Miscellaneous desk
< March 4	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 6 >

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 5

Binocular Chemicals

I'm doing a science project and I need to know the chemical they coat the prisms and lenses with to make the image look sharper, or whatever. I seriously need help soon! <(^_^)>Pokegeek42 (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Anti-reflective coating, then ask any additional questions. Edison (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SOOOOOOO much! You're the best dude! <(^_^)> Pokegeek42 (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy Music

I am having a debate with one of my friends, does the live audience of the show Jeopardy hear the music during Final Jeopardy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.197.20 (talk) 03:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Ken Jennings in his book Brainiac talks about how it feels to be hearing the music while actually playing the game. If the players can hear it, obviously the audience can too. --Anonymous, 05:30 UTC, March 5, 2009.

I wouldn't be surprised if they still dub over with a "clean" copy of the music, though. APL (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the audience and players hear all the music while the program is being recorded. The music that the home viewer hears comes from the same source. As User:APL alluded to in his reply above, the music is sent to the recording tape machine or server "clean" by using a mixer so that the levels of all of the studio microphones, video playback devices, music and sound effects can be adjusted and properly mixed. On a show like Jeopardy!, which is recorded "live to tape", post-production editing is only employed to fix mistakes, add graphics and cut the show to the exact duration needed for syndication. --Thomprod (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Public Company Financial Statements - Data Format

Does anyone know of a good, free, source for Canadian financials in a "data format" like .csv or .xls?

Sedar.com provides the information as .pdfs. I spend a lot of time manually inputing data.

Also, if you can think of another place that I could post this (that might have more Canadians, especially market people), I'd appreciate it. NByz (talk) 05:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are just looking for a template [1] one of these may help. Otherwise, I don't know. Canada's not my turf. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 07:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing a water distiller

If the original manufacturer has gone out of business, can a plumber fix a domestic water distiller, or is an engineer required? Neon Merlin 09:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the plumber.86.211.110.247 (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)DT[reply]

Water distillers generally aren't particularly mechanically complex - I would imagine a competent plumber could fix most faults with one. Certainly a plumber would be my first thought to getting it fixed - the worst that happens is that he says he can't. It does, of course, depend on what's gone wrong with it - if a proprietary part in a distiller from a defunct manufacturer breaks irreparably, it may be very hard to source a replacement. ~ mazca ^t|c 15:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crime against humanity

When I read that article it immediately seemed to fit Bush's last government. Does anybody else agree? Could Bush be charged with that? 212.219.0.20 (talk) 10:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use the reference desk as a soapbox. Thanks. 88.112.63.253 (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. This isn't a place to discuss political views or to start a debate. Papercutbiology♫ (talk) 12:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question seems like a valid one for me - under what circumstances can (ex-)presidents be charged with criminal offenses?

--Mr.K. (talk) 12:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question asked if Bush's last government compares to a crime against humanity. How many people would agree, and how many people would disagree? Papercutbiology♫ (talk) 12:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this form "does anybody else agree") it is not an acceptable question. However, the part "could Bush be charged with that" is a legit question. --Mr.K. (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, so I guess it should probably be reworded.Papercutbiology♫ (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that the question as asked doesn't pass the sniff test, but the underlying question is a good one. The "See also" section of the article "War crime" should keep the questioner busy for a good long while. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has jurisdiction only over its signatories, for the most part, though it can decide cases brought to it by the United Nations Security Council. The US is not a signatory. The International Court of Justice adjudicates among UN member states, mostly. The United Nations Security Council can take military action on its own initiative. The recent rulings against Sudanese president Bashir by the ICC show how hard it is to enforce such things even against a relatively feeble state. International law is in flux, and war crimes cases and rulings are receiving a lot of scrutiny and criticism, not least for the issues of partiality your question raises. If you watch television, British television aired an amusing yet incisive satirical look at the issue that's worth watching, The Trial of Tony Blair, in 2007, featuring Blair, not Bush, as is to be expected, but he does get mentioned, also expected. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaders are rarely charged or convicted by their own country for crimes against humanity. If you look at the Nuremberg trials and Tokyo trials, both were conducted by conquering powers. Leaders are sometimes held accountable by their own countries during/after revolutions for various reasons/charges (not necessarily crimes against humanity). Benito Mussolini, King Louis XVI, Nicholas II, and Pol Pot come to mind (although these were more of mob actions that real trials). I could be wrong but I don't think the International Criminal Court has ever convicted a single person. Could Bush be charged with a crime against humanity? It's possible, but unlikely. Even if charged, it is even less likely that he would be convicted. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness to the ICC, it has only been around since 2002 and issued its first warrants in 2005; it was 2006 before it got its first indictee. It hasn't really had much time to go about convicting people yet. It's forerunner, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia has indicted 148 people since 1994, with 100 proceedings completed and 48 people found guilty by the tribunal and sentenced.- Eron^Talk 01:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the ICC, there is some question as to whether the US would surrender its sovereignty to a foreign body. See the article United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court for more information. This is purely speculation on my part, but there might be an ex post facto issue given that the United States has not ratified the ICC treaty. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might also be interested in the book "United States v. George W. Bush et al." by Elizabeth de la Vega [2]. In it she presents a legal case that Bush and others committed fraud based on Title 18, United States Code, Section 371 [3]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No-one so far seems to have mentioned sovereign immunity which has been argued as excluding all proceedings against a head of state for any alleged crimes committed in their official position. This was one of the defences used by Milosevic, if I remember it right, although the court was not impressed. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, in the US the state is (generally) immune from prosecution, but individual members of the government aren't. If that's correct, then sovereign immunity doesn't help Bush survive a trial for crimes against humanity. --Tango (talk) 01:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was certainly the considered possibility of Nixon being tried in a domestic court which led to his pardon by Ford. Rmhermen (talk) 13:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the question is poorly phrased I think we can answer it without resorting to soapboxing. With the recent ICC arrest warrant against Bashir, the issue of Bush have come up. While numerous people have suggested he should and could potentially be guilty of crimes of some sort [4] [5] [6] they also all agree that the chance of anything actually happening is very remote. Attempts to give the ICC universal jurisdiction failed (due to the opposition of a number of countries including the US) and so the only way countries can be bound is if they either agree to it or the Security Council sends something to the ICC for consideration. As the US has not signed up for the ICC, and seems unlikely to do so any time soon, and the US holds veto power in the Security Council, there's simply no way crimes Bush has allegedly commited are going to be considered any time soon. Nil Einne (talk) 10:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unemployment

When slavery existed was there any unemployment? If the possibility of slavery still existed today would people try to get a job for many months in vain? 94.196.103.53 (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, people were unemployed, yes, but unemployment insurance didn't begin until 1932.Livewireo (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One problem with unemployment is that people are neither unconditionally mobile nor downwardly flexible. It takes a lot for someone to pick up and leave their home and go where there might be work. Obligations, like providing for family members, availability of accommodations that meet what the individual considers his/her current minimum standard, language barriers, cultural differences, unpredictable conditions and the like keep people from moving. People will only consider accepting work below their former skill level, experience and pay scale once they have run out of other options. It is not an advisable career move because it creates a break in one's employment track record and basically means starting over in a new career path or from an inferior position if the original career path is resumed. (Women returning to work after caring for a child are often faced with this reality.) Societies that used slave labor did not replace existing jobs with slaves. The employment tiers were created with slaves at the bottom. A disruption in that system might cause a shift toward the bottom. When slavery was abolished in the South many farms failed because of insufficient availability of "cheap labor". The existing system had been based on prices calculated without any payroll costs for the slaves and only minimal expenses in that area. Many plantations closed. So, yes if the existing system were disrupted people would go look for jobs for months until they got desperate enough to accept working and living in conditions like those of slaves. See Human trafficking for present day examples.76.97.245.5 (talk) 16:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Private "safety net" services existed before 1932; that's what the friendly societies were all about. Fortunately for politicians, price-fixing legislation wrecked them. —Tamfang (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You question requires answering, first, "if slavery was legal, could/would unemployed people sell themselves into slavery?"

Given that slavery is selling away some of a person's basic human rights, and each person ordiarily places some value on their liberty, it probably would not happen unless there were absolutely no other option. That is, when comparing slavery against a given Option A, for example, where Option A does not involve permanent bondage, most people would probably choose Option A even if it paid much less, depending on how much they value their own liberty.

In any case, in this part of the world social security and the welfare safety net means that anyone eligible for those benefits (i.e. excluding illegal immigrants) has a viable and more attractive laternative to slavery in any circumstance. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being an indentured servant would generally be chosen over being a slave wherever possible. --Tango (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is WORK, and there are the CONDITIONS of LABOR. Work can be done by either voluntary or involuntary labor. Employment is the generally accepted definition for voluntary labor at a predetermined rate of compensation. Conscription is the generally accepted definition of volunatry labor for a government agency without predetermined rates of compensation (the alternative is imprisonment). Inmate work-detail is involuntary labor for a government agency, but the laborers are not classified as slaves. Slave labor is generally viewed as involuntary labor, but their are numerous levels of slavery. Indentured servitude is (today) viewed as voluntary labor for a set period at a predetermined level of compensation, yet a historical review of actual conditions shows that for many who came to North Carolina the period was for life and the compensations was unilaterally adjusted by many "owners" (and servitude often extended to first generation offspring!!!) On the other had, historical review of slavery during the Roman empire reveals that many famous administrators and court officials sold themselves into slavery to provide for their families (spouse and children remained free). Review of labor conflicts during the industrial revolution shows conditions of employment were often more harsh as free labor because of exploitation by employers of an easily replaced resource (not to condone slavery, but slaves were viewed as valuable assets not to be quickly abused or destroyed). Even today, inexperienced talent will often sign contracts that result in economic slavery (until some unscrupulous agent or a family friend acts to free the individual from their self-imposed bondage).

largest rifle

What is the largest standard round fired from a gun that is carried by one individual, not vehicle mounted? I know the .50 caliber has a very large bullet, and some sniper rifles are that size but are there any larger? 65.167.146.130 (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To understand this issue, you need to learn the difference between caliber and a cartridge (firearms). Simply looking at bore size does not tell the whole story. There are grenade launchers with a much larger than .50-inch bore which are carried by a person, but I don't know if that qualifies as a standard round. .50 BMG is the most powerful one I'm aware of in common usage, but there could be larger ones, once you decide what you mean by "larger". Friday (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Muzzleloaders and shotguns are commonly available in larger than .50 caliber, but they're nowhere near as powerful as a .50 BMG. Friday (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Soviet PTRD fires a 14.5x114mm round; that article says that came in a 64.4 g bullet, whereas the heaviest .50 BMG seems to be 52 g. At 17.3 kg a PTRD is certainly man portable, but (with the bipod, sight, and some ammo) you're not going to want to carry it very far by yourself. Bigger still is the Czech RT-20, which fires 20 mm caliber; that article claims a bullet mass of a whopping 100g. 87.115.143.223 (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And beyond that we're into the realm of recoilless rifles like the SPG-9, which is certainly a gun and just about man portable (although no-one is going to be happy at being asked to carry a 60kg gun into battle; in practice you'd use a golf-caddy-like set of wheels). That fires what is essentially a 73mm artillery round. 87.115.143.223 (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see your 73 mm and raise you the 84mm Carl Gustav recoilless rifle. Which I can tell you first hand is man portable, as I am a man and I have indeed ported it. (With no wheels attached, sadly.) - Eron^Talk 00:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but the CG's rounds seem to be around 3.3 kg, whereas the SPG-9 fires rounds up to 6.9 kg. Mimetic Polyalloy (talk) 12:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What boy wouldn't be delighted to find a .551 caliber (13.9 mm) antitank rifle under the Christmas tree? It weighed just 35 pounds (16 kg). Edison (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscovered Tribes

What are the chances that there are undiscovered tribes living somewhere on the planet? BigDunc^Talk 21:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to prove a negative, i.e. that there are no more such tribes to be discovered. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, such encounters can be stage-managed, or even outright faked. Groups can be found, and then "lost", and when found again c. 60 years later, have no memory of the previous encounters, as Sabine Kuegler claims about the Fayu in her memoir of living with them. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncontacted peoples may be of interest. --Fullobeans (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscovered by whom? I imagine there are plenty of small groups out there who have had no contact with what we'd call "civilisation" - but it seems unlikely that they'd not be in contact with other groups who are perhaps just on the edge of contact. SteveBaker (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to know quite a lot about a people listed in that article - surely that means there has been some contact. --Tango (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, uncontacted is not the same thing as undiscovered. And we need to define what "undiscovered" means. There may be some tribes whose existence is known only to surrounding tribes, not to the world at large. Does that make them "undiscovered"? There could be some tribes that have been discovered by some Westerner, who chose to let them live their lives in peace and not tell anyone about them. Does that make them "undiscovered"? I think it's possible there are undiscovered tribes, in the sense of tribes about which there is zero published information; and I also think any such tribes will be discovered eventually, but when? - who knows, because by definition we have no way of knowing where they are, how many of them there are, etc. They probably don't exist in places like New York City ... but then, you never know. When the Amazon forests are finally all chopped down, we'll probably find lots of previously unsuspected tribes there (that's if there's anyone left on Earth to do the discovering). -- JackofOz (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does it count if "we" know there are people in a given place but "we" don't know how many tribes they are? —Tamfang (talk) 05:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]