Miscellaneous desk
< March 30	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	April 1 >

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.

March 31

Elvis Presley

Can anyone tell me which church Elvis Presley was a choir member of? 117.194.224.138 (talk) 02:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Elvis Presley notes that as a child, his family attended Assemblies of God churches, but does not mention a specific congregation he was a member of. Apparently, also according to our article, the choirs at those churches were a strong musical influence on him. Again, no mention as to whether he sung in any choir himself, just that the church choirs were an early musical influence. You could follow the references for those notes, and see where it takes you! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Church of the Stranded Preposition ? Or is that the "Stranded Proposition Church of" ? :-) StuRat (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Wikipedia namespace statistics

From Special:Statistics it looks like about 80% of Wikipedia pages are NONcontent pages. I'm looking for statistics on these pages, and especially for those in the Wikipedia namespace--e.g. total number of characters, number of edits, rate of edits, number of editors, number of new pages created--anything! There are plenty of statistics available focusing on the articles, but what about everything else? Thanks! Jeangoodwin (talk) 03:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can find a lot of page statistics with this site: [1] Just plug in the page name you want. It goes up to the last 50000 edits, if I remember correctly. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have a 'discussion' page paralleling almost every article - so that accounts for 50% right there. Then most users have a user page - AND a user-discussion page. There are quite a few articles in the 'WP:' namespace that are policies and guidelines (and the talk pages that relate to those) - and also WikiProjects and portals that organize special groups of Wikipedians who share a common goal. Quite a few user-talk, article-talk and most of the WP: talk pages get too large and have to be archived regularly - meaning that there can be several pages of talk for each article there. We also have template: and category: pages (with associated talk). The remainder are things like this - the reference desk - which gets archived every few days, regardless of how large they are. In light of all that - I'm surprised that as many as 20% are actual articles - but it's a grey area - many things like portals, templates and categories are as useful and informative as "articles" - but they aren't counted as such. Some people regard this as an alarming statistic - but actually, it merely represents the amount of effort that has to go on "under the hood" to make the system look as good as it does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveBaker (talk • contribs) 14:32, 31 March 2009

Just to clarify: Steve (Not signed: who are you and what have you done with SteveBaker?) is confirming that it would be implasuable to suggest that articles make up any more than 50% because of the talk pages, not that the talk pages currently occupy 50%. What about images? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

gas

Gas in ww1 wasn't very effective so why were people so scared of it? In the films you see them screaming about gas and there are all those posters and artwork depicting gas as an evil unstoppable force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.240.66 (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it wasn't very effective? You may be confusing the use of gas in the trenches in WWI - where it was moderately effective at the tactical level, and certainly killed and injured plenty of people - with the resultant paranoia about a repeat performance in WWII, which led to the widespread issue of civilian gasmasks, for example. Please clarify. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See mustard gas (nasty stuff, now known generically as chemical weapons) and Poison gas in World War I. The use of gas and its devastating, terrifying effects upon the soldiers, especially those in the trenches, was a recurring theme in World War I in art and literature. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe gas is very effective as a weapon in combat since it gets out of control once you set it free. --Mr.K. (talk) 12:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, since the inception of time, the goal of war has never been to kill all of your enemies, so we can't judge poisonous gases on that rubric. Likely, a bunch of good well-aimed guns were certainly a better killing device than mustard gas; however the point of war is merely to stop the enemy from trying to kill you. Killing that enemy first is one way to do that, but it has rarely been the primary method. The army that wins is almost always the one that doesn't retreat and in those terms, chemical weapons can be quite effective. The whole point of chemical weapons (and, indeed, of almost any weapon) is to make the enemy not want to fight you at all. After all, if you can scare off the enemy before your side has to fight them, then your soldiers don't die either. Pitched battle is the last way to win a war, not the first... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The goal of war is often to kill all your enemies, from when the Bible says that God told the Israelites to kill everyone in the cities they conquered right up to the genocide in Rwanda. Also, a tactical retreat is often a good strategy, such as Russia's "scorched Earth" retreat from Nazi Germany in WW2, which lengthened German supply lines and brought their troops deep inside Russia just in time for winter, ultimately bringing defeat to the Germans. StuRat (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In trench warfare, mustard gas was exceedingly effective when it actually ended up in the other guy's trenches. It blistered lungs and caused its victims to drown in their own bodily secretions. That's a nasty way to go - and it scared the pants off of anyone who was in it's way. The trouble was that if the wind shifted, it could be blown back into the lines of the army that released it - and if the wind blew too strongly, it would disperse ineffectively - making it hard to deploy reliably. But as a morale-depleting weapon, it was totally effective. Knowing that such a lethal agent could come rolling into your trenches without any warning...while you slept...no explosions, nothing...that must have been a terrifying prospect. Ratchetting up the tension and stress amongst enemy fighters is always an effective weapon. SteveBaker (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gas was a dangerous and frightening weapon in that one could not hide from it as one could from bullets. It also forced people to wear heavy and uncomfortable protection. But the main threat in WWI was psychological. Before, battles had been fought away from the public. With the advent of airships and aircraft, bombs and gas were brought to the Home Front. Imagine the panic, first time in history that civilians became targets! Add the inconvenience of carrying gas masks everywhere and the potential of gas was enough to cause damage to the civilian (and military) morale.86.209.31.9 (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)DT[reply]

Civilians have been targets throughout history. The idea that they SHOULDN'T be targets is largely only a recent as the twentieth century. It was long a part of warfare to scare the shit out of the citizenry of the nation you were at war with, so they either a) wouldn't get in your way or b) couldn't be enlisted by the government of that country or c) would willingly abandon their old government and swear fealty to you instead. The notion that non-soldiers were somehow "off-limits" is a pretty new idea. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that non-soldiers SHOULD not be targets is not a terribly new one, though not one that any country has shown a lot of care in following systematically. But I agree that the statement that pre-WWI civilians were separate from the threats of war—absolutely not true. Gas has psychological effects, but they aren't related to bringing the war home, they're related to
mass-killing, strange ways of doing it (e.g. non-mechanical), and a painful way to die. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gas was not ineffective, it was just non-decisive. There is a difference there. It had a number of tactical shortcomings (wind changes, for example), could be easily replicated by all sides, and could be to some degree be defended against. Its introduction did not, outside of the first few times it was used, change the course of war for any particular combatant. (Compare with, say, the atomic bomb and radar in WWII, both of which were fairly decisive in that they conveyed leveraging benefits to those who used them.) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The idea that they SHOULDN'T be targets is largely only a recent as the twentieth century."
The ban on targeting civilians goes all the way back to when the Amalekites attacked the civilians instead of Moses' army and earned Gods eternal curse. Phil_burnstein (talk) 08:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that's true...you never can tell in works of fiction. SteveBaker (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about avoiding unhelpful baiting. And even ignoring that, whether or not the Bible is "true," that passage does indeed confirm that the targeting of civilians was stigmatized long before the 20th century (at least as long ago as the time it was written), which was his purpose of posting it. Ugh. -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A question about copyright

Say, a person John posted his article on a website which does not indicate that its content is released under GFDL. However, the article is later deleted by the website. Now John want to create an article in Wikipedia with the content he wrote earlier, but soon it was tagged as an copyvio case. Since the origial source (the website) is no longer available, how can John prove that he is the original author? (If the article on the web existed, he would be able to edit the page and release it under GFDL).

I understand that Wikipedia will not give legal request, hence this is purely an question of my own interest, and I will NOT TAKE IT AS AN LEGAL ADVISE. --Bencmq (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. It seems to me that the hypothetical situation posed isn't clear enough to provide a firm answer. If the original article no longer exists, how is a claim of copyvio going to be sustained? Ultimately, I would expect that the matter, for use in Wikipedia, would boil down to "rewrite the content in copyright-acceptable fashion." This shouldn't be a significant hurdle for the original author. — Lomn 13:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This situation would never come up. Why would anyone slap a copyvio tag on a Wikipedia article if the original article is no longer available? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 13:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content rarely completely "goes away" on the Internet - you could probably find it in a Google cache for months afterwards and beyond that, the Internet Archive probably has an archived copy - probably your ISP keeps a backup too. Certainly it should almost always be possible to prove that the article was once on your personal website. However - that doesn't prove that THAT copy is legally yours - you might have typed it in from a book. In the end, Wikipedia requires you, personally, to attest that the content you are providing is copyright-clean - or at least acceptable under our 'fair use' provisions. If you say it's OK then (in the absence of any evidence to the contrary) we'll take your word for it. If we get sued by the real copyright owner because of it - you should expect to get dragged into the courts because Wikipedia took the article 'in good faith' we'll just be asked rather nicely to remove it and you'll be the one with the million dollar fine! If you made an illegal claim to own the copyright when you don't (which is precisely what you are doing by submitting someone else's work) - then you are committing plagiarism as well as violating copyright - and that's something that the courts get very upset about - so you won't get a nice "takedown" notice - you could be looking at punitive damage awards. SteveBaker (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the terms under which John posted that content on the website. Unless John actually assigns the content, he is still the copyright owner and he can license it in whatever way he wants - including onto Wikipedia under the GFDL. If, however, he assigns the content, then he is no longer the copyright owner and he cannot reproduce it except in accordance with the terms of the agreement he has with the new owner (or with the permission of the new owner). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a legal question. If the author originally owned the content then they can release it as GFDL. Whether the Wikipedia copyright Nazis accept his claim of ownership is entirely up to how he presents it, in my experience. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Travel in South America

What is more dangerous for the traveler, US caucasian man or African American traveling in S America like Colombia. What about the same but in Egypt or certain countries in Africa? --Reticuli88 (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, statistically speaking, the greatest human risk to any traveller in a South American country will be from inhabitants of that country, rather than any United States citizens they might chance to meet. Likewise for Egyptians in Egypt. If you want information about 'certain countries in Africa', you'll need to be certain as to which ones you mean. And if this answer doesn't answer the question you thought you were asking, you may wish to consider re-phrasing your question. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP may mean who is in more danger when visiting those countries, white or black Americans. I'm not sure about Africa, but in Columbia I think the main danger is from kidnappings for ransom, so if you look like someone wealthy will want you back, you are in more danger. I guess that would make whites more at risk. --Tango (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what I meant tango. Was there some incident where a middle eastern man who shot all these Americans but warned the black people first so that they could leave? --Reticuli88 (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This really sounds like an urban legend to me. It wouldn't be the first one. Or even the second. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 10:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ability to pass as a native may offer partial protection from terrorism, kidnapping, and robbery in some countries. If that country has a substantial black population, but not white, then being black may help. In the countries you mentioned (Columbia and Egypt), a light-skinned black may blend in best, while in south and central Africa and some Caribbean islands nations (like Haiti), a dark-skinned black may blend in better. However, if they wear an American flag shirt and speak US English loudly, their skin color isn't going to help much. StuRat (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Item in back issue of signpost

There was an item in the signpost about a philosopher who wrote an article on how traditional methods of judging writing's reliability, such as is it well edited, by an authority, etc don't work for WP. Now I need a reference to that article and I can't find it. Does anyone remember it? (I checked the last couple of months worth of issues in the signpost archive and didn't spot it.) RJFJR (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be one of the articles mentioned here? Otherwise, perhaps you might come across it in these search results (although I haven't found anything else yet) --Kateshort forbob 22:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's it! Thank you. RJFJR (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Java applets

Does anybody know of any Java applets for geometry that aren't limited to a particular subject (such as, for example, an applet mirroring KSEG - I would, in fact, use KSEG, but my school's computers won't run it)? Lucas Brown (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at Category:Free interactive geometry software? BTW wouldn't the Computing or Mathematics reference desks be more appropriate? Dmcq (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geogebra is one I've used. 94.168.184.16 (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That looked like George Bra. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bra worn by Boy George ? StuRat (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Human Eye

WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration

This question inspired an article to be created or enhanced:

Cooperative eye hypothesis

Please consider contributing

Why can the white of the human eye be seen most of the time quite easily, where as in other animals, even the great apes, the colored part of the eye fills the space so no white can be seen, unless the animal strains. Obviously there are exceptions but in most cases this seems to be prevelant, can some one please explain this to me. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.59.90 (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the white part is called the Sclera. From a quick search online some ponies/horses have 'white' sclera but seems a lot have a black sclera (which presumably makes distinguishing between that and the iris harder). Great question, will add more if I find an answer! Hopefully in the meantime a more sciencey (or clever) wikipedian will be around to help. ny156uk (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This might be of more use than my above (http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8103817) - unfortunately the full article is subscriber only. So this might help (http://www.livescience.com/health/061107_human_eyes.html). ny156uk (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd heard the theory that Ny156uk refers to. From the second article linked:

"According to one idea, called the cooperative eye hypothesis, the distinctive features that help highlight our eyes evolved partly to help us follow each others' gazes when communicating or when cooperating with one another on tasks requiring close contact."

But -- shock horror -- we do not have an article on cooperative eye hypothesis. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do now. - Eron^Talk 23:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hurrah! Thank you. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The white part of the eye can be used to evaluate general health, where a yellow color indicates jaundice and where blood-shot eyes (what, no article ?) can indicate many problems. It might be useful when selecting a mate to be able to evaluate if they are healthy, and therefore "showing the whites of your eyes" could be a way to advertise health. However, I don't know why it would only be evolutionarily advantageous in humans to advertise health to a potential mate in this way, and not also be for other animals. StuRat (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there are plenty of health signals that some animals use and others don't. —Tamfang (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "don't shoot until you see the whites of their eyes" only applies to a species which uses guns, so... :-) StuRat (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

...so the disadvantage of white sclera didn't show up until recently. —Tamfang (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying a fallacy by name

I would like to label what I believe to be a fallacy by name.

(I've altered the terms below for neutrality)

I have mentioned in an article that 35,000 people have been killed each year on American highways. Another editor has inserted an equally valid and footnoted entry which says that 100,000,000 US motorists were not killed (survive) on the highway each year.

The implication is that since only a tiny number die, it is no big deal. That is, the second statement, coming right on the heels of the first, soundly diminishes the impact.

I'm pretty sure this is a fallacy of some sort, but can't put a label to it.

(For the editorial record, I agree that his statement on number of drivers should go somewhere).

(Also, again for the record, this is not about cars or US driving deaths. It is another subject entirely! I worded it this way for ease of understanding)

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Student7 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 31 March 2009

I don't think that's really a logical falacy. There is no conclusion, certainly not a false one. If you were to conclude that driving on US roads is safe then that's not really falacious, it just depends on your definition of "safe". 0.035% of US motorists die each year, that's a perfectly valid statistic and you can decide for yourself whether you think that makes cars safe enough to use or not. (It would be better to use something like people-miles rather than just people, though - not all of those 100 million people drove the same amount. Also, 100 million seems a bit small - that's less than a third of the population, do two thirds of Americans really go an entire year without getting in a car?) --Tango (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article titled Fallacy and a List of fallacies. This could be an implied Ignoratio elenchi arguement, or more likely could be classified as a simple Red Herring; i.e. an irrelevent fact meant to steer the direction of the arguement off course. He could be Cherry picking statistics which fit his arguement, or perhaps the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. Since you have not pointed us to the exact situation, it is hard to tell if any of these, or others, may fit the situation. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the numbers are true (and they seem pretty reasonable to me) - then it's not a fallacy. What's significant is that people are very bad at comparing probabilities. So an 0.03% chance of dying in a car wreck doesn't get people's attention as much as the vastly smaller probability of dying from a shark attack or being struck by lighting or whatever. Failure to reasonably estimate risks and consequences is a major failing of the human race. SteveBaker (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And indeed there are whole fields built around trying to make sense of numbers like these... see probabilistic risk assessment, for example. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True information, presented in a context which twists it into a new relevance:

Ship's log, Monday: "The First Mate was drunk today." Signed, the Captain.

Ship's log, Tuesday: "The Captain was sober today." Signed, the First Mate.

True but twisted. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Hempel's paradox for a very similar situation. HTH, Robinh (talk) 12:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your input which I have saved.

I am forced to agree that the information, since it draws no conclusion, is (alas) valid. Putting it in perspective is not a crime.

But it should be! :) Thanks for all your help! Student7 (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's just plain bad statistics. When someone dies in a traffic accident, the cause of it is pretty clear. When someone survives, it could be that the accident wasn't severe enough to begin with or because they were lucky to receive medical attention in time. And it IS cherrypicking, because it leaves out the millions of other Americans who aren't even running the risk of dying or who have a near miss accident that isn't even reported. The 100,000 statistic simply isn't relevant.- 131.211.211.181 (talk) 07:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not so - in fact without that other number - the number of deaths is a fairly meaningless figure. Unless you know how many people were driving - the number of deaths doesn't tell you anything about probabilities or risks or trends or where accidents happen the most - or anything of real importance. So either you need to say X number of people died and Y number of people drove and yet survived - or X number of people died out of a population of (X+Y) who drive. Either way - you need both numbers. SteveBaker (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the 35,000 number is that people just don't think in terms of there being billions of people on the planet, which means that many people will die from what seems like the most minor causes imaginable. If 35,000 sounds like an excessive number of car accident deaths in the US, consider the millions of people who die each year as a result of mosquito bites (from subsequent malaria or other diseases). StuRat (talk) 07:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

China ban YouTube?

If China can Ban YouTube (can they really do that?), why can't other countries ban websites selling and/or promoting child pornography. As far as I am aware most civilised nations have criminal codes that punish those who watch, save, publish or share such horrible stuff so why not emulate the Chinese action and ban it before it goes down the wires?92.8.12.135 (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are several answers to your question.

First, most countries have the technological capability to "ban" a website as effectively as China can. I.e., not very effectively. Millions of people in China work around the great firewall using a whole range of tools. Internet censorship in China might have more information.

Secondly, I wouldn't know the details, but it's not as if illegal websites are swamping the internet. I've never seen a banner ad tryinng to sell me AK-47s, illegal drugs, -- or illegal pornography. Even if current regulations have not eradicated them, they have at least suppressed them.

Given this, it's difficult to compare Youtube to some illicit underground website. The first has a permanent, prominent location, and it's probably easy to block off all avenues of access to it. The latter probably shift locations and appearance all the time, and it would be difficult for regulators to track them down.

Finally, we have something called civil liberties and freedom of speech in many countries. This means that any attempt to curtail our freedom to read or watch what we want at a technical level must be scrutinised closely. If we allow a government to put in a technical filter that effectively blocks out illegal content, it would not be long before the government is tempted to use the same technology to block out content that it deems illegal, unsavoury, or even just too critical for its liking. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of countries do ban child porn websites. They have to find them first, but once they've done that they can be blocked. Wikipedia was, for a short time, deemed to be a child porn website in the UK and blocked (well, in theory just one page was blocked, but due to technical problems/incompetancies it was more widespread than that). --Tango (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can find more information on the UK system, which is privately-run, not done by a statutory body; ISPs blacklist sites based on a list compiled by a private body, at Internet Watch Foundation. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 09:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: China as an analogy:

1. They don't ban it before it goes down the wires. Rather, they have computers that sit at the juncture points between China and the rest of the internet and provide error messages if you try to go to a banned website. When you visit a website, your computer sends out a signal to a computer somewhere else that says, "hey, give me your website stuff." The computer elsewhere then sends it back to you. In the process of all this sending your "request" and their "response" bounce from computer to computer, router to router. In the Chinese case, one of those routers is set to block certain sites—basically giving error messages in response to your "request." So the other site is still out there—you just can't get to it. There are ways you can try to send your requests down other "paths" —sometimes these work, sometimes they don't.

2. Their system (which is both technical and social) doesn't work perfectly but for most internet users there it works pretty well—it's not completely easy to go around the "Great Firewall" and most won't bother. But like child pornography, though, doesn't work the same way—it's not something a casual internet user would try to look up, you'd only be getting very niche, very dedicated people. So banning child porn from the millions of "normal" browsers is totally pointless—they aren't looking anyway—and those who ARE looking are probably going to know how to be clever about it (or will tell each other).

2. If you knew the URLs of the sites you wanted to ban, you might be able to put said computers (routers) in their way and filter them that way. The problem is that there are lots of paths in and out of most countries. With China it is centralized to a degree not present in the USA, for example.

3. If you knew the URLs of the sites to spreading child pornography, you could almost certainly just have the site taken down at the source and/or person arrested, as child pornography is a crime basically everywhere. China has to use its firewall because talking about Tiananmen Square is not a crime most places. (If you are in China and running said type of website, though, they won't block your site, they'll just shut it down or arrest you).

--98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also because talking about Tiananmen Square, Zhao Ziyang or the Dalai Lama is not per se illegal in China either: the government just prefers that people aren't reminded about any of it by the internet. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The laws are quite flexible. It's not like the law says, "can't talk about Tianamen Square," but the laws do give the government broad reach over speech, which does occasionally come down to the government declaring someone an agigator or something like that an arresting them. It's a little more than "just prefers"—they do use real legal force at different levels (individuals, but also at the ISP level). --140.247.241.244 (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative, not legal per se. Most of these rules are made through administrative orders which are really really dodgy from a strict legal perspective and would, in a country with a well-developed administrative law system, be challenged and thrown out for having very little basis in legislation. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, my understanding, which I do not claim to be rigorous, is that these fall under generalized national security formulations. Every country has limits on what it considers to be shouting fire in a crowded theater — where the line is drawn is almost never clear from the laws themselves. The Chinese government seems to set that bar pretty low (though even there it is complicated—they do allow certain types of dissent and criticism, and the internet on the whole, even in China, is far less regulated than, say, broadcast media). --140.247.248.90 (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Temperatures at F1 Grand Prixs

What are the hottest and coldest air and track temperatures of any F1 Grands Prix? Is there a temperature limit whereby if the track temperature is lower than the limit then the Grand Prix cannot go ahead because the tarmac wont have enough grip? 86.177.120.23 (talk) 23:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The F1 season is structured so that all of the races take place in summer temperatures or relatively mild temperatures. It is therefore extremely rare for the outside temperature to be below 15 degrees (C), not a level that would cause any trouble. Heavy rain or fog are more of a problem and have been known to stop races. The coldest Grand Prix was likely the 1978 Canadian Grand Prix, won by Gilles Villeneuve, which was run in Montreal in the fall at temperatures barely above freezing. It was uncomfortable for drivers and spectators, but the problem of grip did not seem to be major (our article barely has any information, but a google search should be more fruitful as this race has been written about extensively). A true winter Grand Prix could be another matter, but, with advance knowledge, the tire manufacturer(s) would likely design a compound that works under the conditions; actual ice would be a problem, though, as it is for highway driving.

As for maximum temperatures, the 1984 Dallas Grand Prix, won by Keke Rosberg, was run in temperatures well above 40. Conditions were brutal for the pilots and motors, but grip was a problem largely because the track surface was disintegrating; it would likely not have been the case with a proper surface. If the Bahrain or Abu Dhabi Grand Prix were run at the height of summer, one could face similar problems, but again, grip could be dealt with by ensuring a proper track surfacing and adjusting the compound for the tires for that particular race.--Xuxl (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pilots? Drivers, surely. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well they do operate vehicles faster then small aircraft... 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Once in a while, some of my native French vocabulary slips into my English prose. --Xuxl (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]