Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 March 24

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.

March 24

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Artificial countries"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Computer discovery of two bishop checkmate?

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

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

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

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

interpretation of essays

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://tglog.co.uk/

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

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

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

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

Quick question

House rental guarantor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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