Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 February 3

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.

February 3

Nuclear Weapons Stockpiles by Country in 2020

I previously saw a report released by the U.S. govt. in 1999 which projected the nuclear weapons stockpiles for each country in 2020. However, I cannot find this table from this report right now. Can someone please help me out? Also, if anyone knows of some other nuclear weapons stockpiles by country projections for the future, please let me know as well. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

In regards to the table that I was looking for, I finally found it here--http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/ Futurist110 (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

That prediction about 2020 was made in 1999 so I am not sure how well I would trust it to reflect reality. Rmhermen (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you but this info could still be useful when there are no more recent projections available. Looking back 13-14 years later, these predictions might be pretty accurate when it comes to some countries, though. Futurist110 (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hikikomoris again

I am Japanese and that's why I ask on Japanese culture. According to our own article on hikikomori, there may be over one million hikikomoris in Japan. My question is, what will come about when these young people grow older and lose their parents? Thank. Kotjap (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure we have any way of speculating on future events in this way. We simply don't know what will happen in the future, and this reference desk isn't really the proper venue for such discussions. --Jayron32 02:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

When we have mentally ill people in the US unable to live on their own, one of several things happens when their caregivers die:

1) They learn to live on their own after all.

2) They live in a group home or some other state-assisted living arrangement.

3) They become homeless.

The general recommendation seems to be to transition them to a group home before the last caregiver dies, to avoid the third possibility. StuRat (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Conservative cities in Arab World

Sidon, Lebanon and Benghazi, Libya claimed they are conservative or more than other any other cities in their respective nations in the Arab World. What other cities in Arab World, claimed they are conservative or more, regardless it is religious conservative or social conservative, in their respective nations?--Donmust90 (talk) 02:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

Not too sure what "conservative" means in this context, or whether it can mean the same thing for widely-separated locales, but much of Beirut has had a reputation of definitely not strictly adhering to traditional/historical Arab-Muslim social constraints... AnonMoos (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, we have to toss in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. Not too many topless bars there. StuRat (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The rest of Saudi Arabia is not a bastion of liberalism either ! Alexandria in Egypt, is known to be more conservative than Cairo, to give another example. In Morocco, a place like Tetouan is more conservative than the country's big cities which attract large numbers of tourists, but it's nowhere close to Saudi Arabia in terms of conservatism. In Turkey (not an Arab country, but nearby), Konya has a reputation as a very conservative city, especially when compared to highly-Westernized places like Istanbul and Ankara. --Xuxl (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Is the Chinese Empire older than the Persian empire?

Is the Chinese Empire older than the Persian empire? Venustar84 (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you read our articles on the history of China and the history of Persia? The answer will depend on what you define as the starting point of each empire. For example, the Medean Empire predates "Imperial China" by about 400 years, but is itself predated by over a millennium of Chinese dynasties. — Lomn 03:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec) There were several Persian Empires and Chinese Empires. The Achaemenid Persian Empire dates to about 550 BCE, while the Qin Dynasty in China dates to 221 BCE. So, if you compare those, the Persian is the older. StuRat (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes if you go by earliest foundation dates (Cyrus the great in 550 B.C. vs. the traditional dates of the Yellow emperor, or Xia/Shang/Zhou dynasties). Possibly not, if Cyrus the great is set alongside the date of the first Chinese ruler who is historically known to have ruled a consolidated empire spread over a wide area, which was in 221 B.C. AnonMoos (talk) 03:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

red state to the east

[1]

The caption is very small in this photo. Does it say "State of Bengal" for the state to the right? Curb Chain (talk) 09:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

On high magnification it's West Bengal. Rojomoke (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

"he is infact better than remo"

who is remo? Curb Chain (talk) 09:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Likely Remo Fernandes. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Superdelegate

How could I become a superdelegate for the Democratic National Convention without being an elected official? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 11:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Have the sitting Vice President somehow resign, get the President to appoint you (with the consent of the House and Senate), then wait until your term ends. Ta-dah you're now a superdelegate without ever having been elected to any office. User:SamUK 14:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not necessary to be an elected official, you just need your state party to appoint you to one of the few superdelegate positions. But if you need to ask, you probably don't have the influence and the kind of friends to get it done. Rmhermen (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

how to get spies out of your life

So, this is a purely hypothetical question! I'm just asking out of curiosity. The question is, let's say that these bored and overpaid psychopaths, who really have nothing constructive to do with their time (usually since high school, where they made the mistake of going down IT-related fields instead of the proper study of mankind: the humanities). So, one of them, out of boredom, is in your life for whatever reason with a totally bogus story. Like, they're this hockey star - and they can't even skate.

So, this is just the premise. The question is, how do you get these people OUT of your life, to leave you alone? I don't care about their affiliation or whether they are are just liars or delusional, etc. The question is just: how do you get them out of your life?

This is just a hypothetical question, and there is no information on any motivations, etc. I just think that people who aren't genuine, and bored enough to concoct all sorts of stories and do something for different reasons from what they state, might be someone you want out of your life. So, in this hypothetical situation, how would you achieve it? --Quikcq (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we have an article on that subject. Perhaps someone else knows of an article that deal with this. Personally I'd just google for something like 'getting rid of jerks' or ask a friend. This is not the right sort of place for advice like that and we're not supposed to give personal opinions. Besides which I get the feeling you would think a large proportion of the editors here were creeps if you knew them. ;-) Dmcq (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I've always fancied finding myself a nice wilderness location and building a log cabin and living out my life as a hermit ---- _nonsense ferret 15:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Um. I do hope you're no good at maths ;-) Dmcq (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

well 2 and 2 make 4 or at least that's what THEY want us to think :) ---- _nonsense ferret 14:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

People are "in" your life because you choose to associate with them even despite their lack of skating prowess. If that's not the case, then what you have here is stalking; our article should mention laws against it in different countries, and related counter-measures. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. You are not really answering my question, it's certainly not about "jerks", and I know a lot of people like Wikipedia editors and don't consider them "spies". My question is different. It's about someone with stupid affiliations who has built up a shallow lie and "professionally" think it's their job to just hang out under their cover and do, whatever, I don't even know what. So, while we might not have an article on it, I am sure we can come up with references for how to get these people to leave a situation. For example: should you confront them? should you allude to the fact that you know all this about them and would appreciate if they just took their cover elsewhere? should you guilt-trip them into being more normal human beings? Etc etc etc. Basically, although the situation is hypothetical, I am sure there is real-world advice on how to get people with stupid covers that don't convince anyone who's paying attention, to stop playing you for a fool. If nothing else, they are incompetent at their supposed cover and are a hindrance for that reason alone. I don't have any ideological objection, I just think these people are a waste of time. How do you get them out of your life? Quikcq (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Your question is not specific enough for anyone to answer, and is impossible to answer as a generalized hypothetical. Are you saying that you are a hockey coach, and someone has approached you pretending to be a star hockey player, but you suspect the person doesn't know how to play hockey, and want to determine her qualifications before adding her to your hockey team? If so, I would suggest having her play in a practice match, or asking her to perform some key hockey skills in front of you. If it turns out that she does not in fact know how to play hockey, you will have to decide whether to accept her and train her, or reject her, and you'll have to decide whether the fact that she lied about her skills is important to your choice. If you are asking a different question, it won't be possible for anyone to answer the question until after you have asked it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

We don't give personal advice, but you might find assertiveness a useful approach. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't more specific. The point is they already failed it. For example, you have a movie set and the star's hairdresser pretends to be this flamboyant gay kind of dumb guy, who supposedly is illiterate (can only sound words out slowly). but none of that is true, they have advanced degrees and read and write well and quickly, and are either writing tabloid articles about the star, or working for the star's competition (agent), or there to make sure the film doesn't get made so that another studio can buy the rights, etc etc. It doesn't really matter what they're there actually to do - and I won't speculate. The hypothetical is that they completely bomb their 'cover story'. (Again, for example they put on this act about being illiterate, but you catch them leafing through an issue of the journal Daedalus and penning some intelligent questions to a contributing professor.) That's kind of a silly example, granted, but the point is that you want them to just go away. You don't need someone who pretends to be this illiterate pushover who is really very sophisticated and has whatever hidden motives. The question is, if we assume that the above is true, then what is the ACTUAL way to achieve your objective of getting this guy to fucking beat it. Quikcq (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

What the assertiveness approach implies is that you start by making it clear what you need to happen. Next time the person contacts you, say "Please do not contact me again". That might be sufficient. If someone keeps contacting you when you have made it very clear that you don't want that contact, that's stalking and you might need to go to the police. But, honestly, there are so many variables in real life that there's not much else we can say. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Judith, you've misunderstood me. The person doesn't "contact" me or bother me or stalk me. Also this is a hypothetical. Hypothetically, the person is just a coworker, or a consultant, or a delivery guy, or a hairdresser, or an assistant, or whatever, completely "normal". They're not bothering me, and if they were what they were claiming I would have no problem. The hypothetical is that they are *not* what they're claiming, are incompetent at their covers, and generally lower the status of the world by not contributing anything but intelligence work (or god only knows what) to it. I mean, imagine there's a hairdresser, but he never actually does hairdressing, he just hangs around on set pretending to be illiterate. Meanwhile he's reading and writing complex articles on the sly, and are just totally putting on a deep cover for God only knows what reason. The point is, I want them to stop, just stop. Go away and do that somewhere else. How, specifically, should I do this? Quikcq (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the top of the page note that it says "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." Please respect that and go somewhere else more suitable. I pointed out a google query you could use or you can ask your friends. Dmcq (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully, there must be references for this. I'm asking for some. Here is an example of a query that does not work:

http://www.google.com/search?q=espionage+tradecraft+getting+an+agent+to+take+their+cover+story+elsewhere

So, I'm not really good enough with Google. I would like references to actual literature and what does work. A Google query that you suggest that has results that are relevant would also work. I appreciate any information the reference desk might be able to reference. Quikcq (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Speaking purely personally, I have little clue what you are talking about. A hairdresser claiming to be illiterate and writing articles???? There can be no simple answer because each case would be different. If someone claims to be something they are not, you can just ignore it, or you can embarrass them by exposing their lies to others. If they are harrassing you with their "spying", or are telling tales on you in some way you can either make that plain to others or contact relevant authorities if there is slander, libel or stalking. Paul B (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Right. I was super-specific: my whole question is about professional spies, i.e. from the world of espionage. None of us here would have any direct experience, hence the request for references. Quikcq (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you should write to Dear Abby, or maybe to the advice columnist in Reader's Digest, as they deal with this kind of question from time to time. Namely, the question, "This guy's bugging me. How do I get him to stop?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Bugs, like others here you do not notice that 'the guy' does not exist, as the question is hypothetical, and even in the hypothetical question he isn't bothering me! It's just a question about espionage agents. It's only hypothetical - I have no experience with this. Quikcq (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

So your question is: I suspect someone is a spy, what should I do? Is that right? If so, the most obvious course is to ignore it, because you could so easily be mistaken. Other options are to confront the spy or to report them to the authorities. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Not really, in two respects. It's not a suspicion, it's really quite obvious, and secondly I know what I would like - I want them to beat it. I don't want them to think there is any other way to resolve the situation - just leave (us) normal people alone. Quikcq (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

When spies in someone's life aren't hypothetical, situations like this are possible. "It wasn't just that someone lied to me, it was that there was a whole team of secret people digging away at my life - and personally for me it is very important to know how deeply they were intruding into my private space," she says. "These shadowy figures were presumably making decisions about my dinner dates and whether or not I was going to spend the night with my boyfriend, reading emails, listening to phone calls - deeply personal stuff." This seems somewhat dissimilar to the hypothetical scenario presented in the OP's question, though, because the "cover story" was sufficiently well presented that the spy was able to maintain his cover for seven years. Anyway, in this case legal action was subsequently taken by some of the people involved; and the problem of the spy was dealt with by the spy himself offering to give evidence in court in favour of the people that he was previously paid to spy on.[2] Hope this helps. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

In the situation that you described, where the "hairdresser" might be a spy, a journalist or on a mission to damage the company, I suppose any larger company has someone in charge of security. If they are made aware of the situation they might be able to have the person fired. Sjö (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Would this solution also have to consider that the "spy" might get upset and irrational toward the person who doesn't want them around? Because that seems to be an underlying aspect of your issue: that you are worried that the person will react unfavorably to your wishes.165.212.189.187 (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

"his false identity did not stand up to scrutiny" seems closer to how the OP describes their experience of the alleged spy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Number of planes on 9/11

Reference note 1 in Betty Ong says that National Public Radio said on September 10, 2004:

"Betty Ong, a Chinese-American flight attendant for American Airlines, may have saved untold numbers of lives by telling emergency personnel on the ground what was happening aboard flight 11 on Sept. 11, 2001. Her call led to air traffic controllers landing every plane flying over U.S. airspace. ..."

This was said three years after 9/11/01, so enough time had passed for a lot of information to have been collected in retrospect. My question is: How is it that she may have saved untold numbers of lives? Three of the planes crashed into their targets. The other one was crashed when passengers revolted because they heard about the other hijacked planes being crashed into their targets.

So: is this NPR report implying that there may have been other planes that had hijackers on board but which landed before the hijackers could act? Do we know anything about this? Duoduoduo (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Just the four planes were hijacked on 9/11. My guess is that the NPR reporter is sensationalizing the story a bit, or perhaps just used poor wording. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I know just four were hijacked. I asked if any incipient hijackings were thwarted by the plane landing before they acted, and whether we know anything about this. Duoduoduo (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec) They may have been implying that, but we don't have any indication that was true. Also, the passengers who revolted did so because they knew the plan was to crash the plane in any event, and Betty's info may have contributed to their knowledge, if any of them were in contact with authorities by cell phone, who had in turn gotten their info from Betty. Thus, the people at the target of that plane (the White House ?) may have been saved. StuRat (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

No, Betty's info didn't contribute to their knowledge. The passengers knew from talking with their loved ones that some planes had already been crashed into buildings. Just knowing that other planes had been hijacked wouldn't have given them any info they didn't already know, since they knew they had been hijacked. Duoduoduo (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I want to know why the fact that she's a Chinese-American is at all relevant to anything. Had she been Bertha Smith of pure anglo stock, would she have been described as anything other than "a flight attendant"? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

How is it relevant that it's American Airlines, rather than Alaska Airlines? Or for that matter, that it happened on Flight 11, rather than Flight 10? The job of a news network is to disseminate information. As long as that information is true, you have no valid complaints against it, regardless of whether you personally find the information interesting. --140.180.247.198 (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

According to the section "Legacy" in the article about her, it's the Chinese-American community in San Francisco that focused on the fact that she was Chinese-American. Others may have picked up on that because her last name is sufficiently uncommon in America that people might wonder if she was an American or not. Duoduoduo (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Her last name is not a common Chinese one, either. I'm a native Chinese speaker, and I certainly wouldn't have guessed she was Chinese from her name. --140.180.247.198 (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm part Chinese although don't speak Chinese but grew up in Malaysia and I would have guessed she might be Chinese from her surname. I knew a few people with that surname and it is a common enough surname in Malaysia I doubt many people there wouldn't recognise it. Are you sure this is not the same among the Chinese American community in San Francisco?

Edit: See also Ong (surname) which say it is the fifth most common surname in Singapore among the Chinese. It also give some statistics for the US, these may seem fairly obscure given the numbers but remember these include the large number of non Chinese surnames. The article confirms two things I expected but didn't mention since I wasn't sure enough to mention, number 1 is that it is a Hokkien romanisation so is more likely to be recognised by those coming from communities where Hokkien is more common. And this also implies if by native speaker you mean you grew up in China and only came to the US recently you may be even less familiar as I expect your experience with such romanisations is limited. Number two when combined with Ong, it only seems to be most common among Chinese with a little bit among the Laotian community, so if you recognise it as anything you're likely to recognise it as Chinese or at least East/SE Asian. There is only one person whose surname did not come from that direction listed. (Although Ong's Hat, New Jersey suggests it was common in one subcommunity Pine Barrens (New Jersey) settlers.)

Edit 2: An interesting point, if you search for 'walter j ong surname origin' or something similar you'll find someone saying his surname was not Asian [3] and the person saying this doesn't seem to come from South East Asia, although it was after September 11 which may have had an influence. (For those interested, there's more on the origins of his surname here [4].) One thing that remains unclear to me is how common Hokkien is in the US and in particular San Francisco. Hokkien dialect suggests there is usage in the US, but doesn't mention where, Hoklo people doesn't mention the US at all. Chinatown, San Francisco confirms Cantonese predominates there but doesn't mention anything about Hokkien which may suggest it has no influence but not necessarily. Of course dialects aside, it also depends on how common people who took on such romanisations are. I originally mentioned Taiwanese as well as China but decided to remove it because of course Hokkien is common in Taiwan. However there are very few Taiwanese listed in the page, and my impression is the romanisation is not so common among Taiwanese anymore due to government policy (e.g. suppression of Pe̍h-ōe-jī) and other reasons like the fact many won't have a preferred romanisation unlike in say Singapore, Malaysia and probably the Philippines. I grew up in KL which is an area Cantonese predominates, but of course given the percentage of Hoklo people in Malaysia there's still enough influence that it's something you're very likely to encounter in personal life (i.e. not just the media).

Nil Einne (talk) 04:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

To answer the OP's question, if there had been any other planes which were discovered to have been about to be hijacked before they were all downed, I believe this would have been major news, too, and we would have already known about it by now. The official report is that there were four planes, with a total of 19 (+1) hijackers (including one or more who managed to get on the plane without passports, apparently, because they were left in a car in the car park of the airport (and later turned up alive in the Middle East), and one whose passport was discovered in the rubble of the WTC, despite the high temperatures which vaporised everything else burnable on the plane and brought the buildings down). If more potential hijackings that day had been discovered, it would have made world news. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Very true, it would have been major news. I've read the early chapters of the 9/11 Commission Report, which detail the events of 9/11 and the aftermath, and I can't recall the slightest mention either of another plane, nor of Betty Ong saving lives. I'm also not sure what her call had to do with the landing of planes. The nationwide groundstop did not occur until 9:25, and the order to land all planes at the nearest airport came at 9:42, after all but the last plane (United 93) had crashed. IBE (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

blue eye preference

I'm so keen on blue eyes that I refuse to consider brown-eyed men as potential partners because I don't want to have brown-eyed children. Is this unusual/insane? 92.13.78.125 (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Blue eyes is a recessive characteristic, unless you also have blue eyes there is no guarantee any children will have blue eyes. Yes it is unusual and insane but then again anything to do with sex is insane so I wouldn't be too worried about it. Dmcq (talk) 17:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have blue eyes, and I understand the pattern of inheritance. 92.13.78.125 (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It is apparently common for heterosexual males with blue eyes to seek blue-eyed women. See this article and these search results. It is not entirely comparable, though, unless it is possible for you not to be certain that your child is your biological child. Surtsicna (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me more of a wind-up than a genuine request for information - the reference desk is here principally for research questions rather than lifestyle opinions ---- _nonsense ferret 18:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

There is such a thing as sexual selection and its potent enough to cause animals to develop non-adaptive traits such as bright colors and cumbersome appendages. μηδείς (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It isn't a wind-up. I'm wondering if it's common enough that I could tell brown-eyed men the truth about why I'm not interested in them, or if it would be considered truly offensive. Do most people not care about eye colour? 92.13.78.125 (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

So if Ashton Kutcher, George Clooney, Will Smith, Orlando Bloom, Justin Bieber, Justin Timberlake, Denzel Washington or David Beckham were to try to hit on you, you'd just brush them off? Yes, I'm sure many people would consider you certifiable. And yes, it would reflect badly on you if you told them why. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. But if I want my children to have a certain characteristic (that's blue eyes) in the same way that others might want their children to be tall, athletic, or smart, then all those men you've listed, though otherwise "fit", aren't biologically compatible with me. How is that necessarily more contemptible than "you're too short" or "you're too dumb" or "you haven't achieved enough in life"? 92.13.78.125 (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if most people do or don't care very much about it. I don't think there is anything bad about preferring blue to brown eyes. Brown is generally considered a rather dull colour, and, yes, blue is brighter and more exciting. But if you are really going to choose or reject people on such grounds, bear in mind you could be your losing your soul mate over something superficial. Surely your own happiness with the right person should come first. Paul B (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Well as our article mentions there are some medical implications of having lighter colour eyes including blue (however also possibly some for dark brown eyes). Historically there was also claims of a difference in reaction times, but this doesn't seem to be well supported [5] [6]. However I do agree with you it's the OP choice. Some people will be offended, but so will people with the other things, which if anything are likely to be more offensive. I don't know if I entirely agree that you shouldn't mention them either. If anything I suspect many would prefer it particularly for something like this. In fact it's probably better to mention them if they're less common and genetic, as the most likely conclusion would be 'it's not something I should worry about' compared to a common preference or just letting the person involved thinking perhaps they did something wrong. They may think lesser of the OP but if the OP wants to have such preferences they should be willing to accept people may think less then them because of those preferences. Nil Einne (talk) 06:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It's just as demeaning to explicitly state those other objections. Think them if you want, but don't offend people by telling them. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The word "love" hasn't raised its ugly head yet. Isn't that mainly why people marry each other? And isn't love about our feelings for the other for who they are, despite their obvious flaws and failings and inadequacies and unticked boxes? Sure it's good to dream about the perfect mate and the perfect children, but if you and he make your selection of each other based solely on your pre-determined criteria but still regard it as a love match, then yes, that would be insane. Not that I'm qualified to diagnose mental illness, but it sounds pretty loopy to me. All I know is that if you were my friend and we were having coffee and you told me about this fantastic guy you've met and wanted to marry, and I asked you about him, and you told me your main reason was that he has blue eyes, I'd tell you to get over it. Sure, have some "fun" with him, but as for a lifetime commitment (for that is what marriage is) based solely on the fact that he has blue eyes ... well, think twice (plus). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You've made it rather backwards, in that you imply every blue-eyed male is a potential mate solely on their eye colour. I'm not THAT bad. Of course all of the necessary ingredients for love would be in place before I consider them as a mate. All I'm saying is that I filter potential mates through the same lens as almost every other female, but I add "blue eyes" as a prerequisite. I'm not sure how this is necessarily less demeaning than not giving a chance to someone smaller than me (which is a very typical female requirement). Of course if I actually did fall in love with someone with brown eyes it probably wouldn't matter. But for as long as I'm in the artificial world of dating, it counts for something. 92.13.78.125 (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Airports

everyone knows that it is illegal to take weapons, knives and other potentially dangerous sharp objects in an airport. but it is only illegal, after reached through the scanner and on the plane, or it must be good to have this kind of thing with the airport, or outside the airport if you not go on the plane? --80.161.143.239 (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Which country? I have taken two knives (on two separate occasions) so long as I explained why they were in my luggage. One (in Greece) was in my pocket at the time (I'd forgotten about it), and they insisted that I put it in my cargo baggage. The other (in Germany) was a very small Swiss-Army knife like thing, which I had in my backpack. I explained it was a bottle-opener. Meanwhile, the Korean lady on the next desk had her implement confiscated, which was a sort of fishing-rod, with lots of attachments, but she couldn't explain what it was, so she had to leave it. Different airports in different countries have different rules, and many depend on the staff's mood at the time. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

USA. --80.161.143.239 (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

If you're legally allowed to carry it out in public, you can legally carry it to an airport. It's only once you get to the security checkpoint that you will have trouble. For example, I normally have a Swiss Army knife with me. When I go to pick someone up at the airport, I can bring it in with no problem. If I try to get on a plane with it, it has to be in my checked baggage or they'll tell me to throw it away when I go through security. This actually happened with a folding fork, spoon, knife thing that I kept in my bag but had forgotten to take out when going to the airport. Dismas|^(talk) 21:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey, did you hear about the attempted hijacking in Warsaw? The guy couldn't bring a knife aboard, so he threatened the stewardess with a spoon. As you might imagine, the incident did not end well for the would-be hijacker. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Consensus of the effects and impacts of the Affordable Care Act after full implementation

I still haven't formed an opinion on the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) yet and won't do so until after its full implementation because I haven't read the bill, Republicans have been saying one thing about it and Democrats another thing, Republicans would say look this what it says in the bill and Democrats would say no this is what it actually says in the bill and vise versa, and the Affordable Care Act hasn’t been fully implemented yet. So for me, this is like a “let’s wait and see” game. So, I got 2 questions about this “let’s wait and see” game.

After the Affordable Care Act becomes fully implemented on January 1, 2014, how many days, weeks, or months would it take before there is enough consensus on both sides of the aisle about whether Republicans or Democrats have been right all along about its effects and impacts on things like the economy, healthcare costs, Medicare and Medicate, etc?

Let’s say that a general consensus arises that the Affordable Care Act is unsuccessful, which would make the Republicans look vindicated since they are the ones who have been opposed to it. Would the Affordable Care Act be repealed as easily as any other law if enough support arises for that to happen or would it be a law that would be very difficult if not impossible to repeal based on whatever the nature and structure of the law is even if enough support arises in Washington for repeal? Willminator (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

There are two problems with answering your query. The first is that you don't actually specify the "effects" you're interested in. As with any complex piece of legislation, there are nearly unlimited possible effects. For example, the ACA could have long-term impacts on the size of the federal budget, the cost of health insurance, the quality of healthcare, the treatment of rare illnesses, overall infant mortality, and the average taxpayers changed share of the tax burden, just to list a few out of many. Each of those effects will have hugely different time horizons before one can determine what the legislation will do. The second is that what one defines as "success" or "failure" is very much in the eye of the beholder in most cases. Would lowering healthcare costs, but a decrease in healthcare quality, be considered a success or a failure? What if costs lowered by 20% and quality only decreased by 5%? What about 100% and 10%? And so on. There aren't objective goal posts here. Even if costs went down by a huge amount and quality of care went up, there will be some who (for whatever reasons) will be happy to find fault in it. (I'm not just blaming Republicans here, mind you. Everyone's a critic, these days, and there is always a lot to critique.)

This isn't to say that people on the whole can't judge something to be a success or a failure. It's that the question of whether people judge something a success or a failure is a complicated social metric, not something that can be pinned to a date and a time after the effect, because it isn't actually something that directly corresponds with any kind of obvious objective metric. Sometimes the notion that a policy is a failure happens all at once — e.g. the way the Tet Offensive was interpreted as meaning that the Vietnam War was destined to fail — and sometimes it is a gradual thing. Sometimes it is keyed to some obvious number, sometimes it is not. To make the analogy clear, we are still debating, decades later, whether the New Deal was a success or a failure. Even measuring its effects on the Great Depression is a non-trivial question, and then putting a value judgment on that measurement always verges into subjective assessment. And the debates that the policy wonks and economists have over it probably have almost nothing to do with what the general public thinks about it, which is what matters for the polls and ballot boxes.

So — it's a good question. It's just that there isn't any sort of obvious answer, at least not ahead of time. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that Democrats will find it to be a success and Republicans will find it to be a failure, because they will put emphasis on different criteria, just as they did during the pre-passage debate. Democrats will still like it because it makes insurance accessible to people who could not previously get it. Republicans will still hate it because they will still see it as governmental intrusion. Look at Medicare (US government-provided health insurance for old people) -- it's been around for close to 50 years and Democrats still love it and a lot of Republicans want to privatize it. It will be the same with the ACA assuming it is still around in 50 years. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Who is the FTSE 100 holdout against the Big 4 Auditors?

Is is a fact occasionally reported by the British press that 99 of the 100 companies making up the FTSE 100 are audited by just 4 companies (PWC, Deloitte, E&Y, KPMG). The way this has been reported leads me to believe that it is the same one company which is the exception, so I started wondering: Who is it? I'd also be interested in why they've chosen to use someone else, though I recognise that may be less easily available information. Many thanks! 81.159.112.136 (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, found it after some better Googling. It is Randgold Resources, a South African mining company. They are audited by BDO, and have been for some time - they just only entered the FTSE 100 recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.112.136 (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing the answer when you found it - that's a great bit of trivia! --Tango (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)