Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 December 15

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

December 15

Homelessness in the United States

How many homeless persons in the US actually live on the street? (Meaning: Out of a shelter). Gridge (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC).

According to Homelessness, as of 2007, "82% of the homeless are not chronically homeless, and 18% are (6% Chronically Homeless Sheltered, 12% Chronically Homeless Unsheltered)." Tastyduck (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

So, if there are about 700,000 homeless in the United States at any given time, as our article suggests, applying this percentage, about 84,000 live on the street chronically. If we add in some temporarily homeless living on the street, I would expect that at least 100,000 homeless live on the street at any given time. (Of course most do not actually live on the street itself. Most find rough shelter in railway or highway underpasses, in derelict buildings, and so forth.) Marco polo (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

middle east body count by group

do we have a chart comparing the total body count in the middle east since conflict began there, among the various groups involved? thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.213.98 (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll politely answer first, because I fear that you're about to get razzed. Even limiting ourselves to recent history, there have been dozens of major conflicts in the middle east. The Iraq Body Count, is the best source for information on deaths that (allegedly) can be directly attributed to the 2003 US Invasion, for example. The right side of our Iraq War article has information on "Casualties and Losses" (in the infobox).

As for a count of total deaths in Shia-Sunni or Arab-Isreali conflicts combined, it would be pretty difficult to aggregate them all. Maybe if you specify what conflict or time period you're interested in, we'd be able to help further.NByz (talk) 03:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

all of these! that's why I said by group. But surely there aren't pages and pages of groups the respective body counts fall into, it must be under a few dozen! Do we have any page like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.213.98 (talk) 07:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

So, going back several thousand years? And by group, do you mean ethnic group, or grouped by war? Maybe List of Wars could help. It's very much an incomplete list, but pretty rigorous for the last hundred years or so (if that's your time frame). You'll have to make some judgement calls. Was the 1997 Turkey-Iraq Kurdistan conflict in the "middle east" or "asia minor", for example. It also doesn't break down deaths by ethnic group or even national affiliation.

Also, a lot of the more recent conflicts in the middle east have produced considerable and consistent "terror"-related deaths associated with more of a "struggle" than a war. The death toll for the conflict over the West Bank and Gaza Strip is slow and steady.NByz (talk) 09:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Short answer: no. We have Ethnic groups of the Middle East. Look at the length of that page, and then think about how many of those groups must have fought against one another, amongst themselves, and against non-Middle Easterners in the course of the past few thousand years. Trying to figure out a body count for that would be an exercise in futility, seeing as how it's nearly impossible to get an accurate body count even in modern conventional warfare. That being said, we also have List of conflicts in the Middle East. I would imagine you're not wondering about every single entry on that list; you probably have a specific conflict in mind, or a relatively specific region and time period. If you can narrow down your focus a little bit (ok, a lot), we might be able to give you a better answer. --Fullobeans (talk) 09:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

---

There are some stats at http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstats.htm , but the figures probably aren't broken down in the way you want them... AnonMoos (talk) 10:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering dropping out of high school in Ontario. What are my options?

I am an eighteen-year-old high school student (born in 1990) in Ontario, Canada. At this juncture I have 12 credits, meaning that I need 18 more to graduate, plus community service hours. This will take four semesters plus online courses and summer school. I am in the first semester of those four and finding school incredibly tedious and frustrating; it's pointless busywork that's detracting from my real education. On the other hand, I recognize that learning on my own in an unstructured environment isn't ideal for my progress.

I have ambitions of becoming a neuroscientist someday. Neuroscience, neuropsychology, neurolinguistics and everything to do with the brain: these are my passions. It's impossible to imagine attaining such a goal if I can't even sludge through high school! I might be more challenged and interested in a university environment, depending on the university and program, but my work ethic and discipline are so lacking that it's naïve to expect myself to be able to do well in university. Obviously, though, university will be necessary if I am to pursue my ultimate goal of working in neuroscience.

My question: Is high school necessary? I'm aware of the GED and mature student programs available at some universities, but the requirements for these seem unclear to me. I believe to take the GED you must have been out of school for a certain amount of time (one or two years), which I haven't, and spending another two years out of school doing basically nothing for my formal education is an unappealing prospect for me. I'm very ignorant as to the nature of mature student programs. What options do these open to me? Is a GED required? Would my education be lesser or opportunities fewer because I didn't go to high school? Would it be possible for me to take courses at a community college or a mature student program at a university without having to do an expensive and unnecessary (for my personal development, not formal credentials) "bridge year"? And would my options be any different if I chose to study outside of the country, say in the US?

I'm hoping to attract someone with a high degree of knowledge or personal experience in this subject, because I am incredibly lost. I'm doing very poorly in school, and the prospect of three and some semesters more of this is daunting. I am clearly not the next Michael Dell; I have no entrepreneurship, just a thirst for knowledge and a dream so outlandish I try not to let myself think it. What can I do?

99.245.92.47 (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think before we recommend a solution we need to understand the problem better. You say you have a thirst for knowledge but hate school. So, what aspects of school do you hate ? Is it being forced to study topics which don't interest you ? Is it that the work is too difficult or too easy ? Perhaps you like to learn by doing rather than by reading about what others have done ? Do you like to work with your hands rather than your head ? Do you prefer self-study on the computer to formal classroom study ? We might be able to offer some suggestions here once we know some of these answers. However, most schools have a guidance counselor whose job is to do just this sort of thing, so I'd also recommend seeing what they have to say. StuRat (talk) 04:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I would see my school's guidance counsellor, except that she's a sarcastic, bitter woman who isn't helpful at all. I don't feel comfortable speaking to her.

My reasons for disliking school are complex, but mostly related to the fact that I feel that my efforts go into a void. I wouldn't mind doing schoolwork if I had any clear idea of my progress or feedback on my ideas; if I were being challenged and criticized by my teachers, instead of just being saddled with an unexplained 91 for a paper I did at 3 AM on the night before. Unfortunately from what I've heard, this situation doesn't change in university. So perhaps I'm stuck. But I want to improve myself, and this seems absolutely impossible.

The other reasons are things like sleep problems, depression and an overabundance of pointless busywork. I'm interested in almost every subject, and have a lot of control over what I study, so it's unrelated to studying topics in which I'm not interested.

An important and relevant note that I forgot to add to my initial post: although I'm making efforts to improve this situation, I am hopeless in math to the point where it feels like a mental disability. This is distressing to me since all the sciences require some degree of mathematical ability, and because I see very clearly from a neurological perspective where my lack of mathematical ability has hindered me in other areas.

99.245.92.47 (talk) 04:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, it sounds like you want your efforts to gain recognition beyond a grade on an assignment. Unfortunately, I doubt that, as a high school student who is bad at math, you will be able to make significant contributions in your chosen field for many years. There are many other fields where a high school student who's bad at math might gain recognition, though. The arts are one such area, such as acting, singing, playing instruments, painting, sculpting, writing, culinary arts, etc. Computer science offers another possibility, where you could design web pages for companies (maybe for free initially). So, what would be your second choice for a career ? StuRat (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If someone can't handle doing the work required to become distinguished in a given field, they can always hone their writing skills so they can work at writing about the field. Good science writers are few and far between, and the technical skill required to digest other people's ideas is significantly less than the skill required to come up with your own. Also the OP may be entirely off about their assessment of their math skills. I do not think my math skills are anything to write home about but that's just because I have unrealistic standards for myself. I wouldn't worry about your math skills until college. Discuss the issue with someone on the faculty who does the work you are interested in and see what sort of math skills are required. Then take those math classes. Depending on the type of neuro* you're interested in, the math may be surprisingly minimal or surprisingly complex (I remember being humbled as I tried to wade through an introduction to neural networks).--droptone (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

My math skills are definitely quite bad. When I took Kumon briefly, I was put into first-grade level math. I'm slow at adding and subtracting, and anything beyond that is impossible for me.

As for science writing, well -- I'm definitely able to come up with my own scientific theories; I've had intuitive theories of mind for years that are becoming confirmed the more I read about neurology. Writing isn't really something I want to do, but I suppose it would be better than nothing. I realy strongly want to do research, though.

99.245.92.47 (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If you really can't do anything beyond addition and subtraction (such as multiplication and division), then all science and engineering careers will be out for you. I'd say that you may very well have a learning disability. If you can't correct this, then other career options should be considered. Your writing seems good, but you say you don't want to do that. What else are you good at and what else might you want to do ? StuRat (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I wrote the following before your last post. I can empathize completely with the sleep problems, depression and distaste for busywork along with my highschool and undergrad degrees. The math thing is a problem. Math is something that you have to do over and over. And it's definitely required for any post-secondary science education. I suggest overcoming the problem with planning! Cordon yourself off and force yourself to do it for one hour per day. Then reward yourself with some Fallout 3.... Anyway. My big rant (which actually has turned into more of a "walk down memory lane". Excuse that!:

"Stick in School", "work hard" etc. "In order to enter neuroscience, you're going to have to get a more general undergraduate degree first (probably in biology or chemistry), and undergrad degrees are just as tedious as highschool, except they last 4 years. You have to get used to working through the tedium now."

Now that that is out of the way, I'll tell you how I did it. I am in BC. I hated highschool myself. I couldn't stand being literally required by law to go and sit in a building every day. The only reason I didn't purse some kind of homeschooling option was that I wanted to play for the highschool football team. I had a lot of good streaks going back then. I never went to a class on a Friday in my first semester, and from my second semester on, I never went to a class on a Friday or a Wednesday (and most other days). I learned to play the guitar, program in VB, watched CNBC and learned about financial markets instead. I am extremely grateful for that time; if it weren't for the social protections offered by the expectation that I "be in highschool," I never would have been able to live at my parents house and would have been forced to enter the workforce as an unskilled labourer. Use the time wisely!! If you're going to half-ass highschool, you have to keep your mind sharp.

So what about school then? I suggest treat highschool classes like university classes. The only difference is that you ONLY have to pass in highschool. Your GPA won't matter (as it will in university if you still want to pursue neuroscience when you're done; it'll require entrance into a masters or med school program). Find out all of the assignments, their weight on your overall grade and when they're due. In BC, most of our overall grades came from "provincials" (the big final exams) so just prepare franticly for those right before they start. Depending on your estimate of how well you expect to do on those provincials, make sure to do enough of the assignments and other projects to ensure a healthy (5-10%) buffer above a passing grade.

Next Step? College. Education is so terribly subsidized in this country that their are tons of semi-private colleges offering university entrance programs left, right and center. If I recall correctly, I only had to write a short English exam to gain entry (despite having near 50% in every highschool class). If you don't do Math 12, you may have to write a math exam as well (in BC at least: consult your local community college!). You'll have to prepare for this by March-Aprilish of the year that you'd like to enter. Make sure you know exactly what university you want to transfer to, and what faculty and program you want to transfer into. Do ONLY the classes that apply specifically to that program, and contact the academic advising center at the university to make sure the college classes are still going to be transferable in the next year. Now you have either one, or maybe two (depending on how many classes you need to do the transfer; I did it in two semesters because I was working) semesters where you REALLY have to play it by the book. Do all of the assignments, write all of the midterms. It's tedious, but you need to get yourself into the A average range if the program you're looking at is competitive to enter. The beauty of these college level classes though, is 1) You're not going up against the sharpest tools in the drawer. Profs don't really grade on a curve, but they set up their exams with their students in mind. 2) You're not going to get any guff if you don't attend. Get a job. Find something engaging to do. It'll keep your mind busy in that first year. Once you transfer though, you really have to start sucking up. You have to maintain that A average if you REALLY want to get into an exciting grad program. They don't fool around at this point.

So naturally, this isn't the best plan for everybody. It worked pretty well for me though. I find that I'm the type of person that always needs something practical to do, or be thinking about. The above plan maintains that pretty well. Third and Fourth year university classes actually started getting pretty interesting. If you don't like 'em either, do them part time and work as well. NByz (talk) 04:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh and "disclaimer disclaimer... medical or legal advice..." blah blah blah. NByz (talk) 04:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The idea of spending three years doing more tedious work to get into University is horrifying. Are there really no shortcuts? I realize I should have just done high school properly the first time around but if, say, I could only spend one more year in high school and one in college, or go straight to college, that would make my life so much easier. I wish I had more options. I don't want to be 29 by the time I get an undergrad degree!

99.245.92.47 (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Quick caveat there, NByz. Good universities can be difficult to get into and he'll need good grades to get into the program of his choice. Ontario doesn't have a final test like an SAT or anything, so his marks in grade 12 will be of extreme importance. Also, science programs are notoriously demanding of high grades for incoming students. Matt Deres (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, true, and thank you. One side note -- I'm female.

99.245.92.47 (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Consider asking your parents to let you homeschool through the remainder of high school. I homeschooled through high school for similar reasons to what you are describing, and I know many other people who did likewise. You may have many misconceptions about what life as a homeschooler would actually be like. Read or article and contact a local homeschool group before you rule it out. Many colleges are very impressed with the self-direction displayed by students who choose to homeschool (as I can vouch for from personal experience as I am now at a very competitive American university). --S.dedalus (talk) 08:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Home schooling in Ontario is really difficult; they have stringent standards. Now that I'm over 18 I don't think it would even "count" anyway. I've dropped out of school three times by now, and my marks are so bad and credits so few that I tend to doubt any university would be very impressed.

99.245.92.47 (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I remember having the same feeling about high school for awhile; I suppose everyone does (I also went to high school in Ontario and our guidance counsellors were also useless). My question would be, are you sure you want to go into neuroscience? I was convinced I wanted to be an engineer all throughout high school, but I hated math and science. Eventually I realized that all the adults, from my parents to my teachers to my guidance counsellors, were encouraging me to do something science-y, probably because they expected I would have a better career in the future. I don't think they did it on purpose, of course. Eventually I realized I wanted to study history, and now all is well. I think many high school students are not yet independent enough to realize what they want to do; maybe this isn't true for you and I don't mean any offense, but that was true for me anyway. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm definitely sure. Neuroscience is something I've only ever wanted to study on my own; actually, throughout most of my life I've been encouraged to go into the arts or humanities, and to be a writer, because my command of the English language is so strong and I draw quite well. This is my dream and my fascination, and no one else's.

99.245.92.47 (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I notice you have problems with maths. Have you been tested for dyscalculia? It's the maths equivalent of dyslexia. I have it, but I was only diagnosed when I was 38 and training to teach adults with dyslexia. It may be that you have other related problems that can be addressed with medication or other techniques. In order to follow your dream you have to have all the tools at your disposal, and one of those tools is to know yourself as well as you can. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

My high school had an option where you could take courses at a faster pace on your own. I hope your school has something like this. In the US, you can take the SAT or ACT and if you score really well then a lot of schools won't care about your diploma. Another option is to take University courses in a non-degree setting. Just take a few courses, be sure to get As, and that will show schools that you're a good student. Works in the US, anyway. Maybe not Canada. I don't know. Wrad (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I've considered the possibility that I'm dyscalculic before, but I've never been tested because the testing is inordinately expensive, and I'm not sure what benefit a diagnosis would have anyway. As for accelerated courses, they don't exist at my school. The university suggestion ... I don't think that's possible up here, and it would be quite expensive. My family has financial problems.

99.245.92.47 (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

To everyone: Thanks for your suggestions. I think I may be forced to talk to a guidance counsellor and see what my options in terms of programs are, and possibly to acknowledge that I'm stuck in a very bad situation. I don't think any exceptions will be made for me, considering my previous academic record. I'm pretty sure that if I told anyone in my school administation that I wanted to be accelerated to college/university, I would be laughed at -- they recognize my intelligence, but I am certainly not known for my dedication nor work ethic. I think I have other problems in my life that need to be sorted before I can focus on academic success, but time is absolutely precious in this regard. The college --> university option wouldn't sound so bad, except that it still means completing those semesters of high school, plus another gap year between high school and university. If I could do it now I absolutely would. 99.245.92.47 (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Well definitely talk to your guidance counselor, since you don't stand to lose anything by it; even if most of what he or she says is discouraging or frustrating, there may be some little nugget of information you can use. There've been quite a variety of suggestions on here, as well, and the correct path for you is probably going to involve combining advice from various sources with your own instincts. You probably should get tested for dyscalculia, though, because having a diagnosed learning disability may actually work in your favor when you apply to college, especially if you show improvement in math after your diagnosis. Even if it turns out you don't have dyscalculia, you should look into free tutoring options; sometimes college students or even high school students can tutor others for extra credit, and having a personal tutor can make a huge difference. If you have access to a decent therapist, you should avail yourself of that, too.

As for your original question (and bear in mind I'm from the US, so my information may be a little bit off): since you're planning on higher education, you should finish high school if you can do so with your sanity intact. Yes, you can get a GED later on, but as far as I know, some (many? all?) colleges usually consider GEDs somewhat inferior to high school diplomas. Additionally, if you drop out now you will presumably be working full-time while paying for GED classes and the GED test, whereas high school, awful though it may be, is a free service which ceases to be available once you drop out. If you cannot get through another year of high school (the third semester should be easy, you'll be in the home stretch) with your sanity intact, then yes, a GED is a heck of a lot better than abject despair. Do look into homeschooling, though, just on the chance that it's still a possibility for you.

The other thing I want to say is: what's the rush? I know it sounds trite, but you actually do have your whole life ahead of you. And being a teenager is a lot more difficult than anyone likes to admit; there's a good chance you'll never again feel as overwhelmed, pressured, and disenfranchised as you do right now (you can substitute other emotions for the ones I listed, if you want; emotions are harder when you're young, period, doesn't matter what they are). Even if you could jump right into the college of your choice tomorrow, if you don't have good study habits or tolerance for busywork/idiotic authority figures, you won't do well. It might be advisable to just spend a few years working on yourself: get away from institutionalized education systems, move someplace new, get a job, save some money, travel, read, volunteer, learn how you tick. Or run off to sea (I'm not kidding). If you finish high school at 19, spend a few years having positive, invigorating experiences, enter a community college with a renewed sense of purpose and an improved work ethic, and then apply (with good college grades) for a transfer to a better university, that'll look a lot better than if you apply to the same university straight from high school with a bad transcript. And, moreover, it'll probably be better for you in the long run.

At any rate, the most important thing to realize is that you have options. You appear to be literate, thoughtful, and well-spoken, and that is a success in itself. Even if you don't end up a neuroscience researcher, you can have a job you find intellectually stimulating and friends to engage with on topics that interest you. There are probably a world of options you haven't explored yet. --Fullobeans (talk) 09:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The "don't even try to make your marks good enough for immediate entry into university" method only made me happy because it freed up a LOT of time during those highschool years to concentrate on other things. That made me happy. It's not guaranteed to work, but if you hate highschool as much as I did (but also recognize its importance as a social vetting tool) half-assing your way through it offers a nice compromise between dropping out and giving in to the system. You'd really regret dropping out. My best friend never graduated highschool, and he's in the army now. He loves what he's doing, but has an imposing ceiling over him that's stopping him from moving his army career forward.NByz (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Stopping Foreclosure

Are there any ways other than filing bankruptcy to stop forclosure proceedings?--69.246.23.58 (talk) 04:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the obvious answer is to find some way of paying your mortgage/bill, but I suppose you've already been down that path. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If you have a fairly short period left on the mortgage, lets say 10 years, but your income has been reduced to where you can no longer make the payments, it may be possible to refinance for a longer period, say 40 years, with a lower payment you can afford. Another option is to sell the home and use the proceeds to pay off the amount the mortgage is in arrears and/or have the buyer assume payments. With any luck you will have some left to either pay rent or buy a less expensive home. If, on the other hand, you've just bought a home with a very low down-payment, you may be "upside down", meaning you owe more than the house is worth. In this situation, you're just about out of options. StuRat (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The bill could be payed, but over several weeks and forclosure proceedings have already begun. So there are no legal remedies like injunctions or anything like that? --69.246.23.58 (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like the bank has little confidence that, even if you can manage to make this payment (albeit spread over some weeks), you'll be able to meet future ones, and on time. I'm guessing they must have some basis on which to lack that confidence, perhaps your history with them. Even so, is it not possible to negotiate with your bank? If they let you make the current payment late and agree to hold off the foreclosure proceedings in the meantime, that might give you some breathing space to find a way of meeting next month's payment and the ones after that. As horrible as banks are, it's not actually in their interests to have dissatisfied customers, and in my experience they'll be flexible enough to understand the difficulties many people face and try to work with them. But even banks have their limits of patience, and it may be that this limit has been reached in your case. Foreclosure would normally be the last thing a bank wants to do; it's messy, creates hostility, and deprives them of all that lovely interest they'd been anticipating over the coming years. They'd much rather you found a solution yourself rather than forcing them to foreclose. Keep trying to talk to your bank anyway; you might find a sympathetic ear who can put a temporary stop to the foreclosure. An injunction may be possible, but you'll have to talk to a lawyer about that, and that would probably involve considerably more money than you appear to have at the moment, so you may have difficulty in finding someone to help you. But if you have a good moral case, then you may be able to find a lawyer who'll do it pro bono. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If it comes to legal steps, do you have a local courthouse where you can ask someone at the desk? here it's called a magistrate's court and there are times when questions can be answered by someone who knows. You can ask how to go about appealing against the actions or how to ask for time to pay, and see what they come up with. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If foreclosure proceedings have already started then the bank must believe it's the only way of getting their money - banks often lose money on a foreclosure (there are admin fees, and they usually want a quick sale so don't get the full market price and house prices may well have gone down in your area recently [they have in a lot of places], so they may well not get enough to pay off the mortgage and they'll probably have to write off the rest since you apparently can't pay), so they would rather give you a chance to pay the mortgage, even if it takes a bit longer. If they've already given you that chance (a payment holiday, lower monthly payments over a longer period, or something else) and you were still unable to pay it, then there is probably nothing you can do. If they didn't give you that chance, then find yourself a lawyer. --Tango (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Eating animals

All countries have laws to prevent hurting animals. Is the critera for permitting animals to be treated as food set out in any country or is it governed by ancient tradition universally? ~ R.T.G 08:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Dog meat is illegal in some countries; cat meat doesn't appear to be; the article on horse meat suggests the last abattoir in the USA was closed by court order but is vague as to why and in most countries it is not illegal. I suspect that some Islamic countries may prohibit non-Halal food, but non-kosher food seems to be sold in Israel[1][2]. There are of course numerous laws about animal welfare in most countries, but I can't find any laws against eating animal meat in most places. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 10:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course you would not be ablr to kill animals belonging to endangered species for food. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but if you were to classify life or planets there is a criteria. They insist that they do not decide by appearance or tradition but rather what the item is made of. The difference between animals you can or not eat seems to be based upon "taste" entirely. Halal meat just means that a Muslim has cut the animals throat. Kosher I don't know what it is but seeing as Jews and Muslims share other cutting ceremonies and tradition in general I would presume it is similar to Halal. I cannot find substantial reference to differ between cutting the throat of a lamb or cutting the throat of a kitten except in traditional law. ~ R.T.G 14:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Both the Jewish kashrut ("kosher") laws and Islamic Halal designate certain animals unfit to eat (sometimes called "unclean"), notably the pig. The practices of ritual slaughter mentioned by User:RTG has only to do with animals whose meat is eaten. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparently there is an Illinois state law banning "the import, export, possession and slaughter of horses intended for human consumption." Don't know if that's unique or not. --Fullobeans (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I am sure there is laws about eating horses and other animals too but the criteria for these laws is... "Is it a horse?" Not very modern. A bit like making Ford cars exempt from tax "Is it a Ford?" Surely there is a law somewhere which is not purely racist? ~ R.T.G 23:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is legal matters that decide what is food or not as much as economics. There's no market in for horse meat in the United States so no one raises horses for food. The laws only state that they must be slaughtered humanely. Although it is possible that horse and dog owners lobbied to get laws protecting them from being raised for food. -- Mad031683 (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, there appears to be at least enough demand to keep one slaughterhouse in Illinois in business. According to the linked article, it was the last of its kind in the country, and sold horse meat to zoos and to overseas consumers. It was closed by the passage of a state law, which it is now contesting. It's true that nobody in the US raises horses for food, but wild horses raise themselves quite successfully, and domesticated horses often "outlive their usefulness." There's not really any logical reason why killing horses for food is illegal, while killing them for population control is acceptable. I think the answer, as discussed below in the "What's wrong with dog meat?" section, is that humans often designate their domesticated animals as either food animals or work animals. Food animals, like pigs, chickens, and cattle, are raised from birth for the purpose of being killed and eaten, so eating them seems like a natural and inevitable act. Work animals, like horses, dogs, and cats (not a work animal per se, but they're kept for varmint control), are kept for the services they provide, and often work alongside of and communicate with humans. People consequently develop a fondness for these animals, attribute human characteristics to them, and feel a similar repugnance at the thought of eating them as they would at the thought of eating a human acquaintance. Add to that the fact that modern, urbanized humans often have little contact with animals other than their pets and have never witnessed the slaughter of an animal. So the conversion of a cow into hamburger is a vague, remote concept, but the slaughter of a dog or horse conjures up a vivid image of someone doing something awful to a trusting Fido or Flicka. The line drawn between "food" and "pet" seems to be rather arbitrary and varies between cultures, but apparently, in some cases, indignation at eating pets is universal enough for laws to be passed. --Fullobeans (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Throwing shoes at the President

Could it have been prevented? I have to admit that when I first saw the incident on the news I was struck by how lax the Secret Service were. The guy managed to throw not one shoe, but two! Am I being unfair? ExitRight (talk) 10:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason the security seemed lax is because there was nothing serious that could have happened to Bush during that press conference. Everyone would have been tightly screened and searched before entering the room. So the guy had nothing else to throw except his shoes. Well, I guess he could have thrown his socks, but they wouldn't have flown as well. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

What about the fact that the guy threw two shoes? OK, so I'll forgive the Secret Service for allowing the first shoe through, but what about the second? I would have thought that they could have stopped the second attack if his bodyguards had better presence of mind.ExitRight (talk) 10:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you notice that the first thing most of them did was move towards Bush? This is the what a body guard is supposed to do. You don't (unless perhaps you are very close) run towards a guy with a gun and try to stop him. You jump on the person you are supposed to be protecting and take the bullet. Once you are sure that the person your trying to protect is okay, only then do you worry about the assailant. The other thing is what would you expect them to do? There were like 3 seconds between shoes. They could have taken a flying leap across the room and hoped they didn't hurt someone else in the process and hit their target, but more likely they would have cause a bigger ruckus and injured someone. They could have shot the guy, but shooting someone for throwing shoes is hardly a good look even for the Americans. So instead they did the best thing under the circumstances. Calmly but resonably urgently took control of the situation by moving to protect Bush and then removing the guy causing the problems. The other thing is coming back to the point Richard was making, they would have been prepared and reacted according to the environment. If Bush had been in a riskier crowd, say in a public rally they probably would likely have reacted differently and been more prepared. Quite a few people came in from another room. Obviously they could have filled the room with security guards but having a press conference with a room half full of security guards doesn't send a good luck. Nil Einne (talk) 11:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

My hunch is that the thrower removed both shoes before tossing the first one, so his being able to throw the second isn't all that surprising. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

According to some sources it wasn't even Secret Service that took down the guy anyway but Iraqi security guards. Take from what you will but I would say it is entirely expected for local security to take the lead role Nil Einne (talk) 13:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It looked like the other journalists did most of the job. --Tango (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

When they outlaw shoes, only outlaws will be shod. Edison (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Correct - they've been playing the video over and over on the news. They play it in super-slow motion so it seems like there is a few hours between the first shoe and the second one. Why didn't we call in a military strike in all those hours between the two shoes? What if there was a third shoe!? We need to launch a preempitve strike against all countries who harbor shoe-wearers! -- kainaw™ 20:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Should reporters be kept barefoot?????Edison (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Jelly shoes exclusively, from now on. Seriously, though, there's no completely foolproof way to guard someone's safety, short of keeping them in a Popemobile 24 hours a day (and even that's not foolproof). "High security" basically means "You'll not only have to use a completely hidden, unexpected, unconventional weapon in order to do real damage to someone in this room, but you'll also have to do it incredibly quickly, get it right the first time, and not look at all suspicious beforehand." When you think about it, that takes care of the vast majority of potential attacks. There are probably quite a few people in the world who would punch Bush in the face if they ran into him alone at the supermarket, but there are not a lot of people about to hire a demolitions expert to create a completely undetectable shoe bomb which can be activated at a moment's notice and worn safely by a trained assassin/cricket bowler who has stolen the identity of a lookalike Iraqi journalist. So what you're left with is one upset journalist throwing two normal shoes, missing, and being taken away. It makes for a good news clip, but it's not actually an issue of security. It's more on par with Ford's famous fall and George H.W.'s puking-on-the-Prime-Minister episode; stairs, food poisoning, and the flying shoes of the righteously indignant may, at times, impinge upon the presidential mystique, but there's only so much you can do about it. --Fullobeans (talk) 06:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of food and puking, I expect a certain incident involving popular US snack that originated from Germany was of more danger then the shoes Nil Einne (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

What is the cultural meaning of a shoe in arabian countries?

We asked in the german Wikipedia ([3]) (and the arabic one) what this and this gesture mean. Which symbolic meaning does it have? has it a historical background? Best greatings --129.70.108.115 09:59، 15 ديسمبر 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.70.108.115 (talk)

For the Bush thing, see above. For the Saddam Hussein statue thing, it looks to me like they're pretending to stomp on him, hardly unique to Arabic culture. Nil Einne (talk) 11:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you need special knowledge of Arab culture to understand any of this; it's not as if there are other cultures in which throwing shoes at somebody is a sign of love and admiration. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 11:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC) I see someone has added it to shoe tossing but it appears to be unsourced crap. (It's been there for a while but it still seems to be unsourced crap to me. For example, it talks about visitors being forced to walk over a potrait of George H. W. Bush, but you don't need to be Arabic for that to be disrespectful to the person you're walking over. See also Talk:Shoe tossing#Disputed.) While I'm not an expert on Arabic culture, the only thing I'm aware of relating to shoes that isn't universal is that you are normally expect to take off your shoes before entering someone's house but this is hardly unique to Arabic culture. Also Muslims do enter mosques and pray without shoes [4] but this too is hardly unique to Muslims [5]. Nil Einne (talk) 11:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Shoes do have a special significance in Arab cultures. A few years ago, I was visiting a friend's house (a friend who happened to be Muslim), and I was sitting on the couch. I was wearing my shoes at the time. We were talking, and I crossed my legs, like I put my ankle on my knee, showing him the soles. This is a not uncommon posture in western society, but I instantly noticed how my friend reacted, he became almost hostile to me. After a while, he said "Excuse me, could you please put your leg down". I did and asked why and he informed me that showing the soles of your shoes to a person was extremely rude in Arab societies, like flipping someone off in western societies. Needless to say, I never did that again. So while throwing a shoe at someone or stomping on something is rude in any culture, I imagine that it's especially rude in Arab cultures. Like spitting someone in the face or something. 83.250.202.208 (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Having lived in Saudi Arabia, I can confirm this: exposing the sole to someone is an insult, even is they are a supposedly ignorant American. (It also probably insulting for said American to piss on said Saudi's tires, but I digress). --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Muntader al-Zaidi has better sources then shoe tossing Nil Einne (talk) 13:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's the entire show, but just the sole of the shoe which is insulting, because shoes often had poo on the bottoms in ancient times, from tending animals. StuRat (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

From today's New York Times: "Hitting someone with a shoe is considered the supreme insult in Iraq. It means that the target is even lower than the shoe, which is always on the ground and dirty. Crowds hurled their shoes at the giant statue of Mr. Hussein that stood in Baghdad's Firdos Square before helping American marines pull it down on April 9, 2003, the day the capital fell. More recently in the same square, a far bigger crowd composed of Iraqis who had opposed the security agreement flung their shoes at an effigy of Mr. Bush before burning it." Tomdobb (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That was actually in the Muntader al-Zaidi article when I posted above Nil Einne (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I can verify as well that showing the sole of your shoe to someone is a huge insult to Arabs. Don't ever cross your ankle over your knee in the Middle East. It shows that you think of the person as dirt. Wrad (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Six Billion Others Project

Any interviews with Czechs, Poles, Russians, or German speaking people? 203.188.92.71 (talk) 10:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

About what? Wikimedia projects? Nil Einne (talk) 11:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No, the link here. 203.188.92.71 (talk) 11:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, looks interesting. If you follow the link you provided and click on "making of," there's a map of the world with dots indicating where the film crews have been. There's a film crew based in Germany, and dots on what appear to be Moscow and Prague, so I think it's safe to say there have been Czechs, Russians, and German-speaking people interviewed. There don't seem to be any dots on Poland, but there are plenty of Polish people outside of Poland, so who knows. --Fullobeans (talk) 05:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Security at Downing Street

What is known about security measures at Downing Street and Number 10? I read the section at your article Downing Street but it is rather skimpy. All links and outside info also welcome! Thanks, --217.227.92.94 (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Can someone check the whois on this... --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

person:          DTAG Global IP-Addressing
address:         Deutsche Telekom AG
address:         D-90492 Nuernberg
address:         Germany
phone:           +49 180 5334332
fax-no:          +49 180 5334252
e-mail:          ripe.dtip@telekom.de 

Damn Krauts! Up to their old tricks again! <twists Colonel Blimp moustache and harrumphs> DuncanHill (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Cause of UK economic woes - fact or educated opinion?

There's some, um ....disagreement between the UK political parties as to the cause of the current financial problems in the UK. The Government (Labour) asserts that this is a "global" problem, which presumably is laying the blame at the US markets. The Conservatives however concede that there is an element of truth to that insofar as the credit crunch is concerned, but they attack the domestic policy of the last 10-11 years under Gordon Brown which they say has made our exposure to the problem all the more severe.

If there was a way to categorically settle the argument then it wouldn't still be going on, so what is the main factor that keeps this from being a known quantity? Surely you have a set of factors that are known (looking back historically, of course), and then you can simulate what would have happened if things had been run differently. I realise there's a complex interplay between markets and faith in them, but surely this is possible to simplify to a "make the most profit you can" directive? --Rixxin 15:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There are too many factors for such a simulation. Trying to analyse the markets mathematically usually requires you to consider traders are rational actors, but they are far from rational at times and the kind of crisis we're seeing now is such a time. Trying to work out how they would have responded had things been done differently is pretty much impossible. There is one problem with the Conservative viewpoint that deserves mention, I think - they complain that we had too much debt built up over the past 10 years, yet our debt was far lower than many Eurozone countries that are doing far better now (hence the massive fall in Sterling vs the Euro). They also keep attacking Brown's plans to get through the crisis, yet I haven't seen any suggestions from them for what to do instead (although perhaps I've just missed them). I have no strong leanings towards any of the major political parties (they're far too similar for that), but from what I've seen in this crisis, the Tories don't seem to have the faintest idea what they're talking about. --Tango (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Labour reduced regulation, sold our gold reserves and increased taxes. Which will have had consequences. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, massive economic growth. It's all well and good criticising their polices in hindsight, I don't remember many people complaining at the time. --Tango (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Its also diffifult to imagine what the tories could have done over those ten years to mean that we would be a in a different position now...82.22.4.63 (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

A question on my mind,,, losing faith in humanity

There has been a question on my mind as of late. Why are some people losing faith in humaity? I mean. not all people are stupid, not all people are mean, etc. So why are some people losing faith in humanity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirdrink13309622 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think people are losing faith in humanity? Plenty of people don't have much faith in humanity, but is that any different to at any previous point in history? --Tango (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I know what you mean, at least in the US, where nobody even talks about winning the war on poverty any more. And, now that we live in an age of terrorism and nuclear proliferation, we never feel quite as safe as we used to. And there's the "leadership" of our politicians, like George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, the Illinois governor with the name I can't spell, and now jailed former Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick. Then there's our business leaders, like those of the financial companies and car companies (and, before that, Enron and such). Both types of leaders seem to have decided it's in their own best interest to move all US manufacturing to China and sell the products at WalMart, and don't seem concerned that the US will lose it's manufacturing base, which has severe implications not only for employment and the decline of the middle class, but for balance of trade and national defense, as well. Then there's the the energy crisis and global warming to which the politicians (taking bribes from lobbyists) came up with the "solution" to subsidize ethanol production, which only made both problems worse and increased food prices, as well. It's downright depressing. StuRat (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

How is the war on terror worse than the cold war? There are always things like this going on, it's just life. I don't think anything has changed. --Tango (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It is worse, in that the Soviet Union, bad as it was, wasn't likely to use nukes, chemical, or bio weapons on us, knowing the consequences. Terrorists, on the other hand, don't really care, so will use them as soon as they can get them. StuRat (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

With hindsight, we know it was unlikely to use such weapons, but as I understand it a lot of people at the time thought nuclear war was imminent. (I was 2 years old when the Berlin Wall fell, so I can only go on what I've read.) --Tango (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The period immediately before the current one always seems rather simple and easy and quaint, because we know what happened and have no idea what will happen now. I think the Cold War was a lot worse than the War on Terror. The Cold War posed an existential threat to millions upon millions of people, and came rather close at a few moments to actually realizing that threat. It was waged by heavily-funded nations with legions of spies, both human and electronic, all looking for that moment of weakness. So far there has been no credible terrorist threat that has come anywhere close to the danger of all-out nuclear warfare. There is just a lot of uncertainty. The idea that the Cold War was beautifully and easily run by game theory is a post-hoc falsehood. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, during the Cuban missile crisis, a Soviet nuclear submarine almost launched a nuclear weapon at the US. To launch a nuke required the three top officers to concur. Two out of the three wanted to launch; the third didn't. Hadn't the third disagreed, the Soviet Union would have launched a nuclear weapon at the US. Whether the US would have launched a retaliatory nuclear strike, I'm not sure. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean they wanted to launch without the permission of Khrushchev ? I'd like to see some sources on that. StuRat (talk) 14:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if they were required to get permission from Khrushchev. They might have had that authority or they violated protocol/rules by not seeking permission. Here's the article on it. It doesn't go into a lot of depth. Vasiliy Arkhipov 216.239.234.196 (talk) 14:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

About five years before Tango was born, I tried to compose a poem about how Mankind would be famous throughout the galaxy if we hadn't been wiped out in a war. It was a nervous time. —Tamfang (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The reference for that article says it would have been an unauthorized launch: "The submarines' commanders could use conventional torpedoes only on order from the navy chief, and the use of nuclear torpedoes could only be authorized by direct order from the Soviet defense minister, the book said." Also, I believe the target they were considering was US Navy ships above them, not the US mainland. StuRat (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the question simply reflects on the posters attitude. Most people are by default either pessimistic or optimistic and only become the opposite for short periods of a couple of weeks at a time whatever happens. Both attitudes have their advantages and disadvantages, that's why we aren't all the same. Personally I'm optimistic but that makes me more happy go lucky and less careful about planning for the future. So I haven't lost faith in humanity, there's ways round all difficulties etc etc as far as I'm concerned. Dmcq (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

People losing faith in humanity? Never seen it, at least not outside of the Killing Fields and related (and very rare) genocide. People losing faith in rich organized religions, government, politics, leadership, business, markets, etc? Sure, happens all the time. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the heart of Sirdrink13309622's question has to do with the clash between what people know can happen, and what actually happens. I know my pessimism in humanity has grown bounds as I get older as I watch the political landscape change. Perhaps I grew up too idealistic, knowing that people can make large differences for the better, but somehow, by their own machinations, get bogged down in serving themselves, or compromising their own values to such an extent that what they get done is hardly effective at all. To remedy that, I have had to stop considering global improvement because it is so depressing that it suffocates. Instead I focus on what I can do, which is not much, but some of which is here on Wikipedia. It's a pathetic and paltry trade. --Moni3 (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat relevant to this discussion... modern technology allows us to learn about distant wars, crimes, etc. that we would never have known about a 100 years ago or earlier. So if it feels as if more people are losing faith in humanity, perhaps it's because we are more aware of the evils done against one another. LovesMacs (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but more local misery was perhaps more pervasive. Extreme racial injustice, extreme poverty, illness, lack of control over one's life, and other issues are things we don't have to deal with. Instead, we may have an unending capacity to worry about others. --Moni3 (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a term prissy social-science professors use called "cognitive bias". There are many different kinds of cognitive biases, but they all have to do with tendencies people have to skew reality in their own mind, due to different ways in which our brain works. Two cognitive biases come to mind, which very well explains why some people are losing faith in humanity:

The availability heuristic, which is the tendency people have to base their opinions on whole groups of things based on what information they have on only a few things part of that group. Say you watch the news every night, and every night they report one horrible story after another. "Economy tanking due to idiot bankers!", "Double-murder in Brooklyn!", "Famine in Bangladesh!", "New dictator installed in Iran", or whatever. If you listen to this night after night, you might get the (very reasonable) idea that the whole of human society is rotten, and the only reason you haven't been subject to a genocide yet is dumb luck. But that isn't true, is it? There's lots of great things going on that the news never report. Cancer-rates are going down, a new hospital has opened, someone was saved from a burning building by a stranger, more puppies are being adopted than ever before, or something like that. But we don't really hear about that so often, so we assume it doesn't happen, causing us to lose faith in humanity.

The second cognitive bias that might play a part is perhaps the strongest (or at least most common) cognitive bias of all, confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is the tendency in humans to only notice things that already confirms their world-view, and completely ignoring things that go against their beliefs. As an example, old pagan religions used to sacrifice animals to get a good harvest. Today we know that's ridiculous, it doesn't matter how many bulls you sacrifice to Demeter or Persephone, you're still going to get the same harvest. So why did people do it for thousands of years? Didn't they notice that it didn't make a difference? The answer is that, no, they didn't. They noticed one year when it worked (for completely different reasons) and thought "wow, that really worked well". The next year, when it didn't work at all, they turned a blind eye towards it, because they really believed that doing that would work. Maybe they rationalized it ("wow, we must've really pissed of Demeter!"), but they don't even had to have done that. They just ignored the fact that it didn't work this year.

Every single human being on earth has got a BAD case of confirmation bias. It is everywhere in society, and it's incredibly difficult to tell whether or not you're suffering from it (it's practically impossible, in fact). If someone says "oh, well, I don't suffer from that confirmation bias thing! I'm smarter than those other dumb hicks, it doesn't happen to me!", that only means that the person is ignoring those times he or she did suffer from it, which is itself a form of confirmation bias. It happens all the time, to everybody. It's essentially universal. If anyone is reading this thinking that they don't suffer from it, let me assure you that you're wrong. You do suffer from it, you just don't know it.

How does this play into a person losing faith in humanity? Well, as soon as you start to suspect that all of humanity is rotten (maybe you're depressed, in a slightly bad mood, or just have been watching the news to much), due to confirmation bias, it becomes self-reinforcing. You only see the stories on the news where people suck. When you walk down the street, you don't see the kind and generous volunteers at the soup-kitchen, you see the disgusting hoboes that frequent it. You don't see the people trying to raise money for Amnesty International, but you do clearly see the drug-dealers and the pimps. If you really think that humanity sucks, you're only going to see examples of humanity sucking. You're not going to see examples of humanity being awesome.

Obviously, there's probably other things going on with people who are losing faith (not least psychologically), but I strongly believe that these cognitive biases play a big role. Belisarius (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ditto to basically everything everyone else said. This is also something that philosophers have liked to talk about for the past hundred-odd years, leading to such useful concepts as Weltschmerz, anomie, and social alienation. --Fullobeans (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Career advice for slackers

What professional field is more open to slackers? 80.58.205.37 (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Homelessness? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that you're the slacker, but just didn't want to take the effort to tell us. Which type of work would you most like to avoid, physical or mental work ? I assume, being a slacker, that advancement is not a goal, which is good, as that describes the majority of jobs in today's world, especially those which don't require any schooling. I have a general suggestion: night watchman. As long as nobody robs the business, you can pretty much do whatever you want, without supervision. Even a slacker can generally roll out of bed in time to start the job, as well. StuRat (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I am struggling to remember who first said this, but it has been suggested that a career as a member of the British House of Commons suits the idle down to the ground. Xn4 (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You could put a situation wanted advert in The Idler. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Or you could ask the members of the Idle Working Men's Club. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Night watchman? Usually you don't have to do much except to stare at the Closed-circuit television monitors from time to time, the rest of the time you can , sleep (if your boss dosn't see this), get drunk, read, watch tv, surf the net or play video games. On a side note the pay is usually miserable and the working hours don't help with your social and family life. Mieciu K (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

StuRat already suggested that. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 16:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd take the essence of slacking as not being compelled to do specific work at a specific time. From that point of view, night watchman is a poor choice, as you'd have a regular shift that you'd be expected to fill. Furthermore, reliability would be more important than in most jobs, so the employer's tolerance for latenesses or absences would be below average. Instead, I'd suggest generally any of the fields in which freelancing is common. Some freelancers get an assignment, goof off for days, do all the work in a caffeinated 24-hour rush, then go back to goofing off for a while. If the job will take 20 hours and is due in six days, then you, rather than the person paying you, get to decide which 20 of the intervening 144 hours will be the ones in which you work. For slackers, this is the next-best thing to not working at all. Ideas about specific fields can be found in Freelance marketplace. Good luck! JamesMLane t c 08:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Eating dog

What race of dog Chinese (and other Asians) eat? Can they choose between Alsatian, Doberman and St. Bernard? 80.58.205.37 (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Dog meat may be of some help. Tomdobb (talk) 17:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't a huge help. It tells something about arctic explorers eating sled dogs and I suppose these were Siberian Huskys, but not much more is said about the race. 80.58.205.37 (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

In relation to China it says that the dogs are raised specially for meat and slaughtered at between 6 and 12 months of age. That's the case in Vietnam too, and probably in the other parts of Asia where dog meat is eaten. I think there is a standard breed without very distinctive features. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Korean cuisine says, "the primary dog breed raised for meat, the nureongi (누렁이), differs from those breeds raised for pets which Koreans may keep in their homes". --Sean 18:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw a lot of dogs resembling German Shepherds on farms in rural Yunnan, and was informed by an American expat that they're kept as pets and guard dogs and, eventually, eaten. I have no idea how accurate this is. It's also not as though you can walk into any restaurant in China, though, and order dog instead of, say, pork. In Kunming, it was served at a few specific hotpot restaurants. I suspect dog is more common as a food in certain regions or countries. --Fullobeans (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that in dog-eating cultures, breeds are selected for eating purposes specifically, and thus are unlikely to be the same as the western "kennel club" breeds. For example, cows are bred for many different purposes dairy cows, beef cows, oxen, etc. etc. The same breeds of cow that pull your cart are not the same breeds of cow that you eat, usually. Therefore, though this is a WAG, I would suspect that in areas where dogs are specifically farmed to eat, you are likely to find specially bred "meat" dogs... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I always assumed that one eats a Chow Chow for chow. But, just to make sure, I think I'll call up the Humane Society and ask which breed makes for the best BBQ. StuRat (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

What is "WAG"? Julia Rossi (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Wild-ass guess, as in "I have no idea what I'm talking about, but that doesn't stop me." --- OtherDave (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you OtherDave, Julia Rossi (talk) 07:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

In our country, native dogs such askals are consumed. Dogs with foreign breed, which is a sort of status symbol, are usually pampered rather than eaten. There are no dog farms here since consumption of dog meat is prohibited except for some tribal rituals so the consumed dogs are usually strays or stolen ones.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

In Eastern China at least, the generic breed of dog one might raise for a multitude of purposes, including eating, is called cao gou, 草狗, "grass dog", connoting "generic, indigenous dog". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Also known as a mutt, mongrel or community effort. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Except that Chinese mutts don't look like Western mutts. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Do they look a little German Shepherd-y? I'm wondering if that was the dog I was seeing. Perhaps a Canaan Dog or Carolina Dog would be a better comparison, since I'm sure we're talking about a type of pariah dog.--Fullobeans (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Identifying a Photograph of British Shipbuilding Industry

I'm trying to track down a photograph (a moderately famous one, I think) I remember seeing in the last year or two -- I know I saw this photo for sale somewhere online. This info is to the best of my recollection, but I can't promise any of it is completely accurate.

It is a black and white photograph of a street scene; I think there are row houses on either side. Beyond the end of the street, in the near distance, I think there's a giant ship (possibly a naval vessel) under construction. However, there may not be a ship actually present (human memory, funny thing, eh?) -- if not, in that case it's a picture of massive docks, cranes and shipbuilding facilities at the end of a street scene.

I'm pretty sure the picture was from somewhere in Britain from the 1970s. I think the title of the photograph may have been something like "Construction of the Ark Royal" -- I don't think it was actually the Ark Royal, but I couldn't find anything by searching for variants of that title with the Ark Royal or its contemporaries under construction.

If I had to guess at the artistic statement of the picture, I think it was a depiction of industrial decline and/or the grim effects of industry (lots of gray, smoke, pollution, etc. evident in the picture).

It resembled this photograph (http://www.bbc.co.uk/nationonfilm/topics/ship-building/images/ship_tyne_wallsend203.jpg) which MAY be a crop of the one I'm thinking of, though I doubt it -- but I'd have to see the whole thing to be sure.

Thanks in advance for reading this vague query. Mm2323 (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a lot of help, but when I started reading your question I thought "Oh yes, I've seen that" - but the one I recall was more like the 30s than the 70s. DuncanHill (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Found it! "The Birth of the Ark Royal": http://www.ntprints.com/low.php?xp=media&xm=400938

As I kept thinking about it, I kept coming back to "Ark Royal" as part of the title of the photograph -- and I saw this picture on the eight or ninth page of a Google image search for "hms ark royal." I think part of my confusion stemmed from not realizing there had been an Ark Royal built in the early '50s.

DuncanHill, looks like we would have done pretty well to split the difference on the dates: I thought '70s and you thought '30s, and according to the link above, the photograph was taken in 1950. Thanks for your help! Mm2323 (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Well nothing to thank me for really! The alternative title "Where Great Ships are Built" is the one I remember. One thing I particularly like about the picture is the boy seemingly oblivious to the great ship looming over the landscape. By the way, we've had five Ark Royals to date! DuncanHill (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Public footpaths/public land in England

According to Rights of way in England and Wales, if a path is used unchallenged by the public for 20 years, it can become a public footpath; is there any equivalent whereby the use of private land unchallenged for a significant length of time gives the public certain rights to use it? Could the entrances to that land become public rights of way if they have been used unchallenged? Rawling4851 19:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Not entirely sure, but common land may be helpful here. DuncanHill (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, the Open Spaces Society (website at [6]) could also be helpful for something like this. DuncanHill (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Duncan, the OSS is along the lines of what I was looking for - I'll get in touch with them.

(N.B. common land doesn't really cover the situation - if there are any other legal land statuses which might be relevant, that'd be great too!)

Rawling4851 20:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

How about a village green (doesn't have to be in a village, or particularly verdant) see OSS page at [7]. DuncanHill (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Also see squatting. Despite the name, it doesn't mean that you get to permanently use the land by relieving yourself there, unless, of course, nobody else wants it afterwards. StuRat (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Village Green is exactly what I was looking for - common use of the land for over 20 years. Thanks :) Rawling4851 20:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure - hope you get your green! DuncanHill (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

In Australia, Squatter's rights is one form of adverse possession that allows squatters to acquire title through continuous, unchallenged possession. See Adverse possession#Squartter's rights. See Adverse possession for the general form of the doctrine as it applies in England and Wales and other common law jurisdictions. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

As your question is about England, I believe the only public rights over an area of land which can arise by prescription (a period of use as of right) are the rights to enjoy land for "lawful sports and pastimes". The current process was created by the Commons Registration Act 1965 as since amended (see here), and you need to apply to register a new "Town or Village Green" to your local Commons Registration authority, which is usually a county or borough council, in a standard form, supplying evidence of the use as of right nec clam, nec vi, nec precario (neither secretly, nor by force, nor by permission). There have been some exceptionally interesting cases where applications have gone to the High Court and all the way to the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, usually to do with the meaning of permission. Sometimes a lot of money is at stake. Xn4 (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)