf by then. Alansplodge (talk) 10:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

They are where I live. Most of them are in leaf in April. Its warm enough not to wear a coat on 1st. May. In fact I havnt been wearing a coat for the past two or three days, and its still March. Even earlier than that, there was a day warm enought to just wear a t-shirt. Yesterday I noticed that some trees were in bloom with white or pink blossoms - you could not say that that happens during winter. May I suggest going on country walks, to see things at first hand rather than via tv? 92.29.127.59 (talk) 11:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Blackthorn is - as always - the first to blossom. A warm spell in March that brings out the blackthorn is called a Blackthorn Winter. Some ornamental trees such as almonds are out early too. Hawthorn is already in leaf but won't flower until the end of April - hence "mayflower". "Oak is sensitive to temperature and will normally leaf in a warm spring from mid-April to the first week of May, whereas ash tends to leaf in May rather than April." says Dr Kate Lewthwaite of the Woodland Trust.

The climate where I live in northern England must be very different from that of Alan's southern UK because in recent years May has been the sunniest time here, so I tend to regard it as summer, whereas we have known hard frosts at the start of September, and winter definitely started in November last year. Dbfirs 11:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I've never understood the logic of the "first day of" a season being the equinox or solstice because, without temperature lag, these astronomical events should be the mid-points of the respective seasons. Americans apparently seem to think that these dates are "official" in some sense, as do some people in the UK, but the meteorological division of the year into groups of three warmest, coldest and "in-between" months is becoming more widespread (with summer in the northern hemisphere being the months of June, July & August). The Scandinavian "spring" is defined in terms of temperature, so its start varies from year to year, and the official start gradually creeps north with the sun. I suppose there are regions of the northern hemisphere (perhaps especially in America) where the temperature lag is around one eighth of a year, and in these areas it makes sense to use the "traditional first day". The Celtic tradition in the UK (and elsewhere) has the equinox (actually May March 20th not 21st) as the middle of spring. Dbfirs 11:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The half-season shift is somewhat arbitrary, but much less arbitrary than using months. Months are completely artificial.

Well actually the seasons are an arbitrary human construct because temperature does not vary consistently like sunlight, so the least arbitrary is the Celtic definition with the equinox as mid-spring. Dbfirs 18:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you meant March 20th, right? But you know, the equinox is not a day. It's a (reasonably) precise instant, definable at least to the minute, and varies from year to year. --Trovatore (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I did mean March (now corrected). The moment of the equinox is almost always on the 20th, not 21st, especially in America. Dbfirs 18:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

If you look at Hardiness_zone#Britain_and_Ireland_Hardiness_Zones then some places have better climates than others, and being north or south is not the only thing that matters. 92.29.127.59 (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

What about the Late Spring Holiday then? Alansplodge (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

That applies to all of Britain, and summer is shorter and spring later in Northern England and Scotland (when I visited northern Scotland in August once, people were wearing overcoats and I shivered). Only a minority of UK people live in the south. 92.29.127.59 (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

In the US, the official start of summer is the Solstice, June 21... but most people think of summer as starting on Memorial Day (which falls on the last Monday in May). The same happens at the end of summer... most people think of summer as ending on Labor Day (first Monday in September) but the season officially continues until the equinox on the 21st. As for the other seasons... the official dates are also around the equinox/solstice, but the "perceived" start/end dates are a bit flexible. Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

What makes it "official"? HiLo48 (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, "official" may be the wrong word... but since every US calendar I have looked at all agree on the date, certainly "approved and accepted" applies. As for who does the approving and accepting (sets the date)... The US Government? Astronomers? The calendar makers? A secret cabal of Freemasons? Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been trying to find out how this "official" idea started, and I've failed. This pseudo-astronomical definition seems to go back several centuries. Dbfirs 18:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

User talk:JackofOz#Happy First Day of Spring! might shed some light on this question. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Do we have any article on Roman seasons? I still don't understand why an astronomical fixed point on March 20th (astronomically mid-season) should give rise to a "first day of spring" on March 21st. Dbfirs 07:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's more astrological than astronomical. 21 March or thereabouts (the exact starting point differs slightly every year) is when the Sun enters the sign of Aries, which is traditionally considered the beginning of the astrological year. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Although, early February is the coldest part of the year, so I have always thought of that as being part of winter. Meanwhile June 21st is also midsummer's day. Personally I use the lunar new year as the start of spring, the last new moon before the equinox, it seems to work. 148.197.120.206 (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you mean June 24th as midsummer? (The solstice is "midsummer" in Celtic and Chinese and some other old traditions). November and December were the coldest months last year where I live, and this February was comparatively warm, but weather patterns vary. The weather does seem to change with the moon, but I don't know why. Dbfirs 18:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The traditional seasons are based on equinoxes and solstices. There is another concept of the start-and-end of seasons, used by weatherman. See Meteorological winter, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

And at least in the American midwest, the midpoint of winter is Groundhog Day, February 2nd, which is one of the coldest times of year. Exactly 6 months later, early August, is one of the hottest times of year. So at least here, the traditional seasons make sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in parts of America (and some other parts of the world), where the temperature lag is half a season, this makes sense, but much of the world has a shorter lag, and the older traditions use insolation-based seasons where the equinoxes and solstices are the mid-points. There is no consistent logical definition, they are all culturally defined and reinforced by confirmation bias. Dbfirs 07:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

And for US school kids, "Summer" is defined by vacation time... starting whenever school lets out "for the summer" and ending whenever school resumes. The exact dates vary from State to State. Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Bugs' explanation is good. The division of the year into 4 by the solstices and equinoxes is ancient, and still in use today. Rents may be payable on quarter day, for example, academic journals typically come out quarterly. How well the four quarters correspond to meteorological seasons depends where you are and if you actually have four well-defined meteorological seasons. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the division is ancient, and that the quarter days probably corresponded to the equinoxes and solstices at one time, but that doesn't mean that they were the start of the seasons, just the start of a payment or hiring quarter. In fact the Celts (who are at least as ancient as the Romans) regarded these days as mid-season. Dbfirs 16:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

In ancient times, at least in Europe, the spring equinox was March 25, and it was connected with rites of spring and fertility and such stuff as that. It was also the start of the "new year" (and also connects to why Annunciation Day and Christmas Day were assigned as they were). Starting the year on January 1 is a relatively recent decision. In the American midwest, at least, these four dates are nowhere close to "mid-season". They are just about perfect for start-and-end of seasons. But it's also a function of "how long" the seasons last. In the American south, for example, summer is longer and winter is shorter, from a weather standpoint. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I accept all that, but I still insist that these were the middle of the respective seasons, hence Shakespeare's "Midsummer Night's Dream" with the midsummer festival on June 24th. This is still celebrated in some areas of the UK. Dbfirs 22:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Where I live March 21 isn't anywhere near the beginning of spring - we still have snow on the ground and it was -16 last night. And I suspect that's the problem - where for you it seems ludicrous that a date as late as March 21 should be considered the beginning of spring, to me it's ludicrous to think that spring could ever begin so ridiculously early. March 21 seems a reasonable compromise. --NellieBly (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I appreciate that spring is variable (it begins in February in Florida), so why do we insist of the "first day" concept? Dbfirs 07:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

In London, for example, what maybe 2-week period is the hottest of the year, on average? And what 2-week period is the coldest? Whatever they are, those would be the peak of summer and the depth of winter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That was the basis of the old "mid-summer" (June 24th) and "mid-winter" (December 25th) festivals. The hottest and coldest period varies from year to year and from place to place, but we could take an average as you suggest. The answer will be different for each region. Dbfirs 07:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how relevant the change of calendars is. According to the internet, midsummer day used to be on the 5th. July. The calendar change may affect other traditional dates too. I recall hearing that Christmas day used to be celebrated in what we would think of as January. 92.15.14.99 (talk) 11:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where the claim of July 5th comes from, ( probably a mistaken calculation of 11 lost days from June 24th) but the Wikipedia article on Midsummer says that June 24th used to be the solstice in Roman times, so the Roman tradition seems to coincide with the older Celtic tradition of the solstice being the middle of summer. Dbfirs 18:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Number of Euromillions lottery tickets bought for Friday 25 March 11 draw

Does anyone know? I'd like to calculate if you ever get a positive expected value with UK tickets. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12867793 Thanks 92.29.127.59 (talk) 13:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

That news report and Camelot's prize report for that draw would suggest that sales were normal and the temporary glitch hardly affected anything. This report from the Spanish lottery shows that the sales for the 25 March draw were €192,122,304, meaning the number of tickets sold was 96,061,152 (the ticket price is €2). It might be difficult to find out how many of those tickets were sold to UK players.

If you really want to do your own calculation, you will need to seek out the report from each of the lottery partners to get the number of winners in each winning category for that draw. You then apply the prize fund division rules to the €96,061,152 prize fund (50% of sales). The jackpot is handled differently because that receives extra funds from previous week's rollovers. Bear in mind that all calculations are in Euros and there are special rules concerning the rounding that occurs - though I can't remember what they are.

I'm unsure what you mean by a "positive expected value" with UK tickets, but if you mean do UK players get a fair chance of winning the jackpot, then they certainly do. There have been several UK jackpot winners (see Euromillions#Notable wins). However, certainly in the early days of Euromillions, many of the winners were from France. The simple reason for this was that the majority of the players were from France. Nowadays, the proportion of players from the UK is much closer to that of France relative to their respective populations. Astronaut (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

"Positive expected value" means that the total prize money for a particular draw, divided by the total number of tiickets bought, then minus the cost of a ticket, gives a value greater than zero. Although the lottery organisation takes a proportion of the ticket money for charity costs and overheads, so that normally each ticket has a negative expected value, what I was wondering was if the amount of extra prize money from "rollovers" etc is sometimes enough to put things into a positive expected value rather than the usual negative. That draw was "a six-time rollover".

If the total europe-wide ticket sales were 96,061,152 and the price per ticket is two euros or equivalent, then all I need now is the total europe-wide prize money (including rollovers etc) to calculate the expected value of each ticket. Does anyone know what it was?

I should not have said "in the UK" but I was thinking of how US lotteries sometimes have a positive expected value.

Calculating the expected value of a ticket in each particular draw would be of great interest - the lottery organisation likes to keep this quiet.

On reflection, if on average only 50% of the ticket price is used as prize money, then the total amount rollovered would have to be enough to at least double the prize money. Does this ever happen? Thanks 92.29.119.112 (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, most lotteries are run to make money for other causes (the "good causes" in the UK, education in some US states, the blind at ONCE in Spain), not to simply redistribute money from the losers to the winners. The prize fund is usually set at 45% to 55% of sales, the remainder is used to finance the specified cause, run the lottery business (eg. advertising, staff wages, retailer commission, and so on), and perhaps pay government taxation. If a jackpot rolls over to the next draw, it is added to the next draw's jackpot (ie. it is not added to the prize fund and redistributed to all winners) and it usually has the effect of increasing sales.

If you want to do your calculation for a Euromillions draw, you would need to visit the website of each participating lottery and get the number of winners for the draw you are interested in. You then add up the number of winners in each category from all the countries and multiply by the prize in that category (in euros). You can then add all the prize money together. This total, plus the 6% bonus pool (a feature of Euromillions used to finance superdraws), should be roughly equal to the €192,122,304 sales plus the amount rolled over from previous draws. Note that the previously mentioned rounding can have a large impact (lotteries round their prizes either up of down to the whole cent/10 cents/euro - the precise rounding rules vary from lottery to lottery and by game. IIRC, the rounding rules for Euromillions are the same for all the participating lotteries, but I just can't remember the fine detail for now).

For example the 25 March draw had 2,796,521 winners of the '2 + 1' category (€8.24 - a total category prize outlay of €23,043,333.04), but 24% of €96,061,152 is €23,054,676.48; the difference of €11,343.44 is the rounding that cannot be divided among the 2,796,521 winners in that category. It is distributed elsewhere in the calculation, moved to the bonus pool or added to the jackpot - I just can't remember where. Astronaut (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Come to think of it, you might not need to visit each participating lottery. The report from Spain that I linked above tells you the number of winners across all the lotteries; if that is all you need. I recommend you stick with Euros because the UK has a special provision (the Millionaire's Raffle game) which hides the effect of a variable exchange rate from the players and winners (and I imagine a similar thing happens in Switzerland). Astronaut (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

when do you get new options?

For a stock I've been following, the latest (most in the future) available options on the market have been the January 2013 options - this has been true for more than a year.

When will there be april/may 2013 or any 2014 or later options?

The stock is Apple, you can see what I'm talking about on this page. 89.132.119.207 (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Winston Churchill as an author

What books by Winston Churchill are good reading? I would either be interested in autobiography, or books about his involvement in or explaination of events after 1914, as earlier history means nothing to me. Thanks. 92.29.127.59 (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

He did not write an autobiography per se, but his history of World War I (The World Crisis) and his six-volume history of World War II (The Second World War) are both largely focused on his particular role. The World War II history is considered his masterpiece, and won him the Nobel Prize for Literature. But in general he was an excellent writer, and many of his works are good reading, including A History of the English-Speaking Peoples and his multi-volume biography of his illustrious ancestor the Duke of Marlborough (although the last of these is pretty biased). Looie496 (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) He wrote "The Second World War, vol 1" which would seem to fit your point about explaining later events, although I really enjoyed reading "My Early Life", which despite Looie's assertion is an autobiography! Regardless of what you know (or not) of late 19th century history, I'd recommend reading that. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article about Winston Churchill as writer. I assume the OP asks about the British prime minister and not his grandson nor the American novelist, both of whom share the name Winston Churchill. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

March 27

China in the US?

Just curious. Do the Chinese follow the Soviet model of funding anti-nuclear, anti-war and peace organizations in the US? Is there any study on this topic? I searched in google, but did not find reliable sources except some blog opinions. Given China's quest for global influence and the international relations in today's world, I think it is possible, just a guess though. --Reference Desker (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

They are basically the landlords of the US. Would they engage in covert operations which diminished the value of their property? Is the US more valuable without nukes, and with the resulting rolling blackouts? Just asking. Edison (talk) 03:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I've heard of a few things. At the very, very beginning the Black Panther Party got funding by selling boxes and boxes of copies of Mao's Little Red Book that it had gotten from somewhere or other. And it seems like Bob Avakian's Revolutionary Communist Party, USA at least puts on airs of association with the Chinese. But in terms of serious impact? It's hard to tell. There was a huge flap over John Huang in the Clinton White House, but was it Chinese influence or merely "track II diplomacy"? If there's one thing people give the Chinese credit for, it's being discreet. Wnt (talk) 04:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there was anything sinister about distributing the Little Red Book. That link tells us "By May 1967, bookstores in 117 countries and territories around the world...were distributing Mao's Quotations." I bought a copy myself at a public bookstore in Melbourne, Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems interesting that they came across a large number of copies of it very cheaply. Wnt (talk) 04:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't seem to find the LRB I acquired some years back in a second-hand bookshop, though I recall that it was mass-produced, but well made (unlike the Soviet-printed Communist Manifesto I got at about the same time, which has since fallen apart... Oh, the irony ;-) ). I suspect that like Gideon Bibles they were given away free by the publishers. Whether they expected the Black Panthers to sell them, or hand them out for free, I don't know, but that wasn't the point. You don't charge for advertising/propaganda, you just pump it out. As it happens, as far as propaganda goes, it was an abysmal failure for anyone who could actually read, rather than merely recite passages. Banal excerpts from speeches, with no coherence, and less political analysis than I'd expect to see in an episode of Trumpton. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I see/hear "LRB" and I think Little River Band. The LRB meaning "Little Red Book" was not even listed among our LRB acronyms, so I've now added it. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Martin Van Ruin

Does Martin Van Buren's nickname "Ruin" mean the English word "ruin" or Dutch word "gelding"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henswick (talk • contribs) 09:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The English word. He was President during a time of economic hardship, when many businesses failed... hence "ruin". Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

A book / short story I recall from my youth

I've been trying to work out the identity of a book I recall from my youth. It's either a book or (less likely) a short story. In it someone wakes up to find that they're in a white featureless room, abducted by aliens. In due course the walls of the room disappear one by one, each time revealing someone else in a similar room, until I think there were four characters in total, two men and two women. In due course all the walls disappear to reveal that they're on a beach on a probably alien world.

Any thoughts as to the identity of the book concerned?

Thanks! Bobby P Chambers (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and given that "my youth" isn't very precise, I'm pretty certain the book would be over 15 or 20 years old by now. Bobby P Chambers (talk) 12:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

US Healthcare: HMOs tried for insufficient treatment?

Hello again! First of all thanks to Marco Polo and the rest that've answered my questions on healthcare as of late. Now, on another healthcare subject:

I'm looking for legal cases where a HMO has denied certain life-saving treatments, but ended up being sued. I'm sure I've hard of some, but after googling about a bit, and rummaging through our articles on healthcare here, I couldn't find a satisfactory reference. Would any of you know of one? 80.213.11.105 (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit: Oh hello. I guess I had already found what I was looking for, just had to find the right tab in my browser. 80.213.11.105 (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

That article is from 10 years ago. It would be interesting to know how those suits turned out. One thing to keep in mind is that HMO's don't make doctors' decisions for them. Those suits seem to be about denial of coverage, i.e. money. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Technically right, but many doctors and hospitals will change their decisions based on whether they will be paid, so effectively the HMOs do deny treatment. StuRat (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

In those cases, it's the doctors who should be sued. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

So they should be expected to take the loss when the HMO doesn't pay up ? Why ? StuRat (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It depends on whether the doctor's top priority is care for the patient, or care for his bank account. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

In poor areas hospitals can go bankrupt from this, resulting in less care for the poor in the long run. StuRat (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

So what's the solution? Cover a lot more, and raise the premiums a lot higher? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Some form of price controls seem to be needed. StuRat (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Call me Mr. Radical, but have you thought about having a pubicly funded healthcare infrastructure that provides essential care to everyone who needs it, regardless of their ability to pay ? Gandalf61 (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, in my experience, whatever the HMO doesn't cover gets billed to the patient. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

They can try, but there are some bills that obviously can never be paid by some patients. StuRat (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

"They" being the doctor, of course. It's the doctor who bills the patient for the balance no convered by the HMO. So the doctor has to decide what his priorities are. Another factor, though, is whether the procedure is, to be blunt, "worth the effort". For example, if a guy is 99 years old and needs a heart transplant, are they going to give him one? I wouldn't count on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe the hospital does the billing, in most cases. StuRat (talk) 02:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, you'll get various bills, including typically a separate one from the anesthetist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Phrase for Napoleon tactic

I can't remember what it is, but I'm pretty sure there was a (French) phrase for Napoleon's battlefield practice of concentrating dispersed units or batteries on a single point, with the intention (I think) of eventually advancing on it and breaking through that point in an enemy's line. I think it starts with an "f". AlexiusHoratius 17:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Force concentration?Sjö (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

That's the basic concept, but I'm looking particularly for the French phrase (I've heard it a couple times, I think in the movie Gettysburg for one.) The mangled/muddled anglicized pronunciation is something like "foot-on-far" or "foot-on-fire" or something like that. AlexiusHoratius 18:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the phrase you're looking for is feu d'enfer (literally "fire of hell"), the name given, as you say, to Napoleon's tactic of concentrating artillery fire on one weak point of the enemy's line, also used by Lee at Gettysburg. There's a short essay on it here. --Antiquary (talk) 19:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC) EDIT: IMDb confirms your memory of the movie Gettysburg: "We'll concentrate all our guns on that one small area. A feu d'enfer, as Napoleon would call it."

That must be it - thanks! AlexiusHoratius 20:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

POV of an immortal

If a person somehow became immortal when early modern humans were still living in nomadic groups, and he or she lived through to the modern era, what do you think their views on politics, religion, war etc. would be? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Since most such views develop during childhood and adolescence, they might retain some rather old beliefs, like animism. On the other hand, perhaps the exposure to many different views might allow them to pick-and-choose. StuRat (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you been reading The Boat of a Million Years? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

No, but I was thinking about writing a story with an almost identical plot, minus the multiple immortals. I guess everything truly has been done before. I originally wanted some type of space travel as well, but decided to drop that in favor of a post-nuclear war type of future. I wanted to use it as a vehicle to showcase my love of history. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

His point of view can be anything that you'd like, really; 10000 years would give someone a lot of time to change his mind about things. The first thing you'd need to decide is how he feels about the fact that he continues living. that would give you a sense for his attitude, and help you figure out how he looks at the rest of the world. --Ludwigs2 22:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a good idea on how his outlook would be, I'm just trying to gauge if others have similar thoughts. He absolutely cannot die. It's not like on Highlander when they just revive after healing, or die because they have their head cut off. The prospect of living until the end of time would make me a pretty depressed guy, so that is the angle I am approaching it from. I would also like to focus on his thoughts on seeing civilzations rise, and the crazy amount of things that one could learn (and share with others) during an immortal life. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The depression angle has also been covered, in the character of Nathan Brazil in Jack Chalker's Well World series. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

There's also Lazarus Long and his desire to end it all in Time Enough for Love, and a short story by Jack Vance, "When Hesperus Falls", in which the protagonist attempts a very elaborate suicide when the rest of humanity refuses to let him die. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

For the almost unendurable tedium of immortality, see also Borges's "The Immortal". Deor (talk) 23:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a reference desk, not a debating forum, so I'm afraid we can't help you. --Tango (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Monarchist. 2.97.210.137 (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I should explain for those who havnt twigged yet, the Immortal would be monarchist because they'd be the monarch. 92.15.14.4 (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Ghostexorcist, You might want to take a look at The Gnarly Man by L. Sprague de Camp. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendation. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

There was a Star Trek episode on the subject. I think there was a Twilight Zone also. On the humorous side, there was Mel Brooks and Carl Reiner in their bit about the "2,000 Year Old Man". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

A reporter visits a 100-year-old farmer in New England. The reporter asks, "You've seen a lot of changes in your life, haven't you?" The farmer answers, "Yep. And I was against every one of them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

British Asian#Communities

In your article, Burton upon Trent, Milton Keynes, Newport, Oxford, Pendle, Rugby, Southampton, Sunderland and Wakefield have not mentioned whether the South Asians are Pakistani, Indian or Bangladeshi or all. Do all three south asians groups in these cities? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.106.17 (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The vast majority will be British by nationality - probably second or even third generation. In terms of ethnicity (rather than nationality), the statistics can be found (as a downloadable spreadsheet) here: [20]. It gives numbers, rather than percentages, so you'll probably have to work these out for yourself. As an example, the figures for East Staffordshire (which includes Burton upon Trent) are as follows:

People in ethnic groups: Mixed: White and Asian: 265

People in ethnic groups: Asian or Asian British: Indian 426

People in ethnic groups: Asian or Asian British: Pakistani 3,862

People in ethnic groups: Asian or Asian British: Bangladeshi 86

People in ethnic groups: Asian or Asian British: Other Asian 112

No doubt the proportions will be very different in the other places you name. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure that "British Asian" even means all that much by itself anymore, since the typical experiences of Muslims and non-Muslims have often diverged in several respects, and nowadays a significant number of non-Muslims don't really want to be indiscriminately lumped together with Muslims in some supposedly homogeneous and undifferentiated "Asian" group. AnonMoos (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

NATO support for Libya efforts

I notice several countries within NATO are vocally supporting the 2011 military intervention in Libya, whereas several are against it. The lineup is a very odd one, and I'm trying to figure out why certain groups are supporting it, and why aren't. Here are my hypotheses:

• United States (easiest one, as I live here, and follow the news) - initially against, due to having a dovish leader (Obama) and being really sick of using its military in primarily Islamic nations; moved for, due to arguments by internal recommendations, notably Hillary Clinton (has always been more hawkish). Done also out of fear of losing any weak prestige it has among Islamic nations ("the US didn't support us against Gaddafi, but it had no problem invading Iraq and Afghanistan for oil"), and out of fear for losing its place as the "go-to" country for military issues, worldwide and especially in NATO.
• France - for; a bit of a surprise here; France is notoriously dovish, to the point of mockery. However, they have a more hawkish leader, who is interested in regaining the prestige of the French in the international field (especially in light of USA's ambivalance). Also, leader (Sarkozy) may be embarrassed by former support for Gaddafi. I cannot say whether the actions have much domestic support.
• United Kingdom - for; the British are the anti-French: they've traditionally been more hawkish, and have supported the US in the past. It currently has a conservative leader; is acting exactly as the US would, had it a more hawkish leadership.
• Germany - has come out against participation. With the conservative leadership of Germany, its strident stance is again a bit surprising. My only theory is that the German populace has traditionally been very dovish on military matters (post WWII, obviously); the country is already against participation in the Afghan war, despite its international nature.
• Turkey - has come out against participation. This is another confusing one, as even the Arab League initially spoke more strongly in favor. My only theories are a) Turkey doesn't like mass uprisings, in view of its own history of putting down such uprisings. However, this doesn't hold much water, as they recognized the independence of Kosovo just two years ago, b) the Turkish leader (Recep Tayyip Erdoğan) is known to be close to Gaddafi (e.g., Al-Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights), and c) A modern pro-Islamic Turkey (as opposed to its secular past) really dislikes the West putting its nose anywhere near an Islamic nation (c.f., its support of Iran against western hostility).
• Australia (not strictly speaking NATO, although closely aligned) - against because it has a dovish leader.
• Canada, Denmark, Belgium - for: all have hawkish leaders.
• Italy - for, a hawkish leader, perhaps embarrassed by former support for Gaddafi.
• Norway - for, but with a left-leaning leader. I have no idea why they support this.

Anyway, sorry about the textwall, but I wanted to get some of your impressions of this, as I can't figure out why certain countries are acting certain ways. Can anyone verify or debunk any of this? I'm especially interested in Turkey and Germany. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why you think Turkey would tend to follow the lead of the Arab League... AnonMoos (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

They are a country torn between the Middle East and Europe. Europe appears to be mostly for the action, the Middle East also for it. Thus the cultural considerations give no clue as to their non-support. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Look up the decline of the Ottoman empire for the sometimes-checkered history of Turkish-Arab relations. Anyway, many of the differences in alignment from 2003 are because this is not widely viewed as U.S. aggressive unilateralism... AnonMoos (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course the Turkish have terrible relations with the Arabs (I even mention this on my userpage). But lot of the traditional has been changing as of late (c.f., the Gaza flotilla raid). Also, I wasn't comparing this to just 2003 - I'm wondering why some leaders support it while others don't. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Also for Turkey, just because their leader was granted an award by Gaddafi, doesn't mean they are allies, whilst the recognition of new countries is a complex diplomatic area (for example, back in 1908 or whenever Russia offered to unrecognise Bosnia in exchange for Austrian support against Turkey, and more recently Turkey and Russia seemingly exchanged recognition of Northern Cyprus and South Ossetia.) Meanwhile, perhaps the Germans and others don't want to see lots of their people killed, or to get involved in a potentially expensive campaign in the midst of a recession, quite reasonable interests they seem to me. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It might be useful to compare with the US bombing of Libya (1986). There the reason was terrorist activities alleged to have been performed by Libya and Qaddafi's claim to the waters in the Gulf of Sidra. In that case the liberals argued "innocent until proven guilty" and that the bombing would just lead to a further spiral of violence (which it did, including the Lockerbie bombing), and that this would further antagonize the Arab world, whereas conservatives supported the action. However, the present situation doesn't lead to a clear-cut liberal/conservative divide like that, for several reasons:

1) The Arab League actually supports some action against Qaddafi. Thus some liberals may support action this time around.

2) In this case the benefit, in terms of saving civilian lives, isn't theoretical and eventual, it's clear and immediate. But, of course, some lives will also be lost in the process of protecting others, so this could lead to a divide between most liberals (who put protecting innocent civilians as the highest goal) and pacifists.

So, those are some reasons why liberals might be divided. Conservatives might be divided because, while they generally support the use of force to remove historic enemies, in this case it could lead to a reduction in the oil supply and possibly a victory for Islamic fundamentalists. Conservatives also like to act unilaterally rather than in a coalition. StuRat (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Germany, it is too simple to say that Germany has a conservative government; conservatives support military intervention; therefore we would expect Germany's government to support military intervention in Libya. Actually, no German party unambiguously supports military intervention anywhere. In fact, the German decision to take part in the war in Afghanistan was made by the government of Gerhard Schröder, a Social Democrat. The Angela Merkel, the current chancellor, is from the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), the traditional opponents of the Social Democrats. The CDU are a conservative party in the sense that they tend to represent the interests of businesses and the better off; however, the CDU have never taken a position in support of the military projection of German power. Such a stance is practically taboo in Germany because of its Nazi history. In fact, Germany's Afghan engagement is quite unpopular among Germans, who tend toward pacifism and tend to abhor the non-defensive use of military power, again because of the Nazi past. Meanwhile, Merkel has faced widespread opposition at home to Germany's assumption of a large share of the financial burden for rescuing the euro and supporting the finances of peripheral European nations in the current European debt crisis. I think, in this context, the German government calculated that they could not afford politically to undertake yet another unpopular action in support of Western allies.

As for Turkey, it is important to remember that the Arab League and the UN Security Council called for only the creation of a no-fly zone to protect civilians in Libya, not for the more expansive intervention on behalf of the Libyan rebels that NATO has undertaken. My understanding is that Turkey supports only the limited action requested by the Arab League and the Security Council and that they object to the more expansive NATO intervention. This makes perfect sense in terms of the Turkish population's general suspicion of Western intervention in oil-rich Muslim countries and in terms of the efforts of the present Turkish government to build stronger relations with Arab governments, many of which have also voiced opposition to NATO's movement beyond mere imposition of a no-fly zone. Marco polo (talk) 01:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

And I'd say for Germany this is still too simple. While Germany is generally very sceptical towards military involvement across party lines, things have changed slightly and generally Germany will support UN backed military action for humanitarian causes. Indeed Germany has supported (and actively contributed) to the Kosovo war (even without UN backing). A large portion of the German media blames the incompetence and amateurism of the foreign secretary Westerwelle for the German stance. Indeed both former chancellor Kohl (Conservative) and former foreign secretary Fischer (Green - traditionally pacifist) have strongly criticised Westerwelle for his (non-)action at the UN. At last weekends regional elections the share of the votes of Westerwelle's party (FDP, free democrats) was halved (probably not solely related to Libya, but likely a contributing factor). I don't believe the cost associated with the EURO stability pact has anything to do with it. 86.161.102.123 (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say Canada has a "hawkish" leader; the troops in Afghanistan are supposed to come back this year, I think (and they were sent there by the previous Liberal governments, which I wouldn't describe as hawkish either - they sensibly stayed out of Iraq, at least). Canada has lost a relatively large number of soldiers in Afghanistan though, and Canadians are generally wary of sending more soldiers into combat zones, but I think in this case the chances of actual combat are very slim (aren't there only something like six Canadian planes involved in Libya?). For France, I get the impression that, even though Libya was never a French colony, France sees itself as the protector of Africa. They sent some troops to the Ivory Coast recently (though that was a former colony). Also, once Obama was on board, the French were much happier to join in - if Bush was still president, I don't think they would be involved. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure it is fair to call France 'notoriously dovish': have a look at List of French wars and battles#Modern period. Presumably the actions of Michèle Alliot-Marie, and Sarkozy's current unpopularity, have something to do with their position. In Britain, the action has cross-party support; the fact that a conservative(-led) government is in charge is irrelevant. More generally, I don't think you can explain governments' stances on this intervention simply by placing them on a left/right or hawkish/dovish scale. They will also be taking into account things like the level of popular support for intervention, the popularity of previous military interventions, and relations with other countries. 130.88.134.121 (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Dividing the world governments into hawkish and dovish is at best a misleading and inaccurate simplification of how international politics work. Decisions by head of states cannot be predicted by the mere facts of their labels (left, right, conservative...). Such big decisions are influenced by a complex array of factors distinct to each country: economics, treaties, internal politics, international credibility, leadership ambitions... If you really want to understand why each state behaved in the way it did, you should drop the labels and start studying the complex causes and conditions behind their politics. 89.82.190.163 (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. In this case, Libya was an Italian colony until after Word War 2, and France has a long colonial history in North Africa. Libya also is right across the Mediterranean from Italy, and it receives the brunt of refugees. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd hazard a guess that general population of Australia isn't too fond of it's military involvement in Middle Eastern affairs, based on my experiences of living in Perth and studying politics at Murdoch University. Since current minority Labor government has recently lost state elections in NSW they are doing their very best to cling onto power meaning they don't want to aggravate their electorate any further by involving themselves into Libya situation. Australia sees itself as regional power and will gladly conduct military and peacekeeper missions in the region but I think it does not perceive Libya as it's responsibility. Melmann^(talk) 12:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It is easy to be a regional power when you are the only one in the region. Googlemeister (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Right. We'll just ignore 400 000 of active Indonesian military personnel and 62 million fit for service compared to 57 000 active Australian military personnel and some 4 million fit for service. Indonesia also has slightly larger economy, but not for much. Melmann^(talk) 13:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

MPs expenses scandal, UK

How much per capita per year have dishonest MPs taken in false expenses claims from the British public, before it was stopped? Thanks 2.97.210.137 (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

See United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal for general background; there are some figures mentioned there. List of expenses claims in the United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal has a table showing how much was required to be paid back. Gwinva (talk) 23:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Less than 1p each - why all the fuss? Surely its worth paying 1p to have democraxcy? 92.15.14.99 (talk) 11:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, people react in terms of principles, rather than reason. 1p is nothing, and given the waste of time that this scandal has produced, it has cost the country much more than it tries to save. But there you go, that is politics for you. --Lgriot (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Democracy is surely worth more than 1p per person. But the 1p was expended on corruption and not on democracy. Let them steal 1p and next year they steal 2 and on and on and on... The price of leadership is to be held to higher standards. Flamarande (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yet our dear Windsor family pocket a great many times that, and as they are outrageously wealthy already may I suggest they don't need it, so why is it bad for MPs but luvvy-dovey gawd bless er me awld china for The Firm? 92.15.14.4 (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You miss the point entirely. It's not bad for MPs to be paid public money to cover legitimate expenses. But it is bad when they claim for "expenses" they never incurred at all. That is outright fraud, dishonesty, lying, you name it. If that's the sort of people you want representing you, that says as much about you as it does about them. Namely, not much. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not even that - in many cases they claimed for expenses they had incurred (a famous example being moat-cleaning), and were, at least arguably, staying within the rules, as witnessed by the fact that they were reimbursed; so (again arguably) there was (in most cases) no dishonesty and no "false expenses". The main problem was that MPs were taking advantage of a rotten system. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

But you can say exactly the same with the Windsors. 92.15.14.4 (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

So, it appears the general public is content with one set of royalty, but draws the line at spontaneously developing any extra royals in the form of MPs with stately homes and inflated stipends. (By the way, the libertarian point of view is that the MPs are worse than the royals, who at least are decorative and tend not to interfere.) 213.122.54.179 (talk) 04:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

March 28

Demanding an anorexia suffered to eat

In Skins, a character sends repeated messages to an anorexia suffered (Cassie_Ainsworth), demanding her to eat. Considering that anorexia is an anxiety disorder, and that this would not deal with the causes of it, isn't that a horrible idea? Quest09 (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is likely to be counter-effective. Compare the options listed under Anorexia nervosa#Treatment. In a hospital setting, a person might be made to ingest food (possibly though an IV), but that would be ideally be combined with other forms of treatment. (By the way, "anorexia suffered" doesn't work. I would say "an anorexic person" or "a person suffering from anorexia".) Lesgles (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Or the nearest viable: "anorexia sufferer ". 212.169.179.193 (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

What is common to "Ford Mustang" Porsche and Ferrari

Looking for something common among "Ford Mustang" Porsche and Ferrari. The commonality could be anything. People/companies associated with them or just anything

Would appreciate any help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.252.236 (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

They are all cars with horses in their logos. Lesgles (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

They have 4 wheels and internal combustion engines. Googlemeister (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

US politics/office-holders campaigning

Hi - I was wondering if Americans could explain something to me, after watching The California 47th. In this episode, Bartlet and his staff fly on Air Force One to California, for no reason other than campaigning in a Federal special Congressional election. This isn't uncommon in the show, e.g. when campaigning for re-election as President, Bartlet and staff fly there on AF1. Does this actually happen in US politics? (Presumably so?) If so, given that federal funding of party political campaigns is illegal (a point often referenced in the show, such as having election posters in the white house being illegal, even during a political party's own administration, or indeed in this episode, when staffers stay behind to campaign longer, they have to come off the WH payroll), how is the free flight on AF1, and all concomitant governmental expenditure not a massive donation to the campaign coffers of the party in question? Or do they just get to use it because the President has to travel in style, but then they have to re-imburse the government? What about staff pay for all the time they're out endorsing the candidate, even if they're nominally not door-knocking/handing out leaflets? I'd love to understand this better :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.195.197.254 (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and it's a major advantage for an incumbent. In 2004 George W. Bush used AF1 to campaign, and Dick Cheney used AF2. They're at the disposal of the president, and the Secret Service wouldn't let the president fly with anything less than that kind of security. It makes campaigning much easier, although the advantage was somewhat neutralized in 2004 because John Kerry is and was a senator (in contrast to most presidential candidates; having current or former governors is far more typical) and could more than afford his own air transportation. As to the aides, that's handled through the respective parties; many people aren't paid (a lot of interns and volunteers do the work at a local/regional level), but those who are get their checks from whichever political organization they're working for. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

[ec] :This article addresses most of your questions. As for paying presidential staff who spend time on partisan projects, they don't punch a time clock when they start or stop working on government business, which is the basis for their salary. What they do in their spare time (even if that spare time adds up to 40 hours per week or more) is their own business, though if a presidential staffer were found to be working mainly on a campaign, it could be the basis of a scandal that could threaten the president's re-election. Marco polo (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It is an issue though if they use governmental resources, as I understand it. They may not punch the clock, but their use of offices, telephones, computers, etc., can fall under scrutiny. Much less if they use the implements of government more directly (e.g. firing judges for political reasons). --Mr.98 (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, don't forget that any (Air Force) plane the president is on is technically "Air Force One". Qrsdogg (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Karl Rove clearly worked on the 2004 re-election campaign for George W. Bush while he held the Federal office of "Senior Advisor to the President". I merely cite him as an example. Senior political aides for other presidents have also had roles in their campaigns. Marco polo (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a current discussion going on right now about Governor of Mississippi Haley Barbour flying around the country at state expense for campaign events (he is an unannounced candidate for President). He claims he is travelling on state business while at the same time attending these events. Corvus cornix_talk 20:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Politicians in the United States have been doing that sort of thing for as long as I can remember and probably longer. (My memory of such things goes back to the 1970s.) Marco polo (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Rush und Bedeutung

In this text, is 'Milquetoast' a definite description and if so, what is its referent? Danke, Skomorokh 21:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are asking who Rush Limbaugh refers to in this quote: "The truth is, the sad reality is we may end up with Milquetoast as a nominee". Is this right ? StuRat (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

See Caspar Milquetoast. --ColinFine (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Shapes in Chinese Calligraphy

I am learning Chinese calligraphy, and I need practice with a particular shape. I don't know how to refer to it other than by calling it what the author of the book I'm studying calls it. Rebecca Yue refers to it as the "horizontal form of the diagonal brushstroke to the right." It is the shape seens at the bottom of these characters: 之逞逗. I would rather prefer to write this shape as part of a word, rather than simply repeating the shape over and over. I need a way to locate words that contain this shape so I can practice them, but I can't find a way to do that. Can anyone help me with this? CalamusFortis 21:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You could take a look at "What's in a Chinese Character" ISBN 9787800055157. It steps through the basic ideographs, giving their origins, and then shows how the basic ideographs combine into more complex ones. CS Miller (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Though the web site is for Japanese Kanji, [21] seems like a good way to find characters based on multiple radicals. CJEDictionary gives a disappointingly incomplete set of Hanzi based on particular radicals, but not in combination. Pablo allows a pretty good lookup from English to Chinese, with animated brush strokes, but I don't see much capability in the other direction (you must run as administrator or it crashes Windows Explorer). I hope someone will give better freeware answers than this so I can check them out. ;) Wnt (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The radical you refer to is called a 走之, or 走之底. Googling "走之", the first hit I found was a page on "how to write 走之", which may be of interest to you. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Re-reading your question, I realised that you may have been referring to the stroke, not the whole radical. As you probably know, a downward diagonal stroke to the right with a light flourish at the end is called a 捺, "na". This particular form of that stroke is called a 平捺, a "flat na". Googling 平捺 took me to some video results teaching viewers how to write the stroke, so these may be of some interest to you.

If you simply want to find characters with this stroke, simply look up that radical in a radical-based Chinese dictionary. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are the list of characters with the two radicals. [22] and [23]. The second and the third are basically the same. And a list of radicals is here. Oda Mari (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

March 29

Census nosiness

I just filled in the UK census, and was puzzled by one pair of questions: why do they want to know the name and address of the organization that employs me? Does this mean that statistics will be kept for every business in the UK, however small? Will those statistics be published, so that I can see how many people work(ed) for the corner grocery store, and doesn't that seem very useful for tax enforcement, and not at all useful for statisticians? What's the ostensible purpose of the question? 213.122.2.47 (talk) 07:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The address might be used for working out how far people live from their workplace (which might be useful when considering transport plans, etc.). That doesn't explain the name, though. Proteus (Talk) 07:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The report here says: "The address and postcode of the employer is one of a number of questions contained in the census questionnaire about jobs, place of work, hours of employment and methods of travel to work. Answers to these questions help to build a profile of the economy of England and Wales and provide the foundation for other labour market and economic statistics published by ONS..... As well as underpinning the planning of public services, census statistics are also used extensively by the private sector. Information on such things as the skill and age profile of the workforce and where people live can help businesses to decide where to place new offices, factories and other places of work and what training they need provide for their employees." All individual forms are confidential, but the results will be aggregated to provide statistical information by location and by business type - not for individual businesses. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

By door number and business type, by the sound of it? 213.122.57.127 (talk) 08:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The work postcode is extremely useful to researchers of all kinds. Without it there would be no travel to work statistics. The industry that your employer is operating in is also crucial for knowing the mix of industries in each local area. What ONS says about business planning is also true, although it may be useful to note that it is not just ONS that crunches the information. There are numerous consultancies, large and small, that use Census data to model local economic development. Businesses can buy the info in to assist with planning; larger businesses contract with consultancies to do that while it is filtered to smaller businesses through local authorities, HMRC, chambers of commerce, business associations etc. The individual information is never passed on to HMRC but aggregate information is publicly available and can be used by anyone. So if the Census shows your town has hundreds of people working in construction but no construction businesses are registered for tax, HMRC might decide to send a team of inspectors to have a look around. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

So, why do they ask for the name and full address, rather than the postcode? Is the excess information thrown away? 213.122.57.127 (talk) 09:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thrown away? Ha. Forms are kept for 100 years then made available to the public. Don't forget, you can use the street name to check if the respondent has made a mistake in the postcode. That's the sort of thing they will be doing for the next 18 months before they are ready to publish the first tables of figures. Not by hand, by computer algorithms. They cross-check against the last census, against the electoral register, against the credit reference agencies' data. Oh, and by the way, the UK government maintains a database of UK businesses that is supposed to be comprehensive. It starts with VAT registrations, and records for small businesses not registered for VAT are being added now or in the near future. It uses the database to make the sample for the Annual Business Survey (which may have changed its name again, need to check and amend WP article). Governments in developed countries know a lot of stuff. Assume they know more or less everything. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they already know the names of all employers and whom they employ from Tax & NI returns. They already know extensive information about every person under 20 who has been in the state education system. In the past, information was seldom shared between different arms of government, but this is all changing. Dbfirs 10:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Not just people under 20. Individual records go back more than 15 years for schools, colleges, and universities. Our health records are also held. These days it is easy to combine records from different sources. The government agencies work with external bodies to develop their data systems. Nevertheless, there are some limits. Data sharing and security protocols are applied more strictly after the headline cases of databases left in taxis. Most of this can be found out by enquiring of government departments but I think most people would be shocked to know how much info is held on them by how many different bodies. The Census is the most secure and least problematic. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Professing and believing within Catholicism

I vaguely recall that within Roman Catholicism there is a meaningful distinction made between the two concepts, to the effect that a Catholic is required to profess certain doctrines, but technically he is not required to believe them. Or perhaps he is supposed to do both, but he is "more required" to profess a doctrine than to inwardly believe it. This is my very fragmentary recollection, and the reality is probably somewhat different. Can anyone clarify the point, or direct me to a source of more information on this particular distinction, and perhaps to critical discussions of the issue? LANTZY^TALK 11:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, attempted indoctrination by Roman Catholic church performed on me has told me that one has to profess and believe in the God. To claim belief but not truly hold it in your heart is a sin much like the fact that belief in God will save you from hell even if you are not baptised into the church and you can be forgiven your sin if you truly confess and regret it internally, but don't have the means to go to proper Confession at the moment. True belief is necessary for got to recognise you anything less is not a guarantee. What you do need to profess openly is rejection of sin (after every Confession), rejection of devil during marriage ceremony, baptism and few other ceremonies (godparents and parents on the behalf of an infant) and core set of beliefs known as Apostles' Creed which are recited on every mass and succinctly summarise the basics of the Roman Catholic belief. Melmann^(talk) 12:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Philosophical Defense of General Resurrection

Hello. Can anyone here point me to a rigorous philosophical defense of general resurrection as preached by the Catholic Church vis-a-vis resurrection? Please understand that I am only referring to the philophical arguments, not those discussing whether or not it is a biblical teaching or not, or whether or not it is more just than or as just as reincarnation. In particular, I am looking for treatment of questions such as "how can that which has a beginning be without an end?" That is, how something can be "immortal" but not "eternal". I asked for a "rigorous" defense because I have seen many so far and all of them touch issues which are settled as far as I am concerned, and their reasoning is misinformed or incomplete. Please do not hesitate to recommend a complex or highly theoretical work, I have a decent grasp of the different subjects in Western philosophy, and I am prepared to do the hard work to understand it fully. Please just let me know which is the strongest defense in this regard that you know of. Many thanks, ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

What are you looking for, exactly? In the words of the old Catholic Encyclopedia (which isn't always in conformity with teaching) "The general resurrection can hardly be proved from reason, though we may show its congruity." While one can carry out philosophical arguments about it's necessity, any rigorous defence is ultimately going to come down to the Bible, Holy Tradition and the Church's teaching: it's not something that's derivable outside that context. Having said that, if nobody has a better recommendation you might want to look up the various works of the Early Church Fathers cited in that article (under Tradition), since I expect some of them to have provided a thorough treatment. 86.164.69.241 (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I am aware of a number of philosophical problems with resurrection, such as those recounted here:[24] and here:[25], besides others that I am aware of. I think these objections present challenges, and that reincarnation presents a a more coherent account in comparison. I wished to know if someone, preferably someone defending the Catholic doctrine, had offered a detailed treatment of the issues. But your answer is very useful too, I just wanted to know what are the strongest defenses that people know of. --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I should also note (and I wish I could be more helpful) that the reason it is relatively hard to find a detailed philosophical treatment of this from the Catholic perspective, is because the Catholic Church doesn't really think the details are terribly important. Catholicism doesn't go quite as far as the Orthodox churches in terms of "It's a mystery, and the details aren't important", but the afterlife and the end of the world are topics it doesn't think yield or need a lot of detail. After all, what difference does it make to your actions today? We 'know' (based on Jesus's words) that existence in Heaven is not really comparable to existence on Earth, for example, so further extrapolating isn't really possible. If you know none of the old rules apply, but don't know the new rules, how can you meaningfully say what is and isn't possible? 86.164.69.241 (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I think what you are saying makes eminent sense. However, I was still looking for one because the Catholic Church, in the present age, presents itself as one that extensively depends on reason and community tradition (and reasoning within that community) in the formation of its beliefs and practices, besides the scripture itself. Moreover, I have come across defenses of a logical nature presented of general resurrection, and criticisms offered of reincarnation from the Catholic point of view, just not ones that seemed very convincing. --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Formal term for an "it's your word against his" situation

I am trying to express a negotiation situation wherein two sides both have limited information about each other, and make mutually unverifiable claims, with no objective evidence nor intermediary (i.e., a witness), such as when one says "it's your word against his". But this formulation lacks the requisite elegance (i.e., of the conceptual sort). Grateful for any ideas as to whether there is a formal and more elegant term, in law or logic or some other field, for such a situation. --Nicsilo (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

A specific instance of this is "He said, she said", which is a nice and more-elegant shorthand for the whole thing (except for your "limited information" requirement), but has sexual overtones. Our He said, she said article actually refers the reader to argument, but the desired meaning of "argument" is over at argument (disambiguation), which points the reader to disagreement, which is a redirect to controversy, which doesn't really address the topic. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Picture of Emperor Gaozu of Later Jin

What is the source of the image at this site? If the source is PD, is this pic? If this pic is not PD, does it qualify under WP's fair use policy? Thanks Kayau Voting IS evil 16:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

How to judge parents?

Is there a scale to judge parents? Obviously, not getting sneakers for $200 is not a blatant case of abuse, and on the other extreme, sexual abusing your children will always get you a 0 as parent. But how to grade the cases between these two poles? 212.169.190.250 (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Not to dodge the question, but judge them for what purpose?

I think that makes a difference. If you're doing some sort of scientific study and you need to grade parents on their 'fitness' (so you can compare your test group and your control group) you're going to a very specific criterion.

But other than that, it's difficult to imagine a good 'ranking' scale, except perhaps, how happy or successful the children are when they grow up. (Even then, which is better? Successful but not happy? or vice-versa?) APL (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, judging parents might be interesting for social workers or psychologists coaching parents to be better parents. Judging might sound as a too strong of a term. Evaluating is just as good here. I'm sure that happiness - which is partially genetic - is not an issue here, nor success - which is equally determined by factors beyond parents' control. 212.169.190.250 (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

At a first step, you'll have to define what a "good parent" is. What obligations do they have? Should be judge them by outcome or by intention? Should be pardon mentally ill parents or drug users? Excluding the obviously criminal, I see little chances of reaching a conclusion. Family psychologist could, however, still work on the relationship. Quest09 (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Press conferences

I was watching William Hague and another address a press conference, entirely as one would expect in terms of the way it was carried out. As each question from the floor was being answered, the reporter who asked it would be furiously scribbling. Would it not be simpler to merely review the footage after? It did occur to me that it is something to do whilst the speaker is addressing both the questioner and the rest of the floor, but perhaps there is something more obvious? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a timing thing. This will probably have been a print journalist who had to file a story for the next day's paper. He hasn't got the time to review the footage, he just has to write his story as quickly as possible and send it to the paper. --Viennese Waltz 17:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

As someone who used an audio-recorder to take notes in school, I can tell you that even with a tape, it's very useful to get down the key bullet-points on paper. If you're in a hurry (and I assume that reporters almost always are) trying to find the one good quote in two hours of tape is an ordeal. APL (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone use shorthand any more? 92.29.112.51 (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)