Miscellaneous desk
< November 11	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 13 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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.

November 12

# of people to crew a ship

Approximately how many people would it take to crew a fairly big old-fashioned sailing ship? (I don't know a whole lot about ships, so I can't be more specific than that, but I kind of have the Black Pearl from Pirates of the Caribbean in mind. So about that size, but without the supernatural capabilities, lol.) Also, would it be legal to sail a ship like that nowadays, if it was newly built, but as though it had been built three hundred years ago with no modern features? (I know I'm not supposed to ask legal questions on here, but it's a purely hypothetical question; it's not as though I'm looking for legal advice. I'm just curious.) 131.162.146.86 01:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm clueless as to crew numbers, but as to the legality of the vessel, outside of any country's national waters, there's little to stop you doing most things. Within a country's waters, you are expected (as I understand it) to be registered as a vessel with one country or other. Getting registered in, for example, the United States, or the UK, would mean proving that the vessel was seaworthy (i.e. not about to sink) and safe (has amenities guaranteeing a certain degree of hygiene, among other things). Registering an oceangoing vessel with a small country via bribery and corruption has somewhat of a long history in shipping. I don't think there would be a problem registering a sailing vessel (see STS Young Endeavour for one example) in itself. Steewi 01:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On registering a ship in a country with lax regulations, see flag of convenience. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To give an indication of the crew required: the Batavia (ship), had a crew of 303. This may seem a huge number, but it includes 26 soldiers, 14 cannoneers, 7 accountants, a smith, a locksmith, 9 carpenters, 2 barbers, coopers and various other professions. The crew you would need really depends on what you want to do with the ship besides sailing.

Regarding the legality: the replica of the Batavia actually sailed a small stretch near Sydney, and is certified to sail with passengers. - Dammit 02:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Matthew had a crew of 18, and a replica recently sailed the Atlantic. DuncanHill 02:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of sailing ships still sailing as historical reenactments, youth training ships, military training ships, cruise ships, and expensive yachts. Tall ship festivals regularly draw a couple dozen ships. Even some historical ships still sail rarely - like the U.S.S. Constitution. Crews sizes vary by type and size. The U.S. Coast Guard sailing ship USCG Eagle has a crew of over 200 {many being trained) while the Bluenose has only 18. The Royal Clipper has a crew of 106 and carries 227 passengers. Rmhermen 02:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of a pirate ship having accountants just makes me laugh. Corvus cornix 21:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous - they wouldn't last five minutes against the insurance clerks. Gandalf61 14:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not so much how many are needed to sail the ship. How many are needed, on a pirate or warship to fight the vessel ? The last square riggers working around the Horn had a crew of about 28 seamen, plus carpenter, sailmaker, cook, apprentices and officers. But the Sovereign of the Seas, a 100 gun ship from 1638 had a tonnage of only 1,605 - but a wartime crew of 815!86.200.3.126 15:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)petitmichel[reply]

Oh wow, thanks everybody! You've helped me even more than I expected. :) 131.162.146.86 20:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does cum taste like

seriously whats it taste like?? women or gay guys help me. 98.204.154.144 03:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or straight guys who've tasted their own, right? If you're male, then you presumably have a ready supply of the stuff. I'm also told that the taste varies, both from person to person and in response to dietary changes. Googling for "taste of semen" will provide you with ample information, most of which adds up to: "it varies". -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true eating a lot of fruit makes it sweeter? What about vaginal fluid? --124.254.77.148 06:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UGH! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.137.69 (talk) 09:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vaginal fluid tastes a lot like aroused genitals smell - very musky, heavy taste, and rather salty. Kuronue | Talk 16:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In one word: delicious

Personality disorders

How do we know when someones personality is a disorder? What if people with ADHD and ADD are just hyper and easily distracted? What if people with OCPD are just neatfreaks? What if people with Narcissistic Personality Disorder are just a bit too full of themselves? I'm not saying these disorders don't exist, or that they shouldn't be taken seriously, but how do we know when a personality is outside the "realm of normality"? --Candy-Panda 08:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You assess. Then you get out your Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and have a flick through. You should also check the critisism section of this article. It is also possible to exhibit symptoms of many but fall into the category of none. For instance you can be narcissistic but not have Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I have actually been tested and assessed and attend psychiatry however have no diagnosis of any mental illness. "The most significant pattern emerging confirms a narcissistic personality pattern.", however, "He presents with an inflated yet insecure sense of self worth…". It is a sensitive field, I won't say it is an inexact science as that would do it an injustice, however rather than a bacteria or virus that will manifest itself much more uniformly, mental illness varies from person to person. You might want to phone a local help line or discuss it with a health professional if you have personal worries. Self diagnosis is dangerous and one tends to assume the worst. My favourite is "…an indifference to the feelings of others, displaying at times a marked lack of empathy…". Currently my mood is controlled by C₁₇H₁₈F₃N₁O. It has pros and cons like anything. I also possibly have Adult ADHD but have not been assessed as such. I also was sceptical some mental illness and just thought people needed a good kick up the ass, however when you get to experience it first hand it changes your perspective, and that's from a man with a marked lack of empathy. Lanfear's Bane | t 10:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have an anecdote or two, and I'll preface it by saying I'm not a psychologist or a psychology student, but I'd like to share anyway: I've met and known a narcissist or two (and many would say many celebrities are even narcissists). Trouble is a psychologist might not have enough to label them as such, although certainly the loose-term 'narcassistic' would have been easily applied. There is a checklist of narcassistic symptoms, for example things like the male narcissist somehow telling his wife what time she should go to bed, or absolutely seemingly incapable of ever admitting wrong. Another narcissistic symptom - one that I believe would leave your psychologist with little doubt -- were if you had to have pitched up at your sessions claiming to know more about psychology or your problems than your psychologist, as if you are so brilliant you are even better than your doctor, your psychologist, etc (the narcissist may even take the time to extensively research the subject even not conscious of the motives of their research). As with many other psychology labels you'd have to fit into a checklist and 'score enough points' in the checklist in order to be diagnosed -- to be clear and not insult any psychologists, they would still have to apply his/her own opinion as to the application of each checkpoint. My point has been that even if psychologists don't have enough to label a person as an outright narcissist doesn't make that person not a narcissist. I believe the one test they apply is if your narcissism affects your ability to interact with other people or how it ultimately affects your personality, in the same way that one can skip the Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder label if it doesn't affect your life too much. Rfwoolf (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also had trouble defining if the core of narcissism is insecurity, i.e. an actual low self esteem, or its opposite, because the result is someone that pretends to have an extraordinarily inflated ego, without exhibiting some of the ordinary symptoms of an insecure person. For example I've met plenty of people that brag and show off, yet these people seem to show signs of major insecurity and lower self esteem. I think the one thing I remembered reading about narcists is that many think they are brilliant because many of them actually are. Rfwoolf (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Momentary pain that never appears again

This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page.

Lanfear's Bane | t 10:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page.

This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis or prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page. --~~~~

Please do not repost medical questions. You are describing a condition and asking us to diagnose and name this condition. This constitutes medical advice. Please consult a professional or refer the person with the problem to a professional. Lanfear's Bane | t 13:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misconstrue the rule. Obviously I am not asking for a diagnosis for myself--or anyone. That is the intention of the rule. You should find something else to do. You disrupt this section of Wikipedia. 66.91.225.183 21:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page.

This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis or prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page. --~~~~ Please stop reposting this question, three times is taking the piss. Nricardo please do not encourage this behaviour by reposting twice removed edits. Lanfear's Bane | t 19:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest offhand that most people who have had this pain have probably forgotten it, given that it happened only once in their whole lives. --Trovatore 00:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that Lanfear's Bane acted entirely appropriately. This is asking for a name and explanation of a particular sort of pain. That is asking for a diagnosis. It is asking for medical advice, and I do not for a moment believe that the person asking the question has not experienced this , nor that they have seen a medical professional about it. Skittle 13:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not reposted this three times. I reposted it. Then someone I do not know stepped in for me. You outright lie now because YOU are in violation of the rules. Are you aware of 3R? Like I said before get out of the reference desk.132.239.90.49 22:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the British Gary, Indiana? Appalachia?

What is the British equivalent to these American urban and rural areas that are very poor?

66.91.225.183 10:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like Gary, many industrial cities in the UK suffered greatly during the 1970s and 80s. Sheffield and Glasgow are two examples that spring to mind. As for rural areas, mining districts such as South Wales and West Yorkshire were historically quite poor and have also suffered with the decline of industry in the last 50 years. FiggyBee 10:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As FiggyBee points out, many UK cities, particularly those in the North of England suffered from the decline of heavy industry although even London suffered from this, with its previously busy dockyards becoming deserted and a wasteland - partly due to the decline of manufacturing and partly due to larger container ships being used that were too large for the old docks - new docks downstream were built. Liverpool and Middlesbrough have suffered much the same fate.GaryReggae 11:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a slightly different take on this, I'd nominate Bristol. Why? Frank Cooper changed his name to Gary Cooper in 1925, following the advice of casting director Nan Collins, who felt it evoked the "rough, tough" nature of her native Gary, Indiana. In some ways, Cary Grant was a sort of British-born counterpart of Gary Cooper. Cary Grant was born in Bristol. They had almost identical first names, and they also appeared in 2 movies together, Devil and the Deep (1932) and Alice in Wonderland (1933), in which Cooper played the White Knight and Grant the Mock Turtle. (I think I've said enough.) -- JackofOz 12:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gary, IN is a hopeless shell of a city. It's been called the Pompeii of the American Rust Belt. Are Sheffield and Glasgow still comparable? 66.91.225.183 13:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a very poor rural area of Britain - Cornwall. DuncanHill 13:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong, but while I am aware of impoverished parts of many British cities (inner London has some of the most deprived communities anywhere in the country) I can't think of any that are totally impoverished. I'm also not aware of Brits referring colloquially to certain cities as poor, except, generally/jovially, in the poor-taste In your Provincial/Northern slums song that used to be popular in London versus northern football team matches. Most of our cities tend to be poor in parts and some are worse than others. But, as I say, I don't believe that Brits tend to refer to a specific place or places as being particularly poor. --Dweller 15:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess then there is no British equivalent to Gary, IN. A city that is hopelessly bleak. But what Appalachia? There is a rural region that is very poor and culturally insular, set far apart from the national culture? 66.91.225.183 22:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very poor, culturally insular, set far apart from the national culture = Cornwall. DuncanHill 22:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say Cornwall was *that* impoverished. I don't know what Appalchia is truly like but there are no areas of the UK that are completely bleak and insular. The closest thing I can think of are parts of South Wales such as Brynmawr where all the industry and employment has gone (thanks to Margaret Thatcher, particularly coal mines and steel works. Somebody else has pointed out Cornwall but I disagree - while it is definitely insular, the tourism trade is huge due to the lovely coastline and activities such as surfing. Although it may have a regional economy, it is surely no worse than any of the UK's struggling seaside towns such as Southport and Margate. Cornwall has never been a very industrial county, there used to be tin mining in the area but all that finished years ago. GaryReggae 23:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tourist trade = low skills, low wages, part-time working, seasonal working. Some of the lowest wages in Britain and the highest house-prices. Only part of southern England to qualify for Objective One funding. Only Objective One area in Europe where the funding is administered from outside area. Poor transport links with the rest of the country. Poor levels of public transport. Police service run from out of county. What tourists see of Cornwall ain't reality. DuncanHill 21:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Along the lines set out by Gary, I nominate Merthyr Tydfil. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we're talking impoverished slum towns in South Wales, Newport trumps Merthyr. Neil ☎ 10:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Impoverished slum town? Newport was recently Ranked 7th in the UK in a table showing the predicted economic strength of cities outside of central London and the south east. Owain (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the British "Gary, Indiana" needs to be a town whose name is used in a key way in a song from musical theater. But the closest thing to British musical theater that I can think of is Gilbert and Sullivan. So maybe Titipu?

And I shouldn't be surprised if they should tremble

Before the mighty troops, the troops of Titipu

Hmm, it's not quite up to "Gary, Indiana, Gary INDiana, Gary, Indiana". Maybe someone can do better. --Trovatore 04:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if it's an appropriate G&S reference you're looking for, why not Basingstoke? - Eron^Talk 14:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one has linked to Appalachia? The page is not a great one, but gives some idea of what this region is like. In this question thread the assumption seems to be that Appalachia is rural, very poor, culturally insular, and "far from the national culture". This sounds more like the stereotype than the reality. The region is sometimes defined broadly, including most of the Appalachian Mountains in the US, and sometimes narrowly. Perhaps the OP was thinking of a narrow definition -- an area around eastern Kentucky and southern West Virginia perhaps? Much of this region is quite impoverished and rural (if "rural" includes massive coal mining operations and logging as well as farming). I'm not sure what "culturally insular" means. If it means the region's culture is strikingly unlike the rest of the US, then Appalachia fits the bill (as do other regions, New England for example).

I'm not familiar enough with the UK to say what an equivalent region would be. If we're talking about about the "narrowly defined" Appalachia of rugged terrain, lots of coal mining, "hardscrabble farming", and widespread poverty -- the first place I thought of in the UK was Wales. Historically, as I understand it, many Welsh immigrants ended up in Appalachia, in part because it was a region where the kind of labor and knowledge common in Wales was needed (coal mining especially, but also such things as hardscrabble farming and methods of raising livestock in rugged mountainous terrain). I'd go further and suggest that the poverty and unusual culture of Appalachia is mainly due to the fact that it is a mountainous region. So rather than look for a region of the UK with poverty and an odd culture, I'd suggest looking for one with mountains (and coal mining) first, then see if it also has poverty issues and a culture differing from the national norm. So... I'm still thinking, doesn't that sound more like Wales than anywhere else in the UK? Forgive my ignorant of Wales and the UK if I'm off base.

Finally I just wanted to mention that if we're talking about Appalachia in the larger (and probably more common) sense, then we're talking about a quite different region. Pfly 07:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a resident (though not a native) of Bradford I would suggest that Bradford's reputation is somewhat close to what you're asking, though not its reality. Even cities with some sort of grim reputation such as Sheffield and Glasgow seem nevertheless to have some sort of grandeur in the popular imagination, but for some reason Bradford does not. --ColinFine (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Business finance

What is pinpoint equity, and how does it work ?

62.173.96.12 11:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search suggest it is 'a high debt to equity ratio' - Debt to equity ratio explains what a debt to equity ratio is. To be fair this is all over my head, so couldn't explain what it means, just working on use from search-results. ny156uk 17:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia logo

The wikipedia logo in the top left corner of most wikipedias, a globe made up of jigsaw pieces, with characters from various languages. Where did it come from? Is the an original about? The reason I ask, is I was click about the various language wikipedias, and noticed that the lithuanian wikipedia has almost the same logo, but missing a few little marks near the letters. I thought it was kinda odd that somebody removed them. But then I thought, maybe thats how it used to be, and somebody added them to the other wikipedias. Anyway, sorry for rambling on, any help would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.221.240 (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't understand the question "Is the an original about?". Did you mean "Is there anything original about it?"? -- JackofOz 12:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a typo I think (meant to be "is the original about" - i.e. is the source file available anywhere). 86.13, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia logos for the history of the logo and info on how the current version came about. I have no idea why the Lituanian Wikipedia is missing those little bits. — Matt Eason ^{(Talk  Contribs)} 12:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest copy of Commons:Image:Wikipedia-logo-en.png appears to have these marks already (the smooth breathing by the Ω and the breve that turns the и into й. But presumably there must have been an earlier stage when it lacked these - not just Lithuanian, but also (for example), Arabic and Belarussian lack them as well. (In August this year, somebody asked essentially the same question on the logo's talk page) --ColinFine (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triple AAA with rifles

I was wondering what the official title of the MOS in the USMC which is colloquially known as 'Mr. Goodwrench'. Anybody know? --MKnight 9989 13:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously it refers to motor mechanics. Take a look at Field 35, Motor Transport, or Field 21, Ordnance for Armoured Vehicle mechanics. FiggyBee 13:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But do these guys do repairs under fire? I'm getting my info from One Bullet Away: The Making of a Marine Officer, and the author briefly mentions his beneficial encounter with Mr. Goodwrench. --MKnight 9989 13:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Offtopic discussion closed. Take it to a talk page, people. TenOfAllTrades(talk)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Signatures

I don't suppose you (MKnight9989) would consider toning down your signature? --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, WP:SIG says: In consideration of users with vision problems, be sparing with color. If you must use different colors in your signature, please ensure that the result will be readable by people with color blindness. - for 100% certain, yellow text on red is not readable to people with red/green colour blindness problems. SteveBaker 16:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is my SIG ok Steve im to lazy to go and read the sig link. Eskater11 16:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It probably fails under the recommendation "A distracting ... signature may adversely affect other users. Some editors find it disruptive to discourse on talk pages, or when working in the edit window." --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if you could at least spell your user name correctly in it. FiggyBee 17:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol i didnt notice, i had someone else do it for me so its thier fault i just never botherd to check. Eskater11 19:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, WP:SIG is a guideline, not a policy, and for another it is a SIGNATURE. It is not something that should 'distract'. I picked red and yellow because those are the colors of the the Corps, and if you can't handle that then all I can say is oh well. If it's that big a deal then contact an administrator or someone else with the power to block me for having a red and yellow name. --MKnight 9989 13:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not something that should 'distract'. My point exactly. It's up to you to do what you think is right. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I feel like a moron because I left in that part about the distraction thing when I took out other stuff before I posted (it would've made sense had I left the other stuff in). It really shouldn't be that big a deal. Your eye may be drawn to the color at first (I'm sure it will be), and after that you can ignore it and move on.--MKnight 9989 13:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your eye may be drawn to the color at first (I'm sure it will be) = distraction. It's up to you to do what you think is right. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody's treading lightly because nobody wants to hurt your feelings. Your sig is enthusiastic, and Wikipedia runs on enthusiasm. So far so good. Me, I don't want my sig to be what people notice, and I would feel I was being selfish if I made it so that my sig jumped off the page, commanding more attention than others'. I also wouldn't want to contribute to any trend toward flashy sigs because this page, for one, would start to look like a carnival poster, and the information is what's important. If you want my opinion, the color-blindness argument is decisive. --Milkbreath 14:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not it doing to be selfish, or rebellious, or difficult, I'm doing it as a tribute to the Marines. They deserve this much at least. And as far as hurting my feelings go. People: Say what you mean; don't walk around eggshells for me. Don't beat around the bush. Say what you want on my talk page and I'll respond. When you beat around the bush, your message becomes unclear and indeciferable (is that a word?). --MKnight 9989 14:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of places where you can pay tribute to the Marines, if that's what you want to do. Your Wikipedia sig is not one of them. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I have anything against your signature, but Wikipedia:Signatures#Appearance and color states signatures should be easily readable for everyone, and I am not sure how friendly is yours. However, I have seen much worse signatures (including a 1Kb long once). While it may distract, I don't think it is that bad. -- ReyBrujo 15:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think we have lacked clarity. Your signature sucks. Your excuse is not particularly appropriate and/or very misplaced. Wikipedia does not exist, in any way or form, as a tribute to the Marines. Whatever they deserve, wikipedia does not deserve to be used in this fashion. You are a new user. Welcome to our norms. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said earlier, anyone here is welcome to contact an admin and have them block me if I don't conform to your norms.--MKnight 9989 15:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You want the truth? You can't handle.... Sorry. Marine joke. Straight talk: The Marines could give a shit about your stupid sig. Honor them by sending packages to the front-line guys, by standing in the rain at every memorial service and funeral in your county, by writing letters of support, by sending money to their widows, by welcoming them home, by volunteering at a hospital. Honor them by joining up. Your stupid sig shouts "Look at me! Look at me!" like a child. The same child who sprays grafitti on the schoolhouse wall and smirks afterward in the principal's office. Join the fucking human race, why don't you? This place has rules. You have three choices: follow them, work to change them, or get out.

Please don't construe this as hostility toward you. I'm shooting from the hip with no silencer because you said to.--Milkbreath 15:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About time someone spoke their mind. I've never written graffiti, I haven't been to the principle's office in about eight years, and WP:SIG is not a rule. It's an idea that some people agree with, and few do not. I don't. And you're right about the USMC thing. Although that is why I chose those colors (I hate yellow and am ambivalent towards red), I was hoping to tug some heart strings there. Sorry mate but I just can't do this because a few people with way too much time on their hands are getting all worked up over nothing. --MKnight 9989 15:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An example of how you might be able to move closer to SIG while still maintaining a USMC tribute would be a sig like MKnight9989^{Semper Fi!} -- it's readily identifiable as USMC-related (more so, I would argue, than the color scheme) and a closer adherent to SIG. — Lomn 15:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) More straight talk: Are you stupid? The grafitti is your sig, the schoolhouse is Wikipedia, the principal is the admin you invoked, and the smirk is your present attitude. Look around. Your sig sticks out like a sore thumb. How long do you think your red-white-and-blue Mohawk, your tribute to American ideals, would last at Parris Island? (Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting you now have or ever did have such a hairstyle, I'm trying to make the point that empty, outlandish demonstrations are unwelcome.) And you say you're not being rebellious, but you just now said that your reason for not changing your sig is the people who don't like it. You are displaying the very wrong-headedness you obviously hate in vandals. --Milkbreath 16:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read one of Wikipedia's most important essays: WP:Don't be a dick...notably the section "Coping with being labeled a dick". I'll wait while you read that....tum, te-tum, te-tum...oooh - look! A bunny....Oh! You're back. OK, to continue:

Why does everyone here (secretly or openly) think you are a dick? Well, let's examine the evidence:

Firstly: Non-distracting signatures are a guideline - which means "It is a generally accepted standard that all editors should follow." and that includes you. It's a guideline because it is understood that in extenuating circumstances, some parts of the guideline may need to be ignored. This is not one of those cases - this is you being a dick. But it's not just the distracting nature of the thing (although it distracts the hell out of me) - there is also a rule that says In consideration of users with vision problems, be sparing with color. If you must use different colors in your signature, please ensure that the result will be readable by people with color blindness. - Yellow on red is just about the worst possible combination for colour-blind users - so you are being exceedingly inconsiderate of those with visual impairment - my son for example will see your sig as a pretty much flat red blob with no text on it - my sister's daughter for another example has to wear purple tinted lense and set the background colour of her monitor to green - red signatures will upset her GREATLY.

Secondly: nobody - not even a Marine - is going to look at your bloody stupid signature and say "Wow! A tribute to the Marines." - they are all going to say "What a bloody annoying dick" - even after you tell them it's a tribute, they are going to say "Hmmm, this bloody annoying dick has a thing about the Marines". The place for showing off your credentials and support for military service us on your user page - it's the one and ONLY place on Wikipedia where you can do that...feel free to paint the entire thing red and yellow and cover it with Marine logos and anti-colour-blindness hate speech - it's your home, you can do what you like with it. Tagging every talk page you touch with this stuff is simply not acceptable.

I don't think the Marine credo says anything about it being OK to piss off regular people and inconvenience the handicapped. So if you feel the need to convince people that the Marine corps is a respectable organisation rather than a magnet for arrogant dicks - you really need to follow the guidelines.

SteveBaker 16:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Identify this song

Hi, does anyone know the song at the very start of this YouTube video: [1]. This orchestral song is possibly linked in some way to socialism but I do not know what the piece is called (if anything). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.110.207 (talk) 14:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is the March of the Montagues and Capulets from Prokoffiev's ballet Romeo & Juliet. DuncanHill 14:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.110.207 (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be akin to "killing" in court?

I am not in any way asking for legal advice here. The question is a mere curiosity. Take this case: Say someone is drowning in a lake, and I'm witnessing the drowning from the shore. The person yells for help as she struggles to stay above the surface, and I have the capability to save her because I have with me a life jacket. If I, for some reason, refuse to help the person and she died from drowning, am I legally culpable? Assume that the incident is witnessed by others (say that the incident is on tape). Also assume that I had no "malicious" intent (I had never met the person, and I merely didn't feel like helping her).

In short, do people have the obligation to save another's life if there's a clear ability to do so?128.163.116.52 16:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well first off if you wernt chraged you would be considered a DICK forever, but its possible you could be charge with something like manslaughter or something. Eskater11 16:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, morally - yes there is a clear obligation, and to kill by an act of omission is not very different from killing by an act of comission. Legally - this will vary by jurisdiction. I understand that in France a person in such a situation could be prosecuted, and that many other countries with laws based on the Napoleonic Code may have similar provisions. DuncanHill 16:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of US and English law is that if you just happened to be there with a lifejacket, you wouldn't have committed a crime, although depending on the jurisdiction you may be vulnerable to a civil action of negligence. If you had a more significant duty of care than just being there (for example, if you were employed as a lifeguard by the owners of the lake) and you were negligent, then it's possible you could be charged with manslaughter. FiggyBee 16:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak as to whether or not one is obliged to act if one is able to do so; that would be legal advice. I can suggest that proving anyone has the ability to do anything at a point in the present, never mind the past, might be next to impossible. I have the life jacket, but perhaps I am wearing it because I can't swim and am near the water. Perhaps I am afraid of the water. Perhaps I have a physical problem that prevents me from throwing anything. Even if I am wearing the life jacket, overcome my fears and set out to reach her, she could, in her distress, injure or perhaps even kill me in trying to save herself; is that, to me, a risk worth taking? I could think she was playing a game until the reality hit, and it was too late to respond. If I can come up with that just as I type (though granted I don't type fast!), just think what a defence attorney could do! Bielle 16:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something a little like this happened in the UK recently - the BBC has a number of stories on it. Long & short: those who stood by were not prosecuted, and, indeed, were defended by their employer, the local police force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagishsimon (talk • contribs) 16:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long and longer, Having heard a police spokesman deal with this at length, the case is more complex than the media mostly cared to present, as the facts were inconvenient to a true story. It's a blatant misrepresentation to say that that case is similar to the theoretical one presented above. --22:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dweller (talk • contribs)

To be honest with a good lawyer I doubt you could come to much harm. Showing that you are not a strong swimmer and were unprepared would be a good starting point. Look at the recent case where those three people on holiday drowned trying to save those children. The children survived and are now orphans. I am sure I have seen statistics showing that people who dive in to save people in distress in water are more likely to end up drowning themselves than saving the person. If no one was watching, I personally would leave them to drown. I say leave, I would watch, you are not going to get that opportunity creep up too many times in your lifetime. Lanfear's Bane | t 16:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As with all things legal, it largely depends where you are, under whose laws you are governed. Some countries have what are known as Good Samaritan laws that require you to aid someone in distress if it would not be putting yourself in harm's way, or to at least call an emergency number. If you are in one of those countries (Canada, Israel, Italy, Japan, France, Belgium, Germany, Andorra, and Spain). In the United States, there is no legal requirement to give any aid to a victim unless you are materially responsible for their situation or a caretaker of the victim (e.g. they are your child or your elderly father or whatever). (In the US, a Good Samaritan law means something else; e.g. a law protecting unqualified responders from possible legal redress if they screw up. Gotta love a country that cares more about being sued than it does about helping others.) Now note that this is all from a criminal point of view; in the US I would not be surprised if you could win a civilian judgment against someone who did not respond but was clearly able to. But I don't know a whole lot about such things. --24.147.86.187 17:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a classic question for law school professors to ask in the first week of class. Generally, in common law nations like the USA and Britain, it's never a crime to sit still and do nothing -- which is used to drive home the larger point about how the American legal system is predicated on the idea that the government is always powerless where the law books are silent (see Tenth Amendment). But there's also the civil law, aka tort law question. Many goverments are is worried that people will sit on their hands because they're afraid that they'll get sued if they botch the rescue attempt, so there are good samaritan laws declaring that people can't get sued for a good-hearted but foolish or unlucky attempt to save someone. --M @r ē ino 19:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just ask a further question, what if you were clearly afraid but had the capcity to save the person. ie. caught on tape running up and down at the edge of the water clearly panicking but with a lifejacket on?--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 21:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would not alter the situation beyond what has already been written. Either there are laws requiring you to do something (Canada, Israel, Italy, Japan, France, Belgium, Germany, Andorra, and Spain) or there are not. "clearly afraid but had the capacity" seem to point against eachother, to an extent; someone who is clearly frightened is in a poor mental state in which their decision making may well be impaired. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose, thanks anyway--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 21:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Belgium and France you can indeed be charged with "non-assistance à personne en danger" (~~ non-assistance to person in distress). Driving by and away from the site of an isolated car crash without helping would be an example where you could be charged with the offence (I think it is penal). I don't know the maximum sentence. I remember a case that tested the limits of the law where in the early 90's a couple stopped at a car crash and realising they had to call the emercgency services they drove off to the nearest public or motorway phone, they were subsequently charged for not providing imediate help. I don't know what the outcome of the trial was (I suspect that if they phoned the emergencies they weren't found guilty). Keria 10:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The final episode of Seinfeld had them thrown into jail for failing to give aid to someone. Apparently that's based on a New York state law. Corvus cornix 21:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who wouldn't videotape a fat guy getting mugged (or was it carjacked?)?--MKnight 9989 15:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opera, The Bohemian Girl

I researched the Operetta, The Bohemian Girl, composed by Michael Balfe in 1843. My question is; which character performs the song, "You'll Remember Me", at the beginning of ActIII? My second question is what is the relationship of the song "You'll Remember Me" to the plot of the operetta? How do the lyrics fit the plot in ActIII? Thank you for your response.Rkwilder 20:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds a lot like a homework question.--Dlo2012 22:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thaddeus, according to this online libretto. As to the second question, I think you're going to have to read the libretto. The three lines which precede the song may assist ... it looks like Thaddeus has an inferiority complex of some sort.

Thaddeus: In the midst of so much luxury, so much wealth and grandeur, I thought you had forgotten me.

Arline: Forgotten you! Had I nothing else to remind me of you (pointing at her gypsy dress) this would always speak to me of you. Forgotten you!

Thaddeus: The scenes in which you now move, may drive from your memory every trace of the past, and I only come to ask -- to hope -- that you will sometimes think upon me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagishsimon (talk • contribs) 22:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HSBC Shareholders

I'm having an arguement with a friend, and I need to know if HSBC is owned primarily by Chinese interests still, or if it's floating on the LSE in 1991 has made it a primarily Americanised business? Thanks for the help,

Quincel82.153.143.213 22:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably neither of the above. Was it ever "owned primarily by Chinese interests"? I suspect it'll be owned mainly by pension & investment funds from around the world.--Tagishsimon (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Hemscott HSBC holdings has 3 major shareholders who own 11.81% of the shares in issue between them. I couldn't find out the three are but they will likely be available online somewhere. Whilst likely not the 3 major shareholders the directors list as Stephen Green (1,707,786 shares), Michael Geoghegan (1,509,480 shares) and Douglas Flint (875,050 shares). I think there are rules about requiring major shareholders to be disclose to the public on list companies so they should be somewhere - probably in the annual report. ny156uk 23:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history of HSBC, you will see that it was founded by a Scot and has always been primarily a British institution, though with the globalization of capital, it has no doubt become less British. However, the headquarters is in London, and the CEO is British. Marco polo 02:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, remember that at the time of the bank's foundation, Hong Kong was a British colony and Shanghai was a complicated mess of Western enclaves. The bank was a British colonial institution. Algebraist 13:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]