Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 August 25

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 25

Plane tickets

Okay, I need input. I get to be a bridesmaid for a close friend in October, which is awesome. The wedding is on the east coast; I am on the west coast. I've never had to buy my own plane tickets before. Where can I get a flight for as little money as possible? I like flying, so I don't care too much about the relative quality, but I don't have a whole lot of disposable income. Any advice / personal experiences would be vastly appreciated! --Masamage ♫ 05:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It would help if you tell us the country you are in. Royor (talk) 08:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

East Coast and West Coast are usually (though not always) Americanisms, in my experience. Combined with WP's systemic bias, I'm willing to hazard a guess.

I see Expedia has a US website [www.expedia.com]. They're generally pretty good for finding cheap flights. Also, you could try the List of low-cost airlines. Watch out for additional charges, as some airlines charge fees a lot higher than cost for things such as printing a boarding pass or paying with Visa. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

My uncle, who travels a fair amount to medical conferences, loves Travelocity, which I have also found to be very good; I haven't tried Expedia; I know Travelocity gives quite a few different airlines, and offers options of search for straight through flights or ones with stops.

One piece of advice, look at one of these, then go to the airline's site itself, to see if there is a discount or something with that site itself.Somebody or his brother (talk) 11:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Low cost airlines are cheap, but pile on the extras if you want anything resembling service. Buy online with a credit card. Check-in online too, or use the same credit card to print your own boarding pass at the airport. Try to carry only carry-on bags (but maybe a bridesmaid's dress won't fit). It might be a good idea to take and smaller, lighter but still acceptable, dress in your carry-on bag in case the airline loses your checked bag. You might have to change at a hub somewhere (Atlanta, Dallas/Fort Worth, Chicago, Denver) unless you are going between major cities such as LA - NY. For example using Travelocity, I found many direct flights LAX -> JFK, for ~$250 return, but for something a little different (Santa Barbara -> Philly) it costs ~$100 more, there are fewer flights and you need to change at least once (usually Denver on that route with United Airlines). Astronaut (talk) 12:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I often find that cheaptickets.com or kayak.com seem to give cheaper tickets than the more famous aggregators (expedia and travelocity). But, as DTF says, the cheapest I've seen are in ticket sales listed only on the airline's websites, so I'd suggest looking at Jetblue or Southwest or some other airline to make sure. TastyCakes (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, Southwest Airlines, which does NOT book though travel sites and only sells direct to consumer, has cheaper tickets than any of the expedia/orbits/travelocity type sites. Southwest generally only flies to the smaller airports. For example, they don't fly to Logan International Airport (Boston), but do fly to Manchester-Boston Regional Airport and T. F. Green Airport (Providence), both of which have the same rental car agencies as Logan would. If you are willing to fly into such smaller airports (or indeed, if such airports are actually closer to where you want to go), Southwest may be the best option. The downside is you generally have to fly through one of their hubs, which are BWI, Chicago Midway, and Love Field; but most trips take no more than 1-2 layovers, and since Southwest does not run a true "hub and spoke" system, it actually has MORE direct flights between smaller airports than most of the major carriers. --Jayron32 16:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless it makes you feel uncomfortable (for any reason), why not tell us what city or town (or village) you're coming from and in what town the wedding's being held. For all you know, someone reading this may have recently researched and travelled the route between the same two places (or at least their metropolitan areas) and could also tell you about hotels, food, rental cars, taxis, public transit, airport access, etc. However that person wouldn't likely be me, since I haven't flown since 1997. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If I may suggest, as someone who has flown coast-to-coast a lot on many carriers, going one step up from "most cheapest ever" is often in one's best interest. I find JetBlue to be the most pleasant for the East Coast/West Coast jaunt, assuming you are going to cities that don't require a lot of transfers (which may not be the case, depending on how you are flying). The seats are relatively comfortable, their staff are always courteous, and the little free TVs hypnotize everyone on the flight so it is without disruption from loud kids, etc. Also, they generally don't do the nickel-and-dime practices that make one feel so demoralized when flying these days (none of that "extra money to check a bag, to have some water, to get a cracker," etc.). If you buy in advance the price isn't all that much more than the cheap ones (a little over $300 roundtrip, even cheaper if you want to fly redeye). You can check our their prices through their own website (Jetblue.com). I have found flying on the "big" carriers (Delta, United, American) to be much, much more trouble than it is worth, and one feels like any savings you get in the ticket come right out of your own hide... --68.50.54.144 (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This is all awesome advice. Sorry for not being more specific about the fact that, yes, I'm in the US. X) My original post was going to say which cities I was flying between, but I decided to leave that off and then forgot to replace the information. Glad it was easy to figure out! And yup, they're major cities, so it's been easy to find coverage in that sense.

Right now I am having pretty awesome luck with the smaller ticket-finding places you guys mentioned, like Kayak and Cheaptickets, and also Priceline. They tend to be equal to each other in terms of how good a deal you get. At the moment, I've already gotten down to less than half what I was looking at spending before I asked for help. :o There's some more research to be done--I'm gonna look at the JetBlue thing next--but I'm feeling much happier and comfier than I was this time yesterday. Thank you all for the input!! --Masamage ♫ 00:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Definition of "male"

Here's a question I was wondering, and have yet to find a decent answer for. Let's say a biologically male individual loses his testicles, due to cancer or some other non-elective reason. Then, rather than utilize prostetic genetilia, he has his penis inverted into a neo-vagina. Now that he has female-looking genetilia, can he still legally be considered male? In short, how close can a male get to approximating a female whilst maintaining a status of "male"? 69.169.136.43 (talk) 06:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It depends on where the individual is located, and what legal purpose is under consideration. Legal aspects of transsexualism discusses this from a legal point of view; Gender identity discusses it from a philosophical and conceptual point of view. Nimur (talk) 07:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

As the above linked article states, individuals can apply to change their birth certificates in various jurisdictions. Without doing this, (I think) they'd still be considered as their birth gender no matter what their appearance or what surgery they undergo. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 07:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) He can be a transvestite, have sex reassignment surgery as comprehensive as this and remain the male gender shown on his birth certificate except in areas where biological male gender is legally required, such as in professional sports, or strongly demanded such as in gender segregated bathing or child care (discrimination in these areas might be disputable) or the person has deliberately changed legal gender e.g. in U.K. or Canada. Whether a formal name change for use in documents can be straightforward varies with area. Wikipedia has an article on Legal aspects of transsexualism.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The OP's original scenario is highly improbable. A male, who has been living a satisfactory life as a male for many years, and who loses his testicles for whatever reason, is extremely unlikely to choose a sex-change operation over a simple prosthesis. With testosterone replacement, he would continue to live his life perfectly well as a man. The above responses about people changing their gender really apply to men who have been living their lives somehow "knowing" psychologically that they were supposed to be a female, for whatever reason. They are deeply at odds with their male gender identity and choose a sex change operation because it is the only means of making their external appearance congruent with their inner gender. This isn't something that someone just decides to do on a whim, and it isn't a procedure that a reputable surgeon would perform without careful consideration. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Then I guess I'm in little company. I'm a heterosexual male, currently engaged to a female. If I were to lose half my genetilia, I would strongly consider losing the rest in favor of a vagina, especially if I had lost the ability to get an erection. However, I would not want to become a legal female, since that would nullify my opportunity to marry the aforementioned girl. But, according to the articles linked above, it appears that in most states, at least, I'd still be considered male for the purposes of marriage. As a side note though, I asked her about this, and she said that if I were to be reassigned to the female gender, she'd get a transgender operation as well. 69.169.136.43 (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Whilst it's nice you seem to have a plan for this (unusually specific) eventuality, it isn't without cost, risk or psychological impact to go through the changes you refer to. This type of surgery is not exactly dealt with by the medical profession as an 'on a whim' surgery and it's likely that (ignoring paying for this privately) you'd find a lot of hurdles in your way.In answer to the original query - as others have noted above sex-change and the law is complicated, and it varies by region. To be honest i'm not sure what benefit you'd get from your partner becoming a male and you a female, when the only thing missing from you is genitalia. My (limited) understanding of sex-change is that this wouldn't result in a (sexually functional) you and her. ny156uk (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

WWI

Hitler often blamed the Jews for germany loosing WWI, I have been trying to find any persons of Jewish linage within the upper structure of the Central powers but to no avail. This is probably because Hitler was lying. Was there any truth in this, and if so, who were these men? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 09:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hitler was lying. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

In fact he was so deep into his own dogma that he allowed prominent Jewish scientists to leave Germany. So some Jews certainly did help to cause Germany's loss, but by devoting their efforts to help the Allies instead of Germany! Naturally, and of course, he lost a major and intelligent labour force by insisting on their destruction. So that didn't help either. Then - he devoted major resources to locating, transporting and destroying Jews that his war effort was considerably reduced. Really stupid, eh!86.219.38.195 (talk) 10:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)DT

Wrong war, I'm afraid. the OP was asking about the blame for World War One. (Hitler wasn't around to point the finger at anyone else after WWII) AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

For a broader coverage read Stab-in-the-back legend. For a more conspiracy type theory read about http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=wilson+blackmail+untermeyer+wwi&btnG=Search&meta= - how jews blackmailed the US president Wilson into entering the war, prolonging it (at a time when there was a likelyhood of a relatively neutral peace agreement between the european powers) - I should point out that this could all be a lie, and even so Hitler may not have been aware of it.

I believe hitler's criticism of the jews was that they (allegedly) exercised control through international (ie outside the state) banking organisations etc. 83.100.250.79 (talk) 11:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The Nazi ideology was based somewhat on On the Jews and Their Lies by Martin Luther. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

He could have blamed the USA, but it would have been hard to fit the USA into those ovens he was designing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I would just point out that, even if there were a few Jewish individuals in leadership positions in the Central Powers, that hardly proves Hitler's claim. To back Hitler's claim, you'd need proof that those individuals conspired to undermine the Central Powers' war effort. Likewise, you'd need proof of such a conspiracy to substantiate his claim that Jewish bankers conspired against the Central Powers. To my knowledge, nobody has ever been able to substantiate these claims, and the evidence tends to refute them. Marco polo (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

When you're looking for scapegoats, hard evidence is not necessarily the highest priority. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed; I know old guys who firmly believe that Jane Fonda was pivotal in the US' defeat in Vietnam. --Sean 17:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The question is about whether there's any evidence for Hitler's claims (the answer is no) not whether it's possible to scapegoat Jewish people Nil Einne (talk) 17:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The broad anti-Semitic strain in right-wing German nationalism after World War I, including but hardly confined to the NSDAP, blamed the Jews within the Socialist and pacifist movements for undermining morale, encouraging mutinies within the forces, discouraging patriotism and the war effort, etc. and Jewish capitalists for war-profiteering. Rosa Luxemburg was Jewish, as were Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Leon Trotsky and any number of other Marxist, socialist and trade-union leaders in many European countries, Russia and the United States. (Lenin, however, was not.) Xenophobia, including some anti-Semitism, was part of the patriotic pro-war sentiment in almost all of the belligerent powers on both sides (see for example, New York City mayoral election, 1917). And the Dreyfus Affair in France happened during a period of Franco-German tension well before World War I.

On the other hand, it's not too hard to find many Jews who sacrificed all that they had, including life, for the countries of which they were citizens. A particular embarrassment for the Nazis was dealing with Jews who'd the Iron Cross, or the equivalent Austro-Hungarian decoration, for bravery in direct combat in the trenches. Chaim Weizmann was able to lobby successfully for the Balfour Declaration partly because of the British government's gratitude for his work on gas warfare. The New York Times, owned and published by the Jewish Adolph S. Ochs, was fervently and vehemently pro-war.

The last thing, of course, anyone here should do is to re-start or pursue that argument, which is already well-documented in many relevant pages of Wikipedia, but I was trying to respond to this specific question. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hitler was obviously full of shit, but there were notable Jewish industrialists with influential roles in the war years - Walter Rathenau and Max Warburg, for instance. But that wasn't really the basis for the claim that the Jews stabbed the German people in the back - that was pure anti-semitic nonsense with no basis in fact. john k (talk) 02:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Women in Men's Professional Sports

Is it predicted that women will be able to participate in Men's Professional Sports (US Football, US Baseball, US Basketball) in this decade? I often ask my male sport fanatics about their opinions about it and I hear two main thoughts: 1) Women are not strong enough to play along side men in men's professional sports. 2) Viewership will decrease because men will be digusted my watching women get tackled or what not. I guess the same general opinions go for women in the military. Are there any talks or predictons about this changing? --Reticuli88 (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

None whatsoever that I've heard of. You get the occasional stunt, like a female pitcher in the independent/minor Northern League a few years ago. And you have the occasional female golfer trying to play in a men's tournament. But major professional team sports? Very unlikely. It's not about physical strength so much as it's about culture. The same argument was made about the military as regards women, gays, etc. However, the military is run by the government, which has the power to change the military's policies. They have no such power over professional sports, which are private industry. No women on the team (only in the front office), and no move to drop politically-incorrect nicknames like "Indians", "Braves" and "Redskins". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

There are some women starting to compete in certain men's professional sports, but to a large degree it does depend on their ability to compete on equal terms. For example women are starting to trickle into professional motorsports, and there was talk recently of a woman (can't remember the name) even making it onto the Formula 1 circuit. Similarly most equestrian events don't discriminate between the sex of the rider, and if I remember correctly (I don't follow the 'sport') there are now female jockeys competing at the 'professional' level. Many men (and let's be frank, a lot of women) dislike women competing in men's competitions for cultural reasons, but in most sports it is a physical/biological issue that is the real blocker. The fact is that humans do display sexual dimorphism so after puberty most sports that require physical 'combat' of some form will not mix the sexes, as males on average will be more powerful than the females, and at the peak of performance again males will have the biological advantage. So while the best women in a sport will be superior to the vast majority of men, they will not be up with the very top men (a review of world athletics records will confirm this). The same holds true for team sports. While Lauren Jackson would be a better basketballer than 99.999% of men on the planet, we are unlikely to see her in the NBA anytime soon, as those men at the top would still be better. If the promoters thought they could make money off having women competing alongside the men in professional competition they would do so; it is likely it could be a big draw, but if the standard of the competition declined or the team involved suffered due to it, it would quickly become counter-productive. --jjron (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The military situation is different from professional sports. The Women_in_the_military article mentions both physical concerns as well as Psychological ones. Quoting the article:

The Center for Military Readiness stated that “Female soldiers who are, on average, shorter and smaller than men, with 45-50% less upper body strength and 25-30% less aerobic capacity, which is essential for endurance”.[5]

However, an article in the Army Times July 29, 1996, states that some women do possess the physical attributes suitable to become combat soldiers.[6]

If it's about physical attributes, is it believable that out of all the women on earth - not a single one of them have physical attributes and skill set required to play on par in men's professional sports? Imho, women will eventually play in men's professional sport (if not within this decade, maybe the next).

The army is a different story, the perception of female POW being subject to sexual abuse (again, imho) sway public opinion against accepting women in combat role (at least in the US anyway). Royor (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh and if you scroll further down the part about IDF male soldier experienced an uncontrollable, protective, instinctual aggression and losing control after witnessing women (soldier) being wounded would agree with the average male sport event viewer being disgust about the women being hurt part. Royor (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

To counteract Rayor's assertion that there must be some woman who can compete at the highest level of professional male team sports; look at it from the point of view of sports team owners and executives. They have two goals: To make money and to win. If there WAS a woman who displayed enough skill to make their team better, and such a woman would be enough of an attraction to put behinds in the seats, is there an team executive alive who would say "We'd make more money, and win more games, if we just let this woman on our team. But darn it, I just don't like women, so I would rather make less money and win less games than let a woman play". Seems even more patently rediculous. The fact is, that professional athletes represent the smallest fraction of 1% of the male population, it is actually quite believable that the best female athletes in the world do not necessarily rank among that tiny fraction of a percent. There have, however, been a few that have come close. The best example I can think of is Babe Didrikson, who is widely considered the best female athlete ever; she is still the only woman to ever make the cut at a Men's PGA event. Nancy Lieberman played in a men's basketball league (the USBL) and even for a time with the Washington Generals (the patsies of the Harlem Globetrotters). Katie Hnida played Division I-A college football, and kicked a few extra points for the University of New Mexico. Manon Rhéaume played in some minor league men's hockey games as a Goalie; she played in a few NHL exhibition games as well, but never in any game that counted. If a woman WERE ever to break into a regular season men's professional sport, Hockey goalie would be the one that minimized the physical difference between men and women, since the attributes that owe itself to netminding (flexibility and reaction time) are not ones that show a marked difference between men and women. --Jayron32 16:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hayley Wickenheiser also played hockey in a men's league in Finland. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is believable that not a single woman will have the physical attributes necessary to play in a traditionally men's professional sports league* (* because remember the sports leagues are not selecting from the entire world population, a poor women in Bangladesh is unlikely to be provided sufficient nutrition nor cultural exposure to make an entrance to professional American football or basketball very likely, now cricket is much more likely); though it's highly unlikely that no woman exists that fulfills the requirements. Two lines of thought, one slightly empirical, the other anecdotal:

It may be just a matter of statistical distributions. Here are some back of the envelop calculations, with the average height of an American woman being 64 inches and the average height of an NBA player is 79 inches. The number of women in America (out of 150mil in total) that reach that height are 9000 (assuming a standard deviation of 2.8 inches). The number of men in America that reach that height are 45000 (a 5x difference). If you combine the statistical distributions of height with say 'athleticism' or any other required skill (compare the woman's world record in the 100m to the men's over time; women are currently running at the speed that was considered elite in the 1920s). It may turn out to be the case that sexual dimorphism radically constricts the number of possible candidates down to a very small number. Another issue is that I know men are typically more variable in some domains. If this is true for all domains, then this may also restrict the number of possible candidates even further.

Anecdotally, take top women's basketball players. It was considered an achievement when Candace Parker dunked in an NCAA game. Admittedly, she'd dominate a majority of men (including myself), but when you compare her to marginal NBA players, she just does seem up to their level. In many of the popular sports in America, the types of skills that women tend to be better at are not the ones required by those sports. Football requires a freakish amount of muscle and athleticism. Basketball, height and athleticism. Baseball is actually one of the few major sports that women could do well (the average height and weight for baseball players is quite reasonable, like ~6ft and ~180lbs for non-pitchers), but I suspect cultural reasons keep women out in great numbers. And baseball would counteract the issue of men not wanting to see women get tackled. Baseball does not contain many instances of raw aggression like basketball and especially football do.

Some of this will change with more focus on women's athletics, but it just doesn't seem likely to me that there will be a significant number of women who have both the physical skills and the sheer luck necessary to play at a competitive level with top men, especially in the NFL and NBA.

I actually do not necessarily buy Jayron32's reasoning about owners. Hell, it was only fairly recently that statistical analyses became common in baseball, and they are only very recently becoming popular in basketball. Ownership and management of sports teams do tend to be behind the times in many respects, so it does seem plausible that prejudice may keep women out of sports where they could compete. I do not think this is a particularly powerful effect, but it seems likely enough that it may play some role if there were viable candidates for their teams.--droptone (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Correcting my figures, using average height of woman to be 63.8 and 69.4 for men with a SD of 2.8 and the average NBA height is 78.98, with a population of 150mil, there are 4.4 women who meet that threshold and 46719.8 men.--droptone (talk) 00:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Women compete alongside men in equestrianism. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Right now in the Little League World Series there is a girl playing for the Canadian team on equal terms with the boys.

An example I just came across Fabiola da Silva Nil Einne (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is 2 parts. First, the dimorphism, and second is cultural things. It is very unlikely for women to be of professional sports size, and even less likely that she has been heavily involved in that sport since youth, unlike most of the males. This means that the odds of a woman actual having the size and the skills to compete on a professional level is minuscule. It might happen at some point, but I doubt it would be more then a single instance. In the next 50 years. Googlemeister (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Setting aside the cultural issues for the moment and observing strictly physical characteristics, I would say that if it were to happen among U.S. team sports, baseball would be the most likely venue. Even among the top professional male players, there is a wide variety of body types depending on the position on the field and the role in the game, from the tall and powerful slugger to the small and agile infielder. — Michael J 23:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Boston Red Sox are having a tough time finding a decent shortstop. It wouldn't bother me at all if they found one who wore high heels, suspenders and a bra. PhGustaf (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Corey Koskie was a part-time lumberjack, but I think he's retired from baseball now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

UK Sexual Offences Act 2003

This UK law quite rightly protects 16 and 17 year olds from abuse by people in positions of trust. It is said that 16 and 17 year olds are vulnerable from exploitation but is this also not true of an 18 year old in school and living with their parents, despite the fact they are legal adults? As an example a teacher could be prosecuted for abusing his position of trust with a 17 year old in a class he or she teachers. However if the same act is committed towards an 18 year old in the same class, no offence has been committed. The age difference between the 2 people are likely to be a few months and there are likely to be no significant differences in maturity and situation. Therefore aren't both victims of exploitation? This is slightly confusing. Clover345 (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The line has to be drawn somewhere, and an 18-year old is an adult, a17-year old is a minor, so it seems to be a reasonable point at which to make the distinction. DuncanHill (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

To expand a little, a teacher of a 17-year o;d has greater legal power over that minor than he or she would have over an 18-year old pupil, so the 2003 act provides for a greater level of protection for the minor. DuncanHill (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

And, in the case of a teacher exploiting an 18-year-old, the teacher would be subject to disciplinary action by the school, i.e. being sacked (breach of trust), and the 18 year old can actually take the case to court. I can't find any links, but it has happened a few times. However, in this case it would be a civil court and not a criminal court. I remember reading some on the BBC website. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I think a school has the same level of care and responsibility for all of its pupils regardless of whether they are 17 or 18. Most schools tend to treat 17 and 18 year olds the same. For example, by school policy many schools require 18 year olds to have consent forms signed by their parents for school trips. Also, if a teacher exploits an 18 year old pupil, isn't there also potential he or she could exploit someone under 18? Shouldn't they at least be banned from working in schools? Clover345 (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

After being sacked for such a thing, this would become common knowledge for all education boards across the UK, so they wouldn't be able to get a job as a teacher anyway, so it's unnecessary. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(EDIT)What I mean is, they get blacklisted, which is the same as being banned, essentially, but not by the courts, by the education boards. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Which means they could probably still teach if they were to move to Ireland, or US, or Canada eh? Googlemeister (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

An inappropriate relationship with a student, 18 or not, amounts to gross misconduct under a teacher's terms of employment, and as KageTora says, anyone sacked for this offence would find it impossible to be employed again as a teacher, so they would effectively be "banned from working in schools". I suspect the moral concern is more about cases where the teacher forms a relationship with a recent ex-pupil, claiming the liaison did not start until the pupil left the school or college, or where a teacher leaves his/her job in order to have a public relationship with a pupil. Some of these relationships last, some don't - how long until you judge the relationship genuine, not exploitative? Can you formulate legislation that will allow you to tell an 18-year-old: "Sleep with anyone over 16 you like and we'll accept your right to choose, but if it's your ex-teacher then you've been brainwashed and we'll destroy his/her career"? Can you take away a person's livelihood because their spouse, to whom they are legally married, was a student in their class before they got together? I'm not soapboxing or debating - just highlighting questions that would have to be considered in any attempt to blur the legal boundary between protected children and legally independent adults. It would be very difficult to do so without treating somebody unfairly and would probably result in all sorts of unintended consequences, which is probably why we have the system we do: total legal protection until 16; a mixture of civil and legal safeguards until 18, then civil protection only. As for Ireland, US or Canada, that would depend on how thorough the schools there are about taking up references and employment history. I doubt that any of those countries is particularly lax in that respect, even for staff from overseas. Karenjc 21:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if someone moved to a new country, any prospective employer is going to want references from prior employers. Once the new employer finds out why they were fired from their last teaching engagement, it will not usually go well for the interviewee. --Jayron32 23:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Slightly off-beam but relevant nonetheless. 1 - A British soldier can die in Afghanistan at 17 but not vote in any local or national government elections until he/she is 18 - and worse - they cannot buy alcohol in the USA when on holiday. 2. What about those cases some years ago when the UK had capital punishment when 2 convicts of a joint murder charge were separated in ages by only a couple of days and the younger one - under 18 - was sentenced to life in prison - but the older one - just over 18 - was hanged - even though it was the younger one who pulled the trigger? As another respondee above pointed out - the line has to be drawn somewhere. 92.10.191.24 (talk) 23:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, and I would consider dying in Afghanistan worse than not being unable to by a Bud on holiday. But thats just me. Rockpocket 01:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The question is about formal legislation and not about the case-by-case evaluation that a court would make in a molestation case. It is misleading to suggest that the law gives a go-free ticket to a teacher to molest anyone from the second the subject reaches age 18. The law is actually a restriction placed on judges. When the victim is over 17 the judgment may take his/her behaviour into consideration. Seductive behaviour would be a mitigating factor. However when the victim was known to be under 18 there can be no such mitigation. Even with consent the crime is Statutory rape. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Cuddlyable3, statutory rape appears to refer solely to sex with persons under the age of consent. In the UK, that's 16, not 18. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even sure that "statutory rape" is a term in English law. DuncanHill (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The concept of statutory rape is certainly acknowledged in the UK, although not necessarily referred to in law in those exact words. It refers to sex with a girl under the age of 13, which is regarded automatically as unlawful since consent cannot be given, and for which no mitigating plea is accepted (ie you can't use "I thought she was older" or "She initiated contact" as an excuse). Sex with someone older than 13 but under the age of legal consent (16 in the UK) is a criminal offence too but some limited mitigating factors may be accepted, particularly where the other partner is a young person too. For information on the law on this subject in the UK, see the Directgov Crown Prosecution Service website here. Karenjc 19:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the line in the sand thing is relevant. The law generally aims to be as black and white as possible for reasons of simplicity, fairness etc. Enforcement and sentencing may enter more of a grey area (sometimes with clearly defined regulations) but the law as written often has this line in the sand thing. For example, drunk driving limits, speed limits etc are usually another clear line in the sand. Clearly driving at 51km/h as opposed to 50km/h in a 50km/h isn't much different, similarly 52km/h as opposed to 51km/h. But if you keep going that way you can end up at 200km/h which even most people opposed to speed limits are liable to agree is inappropriate in nearly every 50km/h. All age based laws are usually the same (there may sometimes be various specific differences, e.g. Canada's age of consent laws are a good example of that) but all these remain lines in the sand. While the above discussion is appears to be referring to secondary schools, in a number of countries it's entirely plausible these laws could apply in universities situations since 17 year olds may attend university. A 17 year old with a 50 year old professor may seem inappropriate and I presume is illegal in the UK as may an 18 year old with a 50 year old. But what if Bill Gates decides to go back to uni to get a degree and ends up in a relationship with a 25 year old tutor (male or female doesn't matter)? The tutor may still get in trouble with the university but who here is going to say the tutor was taking advantage of Bill Gates and so should be punished with a criminal offense? Or another example, a 21 year old replacement teacher with a mature (maturity is another key things, while correlated with age there are plenty of 18 years olds more mature then the average 21 year old) 18 year old student of theirs may be inappropriate. But is it really worse then a 21 year old who was in a very vulnerable state with a troubled mental history and their psychiatrist? Yet if you increase the age to 21 for example, you'll catch the former but not the later. In other words, what I'm getting at is that there always has to be a line somewhere. Anything else is best dealt with in other ways, as both these cases would be. Nil Einne (talk) 07:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

In an ideal world, every law like this would be a gradual thing. As the age of the victim rises from (say) 12 to (say) 25, the threshold for what is considered "abuse" would become gradually less onerous and the punishment for abuse would gradually decrease accordingly. However, such things are almost impossible for the courts to judge accurately and consistantly - so such a law would be extremely hard to handle. Hence we draw hard lines in the sand, knowing full well that we don't live in a perfect society. All laws are prone to this kind of thing so some degree or another. If someone reaches over the fence into your back yard, picks up a dead leaf and puts it onto their compost heap...is that "theft"? Technically - yes, it is - that's ridiculous, but we have a 'bright line' law here. Some laws are gradual - speeding tickets in some parts of Texas are fined at such-and-such per mile-per-hour over the limit. If you are ticketted for going one mile-per-hour over the limit, the fine is completely trivial. If you are this guy...not so trivial! However, both could get reported to your insurance company - and the consequences to the cost of insuring your car are likely to be the same! SteveBaker (talk) 13:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Impossible fire

In the town of Centralia, Pennsylvania, the coal seam under the town has been on fire for 47 years. I understand where the fire gets its fuel, but what about its oxygen? Shouldn't it have burnt itself out by now, especially since it's underground? (sorry for asking so many questions)Library Seraph (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Coal seam fire is your friend. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

In particular, the first paragraph of the "Origin" section. --Tango (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This one (by estimate) has only been burning for 6,000 years! Bus stop (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Concerning an underground coal fire, the remoter it is the slower it loses heat so the smaller the rate of oxygen inflow it needs to burn the slower and so to last the longer burning the available coal. A perfectly thermally isolated "fire" would in theory need no oxygen and never cool down. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

So in short it's burning very slowly? And that's how it's able to persist after 47 years. That's something. Vaguely like the oil leaks at the site of the Arizona, which had so much oil and the holes are so small that oil is still bubbling up, 68 years after Pearl Harbor. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

haven holidays

when i went to haven holidays wen i was 18 i didnt have no i.d. with me, they got my mom to signe a pass as a form of i.d so i could get served at the bars in there to get alchohol, do they still do this now? as still dont have any i.d —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.47.172 (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Well how old are you now? If it was recently, it is likely they will still have the same procedure in place. If it was a while ago, you should look old enough that ID will not be needed for drinking alcohol. You can ask Haven directly using this form. They will get back to you by phone or email within 24hrs. Rockpocket 01:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)