Humanities desk
< April 7	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 9 >

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.

April 8

Pakistani reserved seats

In Pakistani government, both provincial and federal; they reserved seats for women and minorties. What do they mean "minorities" and who are these "minorities" do they speak of? Hindu? Sikh? Christian? Shi'a Ismaili Nizari? Shi'a Ithna Ash'ari? Shi'a Ismaili Mustali? Shi'a Zaydi? Zoroastrian?

The minorities referred to are all non-Muslims. See [1]. Warofdreams talk 13:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are the ROI or ROCE for various business sectors?

What are the different average returns on investment or returns on capital employed for the various sectors that companies listed on US or UK stock markets are usually grouped into? 78.151.150.47 (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhapas easier sub-questions to answer would be: What is the most profitable sector? What is the least? Thanks. 89.243.213.58 (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem from here (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=196) that the 'services' industries are more profitable than 'manufacturing'. This PDF document (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/economic_trends/ET587_Walton.pdf) has a lot more detail around profitable - comparing nations, then sectors inside nations. There is also an entire section (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nscl.asp?id=5548) dedicated to company profiability. This is all UK-centred as it is the UKs statistics office but similar sites might exist for the country/area you are most interested in. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant! Thank you very much, Gordon. 78.145.24.168 (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IPRED effects

On April 1st 2009 Sweden got a law to reduce filesharing. Total internet traffic went down by about 50%. Has anyone seen any reference to any other measured(!) effects of any law that reduces filesharing? Media sales? Internet development? Any other effects? DanielDemaret (talk) 06:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't get any answer here by the time your question is archived in a few days, try asking again on the Computer RefDesk. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what are some of the worst things the united states has ever done?

Please do not start debates. The Reference Desk is not a soapbox. To discuss this, please see the talk page

what are some of the worst things the united states has ever done? (could be something drawn out like the vietnam war) 79.122.72.101 (talk) 08:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the Reference Desk is not a soapbox; respondents please confine your answers to facts and widely-held (and referenced) opinions. Uncivil comments and controversial statements unsupported by references may be removed. Meta-discussion regarding this question should be placed on the talk page. (added by 74 15:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Meta-discussion moved to talk page – 74 16:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know the article name, but perhaps one of the worst things they've done to their own citizens was putting all Japanese-Americans into prison camps there around WWII chan dler · 09:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the response -- i thought it might be one of the answers. i think japanese internment is the article. and to the posters above: see there is no debate 79.122.72.101 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Meta-discussion moved to talk page – 74 16:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Schadenfreude: the secret thrill of pleasure at the infamy and disgrace of others. Much more interesting... -Wetman (talk) 10:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The worst things America has done are being successful, wealthy, free, egalitarian, democratic, generous and popular. Some people will never forgive them for it, including plenty of Americans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.222.26 (talk) 10:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Successful, wealthy, free, egalitarian, democratic, generous and popular" As someone seeing the US from the perspective of Europe, all of those things are debateable (particularly the last one). Compare with places like Switzerland, Lichtenstein, Norway, and others. The original question does not seem unreasonable to me. If you limit the range of the question to the number of unnecessary deaths, then there are several wars or war actions that come to mind, and the opinion part would be the extent to which these seemed justified at the time to prevent greater deaths. If you consider the evironmental sphere, then the USA is using several times its per capita share of the earth's resources compared with other countries. 89.243.213.58 (talk) 12:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[A]ll of those things are debateable, questions of value usually are, my point is that leading questions such as the one under discussion are at least partly motivated by Ressentiment. Your last statement rather makes my argument for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.222.26 (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2009

Meta-discussion moved to talk page – 74 16:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that not getting involved in WW2 sooner is pretty bad, but it is very easy to cast judgment on historical decisions because we can clearly see the results, while the decision was made without the benefit of perfect foreknowledge. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-discussion moved to talk page – 74 16:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OP: you may wish to read Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, which is pretty much a litany of the alleged misdeeds of the US. 87.115.166.150 (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since we are allowed to just give random opinions now instead of references... I think Wikipedia is particularly bad. So is Microsoft and Google. Sure - everyone wants to talk about wars and such, but why not discuss companies? Some claim to be "good" like Wikipedia, but is it actually good? Others claim to do not evil, like Google. Really? Then, you have those who make it clear that they want money and power, like Microsoft. The U.S. strongly supports these companies. So, welcome to the new Wikipedia Discussion Forum. Who wants to chat? -- kainaw ™ 16:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, are you replying to my post? I think my response to the OP was appropriate and within both the rules and the spirit of the reference desk. The article to which I referred the OP covers the subject on which they asked, and convers both sides of a contentious matter. I was careful to word my reply so as to not express an opinion of my own. What did I do wrong? I don't believe I've done anything that deserves your sarcasm or opprobrium. 87.115.166.150 (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm responding to the fact that the consensus suddenly changed today. This isn't a reference desk. It is a discussion forum now. So, we are free to give any opinions we like. Want bad things done by the U.S. - how about beach conservation. Putting up those big ugly walls along the beach ruins the natural environment. What about hydro-electric dams. When they put those things in, they flood out a bunch of towns full of innocent people. What about movies starring someone from the cast of Friends? Surely someone thinks those are a bad. There are a lot of bad things. If everyone joins in the discussion, we might be able to list them all. -- kainaw ™ 19:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the worst things I would list are slavery and genocide against the Native Americans. However, notice that the US was not unique in this. Spain, for example, seems to have been far worse on both counts, at least until they were evicted from the Americas. StuRat (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - slavery and genocide against Native Americans. They are made even worse by the American constitution saying "All men are created equal..." which was conveniently ignored, even by George Washington. While the genocide may have been due in part to fear (judging from the Cowboy and Indian movies I've seen), the slavery was done deliberately and systematicly over generations. 78.145.24.168 (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the poster asked for things that were uniquely American. Just because the Nazis also practiced forced sterilization doesn't mean the US gets off the hook for having done it, for example. --140.247.252.111 (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Native Americans, eugenics, intentional massacres of civilians in war, use of torture, unlawful wiretapping, witch-hunts, racial segregation, violent denial of civil rights, can I take it any more? --140.247.252.111 (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes. They've done some pretty horrible things to that most noble of institutions, the English language. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tempting though it undoubtedly is to jump in with my own, ah, theory, I think this is just turning into a trollfest. Is the original poster satisfied yet? pablo_hablo. 21:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i am the original poster and i don't understand the trollfest reference? except for 'the english language' i don't see any trollish references above, and i think they're all good-faith answers to the question. i'm just puzzled why you feel this way? do you think it should be "obvious", even with someone who isn't necessarily a history buff, what the worst things should be, so why would someone ask, or what? thanks for your opinion though, a lot of other people have voiced it here too, maybe you can explain your reasoning... thanks. 79.122.72.101 (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of your question invites subjective replies. pablo_hablo. 21:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The United States has committed several wrongs during war, but by and large the US has been a lot less bad in this regard than the norm. War warps the morals of all participating nations, so most of th eblame should go to the aggressor, even for immoral actions of the other side. Therefore, the "Worst" wartime wrongs attributable to the US are for immoral wars, of which we have only a few in my opinion. These include the invasion of Canada during ht ewar of 1812, (arguably) the Civil war, and the current war in Iraq. During "good" wars, the worst actions were the strategic bombing campaign during WWII in europe, and the atomic bommings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and (arguably) Sherman's march to the sea durngthe civil war. For non-wartime wrongs, Slavery per se was not high on the list of US wrongs: the US was created in 1790 and almost all slaves were imported before then by the british and spaniards, with importation effectively stiopped in 1830 and the slaves all freed in about 1863. Racial and ethnic discrimination is a very valid "wrong" of the US, but the US has historically been much less "wrong" in this than most countries. Similarly, the US treatment of native Americans has been bad, but the worst inpact on Native American society occured before th4e US was formed: nearly 90% of the Native North american population was destroyed by disease prior to 1650, and the remnant societies were further devistated by the british. After the US was formed, our treatment of the remaining native americans is about as bad as our treatment of other minority groups. Propapby the most indefensible and immoral act of the United states government, as a matter of deliberate policy, has been the continuing, government-backed export of tobacco products. This has killed more innocent civilians than any other delibverate policy of the government. -Arch dude (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how do you suggest i phrase it? i've already changed it once from 'the worst' to 'some of the worst'. someone suggested i make it very specific, but that would only be easy if i suspected what the worst was to begin with. for example, if i suspected the worst was the nagasaki atomic drop because after hiroshima japan wanted to capitulate (or something like that) then i could ask to confirm my suspicion, what would i even ask? seriously in good faith i have no idea how to phrase my question so as not to unwittingly leave out the very worst things (maybe native american exterminations in the 1700s? i...dont...know...) its precisely because i dont know that i am asking this way. what do you suggest instead? 79.122.72.101 (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it would just be my opinion. "Worst": - in what way? What does "the USA" do? Do you mean the actions of its government or of another subset of its population? Is there a particular field (religion, grammar, arts, war, desserts, clothing) which you are interested in? pablo_hablo. 22:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please be serious. obviously i'm not asking about desserts if i'm talking about nagasaki and native american losses in the 1700s... why cant you understand the question like everyone else? they know what it means, im not a lexicographer so as to be able to define something in legalese or whatever. if you want to do that be my guest but you know what i mean 79.122.72.101 (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, give it a rest now. Malcolm XIV (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So is it time to go through the list of all countries which have invaded other countries, taken land from the native inhabitants thereof, abused and starved parts of their own populations, crushed the underclass underfoot, spied on their allies, engaged in collective punishment, launched wars of religious zealotry, allowed atrocities to be committed by their military, collapse militarily when invaded and required rescue by others, colonized and enslaved other less technologically advanced countries, invented concentration camps long before WW2, engaged in or collaborated in genocide, imprisoned or executed dissidents or religious nonconformists, killed millions of their own citizens, directly or by policies which led to mass starvation, engaged in the drug trade, or captured slaves in Africa and sold them in the Americas and elsewhere? We surely need to know what "some of the worst things" are that each country has done, in the opinion of the Ref Desk editors, since this is not just the United States Wikipedia. We should try and avoid "U.S. centrism".Edison (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

to be fair, originally i wanted to just ask for 'the worst' but for fear of starting a debate i changed it to the more neutral 'some of the worst'. if people offered their responses for the worst, i would also be interested in the worst of other 'major' countries, say, g20 or something. but now i'm afraid to even ask that. 79.122.72.101 (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deal capture

Hi, in finance you can often hear the term "deal capture". It has to do with trading financial securities, but exactly which activities are actually included in this concept? /193.3.225.212 (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US Senators

Has any US federal judge been convicted of a felony for which he was arrested during his time as a federal judge? If so, when was the last time and who was it?

Same question for US senators.

65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. See Impeachment_in_the_United_States#Federal_officials_impeached for a partial list. --Sean 17:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up question, is perjury a felony in the US? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Perjury, in the US it can be up to 5 years in prison. ny156uk (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So also, yes. Livewireo (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I looked at the perjury article earlier and it did not say. I have since looked at the article for felony and it says any punishment over 1 year in prison in US will be a felony. I have edited it so that it mentions that it is a felony crime in the US. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is federal law. Remember that the U.S. has many separate law systems, at least some of which include a lesser charge of misdemeanor prejury (or so Google tells me.) Rmhermen (talk) 02:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe perjury charges are often pleaded to lower charges, as well, such as contempt of court. StuRat (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch government agency for drug approval?

What is the agency, executive, ministry, etc... of the government of the Netherlands that deals with approval of medical products? In other words, what's the Dutch equivalent of the MHRA? SDY (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the "College ter Beoordeling van Geneesmiddelen - Medicines Evaluations Board". You can check out their website here. Depending on the status of the medicine in the EU, it may also be relavant to research it's status at the European Medicines Agency. --Zerozal (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found what I was looking for, so all I need now is someone who speaks dutch. Oh well, babelfish will get me something... Thanks. SDY (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

charity vs government

Hello Wikipedia,

I was debating the ethical side of charity with a friend of mine - whos argument was essentially charities that address homelessness, ecucation etc let the governement 'off the hook' and mean that they get away with not taxing the wealthy appropriately. I think, in cases like these, he has a point. Anyway, it got me thiking, has any goverment ever said, instead of increasing the top rate of tax, mandated giving money to charity? Obviously, you need money for things like collecting the dustbins, but if say, people had to donate 50% of all earnings over £100,000, it could both solve a number of social ills and remove the (ever increasing) resentment people have of extremely wealthy individuals. Has this ever been done? Have i discovered a utopian dream?82.40.246.228 (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few points: charities are corruptible; they are not necessarily effective (witness the long-standing debate over whether even well-run African aid - both private and public - is a net gain for Africa); they typically aren't long-term or large-scale (by which I mean on the scale of public infrastructure; I can't remember the last Hoover dam-sized task a charity did); and they are typically focused on glamorous, easily advertised tasks (when was the last time you saw an ad for a charity asking for money to iodize salt for the Third World, one of the most effective possible health interventions per dollar spent; versus an ad for surgery for a hare-lipped African orphan?).

So it's not at all clear that diverting expenditures to charity instead of government would be superior. Further, this is to a large extent already happening. Charitable donations are treated very favorably by the tax code. This is why the extremely wealthy make such large bequests in their wills, in part to minimize the estate tax. --Gwern (contribs) 21:23 8 April 2009 (GMT)

Ethically speaking your friend is making the assumption that a primary role of government is wealth redistribution - it is by no means a given that the wealthy are expected to fund social-welfare programs (even if most countries are progressively taxed). The difference between tax and charity, of course, is enormous. You don't decide how your tax dollars are spent (or how much is collected), but with charity you decide A) who you donate to and B) how much. There are certainly tax-incentives for donations to charity and there is plenty of variety in the world of charity that exists beyond the realms of those that advertise on tv, but as Gwern notes - the charitable sector is hugely fragmented so the cost-sharing/scaling methods a well-ran government can implement are currently unattainable in the charity sector. As for your solution - If you 'require' people to donate it no longer becomes a donation, it becomes (in effect) a tax. What your proposal allows, that much government doesn't, is definitive input from the individual into where their tax dollars are spent. In all honesty I don't believe that will bring about particularly good results, as Gwern points our the 'glamourous' stories get the cash, but the simple/uninteresting issues will be overlooked. ny156uk (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Gwern notes, governments already recognize that charities are good for society, as existing tax policy shovels a lot of money over to charities already. If this weren't the reference desk, I would require you to cite verifiable sources for your claims that "a number" of social ills would be "solved", that your plan would "remove" resentment of the wealthy, that this resentment is "ever increasing", and also the underlying, unstated claim that there should not be a large wealth gap between the richest and the middle class. These four claims of yours are by no means settled; they are all controversial and there are many people who contest them. Tempshill (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the government did what the OP says, while being a good idea in principle, it would not work, because the wealthy would just put all of their money into offshore bank accounts in tax havens such as Switzerland or Jersey or somewhere else where the money can't be touched. Most rich people are not very altruistic and generous. That's why they are rich.--KageTora (talk) 02:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To go back to your first question (Has this ever been done?), I've not been able to find a case yet of a government mandating charitable donations by its citizens (i.e. a step beyond providing incentives, which as the other answerers point out is common). That doesn't mean there isn't one, I hope better googlers will keep trying. I did find instances of private firms that require this of their employees: Salomon Brothers investment bank in the '60s and professional baseball teams in America. In addition, numerous governments designate a percentage of their revenue to be used for humanitarian purposes, though that's not quite the same either. You might also be interested in claims that new US tax proposals would in effect give the government 100 per cent of executive's bonuses and this economics textbook discussion of "100 per cent tax". Best, WikiJedits (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a similar idea of letting people choose to allocate at least a portion of their tax dollars to whichever government programs they prefer. This would hopefully make people more willing to pay their taxes rather than hide them off-shore, and would also bypass much of the problem of special interests bribing the legislature to spend money on "pork" projects. This would be a step away from representative democracy, and toward direct democracy. StuRat (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good one. If you could choose which government department you spent your tax on, not only would it make people feel better about paying taxes, it would also improve areas which badly need improvement in certain localities. Education in inner-city areas, for example, would benefit from this, as I am sure that people would rather pay for their kids to go to a good school in their local area, than watch their money get spent on some bone idea in a totally different area. The only problem with this is that practically nobody would want to pay for social security or prisons or certain other things. It may be better if you could choose a proportion of your tax to go to a certain area. Good idea, though.--KageTora (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that is exactly what you said, so it looks like I am agreeing with you wholeheartedly. :) --KageTora (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not exactly the same, I said "portion" and you said "proportion". :-) But yes, I also thought that there are a few essential programs (and far more nonessential programs) which are so unpopular they'd never be funded if 100% of taxes were taxpayer allocated. I'd also start low, maybe allocating 1% of each taxpayer's dollars this way, then ramp up to whatever max percentage we decide upon. This 1% wouldn't be enough to make much difference in major programs, but could make a huge diff for small, perennially underfunded programs (like Head Start). StuRat (talk) 00:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was thinking more about the education system, and the NHS, both of which, here in the UK, are so massively underfunded they are even understaffed, and have taken on people who are not qualified. As for organizations like Head Start, that would be good, but we need to get down to the fundamentals first before we address the more finer issues like that. I would advocate giving people the choice to allocate a proportion (this percentage can be set by the local council) of the council tax to whichever government department they think needs it, and on a council level, not a national level, so the money stays local and funds local government services. This way, we all know what's happening.--KageTora (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. StuRat (talk) 06:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question is of course whether you're likely to actually make any meaningful difference or could in fact make things worse. As you've acknowledged, people are not necessarily going to make the best decisions. We can debate for ever whether politicians and public servants make the better decisions (although clearly not here) but it seems to me at the very least we could expect a greater focus on the shortterm at the expense of the long term, which I think many would agree is already a problem as well as a focus on 'selfish' behaviour i.e. does this benefit me and also an increase in emotional rather then logical/rational thinking. For example of what I mean by the final, while it may seem cold to give a cost to a life, most people are going to agree when they actually think about it that $10 million to save a single life is usually not worth it and I thik many would agree we do need our politicians and public servants to think of cost effectiveness etc whether we like it or not. But people are notoriously bad at applying that thinking when you have images of sick kids or whatever so it seems easily possible that you'd get an increase expenditure in areas that cost a lot but benefit only a few because the obvious benefit and emotional appeal is there whereas programs which benefit a lot of people but lack the obvious emotional appeal may go in the cold. Again this is already a problem but it seems to me it will just get worst if you allow people to allocate some of their tax dollars. And about the selfish behaviour, it seems to me it applies to head start as well. I'm not convince a program like that would benefit at all. It seems to me easily possible few people would be willing to fund it, even less then what we have now. Sure those who's communities would benefit a lot might be willing (I emphasise might because sad to say, many of the people involved do make the wrong choices in life, it's a vicious cycle that's difficult to break which is one of the problems) but they are not likely to actually have much money since it's mostly coming from the richer people. If you're talking about a percentage of total budget available to a country allocated on per head/voter instead of percentage taxpayer dollars, then that would be different but it sounds like your not that in any case that opens a whole new can of worms. Further, I wonder how the programs are going to reach out to convince people to fund them. We already see this with charities how they need to spend a fair amount of their time and resources on advertising and fundraising efforts and government departments and programmes already likewise spend some time and resources on reaching out to politicians etc but it seems to me they'd need to do what charities are doing under your proposal which is likely to raise costs further and so easily all your funding increases could be lost here. Finally I wonder how willing people would actually be to spend the time and effort to participate. IMHO we've already seen this with various attempts at increasing voter choice where a substanial percent don't bother to participate and of those that do they spend very little time actually making the choice because they can't be bothered spending their time to adequetly research. And in general of course, it's well accepted that too much choice is often a bad thing although what's too much is not clear. This does vary from country to country and perhaps it would work in the US where you already vote for what seems to me and I think many others like insane things like judges and school boards and other strange stuff and perhaps for something like Swizterland but I'm definitely not convince it would work everywhere. Nil Einne (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding selfishness, it seems to me that with representative democracy you get a double effect. The selfishness of the voters still comes through in their reps supporting projects which are indefensible boondoggles, but in their district. Such useless projects seem more likely to be approved with reps, though, since they can make deals with other reps ("I'll support your bit of pork if you support mine"). In addition to this, you also get the selfishness of the reps themselves. For example, they are more likely to support a wasteful project if the lobbyist supporting it gives them enough money to get re-elected. StuRat (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between a yarn an old woman spins and a yarn a politician spins? One's a ball of wool.--KageTora (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]