Miscellaneous desk
< August 7	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 9 >

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 8

India-Japan baby

In case of India-Japan baby in legal wrangle, was it legally possible for father, immediately after divorce, to take surrogate mother to Japan for delivery, and claim custody? manya (talk) 04:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously he didn't, so it's a moot point. Also I doubt Japan would have given the surrogate mother a visa if it were obvious that she was coming to Japan to give birth. Incidentally, I found it amusing that the article noted that the baby's grandmother spoke neither English nor Hindi, as if that were a problem; presumably, the baby speaks neither language either. :) FiggyBee (talk) 04:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the U.S. it is not sufficient to be born in Japan to acquire Japanese citizenship so I don't know that the visa would have been denied. The criteria about gaining citizenship if "When the person is born on Japanese soil and both parents are unknown or stateless" might come up but I expect it would require a legal decision for such an unusual situation. Rmhermen (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why the article mentioned the Hindi/English thing but the inability to speak Hindi or English will likely to be a great problem to the grandmother as long as she's staying in India to look after the battle and may make it difficult for her to navigate any legal issues she faces in INdia. Potentially, it could also make it difficult for her to adopt the baby (for her son to look after) as if she didn't already have enough problems given her age. Nil Einne (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yogoboard

is yogoboard true? can i get a sample to see it ? can we feel the presence of ghost? is there any thing named ghost? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahibsha (talk • contribs) 06:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Yogoboard" gets no hits on Google, so there is no such thing, so it is not true, no, no, and no. Next question?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ouija board, perhaps? 81.187.153.189 (talk) 07:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of things named ghost, from the religious order now called the Spiritans (the Holy Ghost Fathers, Brothers, and Associates), to John Singleton Mosby of the Confederate Army, to Symantec's Norton Ghost software. And plenty at Ghost. There's also an exercise device called a yoga board, so I guess it's true. OtherDave (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the Iraq War so expensive?

I was listening to an author on public radio promoting his new book on the financial cost of the Iraq War and he mentioned that the war may cost in excess of $3 trillion; I did not listen to the whole thing. But the author has failed to explain one question I have: why is the Iraq War so expensive in financial costs? (I don't think it factors in inflation or postwar veterans health care.) One source in my Google search speculates that one reason is pork barrel spending though I doubt all of it was waste. Is it the cost of fuel or shipping supplies across thousands of miles? Not being an expert on defense spending, what is the source of the cost? --Blue387 (talk) 07:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the cost of any similar length/scale campaigns that make you think this one is more expensive than 'normal'? Additionally a lot of the time you should take figures quoted by people with a pinch of salt - they are often used as a tool to make a point. So people who are anti-war will use the highest figures that have been quoted - and ignore the caveats/limitations of them, and those in favour will use the most optimistic. From what I see on the news the figures are too large to comprehend - they lose their meaning because they aren't placed in context. Often i've seen comparisons of how much it'll cost compared to the cost of running Welfare in the nation - but they never note that they compare 5-10 years of spending against 1 single year of spending (and that the spending in one area is on something unestablished, whereas the other is bound to have had efficiency savings due to the time it has existed). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in the National Priorities Project's Cost of War site, which has a counter of how much the war is costing, based on US Congress appropriations and does not include "future medical care for soldiers and veterans wounded in the war", as our (very sparse) article on it puts it. Their Notes and Sources section will probably be especially useful to you. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the $3 trillion figure, when I saw it before, included the cost of future medical care, which is a real cost incurred, unless the United States suspends veterans' care, which would seem politically unlikely. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some other reasons for higher than usual costs in Iraq:

1) Reliance on high tech weapons. For example, using a cruise missile to destroy a target is far more expensive than artillery, which might have been used in the past.

2) Dependence on civilian contractors. In order for civilians to put themselves in harms way, they demand much higher wages than soldiers. The contract companies, like Halliburton, also demand profits. I've never understood why they don't just pay the soldiers what they pay the contractors, then they would have more than enough soldiers and none of the other problems that come with contractors, like when they murder civilians and are immune to prosecution, causing a massive PR problem for the US.

3) Non-symmetrical warfare. This makes it necessary for supply vehicles, etc., to be protected from IEDs. Thus, expensive armored escort vehicles must be used.

4) Desire to protect civilians. In past wars, the attacks which occured in Falluja might have resulted in the relatively inexpensive carpet-bombing of the city. However, such an approach is now considered inappropriate, so far more expensive means to "retake the city" were used. StuRat (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to echo StuRat on the issue: the military is willing to spend a very high amount of money to gain a small amount of protection. The army, for example, will drop million dollar bombs on a housing complex with insurgents in order to avoid a battle: the insurgents could buy thousands of guns for that kind of money.

On a similar note: I have listened to individual authors NPR on the Iraq war, and I don't think it's a secret they're quite slanted against the war. The one speaker I heard used some pretty dubious figures and facts: I would take any individual speaker on public radio with a grain of salt. $3 trillion seems like a lot to me - that's a whole year's GDP. Even as newspaper columnists at the Washington Post are echoing the figure: [1], all figures in this war have been prone to political manipulation on both sides (one only need to think of the 600,000 deaths spoken of by the Lancet study vs. the 40,000 predicted simultaneously by the Washington Post). Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closer to three months GDP, not that that isn't a terrific expense for any single purpose, especially when purely deficit spending. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to PMAnderson's point above and StuRat's the high quality of battle field emergency medicine adds greatly to the total medical cost over time. In the past, a large percentage of the people injured who now survive would have died. However nowadays with the excellent emergency treatment available they live albeit with significant ongoing problems that require a lot of support like amputations/lost limbs. It's going to cost a lot more to support them then it would have cost if they had simplied died (when the main expense occured would be any pensions). The non-symmetical nature of the war also means that many attacks are less deadly but still result in significant injury. Note in terms of civilian contracts while I'm not arguing for their use, bear in mind with them you can simply discard them when you no longer need them. However if you pay more to your soldier you are stuck with that higher cost in the long term since it would be rather difficult to reduce wages when you no longer have such great need and of course you're also going to be stuck with an excess of soldiers you don't need in the future and may have difficult getting rid of them. On a more cynical note, while having people who don't have to follow any rules is a PR problem, having people who are supposed to follow rules but which you don't want to enforce is a bigger problem. On an even more cynical note, while you're right companies demand a profit remember that the people who benefit from most of the profit have a lot of influence and friends in the right places. Nil Einne (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree on the difficulty with demobilizing soldiers. The US had far larger numbers of soldiers mobilized in World War II, and yet had no difficulty in demobilizing them afterwards. StuRat (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The OP seems to be referring to nobelist Joseph Stiglitz's The Three Trillion Dollar War.John Z (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This PDF lists the cost of major U.S. wars, adjusted to 2008 dollars, and other stats. The figures are "estimates of military operations only and do not include costs of veteran assistance, interest paid for borrowing money to finance wars, or assistance to allies." The paper goes into some detail about the difficulties of making cost estimates and how they did it. Some of the war costs listed, in 2008 dollars are:

American Revolution: $1.8 billion
Civil War (Union): $45 billion
Civil War (Confederacy): $15 billion
World War I: $253 billion
World War II: $4,114 billion
Korea: $320 billion
Vietnam: $686 billion
Persian Gulf War: $96 billion
Iraq War (current): $648 billion
Afghanistan (current): $171 billion

As far as military spending for wars as a percent the GDP, the largest are World War II (37.5%), World War I (14.1%), Korea (13.2%), Civil War Union (11.7%), and Vietnam (9.5%). The current spending for Iraq, Afghanistan, and Domestic Security is around 4%.

Given that the Iraq War has lasted over 5 years now, the cost doesn't seem that out of the ordinary. The Korean War was 3 years and cost about half as much. Vietnam cost about the same as Iraq, although it lasted longer. I can't answer the questions about how wars cost so much. Just that the Iraq War doesn't seem to be unusually expensive compared to other recent U.S. wars.

If one did try to factor in costs such as veteran assistance and interest on borrowed money the costs would obviously be much higher, but it is probably harder to make such estimates since they are predicting the future. With the total cost of current operations listed as $859 billion, an estimate like $3 trillion that includes these future costs doesn't seem wildly high, but who knows? We'll find out. Pfly (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lost friend

I am looking for my friend , we lived together in Brussels, Belgium, before she migrated to Manchester England to stay with her mother and complete her studies. She was born in Rwanda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.82.77.235 (talk) 08:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is she in the phone directory (assuming you can access it wherever you are)? AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know where she is studying? You can contact her place of study, and ask them to pass your contact details on. Her mother may also be in the phonebook, if you know her mother's name, even if your friend is not. You could also try entering her name into websites such as Bebo and Facebook. Neıl ☄ 09:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How long ago was this? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 10:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Twas now. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) 92.81.3.180 (talk) 11:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asked previously. -- Coneslayer (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remeber that too -- it's like the eternal return is happening on this groundhog day desk. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advertise in the Manchester Evening news, it used to have a free friend finder column.hotclaws 15:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about the Manchester Craigslist Missed Connections section? --Sean 14:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes wonder how often such things bear fruit. —Tamfang (talk) 08:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skin

Can't find the answer to this in the skin, cheek or lips articles ... does the inside of your cheek count as skin? Do your lips? If they aren't skin, what are they? There's also going to be a follow-up question on the tongue, which according to our current article is comprised solely of muscle and tastebuds. Neıl ☄ 09:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of these structures are coated with mucous membranes rather than skin. As are your oesophagus, nostrils, anus etc.

Thanks. That really should be in those articles. Neıl ☄ 13:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, does that include the tongue? Neıl ☄ 13:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite correct; both your skin and all the other items mentioned are all lined with epithelial cells (as are your lungs and GI tract, etc.). See epithelium. Asking whether they count "as" skin is going to depend on what you care to define skin as, but they are comprised of largely the same stuff. See also tissue to see that there are limited options. Matt Deres (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giggles

Is there a scientific term for "the giggles", those laughing fits you get sometimes and can't stop, especially if you're in a situation where it's inappropriate to laugh? 92.81.3.180 (talk) 09:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Labile affect? Also corpsing. Neıl ☄ 09:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but labile affect seems to denote the pathological side. I'm talking more about the effect of corpsing or something similar to it. When you laugh because you know you're not supposed to. 92.81.3.180 (talk) 11:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hysteria was my first thought, actually, but our article doesn't describe things in that way. I'm not sure there is a formal term, really - Gelotologists (what a great field to work in!) seem to use "uncontrollable laughter" or "uncontrollable mirth". Neıl ☄ 13:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See this article. It seems to me that the giggler in question may have some sort of anxiety about the situation they were giggling uncontrollably through, or they may just need to learn to restrain themselves better. -LambaJan (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it goes too far, perhaps Fatal hilarity? bibliomaniac 1 5 00:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In "Sex, Death and Nudity" it's called The Gigg(ə)loop (spelling unknown). —Tamfang (talk) 08:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative to lemon to take with gin

I usually take gin with lemon and salt. This gives me aching bones on the legs. I think it is lemon. Is there an alternative to lemon to take with gin? Something easy to get hold of? Raosab (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would never take salt with gin. Lime is OK, but really you should try a pink gin. DuncanHill (talk) 12:51, 8 August

2008 (UTC)

I prefer to drink Hendrick's Gin without any additional flavoring. The distillery gets it just right. Plasticup ^T/C 13:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tonic Water is good with gin - G&T and all that. Ideally i'd have it with lemon but it's fine without. Perhaps try having it with lime as DuncanHill suggests, or maybe just served with ice? Personally I prefer it with tonic to anything else. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the seriousness of the aching bones, you might eat the lemon and forget the gin. See gout. (Note: this is not a diagnosis, not medical advice, not an offer to buy real estate.) OtherDave (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking along the same lines. Reminds me of the guy who ate a huge steak each day with a sprig of parsely. When diagnosed with heart disease, he resolved to stop eating that unhealthy parsely. StuRat (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia helps you learn different understandings for a given concept. For example, my favorite mixed drink requires two ingredients: whisky and a glass. (Going along with Plasticup's reasoning, I believe if whisky needed ice, they'd add it at the distillery.) OtherDave (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whiskey my personal favorite, rum, whiskey and coke, rum and coke, vodca, and anything really, and loads and loads of death metal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.33.84 (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an inveterate Gin soak of about 45 years, I think the aching bones in the legs can be safely attributed to drinking whilst standing, and also to adding salt. Try sitting down for a change, preferably in the afternoon sun under a parasol or some such shade, and if in a windy position, find a sheltered wind-free spot. Always, buy the best Gin you can afford, either Gordons, Tanqueray, or my favourite, Bombay Blue. Put the ice into a long tumbler or highball first, say 2-3 cubes; forget the salt, that will encourage fluid-retention, particularly in the lower limbs (get the picture?), add a couple of thinly sliced lemon slivers, pour in a generous helping of Gin, and top up with ice-cold Indian Tonic Water, preferably Schweppes, either diet or regular. Stir, sit, take the weight off your legs, sip, and enjoy. Bliss. 92.17.241.223 (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plymouth gin is the best - and get the export strength if you can. Gordon's hasn't been the same since they weakened it. DuncanHill (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that by "death metal" you mean the lead sugar and litharge that was formerly used to sweeten alcoholic beverages according to the gout article. -- BenRG (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I switched to rum for sometime I didn't have this pain. So, I guessed it would not be alcohol, but lemon. i never considered salt. It is definitely not due to standing. I sit and drink. The worry is that none of those mixer drinks are available here. By the way, I found a wonderful mix recently. Orange juice, a little lemon juice, a split green pepper and a little salt go well with gin. Maybe, a cocktail like that is already there. Raosab (talk) 11:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An ex-girlfriend's mum once served me a G&T with a slice of cucumber - surprisingly good! --Tango (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old symbol for pint?

According to this PDF, an alternate symbol for pint is "O" - what does this stand for? It looks like it's presented in the same context as apothecaries' symbols [f℥ for fluid ounce, fʒ for fluid dram, ♏ for minim]. --Random832 (contribs) 14:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A pint is an eighth of a gallon, so maybe for whatever the Latin for an eighth is? DuncanHill (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Octarius". --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure of that? A denarius was ten asses, not a tenth of anything. My dictionary suggests octava pars. —Tamfang (talk) 08:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Heritage dictionary, among many others. (A google search for octarius pint is helpful.) I couldn't find anything linking "octava pars" with "pint"; what dictionary were you using? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you meant octarius = eighth (responding to DuncanHill as indentation implied), not octarius = pint (responding to Random832). My dictionary (Smith & Lockwood) doesn't list octarius at all. But that's classical; we ought to be looking at Medieval Latin, for which I have no references.

I looked up 'pint' in my little English-Latin dictionary and found sextarius, which Smith & Lockwood define thus: "the sixth part of a measure ... As a liquid measure, the sixth part of a congius, about a pint." Okay, perhaps I was wrong about -arius. But then I thought, how is this different from a sextans? The latter is defined thus: "a sixth part of an as, or of any unit ... As a liquid measure, the sixth part of a sextarius...." So was the sextarius so called because it was a sixth of something, or because it was six times something else? —Tamfang (talk) 06:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki project

Can any one help with the setting up of, or explain how, if it is possible atall, to, set up a wiki project so get pictures to go with articles. For instance today there is a did you know about a spider. very interesting, but I have seen 1001 different species of small brown spider. But a picture would help most people. this goes for articles on many many things from animals, to actors. Any info? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography? DAVID ŠENEK 16:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might start at Wikipedia:Images and Wikipedia:Requested pictures. I doubt a new project is required. — Lomn 16:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested in starting a wikiproject of any sort, read WP:PROJGUIDE. Anyone can start one at any time, although it is encouraged that you go through a short process beforehand to evaluate the project's necessity, whether or not something similar or equivalent may already exist, and also to solicit membership. Just like an article, all it really takes to create it is to write the project page. --Shaggorama (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parliment of world religions

I know some one who went to one of these, I wish to know more. Does it have anything to do with Theosophy? Thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.33.84 (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parliament of the World's Religions. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

english prison sentences.

I think that most prison sentences in the uk are way too lenient.

Is there a comparison chart with other countries?

How would I set up a "increase the penalties" petition/group? Is there something already in existence?

I am just a hard working uk taxpayer.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.172.217 (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reading your request carefully, I see you are mainly asking for information, and I confess I haven't been able to find much: [2] may be the sort of thing you are looking for, though its focus is on the US. I haven't found any forums about sentencing (though I haven't looked very hard - you can Google as well as I can).

But at first sight your message looked like an attempt to start a debate, and this would not be appropriate here: " Do not start debates or post diatribes. The reference desk is not a soapbox." --ColinFine (talk) 23:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I really know on the matter is that, in the US, misdemeanors are punishable by a fine and/or less than one year in prison while felonies are a fine and/or a year or more of incarceration. Useight (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sentencing guidelines (for some reason a U.S.-only article) gives links to some U.S. standards. Rmhermen (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no mystery about why it's a US-only article, given the incredibly America-centric nature of 99.99% of Wikipedia. Malcolm XIV (talk) 10:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with comparisons like this is that it depends on the crime. Drug offences and firearm charges for example are treated much more harshly in some countries then in others. You may want to look at China and perhaps Malaysia + Singapore as examples of countries with relatively harsh sentences for quite a number of crimes Nil Einne (talk) 10:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(FROM OP)

Sorry, certainly not trying to start a debate on wiki!

US always seems to me to have much better sentencing than UK. It does seem hard to find info through google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.254.116 (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link that's chock-full of info on sentencing guidelines. Franamax (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]