Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 August 22

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.

August 22

Low migration requirements

After the question on migrating to Canada, is there a list of countries that have low, lower, lowest migration requirements? Julia Rossi (talk) 00:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

While it would be nice to have an article outlining different countries' immigration policies (we don't seem to have one at present), it's going to be a lot more complicated than a low-to-high scale. To give a simple example, my country allows totally free immigration to EU citizens, but legal immigration from elsewhere can be extremely difficult. Algebraist 00:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

My country is going to be on the super-duper hard end of the list. Tourists aren't allowed to stay for more than three weeks, non-citizen residents can be deported for playing music (an activity for which a citizen could potentially be paid), and other than a child-bearing marriage there is no possibility of naturalization. Plasticup ^T/C 01:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, is there anything in particular to stop someone emigrating to the “easiest” to get into EU country, THEN emigrating to Brittan? :) I’ve always wondered how that worked. --S.dedalus (talk) 01:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes: you have to somehow convince this EU country to give you citizenship. I believe this is tricky no matter who you choose. Algebraist 01:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As Algebraist says, you would need citizenship. That's quite a lot harder to get than just permanent residency and would take several years at least. Once you had done that, though, then yes, you could probably move to the UK (there might be a clause that says naturalised EU citizens don't count, but I don't know of one). --Tango (talk) 02:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

One common way is for Eastern Europeans from countries not in the EU(Russia,Turkey etc)to get to somewhere like Bulgaria or Rumania.Once you're in there as a citizen,you are then free to migrate anywhere within the EU.One of the concerns over Turkey's EU application is the possibility of terrorists being easily able to get over the border from such places as Iran and Syria and then once within as EU citizens would pretty much be free to travel anywhere in the EU without any constraints. Lemon martini (talk) 11:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

May I ask where you've seen that raised as a concern? I've never heard it before. Algebraist 11:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The main places I've seen it raised are in papers such as the Daily Mail and the Express(although of course they tend to be concerned about anything arriving from anywhere across the water),but it has been prompted as a concern in some Government thinktank studies (I haven't got the names to hand) that one of the drawbacks of EU membership is the potential for terrorists to use it as an attractive gateway into Europe. I can see the logic- rather than attempting to get into Europe through the non-EU channels on say an Iranian or Iraqi passport which would be far more likely to create suspicion,simply make your way over to Turkey,get your hands on a Turkish passport and then just travel through the EU channels with all the other Europeans.The less chances of being stopped and asked to produce documents-especially ones that may throw up red flags,the easier... Lemon martini (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Xenophobia causes so much more unrest than these supposed Muslim terrorist-hordes. Plasticup ^T/C 01:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we can possibly answer this question since it depends on precisely who you are, what your qualifications are etc, even what you mean by migration. For example I know a bit about Australian and New Zealand skill migrant residency requirements. Both use points systems but have a number of differences and have different requirements. If a country has a large shortage of skilled worked in your particular field, then it's likely going to be easier to migrate there for you. But for a lot of other people, it might be harder. If you have sufficient money that you are willing to invest, you can often migrate in some fashion (not necessarily gainining citizenship) to many other countries but clearly the requirements are going to vary, from country to country with the poorer countries generally having lower requirements. Then there is stuff like the free flow of people between EU member states, or between Australia and New Zealand. P.S. Countries like Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, many parts of the Arab world accept unskilled workers (compared to much of the developed world thtat doesn't), but not long term and it can actually be quite hard to get citizenship of a number of these countries. Nil Einne (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama and assasination

Its my belief that when Obama becomes president(hopefully) that at some point someone will try to assasinate him. If they succeed, I think that there will be riots and chaos from the black community. I told my white friend that if Obama gets killed that he should be very careful about going outside and that I would come and get him.(I'm black) My friend says that I'm being ridiculous and that if Obama gets shot it will be like any president being shot and there wont be riots and such. What do you all think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.134.118 (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The reference desk is not a discussion forum for unanswerably subjective questions. — Lomn 02:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It's impossible to even speculate without more information. Who the killer was would be extremely significant, for a start. --Tango (talk) 02:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Charles Manson thought that the Beatles song 'Blackbird' was an incitement for him to stir up race riots. Were there riots and chaos when Martin Luther King got shot? What would have happened if JFK was shot by a black person? Bradley10 (talk) 09:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm disturbed by the fact that this character has told someone that if Obama gets killed,'you should be very careful about going outside' and that if Obama gets killed,'I will come and get you'.If someone was making threats like that to me,I'd rather remove them from my friends list sooner rather than later...Lemon martini (talk) 11:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I really think he meant "I will come and get you [to safety]", the implication being that his friend would be safer with a black friend than by himself. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 12:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope that's what was meant.Whoever becomes President,there is always going to be some nut out there who wants to try and do away with them-we cannot speculate on something that will(hopefully) never happen. Lemon martini (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

To answer Bradley10's question, yes, there were riots in many cities after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. Of course, 1968 was 40 years ago, and riots might not occur if a President Obama were assassinated. If they were to occur, they would likely be confined to certain urban districts, as they were in 1968. Marco polo (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think when/if it happens, it will be done by a non-WASP. At least, that's how it will be covered up. --Endlessdan 17:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd look for something more recent than the MLK incident. The Los Angeles riots of 1992 didn't happen after the Rodney King incident - but rather after the aquittal of the people who were accused in the incident. Those were perhaps more indicative of what our OP is envisaging. I had a long chat with a (white) lawyer in LA just a few months after the events of 1992. He said that driving around the city as a white lawyer (eek!) in a gold BMW made him feel exceedingly vulnerable - even months later when he drove me to the airport - he explained how he carefully picked his route to avoid troublespots. If I was a white guy caught up in that kind of thing - I'd surely hope I had some black friends who'd help me get out of it. However, the OP really does need to be careful not to make this sound like bragging or some kind of a threat! True friends know that they'll help each other out in a bind - it doesn't need to be made so explicit. SteveBaker (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Any president is in danger of assassination. There have probably been crazy people plotting to assassinate every president we have ever had. That’s what the United States Secret Service is there for, and they do their job quit well indeed. In my mind the idea that there would be riots after the assignation of a president simply because of his or her skin color in this day and age is patently ridiculous. If Obama were to be assassinated, as President or not, there would be certainly be worldwide mourning. --S.dedalus (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree; the likelihood of an assassination attempt on a President-elect Obama is significant. I'm from the blond-haired, blue-eyed part of flyoverland -- e.g., none of my neighbors would think of this :-) -- but I'm certain that in other "relatively distant" parts of this here country, those who might still support Jefferson Davis's positions could easily be sitting around the bar, coon dawgs at their feet, trying to plan how to right this Great Wrong that's approaching; and if one or two of 'em get sufficiently likkered up, might just take it upon themselves to "fix whut needs fixin" next time he comes to town.

(Enough stereotype?) I think the scenario is not at all farfetched, and hope to heaven that those responsible for the President's safety are giving this some extra thought.

Would there be riots? Probably. Conversely, would there be cheering in some quarters? Also likely, albeit behind closed doors. Would somebody claim to "make my gran'pappy proud? Do NOT bet against it.

-- Danh, 70.59.119.73 (talk) 01:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

But you have wackos like that for every president. Whether it's skin color, Cuban affiliations, Catholicism, a homosexual relative, a vote against environmental legislation, or a vote for/against the Vietnam war, each president attracts his own brand of weirdos. Plasticup ^T/C 01:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama will not get the presidency and wouldn't have gotten this far towards it without massive white support, and I'm sure from what I've heard from blacks I know and from black media programs that the better part of them recognize this. I think that's why there weren't massive riots after the MLK assassination, because it was a similar story. King got whites on board and if you look at the march on Washington there's a lot of whites there and I've talked to blacks who point that out and say there probably would've been a police crackdown what they would've called a mob if the whites weren't there. Likewise, the Montgomery bus boycott wouldn'tve been successful without whites giving their black friends rides. The black population, for the most part, knows these things. I think it's disrespectful of their understanding of the situation and of the nature of their culture to think you gotta lock up and don't go anywhere if he goes down. -LambaJan (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That's true - but it's also naive. Trouble doesn't come from the majority - it comes from the minority. I'm sure the majority of the black community in LA were cowering in their homes with the doors locked just like the white people. But let me quote from our article on the LA Riots:

"At approximately 6:45 p.m., Reginald Denny, a white truck driver who stopped at a traffic light at the intersection of Florence and South Normandie Avenues, was dragged from his vehicle and severely beaten by a mob of local residents as news helicopters hovered above, recording every blow, including a concrete fragment connecting with Denny's temple and a cinder block thrown at his head as he lay unconscious in the street."

What had he done? Nothing. Would this have happened to him if he'd been black? I kinda doubt it. Were the people involved thinking rationally about justice for cops in the Rodney King beating? No...it was blind rage directed at the first white guy they could find.

The march on Washington was a controlled, calm event...those kinds of events can afford to be openly and carefully multiracial. The LA riots resulted in 53 deaths, 2,000 people injured, a billion dollars of property damage resulting from 3,600 fires, destroying 1,100 buildings. 10,000 people were arrested.

If an Obama assassination resulted in a calm march on Washington - then fine, if an injustice has been done, I'm there. But if it would result in rioting on the scale of the LA riots - not fine. Can we predict in advance which of those things it might be? No - we really can't. If the LA riots had happened before the march on Washington and the Montgomery bus boycott then we could maybe say that the world was settling down and becoming a calmer, saner place - but that's not true. Despite all of the gains the MLK years bought us, the LA riots still were the most brutal and widespread rioting seen anywhere in the civilised world for at least the previous 100 years.

SteveBaker (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You said it yourself, it was the acquittal that sparked the riots. I don't think an Obama assassination would spark riots, but perhaps a similar show of institutional injustice would. -LambaJan (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the LA riots were the massive wide-scale attack on white folk they're made out to be. According to the article a total of 8 white people died. Which is 8 too many, obviously, but the city of LA has a population of 1.7 Million white people. The danger to white folk was a bit higher than normal, but still in the struck-by-lightning range. Obviously a white guy like me wouldn't have wanted to be around during those riots, but unless I'm missing something, it seems unnecessarily alarmist to start worrying about who your "black escort" is going to be. If you're really worried about increasing your chances of long term survival your mental energy could be better spent making your automobile safer, or eating healthier. That's boring, but statistically it'll have a much better pay-off.

By contrast 25 African-Americans, 16 Latinos were killed. And a whole lot of shop-keepers of all races had their shops vandalized. APL (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Reginald Denny (the innocent white truck driver who was pulled from his cab, beaten, robbed and left for dead) might have something to say about that. Read how he was beaten to within an inch of his life - and despite the whole thing being shown live on TV - the only thing that saved him was...well - I won't spoil the ending - why don't you read his article and then reconsider what you wrote about the benefits of having a "black escort".

Our article on the riot says: "Stores owned by Korean and other Asian immigrants were widely targeted" - others suffered too - but nothing like to the same extent. The large numbers of African-American and Latino deaths was largely due to the gang war that broke out as a consequence of the lawlessness of those days.

SteveBaker (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I grant that I didn't allow for white folk assaulted but not killed. I couldn't find a number for it. It was an error not to mention it at least. But unless that number was significantly higher than the death rate it still remains a remote possibility even if the riot is a given. Unless you live an exceptionally safe life this should be low on your list of safety issues to be resolved. After the real risks like heart disease, automobile accidents, ordinary non-riot violence, natural disasters, you've still got to worry about lightning strikes, random wild animal attacks, etc.

I have read the Reginald Denny article. It is horrible and terrifying. But I try my best not to allow extraordinary and emotional tales affect my understanding of risks and statistics. In this age of TV news that's often hard to do, but I try.

I'm not saying that the Reginald Denny's assault wasn't horrible, and even avoidable, But is it cause for all 244 Million of us white folk to be paranoid? Will that kind of paranoia do more good than harm? Couldn't that energy be channeled towards survival techniques more likely to save lives? I'm surprised at your reaction given your nearly opposite posts in the question about airline crashes. APL (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

re: "that's why there weren't massive riots after the MLK assassination". There definitely were massive riots after MLK was assassinated — in Washington, Baltimore, Chicago, Louisville, and other cities that left dozens dead and countless homes and businesses burned and looted. 1968 was a very different time and I'm not saying the same thing would happen if Obama were killed but there is a precedent. —D. Monack ^talk 23:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Plane going down and survivors

Has there ever been an incident were a major airplane went down from the sky and there were survivors? I dont mean small planes or planes about to touch ground. I mean Jet planes high overhead and going down. Has there been one with survivors?

Yes. Japan Airlines Flight 123, for instance, suffered explosive decompression at over 13,000 feet, with 4 survivors, all of whom were seated in the rear of the aircraft. — Lomn 02:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty rare though. I believe there are no known cases of the exit ramps and seat cushions being used as floatation devices - I don't think anyone ever used the life-jackets. Lots of the safety junk they put on planes never gets used - it's an outrageous waste of jet fuel - and yet the one thing that really WOULD help (anti-smoke inhalation masks) are STILL not being provided even though they weigh next to nothing, cost less than a dollar each and would have saved hundreds of lives over the years. SteveBaker (talk) 02:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not rare AT ALL. It's more common for planes to "go down" - and by this I assume the OP means "have a serious emergency in mid-air" - and either semi-land or crash at low speed than it is for them to crash. The thing is, emergencies rarely get in the news when the pilot gets the aircraft on the ground safely and nobody dies. Maybe if it happens at a major North American airport with lots of TV crews around AND if the photos are interesting enough to show. Otherwise you never hear of it. I think it's called selection bias - we see more fatal accidents than non-fatal ones so we assume fatal ones are more common.

The difference between survival and death is often the rate of speed at which the aircraft crashes. No amount of safety equipment will save you if you're in a high-speed air crash, as the damage caused by deceleration (basically your heart being shoved forward in your chest and detaching from the aorta - not a pretty autopsy scene, as I've had the sad experience of learning) is enough to kill you alone. The old "if they spent that dollar things would be so much safer!" canard is just that. People vastly, vastly overestimate the amount of time they have to put on a mask, and anyway most smoke inhalation deaths happen because the person was knocked unconscious or severely injured in an unexpected crash and couldn't have opened up a mask anyway. A mask might extend your agonizing death by a few minutes, that's true, but you'll likely burn to death or die of your injuries before anyone can pull you out (unless you happen to be in the cockpit - it's somewhat easier to access the cockpit from the outside than the cabin).

The best way to spend money on airline safety is not on useless gimmicks but on crew training. A well-trained cabin crew can make the difference between life and death; had the Air France accident in Toronto taken place with an airline who chooses their cabin crew for looks and not for ability and who regards them as glorified servants, giving them courses on makeup and hair and not on safety (e.g. Singapore Airlines), it's likely half the passengers would have died. --NellieBly (talk) 07:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you read the question carefully enough. We aren't talking about the crashes (or "near crashes") when a plane is just taking off or landing. Indeed, in those cases the survival rate is good. We're talking about relatively high altitude events - and a crash from that height is almost always fatal to everyone aboard. My comment about smoke masks is more to do with the leading cause of PREVENTABLE death. When a plane falls apart and drops from 40,000 feet - there is nothing much (short of parachutes or something) that's gonna help. When a plane noses down from 500 feet right after takeoff - there isn't much more that can be done beyond seatbelts and good seat anchoring and crumpling. But when one aircraft taxies into another on takeoff - and there is an immediate cabin fire it's perfectly possible for someone to grab a smoke hood (they are like metallised plastic bags with a flat, square carbon-filter in the front), pull it over their head and get out. There have been countless occasions where that kind of thing would have bought people an extra minute or two to get out of a burning plane that's on the ground. Even if only 1% of people in 1% of accidents benefitted from them - they'd be a lot more use than the heavier and vastly more costly life jackets that have never - even once - saved a single life in an airline accident of any kind. SteveBaker (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

There have been cases of the life jackets being used. See Water_landing#Survivial_Rates_of_Passenger_Plane_Water_Ditchings.

The WP articles don't seem to mention if the slides were used, but I'm pretty sure the fact that evacuation slides float is incidental. Inflatable slides were invented because they're easy to deploy quickly. According to the article, previous to inflatable slides, canvas ones were used. Those certainly wouldn't have floated. APL (talk) 05:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to what you might think from some movies, explosive decompression isn't actually all that dangerous except to the people unluckily near the point of failure, and except if it also causes damage to the plane's systems. In the case of the Japan Airlines crash, it did -- all four hydraulic systems became unusable. A different sort of explosive failure that similarly destroyed the hydraulics on a United Airlines flight in 1989 also led to a crash landing, but a majority of the passengers survived.

Explosive decompressions where most of all of the passengers survived have included ones in or near Hawaii in 1988 and and 1989, in England in 1990, and near the Philippines this year.

Flights where all the engines have stopped, for various reasons, and which were brought to a safe landing have included ones in Indonesia in 1982, in Canada in 1983, in Florida in 1983 (Eastern Air Lines Flight 855 on May 5, no Wikipedia article), and in the Canary Islands in 2001. In another such case the plane crashlanded in the water near the Comoros in 1996, and while a majority of passengers died, there were 50 survivors.

There has even been a case where a plane was destroyed by a bomb while flying at 33,000 feet and still one person survived!

--Anonymous, 10:40 UTC, August 22, 2008.

The Gimli Glider was a good example of a plane that came in from a high altitude and landed with no loss of life. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Every airplane that I've ever been on eventually came "down from the sky". Plasticup ^T/C 01:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The original question did address that point. --Anon, 18:32 UTC, August 23, 2008.

Claymore mine effect on APC

I was watching some YouTube footage of the recent fighting in Georgia and was wondering. Could a Claymore mine with tripwire damage a Russian-built armored personnel carrier, say a BMP-3? What about the BTR-60? My theory is that a claymore mine might act not unlike an IED and damage the treads of the vehicle or at least dent the vehicle in some way. But since the claymore is designed for antipersonnel use and not against armored vehicles, one could theoretically drive over a claymore and not know it. Am I correct in either or one assumption? --Blue387 (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

APC's can withstand anti-personnel mines very well. It is one of their functions. I'd imagine the blast would alert you to the fact you'd driven over one, but any damage would be incidental. Fribbler (talk) 12:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Additional info: Russia now uses the BTR-80 rather than the BTR-60, and from this site:

The vehicle remains totally intact, even if it hits an anti-personnel mine. If hit by an anti-tank mine, as proved in Afghanistan, it can keep moving as the blast energy normally damages only one of the eight wheels.

These are tough machines. Fribbler (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You also need to qualify whether it is a Russian domestic version, an export version or a licensed, locally made version. Most of the export versions are limited in some manner such as thinner armor, and the locally made versions are usually modified in some manner. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

M18A1 Claymore Antipersonnel Mine says that these things have "limited" use against soft-skinned vehicles. Implying that even something like a truck would be fairly safe against one of these things. The Claymore fires a bunch of 1/8th inch steel ball-bearings out in an arc at 1200 meters/second. That's a very lightweight "bullet" - our article compares it to a .22 cal rimfire bullet. So anything that's in the slightest bit bullet-proof will survive - and that will certainly include any APC - even the lightweight kind. So I think the answer is a very clear "No!". An IED has much more explosive - and it's concentrated right under the vehicle. The Claymore is optimised for jobs like killing a large number of unprotected or lightly protected infantry who are walking alone a path close to the device. It spreads 700 ball bearings out in this wide arc to try and catch as many people as possible - each with just a couple of fragments. It's pretty much the exact opposite of what you want for penetrating light armor. SteveBaker (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(Oh - and you don't "drive over" a claymore - it sits on a little tripod or something with it's curved front face pointing in the general direction you think the enemy is cominf from. It's typically set off with a tripwire. SteveBaker (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I have a marriage and a civil partnership at the same time?

Let's say I'm married. And then I realise that I'm gay. And I want to get a civil partnership with my new partner. Do I have to divorce my wife first? I live in the UK. Bradley10 (talk) 09:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but we cannot give legal advice here. Go see a solicitor. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not after legal advice! It's a theory question - I was just wondering if the two were possible at the same time. Bradley10 (talk) 10:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty damn sure that one of the first things they would ask before granting a civil partnership is 'are you already legally married or in a civil partnership'.If you say yes,you'd probably be advised to choose one partner.You're usually restricted to one spouse at a time-although that does raise the point-I believe Muslims are allowed more than one wife simultaneously,so would they be permitted a wife and a civil partner simultaneously? Lemon martini (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sharia law does not recognize civil partnerships, and UK law does not recognize sharia law, so this seems to be a non-issue. Algebraist 11:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah thanks-I didn't know what the situation was with sharia law and civil partnerships Lemon martini (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the situation with them is, the UK falls under UK law, not sharia law. In the UK, Muslims are allowed one spouse, the same as everyone else. --Tango (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Given that a civil partnership bestows upon both partners the same legal status as is enjoyed by married partners it seems clear to me that indulging in both statii simultaneously would subject the participating nutter to the laws of bigamy. Jeez, it's bad enough having one spouse at a time let alone 2. Quotation, "A feminine boy from Khartoum, took a masculine girl to his room; they spent the whole night in one hell of a fight - about who should do what - and to whom?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.7.225 (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

In the UK you can't be married and have a civil partnership at the same time see Civil partnership in the United Kingdom#Eligibility Dmcq (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Quite aside from the legal issues - this is a matter of simple ethics - what you SHOULD do - not what you COULD do. SteveBaker (talk) 19:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

What is there in 'simple ethics' that precludes polyamory? Algebraist 15:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what SB was saying but in this case with the question as phrased I would say it is a simple matter of ethics... "then I realise that I'm gay. And I want to get a civil partnership with my new partner. Do I have to divorce my wife first". If you're gay, your obviously not interested in your wife as a life-partner (anymore?). The right thing to do here, is to tell your wife if you haven't already, and get a divorce as soon as possible, not marrying again until your divorce is finalised. If you were bisexual and you and your wife wanted to stay together or whatever then you might have a point but clearly that doesn't apply to the specific situation as phrased Nil Einne (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, of course. The discussion had gone on long enough for me to forget the actual question. Algebraist 16:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. At the time of his marriage - this was a woman he respected and even loved. That he's changed sexual orientation is hardly her fault. One can only imagine how horrible this seems to her. She needs to be treated with respect and honesty. A swift "no fault" divorce would probably minimize the pain. It's irrelevant what the law says - it's the right thing to do. With the divorce done cleanly and fairly - do what you like from that point on. SteveBaker (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure that we have any brief to be imposing our personal ethics on others, or any right to be telling them what they should or should not do in these situations, or what the "right thing" for them is. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I can think of a half-dozen counter-examples in which maintaining the legal marriage would be the "right" thing to do. For instance if your sickly wife depended on your health insurance, or you had co-signed a mortgage, or you needed the tax breaks associated with co-filing your taxes, or you needed to maintain visitation rights at a hospital, or any of the myriad of benefits that society gives to loving heterosexual couples. Plasticup ^T/C 14:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I'm pretty sure in the UK the benefits to civil partnerships are the same as to marriages - I'd hope so, anyway. We definately don't have health insurance. Bradley10 (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Some health insurance programs cover the holder and his/her spouse. Presumably in the UK this means the civil partner as well, I don't know. My point was just that there could be a good reason not to divorce your wife even if you didn't love her any longer. Plasticup ^T/C 13:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ha. Wow! It was only a theory question. I'd never do anything like that to my wife. If I had one. And even if I legally could. Which I can't. Bradley10 (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Search engine alternatives..

Hello,

I own a restaurant, Tastings Orlando, and two warehouse companies(Mackin Commerce Center, College park Commerce Center) here in Orlando. Other than listing my businesses with Yahoo and Google, what do you suggest to advertise them to potential clients/customers?

Is there a way in Wikipedia to do so or at least be more visible?

Thank you,

Steven 68.205.104.47 (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC) P. S. what purpose does the 4 tildes, above, serve?

Regarding Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:FAQ/Business. The four tildes turn into your signature, time, and date. -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't advertise. But we have articles that may help you: Internet marketing is one, and the articles it links to at the bottom of it. Fribbler (talk) 13:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

To put that more clearly: Wikipedia doesn't sell advertising space. We also VIGROUSLY defend against people who attempt to introduce advertising - even quite subtle attempts such as adding the URL of your company website in the "See Also" section of an article on the product you make or sell will be considered quite objectionable. If your company passes our rather strict notability criteria (See: WP:NOTE and especially WP:CORP) then it's possible that an article could be written about it - but we would be quite upset if people who work for the company were to attempt to edit the article or influence the way it would develop. That means that is easily possible that we would mention criticism of your organization in order to represent a neutral point of view. You wouldn't easily be able to get rid of that so you might want to be careful what you wish for!

For advertising in general, something like a restaurant needs to be advertised locally - there is no point in paying for advertising coverage all around the world for a restaurant with just one location in Orlando. That kind of local coverage is something the Internet is not so good at. Getting your restaurant listed on Google Maps - and with some genuine customer reviews (somehow, astroturfing never really works) - would probably be good for business.

SteveBaker (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I know nothing of Orlando but in Boston there are services that list local restaurants and their menus online. I have personally found this extremely helpful and it has occasionally encouraged me to try places I had not otherwise thought of trying.

I would also suggest making a nice website. It's not very expensive or time consuming, and if I were to hear about your place from a friend, I might run it through Google to see what it was about. I'd expect to see something that gave me an idea of the kind of place we were thinking of going to. For example, if I want to know about the Barking Crab, Google gets me a pretty little site that tells me about the restaurant, shows me the menu, tells me how to get there (but doesn't, oddly, mention that there are attractions nearby that might be of interest to people—it's right next to the Institute of Contemporary Art, and it's a great twofer on a Sunday afternoon). So, on this particular point, I would disagree with SteveBaker. There's no point in paying for advertising on the internet (like banner ads) because they aren't targeted enough, but having something nice for interested people to find could probably go a long way towards attracting some new business. People google all sorts of crazy things—they're probably Googling your business name right now! (I just did, anyway, just to see what came up—nothing much of interest, nothing to tell me what kind of place it is.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 06:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree that you need a nice web site - you certainly do. But that's not ADVERTISING - that's INFORMATION. Without advertising, people who are not already customers won't come to your website either! If you search "Restaurant Orlando" in Google, you get 580,000 hits. One of which will be your website. Unless you have quite deep pockets, you won't get your restaurant to the top of that list because only the half dozen "richest" restaurants can afford to pay Google enough to do that. Once people know you exist, the website is useful in helping them making a decision - but they aren't going to open dozens and dozens of restaurant web sites and decide where to go by reading all of them. It's just not how people use the Internet. SteveBaker (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It's also a good idea to get your business listed on Google Maps so that the (rich) iPhone users can boast they found your restaurant using their mobile, even though you can do that for ages with Google Maps mobile on basically any mobile phone. --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Bank drive-through deposit tube

I am looking for an article about the special system which is installed in many US banks which makes it possible to deposit money through a special air pressure tube through the drive-through. can anyone help me find something in wikipedia about it? Acidburn24m (talk) 18:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Pneumatic tube might be what you're looking for. --LarryMac | Talk 19:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It does mention the system. As a sidenote for anyone who's curious, many people at my workplace use the phrase "I'll tube you a note" instead of "I'll email you" since we used to have a tube system for delivering messages. Dismas|^(talk) 19:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Those things were SO cool. Steampunk email! SteveBaker (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Ted Stevens was right, it is a series of tubes. --LarryMac | Talk 19:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

In some ways, he was right. (Though of course it was for the wrong reasons—he was correct only in a "broken clock is right twice a day" sort of way.) We talk about high-bandwidth connections as fat pipes. We send squirts of data as packets that resemble (at least remotely) Dismas' pneumatic tubes system. While many people have a mental image of the Internet as a fault-tolerant routing-around-damage gossamer web enveloping the Earth, there are still many places in the world that are joined to the wider Internet through only a few 'pipes'. Undersea intercontinental high-bandwidth fibers are few in number, and susceptible to damage; they're more like vulnerable oil pipelines than multiply-redundant woven tapestry. (When just three cables were severed back in February, an entire country – Iran – lost its connection to the global Internet: [1].) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Iran didn't lose connectivity. I agree, though, the Internet is a series of tubes, and I never understood why people chose to mock him for that perfectly reasonable statement. If they're going to turn one of his comments into a catchphrase, why not "sending an internet" for "sending an email"? -- BenRG (talk) 11:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

A better example is probably 2006 Hengchun earthquake. The problem hereis that although there are a lot of 'tubes' they all go through the same earthquake prone area. While no country lost connectivity completely that I know of, this severely crippled telecommunications access to the affected countries. For example even normal toll calls to these countries were utterly shit, and these are the ones you pay big bucks for so you would expect the telcos to give them high priority. Of course "an internet" (i.e. e-mail) still wasn't too bad I believe since it's resonably low bandwidth, latency tolerant stuff. (I agree people chose the wrong things to mock him on, but his whole statement just sounds dumb and the tube bit does as well even if somewhat accurate) Nil Einne (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Faceless "aliens"

Did anyone ever find out who they were? --217.227.122.34 (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it was just viral marketing. [2] All the papers promoted it, so it worked. Except that you don't know who did it, so it didn't :) 217.42.157.143 (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It was viral marketing for the Lotus Evora. [3] Dostioffski (talk) 00:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

As the first link said, although the previous reply avoided further spreading their brand onto the desks. 79.66.45.71 (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

brigand groups of north arcot district in madras presidency /india

is there any gazette of madras presidency that can throw light on the the folklore of ``deevatti kollaikarans who seems to have been operating in the javadhu hills around jolarpet region in the 1900s? are there any other evidence of their existence.Trinitymoolam (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Funny you should ask that - I was just about to do so myself. Have you tried Yellow Pages? In the event that you have not, I will do so on your behalf and respond accordingly and in the fullness of time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.7.225 (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your GREAT IDEA!

It is a serious question.There are grandma's tales about such brigands,who sometimes eloped with maidens and later dropped back. If you are familiar with the geography of that area, you will know that it lies in the area which is contiguous from where the modern day brigand Veerappan operated. Seventy years ago when i was a child (YOU GUESS MY AGE NOW!),i had heard stories abut them.Some of them are supposed to be from forward castes,driven to brigandry because of poverty. Hence my querry.it is of social antropological interest.Trinitymoolam (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

OK Trinitymoolam - your question is very confusingly worded. You are assuming we know MUCH more about the history and geography of the region than is likely! We're good researchers - but most people here are from parts of the world where almost no history of the Indian subcontinent is taught! We can't do magic without some considerable background information.

Anyway - let's try to dissect this question so we can understand it:

• Neither "deevatti" nor "kollaikarans" are words that Google can find anywhere on the Internet - so it's kinda tough to discover much. Is there an alternative spelling of those words?
• I can find a few references to the Javadhu Hills, Vellore in Tamilnadu. Jolarpet is also in the Vellore District. North Arcot is in the Madras region.
• British colonists consolidated the Tamil territory in southern India into the Madras Presidency, which was integrated into British India.
• Veerappan was a notorious Tamil bandit in India. But he's a recent figure - born in the 1950's not in the 1900's.

Searching for Tamil brigands in Vellore, Javadhu and Jolarpet produces only references to Veerappan.

So I guess we're looking for Tamil brigands operating in the Vellore district of India in the 1900's.

I've spent quite a bit of time reading around this subject this morning - it's hard work when you don't know the background history!

1. Madras Presidency has some information that might lead you forward.
2. History_of_Tamil_Nadu#Independence_struggle seems to have some relevent information. It talks about the "Dravidian movement" - could that be what you mean by "Deevatti" ?
3. This British document talks about "Kanakarajan" who is a "a close associate" of people the British describe as anarchists and political suspects - and has friends who are "vagabonds"...all around 1910. Could "Kanakarajan" be "kollaikarans"?
4. That same website has a lot of documents from that era and that part of the world. I suggest reading the documents here: http://www.sriaurobindoashram.org/research/show.php?set=doclife&id=contents

SteveBaker (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot SteveBaker.

The meaning of the words"Deevatti" and "kollaikkarans"--These are words of TAMIL one of the many languages of INDIA,spoken in the southern part of India. "Deevatti" could be translated TORCH for our purpose.It is actually a wooden stick rolled with oilrags and lit up while raiding villages. "kollaikkarans" translated literally means "robbers".It could also be referred to "bandits"/"thugs".--

The area we are looking at is the Vellore district formerly known as NorthArcot distict in presentday TAMILNADU which was part of the Madras presidency during the British rule.

Dravidian movement is different.The Tamils are from the Dravidian culture as juxtopposed to those from ARYAN culture livng in other parts of the country.Drvidian history dates back to PRE Christian era.::

I will go to aurobindo ashram web site as suggested by you and will get back. Once again thanks for the interest you have taken.:

The Gazettes of that period,either of MADRAS presidency or the district gazettes of ARCOT or NorthArcot could throw some light. I am not able to locate them in the web yet.~`Trinitymoolam (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The referred texts has been read.They pertain to the activities of

freedom fighters. "kanakarajan"is the name of a person.:The referred texts will help any researcher who wants to know about the freedom movement in French India.:

Pondicherry in the then French India is at least 400k.m. away from

the area we are talking about in the then British India.;

Why can't I live on my roof?

I ask here because my city council wont give me a straight answer. I feel that as long as I'm not hurting anyone, there is no reason why I can't live on top of my house. My roof is flat.

In the summer, they wont even let me crash on the front lawn, for Chrissakes! I keep it mowed, and I want to sleep there.

If you live in a warm climate, and arent being a nuisance,I see no reason why anyone cant live on thier roof in the winter, or thier yard in the summer. My life sucks and I want to be free! This is why I live in America. But "people can't just go around running extension cords into thier yards with lamps, chairs, and tvs" And forget about the parade in your own yard (thought I found a loophole) because "you cant just go around with 3 of your friends kicking your feet in the air in unison like chorus girls". You also cant just go around painting picures of yourself on your car door, or cover your house windows with $100 bills (I checked). You "can't just go around"" doing much of anything on your own property, can you?--Hey, I'm Just Curious (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As we have said with earlier questions of similar note, most of what you raise is covered by city (municipal) ordinances, and will be specific to your place of residence. It is possible that, if we knew where you lived, someone might be able to chase down your local by-laws and point you to them. For interpretation, however, you would need to talk to your planning department or city council, and, if they cannot answer your questions, to a lawyer. If you merely want to rant about your perceived lack of freedom, may I suggest you find a forum more suited to your purpose? ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didnt mean to come across that way. Thing is, its like this in every single town I've lived in! I was trying to seek an answer of a societal viewpoint. Why is it that all towns have it this way? What's the sociological, societal reason, etc.? Hopefully you guys can help.Hey, I'm Just Curious (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The idea is that your property needs to be "in keeping" with the surrounding area. Having one house looking different is often percieved as ugly. You probably have much more freedom about the back of your house, where other people are less likely to see it. --Tango (talk) 00:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I suspect you could have three friends over and do synchronized kicks, though I'm Just Not Curious Enough to call your bluff and ask you to quote an actual ordinance, rather than your belief about what an ordinance means. Covering your windows with $100 bills, a thing you are unlikely to do on this planet, would most likely be an attractive nuisance. I feel confident that you can't cite an ordinance that says you can't paint your own face (or, say, that of a troll) on your car door, though possibly your community (like mine) has restriction on where you can park commercial vehicles -- you know, the ones with business names painted on the side. Pickup trucks and vans with screamingly bad artwork abound; your face likely won't draw that much notice.

Painting your garage is something else; many suburban areas are covered by regulations from a condo board or homeowner's association. Such regulations are normally part of the package of documents you receive when buying a home in such an area (the package is required by law in Maryland and Virginia). You may Just Not Be Curious enough to have read yours. Having served seven years on a condo board, I know that many owners are shocked, shocked to discovered that the board could not only stop them from (as one owner wanted to do) building an exterior deck, but that the board legally could have it removed and bill them for the work.

What you seem unable or unwilling to understand is that "I feel" is not always the strongest argument for persuading others to agree with your acting in a contrary -- not to say tendentious -- manner. And, you know, you can do many of these things; you apparently don't want to live with the consequences. You don't need the permission of the reference desk, and there's no point in seeking its approval. — OtherDave (talk) 01:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't even know what country you are from. How are we supposed to give you a meaningful answer? Plasticup ^T/C 01:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Just curious, but how would the city council know you were living on your roof - do they use helicopters to gather evidence of such "law" breaking? Astronaut (talk) 02:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually the OP did say "This is why I live in America" Nil Einne (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you actually gotten in trouble for setting up an easy chair and lamp on your front yard? Or do you go to city council meetings to ask them whether or not random ridiculous things are permitted? APL (talk) 03:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

To answer Astronaut, they found out about the roof incident from one of my neighbors. The one who walks her cat at 2am (Shouldnt there be an ordinance for that?). To answer APL-yes, I have brought to the forefront some of these one day could be important issues. I have been known to set up what I call "happyland" in my front yard . As I stated before, I want to be free! So a free person should have the right to do free things. As long as your not hurting anybody. If I want to name my office stapler spot and drag him by a leash down my street, there should be nothing legally stopping me. Sorry if it seems like I was soapboxing there, but I have strong feelings/lifestyles for this.Hey, I'm Just Curious (talk) 03:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty common around here to see people with a chair set up in their front yard and listening to the radio, I have a hard time believing that a TV would be much different, especially if the screen didn't face the traffic.

In any case, we can't give legal advice at all, but if you're looking for a life free from nosey neighbors who call the coppers at the slightest offense, have you considered moving to an area that's more rural? A slightly lower population density might do wonders for your front lawn dance parties. (Once you do move, I recommend not showing up at city council meetings to ask ridiculous questions, that's just about guaranteed to reduce your freedom to do silly things.) APL (talk) 04:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

As always, it's a matter between theoretical freedom and practical freedom.

• There might well be a law preventing you from defacing currency by sticking it on your window. Will anyone actually stop you from doing that? No. That's a theoretical restriction on your freedom that's not a problem in practice.

• There might not be an explicit law preventing you from sleeping in your front yard - but if doing so annoys your neigbours, they are going to call the cops - and they won't be happy that you're causing grief and they'll find an obscure law that'll stop you from behaving antisocially. That's a freedom that you theoretically have - but in practice, you don't.

Paying attention to merely theoretical problems like sticking money on your windows - while "pushing the limits" by trying to do bizarre things like sleeping on your front lawn is guaranteed to get people looking for laws to stop you. If they dislike you screwing with the look of the neighbourhood and they can't find a law to stop you sleeping on your lawn - then they'll look at the dollar bills stuck on your windows and say "Hey! Maybe we can get this bozo thrown in jail for doing that!". I have to say that if I was one of your neighbours - I'd be seriously considering doing that.

You can certainly get away with sleeping on your roof once in a while without anyone caring even if there is some obscure law that makes it illegal. You can have occasional parties on your front lawn without anyone being too bothered - so long as you aren't upsetting your neighbours on a daily basis (HINT: Invite your neighbours to your parties - even if they don't come, they'll be more tolerant). But if you make a damned nuisance of yourself by doing it continually - or dragging down the value of nearby properties by making an unholy mess of yours - then people will start looking for obscure laws that can be found to stop you from doing it. Between draconian housing association rules, vague laws like "Disturbing the peace", "Public nuisance", "Lewd behaviour", "Public drunkenness", noise level statutes - they'll get the police on their side and find SOMETHING to get you with. So be nice - consider your neighbours - they also have a right to live their lives the way they want.

I certainly recommend moving away from other people. Once you aren't disturbing other people - they aren't going to care what you do in the privacy of your own yard - and you can probably even break a few laws without anyone careing. Freedom doesn't mean "Freedom to make yourself a bloody pain in the neck and thereby impinge on the freedom of others"...and it seems to me that you are going out of your way to do exactly that.

Living in a SOCIETY isn't about pushing the limits of all of the laws - it's about being a nice person and seeking out ways to make the people around you happy.

SteveBaker (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with SB here. From your questions and responses so far, I'm not that surprised you're having so many problems with your neighbours. If you change your behaviour, you may find your neighbours are less inclined to report you when you violate minor ordinances. If you for whatever reason end up pissing them off all the time, they're much less likely to be so inclined Nil Einne (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, you may want to start reading up one electricity, water,shortcircuit, fire, electric shock and extension cord if you don't understand why no one wants you running an extension cord to a TV and lights in your garden Nil Einne (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

As a strong defender of individual freedom myself, I'd still have to say I understand a bit why people might be upset at you camping out on your roof or front lawn. To me, if you want to paint your house purple with green stripes, maybe add some tasteful nude frescoes, I'd tell your neighbors to get over it. But if you're out there at night, where everyone can see you and where you can see everyone else, if I were one of your neighbors, I'd be wondering why. Are you up to something, I'd be thinking? Waiting for everyone else to go to sleep so you can set whatever plan it is in motion? Or are you upset about something that's gone wrong in your life? Maybe wrong enough to make you act out without a plan, but with a machine gun? These don't have to be rational fears, at night: The point is that it is very difficult to get to sleep if anything is "out of whack" in your surroundings. And that, at a broader level, makes perfect sense, because for millions of years those who went tranquilly off to sleep while something was off-kilter -- or who gave their neighbors too much benefit of the doubt -- were presumably less likely to pass on their genes. --Trovatore (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that in an ideal world, it would be OK to paint your house purple with green stripes - AND I'd defend your legal right to do so. The problem is that this isn't only a matter of PERSONAL freedom. It affects your neighbours. A house is the most expensive thing you'll likely buy in all your life. Rightly or wrongly, a house that's next door to a purple/green one is worth less money (sometimes a LOT less) than one with more "normal" houses adjacent to it. So by painting your house like that - you're quite literally taking tens of thousands of dollars from all of your neighbours. That's not a matter where they are likely to simply shrug shoulders and say "Well, someone is exercising his freedom and twenty grand is the price I must pay." They are going to do absolutely everything in their power to stop that kind of thing from happening. Everyone who lives nearby are going to hate your guts and do their damnedest to make your life a total misery in the hope that you'll go away and someone will come and repaint the house a nice shade of boring beige. This is guaranteed to make your life miserable too.

In an ideal world, the value of my house shouldn't depend on the look of your house - but in an ideal world there would be no correlation between people who paint their houses with wild colors and people who are a damned nuisance in other ways. But that correlation definitely exists. The probability of my neighbour cranking the music up and keeping me awake half the night (another one of those "Personal freedom" things) is definitely correlated to the probability of him painting his house weird colors. The probability of him not bothering to eradicate fire-ant nests on his side of the fence is increased. The probability of him breaking into my house at dead of night to get money for drugs is higher. These correlations are CLEARLY not true for everyone - but I guarantee that those things are true statistically. Even if it ISN'T true - people who buy houses definitely believe it to be true - so they don't buy houses next door to purple and green houses unless they are amazingly cheap.

Humans have evolved as tribal animals - when we live in close proximity you have to obey unwritten tribal norms.

SteveBaker (talk) 23:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I used to live on my roof for a summer and no-one ever objected. Mind you, I didn't tell the council, and the neighbours couldn't see me. Bradley10 (talk) 09:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)