Miscellaneous desk
< February 6	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 8 >

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.

February 7

Sovereign Immunity

With regards to Sovereign immunity in the United States, I don't exactly understand the premise behind such a law other than the obvious bias that anyone (or organization, for that matter) would love to exclude itself from following any law that could result in a loss. I watched some recent CNN video about the Navy–Vieques protests, and disregarding the facts of the case, if it can be taken as a given that the US would be liable if they could be taken to court, what is the conceptual basis for such immunity, other than the US government being above the law? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the fed were not generally immune to suits as per the provisions of these laws, try to imagine how much your tax dollars would increase to cover the costs of the endless suits filed against the government for every cockamamie thing anyone could think of. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Sovereignty exercised by Sovereign states (here is a list of them) is having supreme, independent authority over a territory. It can be found in a power to rule and make law that rests on a political fact for which no purely legal explanation can be provided. The US has so far chosen not to submit to any ruling by International Criminal Court. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 02:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bullies do not like to comply with anyone else's directives. Edison (talk) 04:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This flag

dips for no earthly king. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? 220800 22:34:43 - 22:47:38 1968 COL SIL White House and Riots in D.C. following assassination of Martin Luther King South side of White House, fountain in foreground, flag flying at half mast on White House.(source).Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Half-staff is not dipping. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and I can't possibly convey how deeply impressed the rest of the world is with that. (sheesh!) SteveBaker (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And we are equally impressed with the rest of the world. :) At what point did the USA agree to abide by what a group of other nations wanted? Are we in breach of some treaty or formal agreement? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The serious answer to all of this should be in our Sovereign immunity article, but to the extent that it's not...the ability of a sovereign (read: monarch) to be free from suits against the crown has been a constant in common law jurisprudence, obviously pre-dating the Magna Carta but more notably, succeeding that document, for a while now. At the adoption of the constitution in the recently independent colonies, every one of the 13 colonies seemed to be pretty damn sure that they weren't giving citizens the power to sue them in their own courts. It was assumed as well that those citizens couldn't sue them in federal court either, although Chisholm v. Georgia suggested otherwise. The reaction to Chisholm is hard to describe in today's terms. The constitutional amendment that followed, the 11th amendment, without question rejected the Supreme Court's decision there, and made it clear that sovereign immunity applied to the states in federal court. It was a swift response to say the least. There was a similar, basic assumption that it applied in state court too. The best modern explanation is Alden v. Maine. I don't know, and won't bore you with, the developments since then, but the basic assumption of sovereign immunity, which at its core is quite inequitable, is based on these assumptions and cases. Shadowjams (talk) 11:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: Wikipedia does not offer legal advice on suits against sovereigns. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most government actions have winners and losers. If the losers got to sue the government for their losses every time, the government wouldn't be able to do anything. Imagine if businesses could sue the government to recoup their added payroll costs from a minimum wage increase or the costs of complying with a new environmental regulation. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ninjas

How did real life ninjas have all the crazy powers? --75.28.169.54 (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the linked article, and don't believe everything you see in the movies. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What crazy powers, praytell? Vranak (talk) 12:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearing, shapeshifting, etc. --75.28.53.135 (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Post-production special effects. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They have real ultimate power!! Adam Bishop (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or they had good publicists who spread those rumors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that the false assumption built into the question would be a little like asking, "How do Santa's reindeer fly in real life?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, straightforward answer: They could presumably do anything a martial arts master can do. They could not do anything that humans cannot do, such as disappering, shape-shifting, or whatever. That stuff was a fable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to suspend my disbelief and assume this question was asked in earnest. Where do you get the idea that ninjas can disappear or shapeshift? Moreover, where do you get the impression that ninjas even exist in contemporary society? Vranak (talk) 14:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His question was in the past tense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I'm done here. Vranak (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ninjas were merely well-trained fighters with some cleverly designed gadgets and an unconventional approach to combat for that era. They made their money hiring themselves out as bodyguards, assassins and general mercenaries. Hence it was in their interests to encourage rumors about these supernatural abilities...whether they had them or not. When some important guy gets assassinated by Ninjas, his bodyguards would of course claim that the attackers had super powers! So a Ninja who merely remembered to stay in the shadows and to wear clothing that blended in to his surroundings would inflate his ability to "becoming invisible" or "changing shape". Popular culture has inflated these claims still further and movie special-effects and camera trickery are inflating these claims still further. So we may be very sure that Ninjas did not in fact do anything that any reasonably fit, well-trained, intelligent human couldn't do. SteveBaker (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only the whole idea about ninjas wearing black so they could blend into the night is not historical but actually taken from bunraku theater. That said, ninjas did use some impressive evasive techniques, like throwing smoke bombs (and some less impressive ones, like throwing money). TomorrowTime (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aw man, I managed to get Real Ultimate Power AFDed just my mentioning it here...Adam Bishop (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actualy, when it comes to the shape shifting, they hay a sertain art they trained in. it not so much as "shape shifting" as it was making there body look like somthing else in the shadows as well as other things. A few examples are the water Style, which was basicly training to be able to go from a full sprint and into somthing like a pond with out making a sound, and another style which name i cant recall was to twist there body or pop pertain joints out of place so that they apaired to be a Box or some other object in the darkness. as for the Disapearing, i read of one ninja that would pre Dig a hole outside of his targets dwelling and cover it with a wooden Circle that was Camo-ed so after if he was being persude he could literaly "vanish"--Talk Shugoːː 18:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Digital home audio recorders

Are there any home audio components that record digitally, non-compressed (i.e. not MP3) onto a hard drive or into RAM, and can then burn a CD? Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 05:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is, it has phono jack inputs. And instead of burning a CD directly, it would be OK to transfer an audio file to the computer to burn the CD. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 06:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, a 1/4" stereo line-level input will work. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 06:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can or could get stand alone audio CD recorders [1], however unless they are professional models they usually require special CDs which cost more (nowadays probably an extreme amount more) because they require royalties to the record companies under the assumption anyone using them most be copying music without the copyright owner's permission (and also because they are rather rare). However these record fairly directly and don't keep the content on a HD first. And they probably generally can't be paused. So I'm not sure if this will fulfill your requirements. You can of course just use a computer, is there any reason this isn't sufficient? If you need the device to be highly portable or discreet, perhaps some sort of netbook or nettop or PVR/media computer? I don't know if they usually come with audio in (well the PVR/media computer would), but a USB soundcard should provide that. It sounds likely to be easier and maybe even cheaper then some sort of stand alone HDD audio recording device. If you need it to be more portable then that (although 'home' and the use of a hard drive suggests to me it's for a fixed location) [2] may help although it's fairly old, and [3] provides some pointers and there seem to be many such devices usually with mics but sometimes also with line-in, e.g. [4]. It may help if you more clearly specify what you want. I get you want uncompressed (which probably isn't that hard particularly if the product has a HD) and the ability to burn CDs and a phono input or stereo line-level input, but I'm confused by the rest, e.g. why you didn't just think of a computer. Are you wanting something with an amplifier or that functions like a home theater receive in addition to the ability to record? Nil Einne (talk) 11:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt this stuff about special CDs, by the way. I also endorse just using your PC to record the uncompressed audio. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a stand-alone CD recorder, but I don't want to record to directly to CD because of editing and reliability issues. I want to hook into an audio system rather than use a computer. I need to look at those links in more detail, but that is at least close to what I want (but I don't need portability or built-in mikes and I'd rather have it powered by A/C than batteries). Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 16:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) So for clarification, you want something that is capable of recording and also functions as an amplifier and receiver? Such a device may exist although I should warn you that you're usually limited in your ability to record from HDMI and even S/PDIF which may discourage people from buying such devices and therefore vendors from bothering to make them Nil Einne (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, to hook into a home audio system, but does not need an amplifier or receiver. Think of replacing a cassette deck. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 16:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the closest I've been able to find to what I want. However, I'd rather have a home audio component with remote control that uses A/C that doesn't have built-in microphones. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 19:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that doesn't fit the bill because the 1/4" line level jacks need a balanced line level signal. Which brings up another question: how can you go from unbalanced line-level phono jacks to balanced TRS 1/4" jacks? Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 19:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From your requirements I still think a computer is a good bet. You can easily add a remote. A case that makes it look like a normal home audio component isn't hard either. Adding a LCD display (I don't mean a monitor, I mean one like you'd get on a typical audio device of this sort), buttons (there are cases with these two) and making it completely headless without ever requiring any external control it may be a bit more difficult but is probably doable with an appropriate Linux or *BSD set up and may not be as hard as you think given your limited requirements. There may even be people who've already done something like that you can copy. And the benefit of being able to change things if you ever need and having complete control over the set up seems to lean in that direction. But perhaps that's just the geek in me speaking (I admit I don't think I'd ever buy a stand alone CD recorder).

Anyway the main reason for my post is I did come across the Yamaha CDR-HD1500 which sounds like it'll be of interest to you [5] when researching below. It can record to HDD and then record that to (music) CDR. However transferring the content to or from a PC isn't easy since it lacks any useful data link other then a RS-232 serial connection which you can use to rename tracks and stuff but would be useless in trying to transfer content. But it sounded to me like the ability to transfer to PC wasn't so important if the device could already burn CDRs so I thought/hope that won't be a big issue. Sadly discontinued [6] [7] but I saw one that claimed to be new on Ebay for a rather high price.

There's also a used one currently at a reasonable price and a few have sold in the last few days. While you may be concerned about buying used, other then cosmetic issues, it seems to me the most likely problem is the hard disk may fail but it seems changing HDD isn't that hard (and in the same vein with the above comment connecting the HDD to a computer is the only real way to transfer content other then by burning it to CDR) and in theory any hard drive up to 2TB should work [8]. PATA ~~or SATA I don't know~~ (http://www.avforums.com/forums/hi-fi-systems-separates/231464-yamaha-cdr-hd1500-9.html) but it shouldn't be a big issue just an added expense since AFAIK PATA are still widely available and likely to be for a while and you can probably use a converter if necessary. The only other likely problem may be the optical drive may fail, but it seems that's also just a standard drive (not actually that uncommon nowadays I believe) which is still available new albeit for an insane price [9]. And it sounds like it (or at least the older model, but they seem to use the same drive) may work with any CDR drive anyway, the only problem is the face plate may not work although at a guess you could fix that in some cases. Okay there could be a problem with fans failing as well, but from the sound of it, it uses fairly standard PC components and a guess you could probably replace them without too much issue. (This sort of thing does exemplify my comment, at a guess, this itself is basically a specialised PC, probably running a stripped down version of some OS, in other words something you could do yourself.)

The Yamaha CDR 1500 does appear to have normal RCA input. But if you do decide to go with something with a balanced line it doesn't sound like it'll be a hard problem to fix since it must be fairly common, the earlier article has some pointers and a quick search comes up with [10] http://ask.metafilter.com/67270/DIY-Balanced-Audio-CableORama] [11] [12] [13] [14] which probably meet or exceed your needs (okay they mostly look ugly but shouldn't be that hard to hide).

Nil Einne (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the long detailed message. The Yahama does sound like it fits the bill. I don't like the fact that it has been discontinued and there doesn't seem to be anything else like it.

As far as using a computer, I'm looking for a permanent solution. My computer is downstairs and my music room is upstairs, so I can't be moving all of that equipment around every time I need it. So that would mean getting another computer (although it could be a cheap one.) And then a big question is how good are the A/D converters in computer sound cards compared to something like this M-Audio unit (which I am considering)? Which would have the better A/D converter - it or a computer? Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 01:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The existance and requirement of special music CDs for stand alone consumer audio recorders is well documented [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20], I've even seen them in a physical shop before if the Amazon and manufacturer links aren't enough to convince you. It is basically a legal requirement in the US AFAIK thanks to the Audio Home Recording Act which mandated the Serial Copy Management System amongst other things. So I'm not really sure what there is to doubt... It's possible that it's easier to buy stand alone devices that don't need music CDs nowadays particularly outside the US (I don't know, it's just a random guess), but this is of course a different matter. Nil Einne (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's absolutely not true. Sure, I've seen the "special for Music" CD-R's in stores too - and I've had a good laugh at the idiots who buy them. I am almost 100% sure it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference whether you use one of those or a regular recordable CD. Bits are just bits and it doesn't matter a damn what they contain! The "Orange Book" standard (See Rainbow Books - which I contributed to when I worked on the Philips Research team that made the first ever CD-ROM player) - covers both music CD's and data CD's and there is absolutely no mention in there about needing "special" disks for music versus data (the whole reason the book is "Orange" is because it's a standard that encompasses the "Red Book" standard for CD audio and the "Yellow Book" standard for CD-ROM - it's called "ORANGE" because it merges the CD-audio and CD-ROM standards and adds the specifications for recordable media). A CD recorder that refused to record music to both CD-R and CD-RW would be in breach of those rules and would be in violation of the license they pay to Philips/SONY for the privilage of using their patents.

There are two considerations that MIGHT matter (but I doubt it):

One is that there are a wild variety of recordable formats (CD-R, CD-RW, etc) and not all players can record on all kinds at all speeds. That might mean that for your recorder, CD-R's don't work but the ones labelled "For Music" happen to work because they are CD-RW rather than CD-R or something.
The other possibility is that since these "For Music" CD's are three times the price of regular recordable CD's - they might maybe be of higher quality.

However, I don't believe there is any technical reason that you need different kinds of media for recording music.

The Serial Copy Management System only prevents digital-to-digital copying and doesn't have anything to do with the media that's used - it's prevented inside the electronics of digital-to-digital recorders and has nothing whatever to do with analog recording.

IMHO, these "For Music" CD's are appealing to the same gang of idiot audiophiles who think that gold-plated USB connectors add more "depth" and "presence" to digital recordings than the regular kind of USB cables. These are people who are just begging to be ripped-off and the industry is more than happy to print "MUSIC!" on the side of a box of regular CD's and charge them three times as much for the privilage.

SteveBaker (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the US at least, in contrast to a computer CD writer, an unmodified home audio CD recorder will not record to a non-music (data) CD. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 00:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I over linked earlier but the technical reason is because the recorder refuses to record if you don't have a music CD (they go by various names but music CD seems common), and music CDs are marked as music CDs in the unmodifiable (by the consumer) ATIP as explained in some of the earlier links for example [21] [22]. The political reason of course as I mentioned is (partially? see below) because of the law in the US which requires royalties for such media. Sure you can hack the firmware (which would very likely violate the DMCA in the US) but that doesn't help the average user (in any case, it appears some of them don't have software updateable firmware, see below). There are also some other solutions which work with certain recorders, for example in some of them if you put in a blank music CD, and then take it out and put in a normal CD-R at the right time it will work, although I believe that was only with early models.

You are partially right about the SCMS. The SCMS flag is stored on the media (so a device reading it knows whether it is allows unlimited copies, one copy or the content is already a copy of a copy which means all further copies are disallowed), I was thinking music CDs have a special location to store this but now I recall it's stored on all audio CDs at a per track level (and you can choose what you want to set it to with good mastering or burning software, some set it to copy copy of copy always which annoys those who own the copyright and want to allow unlimited copies). The SCMS is also transmitted over digital channels of course.

P.S. I would emphasise again that I'm not sure how common this is in countries that don't require it. And in the US professional recorders don't have the requirement and I don't know how professional recorders are defined or if there has ever been a court case against a manufacturer for selling cheap professional recorders that are easily available to the consumer. My impression is that the mainstream manufacturers have generally been fairly cooperative with the music studios and so have implemented it worldwide even if they don't have to legally (while the music CD requirement didn't help, it's not as if these devices were ever going to be very popular and the manufacturers probably realised that it didn't really matter much), but I'm not sure. Indeed perhaps the fact they could advertise people could legally (in some countries) record copy protected music with these devices helped their sales, who knows. However it's definitely not a myth as people like Bubba above can confirm.

P.P.S. I came across this link which mentions the availability of hacked firmware which hopefully puts any doubts to rest and this link which confirms the recorders in Australia had this requirement too. The last one incidentally links to this link, which if you see the end and ignore everything else provides some more details on the agreement resulting in the current state of affairs. Even if you don't trust that last site given the nonsense they have, it'll probably be enough to research this more if you're interested.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can confirm it - I even checked it again yesterday to be sure. I put a regular blank CD into the recorder and it reads the TOC. I press the record button and it displays "data" and doesn't start recording. I put in a blank music CD and it works. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 18:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Browsing Wikipedia on a PSP-2003

When I occasionally browse wikipedia on my PSP when I'm away from my computer, I can only type so much before the little triangle to the right of my cursor prevents me from typing any more. Why is this? It's fairly annoying, as I can't edit text longer than a few hundred words or so. Maybe I should stick to my computer, although my PSP is pretty handy for just viewing articles. Chevymontecarlo (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chevymontecarlo, It's only been a day but if you fail to get an answer to this question, I would try again at the Computers and Technology reference desk. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I was thinking about that myself. Chevymontecarlo (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why do so many more female infants than male infants die in China?

In almost all other countries, it's the opposite. More male infants die than female infants. Here are some CIA Factbook figures.

  American:
   male: 6.94 deaths/1,000 live births
   female: 5.55 deaths/1,000 live births
 
  Taiwanese rates:
   male: 5.64 deaths/1,000 live births
   female: 5.04 deaths/1,000 live births (2009 est.)

  The Pakistani rates are almost even:
  male: 65.24 deaths/1,000 live births
  female: 65.05 deaths/1,000 live births (2009 est.)

  China stands out:
   male: 18.87 deaths/1,000 live births
   female: 21.77 deaths/1,000 live births

What's going on?

12thdegree (talk) 11:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One child policy#Side effects on female population perhaps? Mitch Ames (talk) 12:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that Taiwan is 5.64/5.04 = 1.119; US (I presume) is 6.94/5.55 = 1.250; Pakistan is 65.24/65.05 = 1.003; China is 0.8668; I would say both Pakistan and China seem fairly different from the two fairly developed countries. China to a greater extreme of course. Looking at more examples:

Hidden so I don't affect the readibility of the RD too much

India (2009 est.) [23]

male: 49.33 deaths/1,000 live births

female: 52.4 deaths/1,000 live births

0.941

Bangladesh (2009 est.) [24]

male: 66.12 deaths/1,000 live births

female: 51.64 deaths/1,000 live births

1.280

Thailand (2009 est.) [25]

male: 18.48 deaths/1,000 live births

female: 16.43 deaths/1,000 live births

1.125

Vietnam (2009 est.) [26]

male: 22.64 deaths/1,000 live births

female: 21.84 deaths/1,000 live births

1.037

Laos (2009 est.) [27]

male: 86.97 deaths/1,000 live births

female: 68.11 deaths/1,000 live births

1.277

Nigeria (2009 est.) [28]

male: 100.38 deaths/1,000 live births

female: 87.97 deaths/1,000 live births

1.141

South Africa (2009 est.) [29]

male: 48.66 deaths/1,000 live births

female: 40.1 deaths/1,000 live births

1.213

Brazil (2009 est.) [30]

male: 26.16 deaths/1,000 live births

female: 18.83 deaths/1,000 live births

1.389

Haiti (2009 est.) [31]

male: 66.18 deaths/1,000 live births

female: 53.01 deaths/1,000 live births

1.248

Samoa (2009 est.) [32]

male: 28.61 deaths/1,000 live births

female: 19.6 deaths/1,000 live births

1.460

You may (emphasis on the may) be seeing a strong cultural preference for male children playing out in India and China to a greater extreme given the one child policy, but also perhaps Vietnam and Pakistan. Surprisingly (to me anyway) there's little sign of this in Bangladesh. This ref documents a difference in the chance of a parent in Bangladesh seeking medical aide for a child (not infant) [33].

In any case the variation is high enough it's rather difficult to draw any real conclusion and many countries have some preference for male children including the US and Canada [34] which could be confounding your results. There would probably of course be genetic and dietary factors at play as well.

P.S. I was thinking of this earlier but forgot and it occured to me again when writing the below, it's possible one of the reasons for Bangladesh lack of an obvious skew is because sex selective abortion is more common, although that doesn't really explain the (1987 admitedly) ref.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems unlikely that ~15% of female baby deaths are due to their parents killing them because they wanted a boy. One in 300 families are prepared to do that? It's not enough that 1 in 300 people would do it - because (presumably) both mother and father would have to at least acquiesce - which means that maybe one in 15 people would stand back and let their partner do that? That's a VERY big number. SteveBaker (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to presume active killing is the primary factor. Difference in the treatment and attention (time etc) given to the infant including in the likelihood of parents seeking medical attention (as documented in Bangladesh for children), the food or formula given, the likeliness of noticing problems (if you pay less attention to your infant you're less likely to notice or be aware of differences in their behaviour), the amount of money the parent is willing to pay for infant could be big factors. It may not even be a concious thing in many cases. And it doesn't have to even be both parents unless the other parent compensates. And if prenatal sex testing is involved (and the parents don't practice sex-selective abortion) then this could even begin before birth.

These factors could of course even play on a communial basis including medical staff etc (again doesn't have to be concious) although of course they could compensate or respond in the reverse (whether because they are ware and are making an active effort or simply because they've noticed girls are far more more likely to have serious problems then boys when they come to them).

Or to put it a different way, if the parents and many other people in the community care more about male children then female children, it isn't that surprising if the boys are less likely to die (relatively speaking) then girls.

P.S. In addition reading ~~infant morality~~infant mortality made me realise something I didn't yet consider, if the parents decide to abandon the child, they may not be intentional trying to kill it, but it's obviously going to be more likely to die.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely if they are selectively aborting before birth then there would be more boys than girls born - and that would suggest more boy deaths per 1000 than girl deaths? SteveBaker (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er, infant mortality might be more helpful, in conjunction with parental morality. Also see infanticide and female infanticide. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting -- female infanticide redirects to sex-selective abortion. But the additional factor I was trying to remember is well-covered in Missing women of Asia. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve I was wondering how this confusion arose since it seemed one you were unlikely to make. But I realised no one ever posted the overall statistics. For example, the overall statistics for India are 50.78 deaths/1,000 live births. Compare that 49.33 deaths/1,000 live births, female: 52.4 deaths/1,000 live births I have for India above and perhaps you'll have clarity.

If not, I'm pretty sure the number of deaths per live births is the number of deaths per live births of that sex (it doesn't make any sense otherwise, the numbers of deaths per live births would only be ~half for a sex). In other words, it doesn't matter how many are born. If 1000 boys are born for every 500 girls you'll double the number of girls for your statistics for deaths per live births for girls (it will make a difference to the overall statistics obviously). If there's no bias in the selection of which girls are aborted, then this doesn't affect the chance of the infants dying (although things like the mother's nutrition etc may).

If this is still confusing think about if carefully. If everything else is equal (in reality there are genetic factors which increase the mortality of male infants I believe) then if 100 die per 1000 male live births, you'd expect 50 to die per 500 female live births and you still get 100 deaths/1000 female live births. If you take the overall statistics in such a case, per 1000 live births you get ~67 male deaths per 1000 live births and ~33 female deaths (total 100) per 1000 live births and have ~667 males and ~333 females live births for every 1000. (Yes I've ignored those who are neither male nor female.)

BB, er yes thanks. I noticed the redlink but unfortunately didn't pay much attention to it.

P.S. You should be able to get statistics on boys:girls at birth which will help complete the picture. Also I realise I forgot to mention this at the beginning, remember the CIA world fact book figures are estimates and the reliability would almost definitely vary from country to country

Nil Einne (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne is correct about the stats; they are expressed per 1000 live births, and if relevant, separated by sex. Factors which may add to the death burden include the early weaning of girls, to enable the mother to try for another pregnancy. Infant formula diluted with unclean water, or even over-diluted with clean water, is more likely to make the baby ill. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orkut's religion

What is Orkut Buykkokten's religion??

Do you mean Orkut Büyükkökten? His Wikipedia article does not give any information about his religious beliefs. I have 'Googled' it but have not found any information in that area. —220.101.28.25 (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a crazy amount of misinformation about this guy on the web - lots of sites report this long list of how much money he makes ("He get paid $200 every time someone uploads a picture to the Orkut website"...so who exactly is paying this and why would they do that?!?!). If I found a place where his religion was mentioned, I'd be reluctant to believe it without some pretty solid evidence. SteveBaker (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orkut, the social web-side created by Orkut Büyükkökten is certainly a huge success, but not from a commercial perspective. It generates some income throught the ads served on the site. However, even for Google, $200 for each picture is way too much, considering the millions of users and pictures on the site.--Quest09 (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Orkut bey is Turkish, Turkey's population is over 95% Muslim*, and he comes from Konya, one of the most Islamic cities in Turkey (it is the site of a major shrine). There is a very strong likelihood that he is of Muslim background, but it's not a certainty, and he may not be a practicing Muslim. *That figure depends on whether one counts the Alevi minority as Muslims or not, an issue that's quite controversial. --Xuxl (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pdf file

How can I convert a file to a pdf file ? I have one folder consists of picture of book's page , I want to convert this file to a pdf file .Supriyochowdhury (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The solution I use is "CutePDF Writer", which is a free printer driver. After you install it, all of your applications will be able to "print" to a PDF file. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it largely depends what apps you have available to you. These days many of them have a built-in PDF "export" or "save as" option in the file menu.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest reposting this question on the Computing desk, and telling them what applications you have available to open the file in, if you don't find the answer yourself in the way Shantavira suggests. --Anonymous, 06:30 UTC, February 8, 2010.

Translation request

I am thinking of translating Gospel of Thomas into Malayalam, my mother tongue and the language of Saint Thomas Christians of Malabar (now known as Kerala). I am a Mar Thoma Nasrani (Saint Thomas Christian) and belongs to Mar Thoma Church. This gospel is of particular importance for us because before the Bible was translated from Aramaic, into Malayalam we were reading from a book that was said to have been written in Aramaic and given to us by Saint Thomas the Apostle. Further study may help me to trace whether it was this Gospel of Thomas that was taken by Pantœnus from India to Alexandria around AD 190. I need to know whether I need any permission to translate this and publish it. Can someone help me?Neduvelilmathew (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the article Gospel of Thomas which notes that the manuscript found at Nag Hammadi was first published in a photographic edition in 1956. The manuscript itself is held in a museum in Cairo, Egypt. You are certainly free to translate the gospel for private study. We cannot give you legal advice about publishing copyright. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might also be helpful to your further study to know that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic and the New Testament in Greek. It is possible that some of the New Testament was based on older Aramaic texts, but the Bible you read was translated from Hebrew and Greek, or possibly Latin. The Gospel of Thomas is written in Coptic. Depending on which languages you read, this might affect your willingness to attempt a translation. 86.179.145.61 (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Mar Thoma says "Pantaenus from Alexandria - In the second century AD, Pantaenus the Philosopher visited India and found that there were many evangelists in India. They had a copy of the Gospel according to Matthew in Hebrew." Is this the book you are talking about? Rmhermen (talk) 02:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is obviously not talking about Mathew's gospel which is a part of the Bible that has been translated already into virtually every language. In contrast the Gospel of Thomas is not in the Bible and was disparaged by Eusebius as a "fiction of heretics". The OP belongs to a church named after Thomas and names Thomas 4 times in posting so I suggest you believe the OP knows what the OP is talking about. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eusebius was doubting Thomas. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before being rude to Rmhermen, perhaps you should read the article they linked? Mar Thoma appears to be the church described by the OP. The OP asks about a legend that St Thomas brought them a Gospel before the whole Bible was translated, and wonders if this was the Gospel of Thomas. The article suggests that this Gospel brought by Thomas was likely a version of the Gospel of Matthew. 86.179.145.61 (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the copyright question, the original manuscript is at least 1600 years old and therefore not subject to copyright restrictions. However, it is written in Coptic and is locked away in a museum in Egypt, which might not give you access to the manuscript , particularly if you intend to translate it for publication, without an agreement for some compensation. Obviously, you would need a strong knowledge of the Coptic language to translate this manuscript. Alternatively, you could base your translation on the English translation published in 1977, but that edition is very much subject to copyright protection, and that protection extends to translations. In that case, you would need to obtain the permission of the 1977 publisher or its successor to publish a translation based on that edition. Marco polo (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Letters

How should I go about writing a formal letter to someone at a company I have never written to before and know none at?

148.197.114.158 (talk) 17:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google is great for this kind of thing, and there are dozens of sites out there that can help you. A couple of minutes searching found This, which from the looks of it could be helpful. I don't think they'd be any articles on Wikipedia to help you, so try Googling. Chevymontecarlo (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The usual convention is to address the letter to a corporate officer who is relevant to the topic of the letter. e.g. "Dear Ms. Jane Doe, Vice President of Consumer Relations:" The officer might not be the one to actually read the letter, but that will get it to their office. If you can't find an actual name, addressing it to the position itself can work, e.g. "Dear President of Yoyodyne Systems:" As a last resort, you can always try the "Dear Sir or Madam:" or "To whom it may concern:" route, although that may imply you do not care about the issue enough to think about who to contact. If you don't have a mailing address for a specific person, try addressing it to the central corporate office. As for the body of the letter, I'd recommend keeping it polite and direct. If you have a specific action you wish for them to take (provide you with information, give you a refund, etc.) be sure to state it explicitly (but politely) in the conclusion section of the letter - the person reading the letter will likely be busy, and put your letter at the bottom of their priority list. Make it as simple as possible for them to satisfy your desires. And finally, don't be too disappointed if you never hear back from them. Some companies just aren't all that responsive when it comes to letters. -- 174.21.224.109 (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "Dear Ms. Jane Doe, Vice President of Consumer Relations:" is not an acceptable form of salutation. In the first place, you don't include the addressee's first name. It's "Dear Ms Doe". In the second place, you wouldn't include their job title in the salutation either. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Writing a business letter in the UK has certain formal conventions. If you don't know the person's name, then you start the letter "Dear Sir". If you know you are writing to a woman, start it "Dear Madam". "Dear Sir/Madam" will probably get your letter filed in the bin! If you start the letter with this saluation, you must end it with "Yours faithfully". If you know the name of the person, then start with "Dear Mr Doe" and end it with "Yours sincerely". These are very strong conventions in the UK and it is unwise to go against them if you want to appear professional. --TammyMoet (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Again, I must beg to differ. There is nothing wrong with "Dear Sir/Madam" if you don't know the addressee's gender. "Dear Sir" is not a catch-all. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 11:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that was the case many years ago, but even in the early 80s when I was training to be a secretary, "Dear Sir/Madam" was frowned upon as it gave the impression of idleness. As a businesswoman myself today, if I received such a letter it would definitely go straight in the bin. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really follow. Why would putting "Dear Sir/Madam" give an impression of idleness? Because you haven't bothered to find out the gender of the person you're writing to? If so, that's not really a valid objection as it's more often than not impossible to find that information. The point is that I would never put "Dear Sir" if I'm writing to, say, the director of human resources at an organization and I don't know what gender that person is. To put "Dear Sir" implies that I'm assuming the director is a man, which is an offensive assumption to make. I'm surprised that you, as a woman, need me to point that out. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 12:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I trained as a secretary, I had a long discussion with the tutor about this, me being a feminist and all that. My POV was that I really don't mind being addressed as a man, even better if as a woman, but as a generic person (sir/madam) - well that is the height of rudeness! My tutor's POV was that if you can't even be bothered to telephone the organisation and find out who you should be writing to, then you are plain lazy and using "Dear Sir/Madam" is a sure indicator of that. In business these days it's an indicator of spam. I once worked for a feminist organisation whose policy was to call everyone "madam". --TammyMoet (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm a man, so forgive me for speaking out of turn, but it's a strange kind of feminist who doesn't mind being addressed as a man, especially when addressing her as such relies on blatantly patriarchal assumptions about the relative positions of men and women in the workforce. "Dear Sir/Madam" is not rude at all, it's a safe and neutral way to address someone whose ~~gender~~ sex you don't know. As for telephoning them to find out, that might have been possible once upon a time but it sure as heck isn't anymore. Many large organizations don't even put their phone numbers on their websites, because they don't want you to call them at all. And even if you can find a number for them, the idea of ringing them up and asking for the name of the director of HR, for example, is preposterous. They don't state the names of individual directors on their websites, they just want to present a blank corporate face to the world, so the odds of getting them to divulge the name of a senior executive to a random caller is a non-starter I'm afraid. It's also pointless, since "Dear Sir/Madam" is perfectly acceptable (and not an indicator of spam at all!). --Richardrj ^talk ^email 23:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never got why i'm supposed to call people dear when we've never even met, but I assume there is a good reason. Would I absolutely have to include my address at the top, since I already have it within the letter itself, and without that the final paragraph is rather blunt. And surely they already know their own address? 148.197.114.158 (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a good reason – convention. As for the addresses, yes, you need both – your own at the top right of the letter, and theirs underneath it on the left hand side, before the salutation. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About 15 years ago it became good practice, if there is no letterhead at the top of the letter, to put your address at the top of the letter on the left hand side, then the date, then the recipients' address. This is known as "fully blocked" style. It's also the modern convention to use "open" punctuation, i.e. no commas at the end of the line, or after "Dear Sir" or "Yours faithfully" (UK convention) --TammyMoet (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, that is not good practice at all. The sender's address goes at the top right, the date below that, and the addressee's address below that at the left margin. The link given in the first response above sets out the standard format. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 23:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, you are aware, aren't you, that whether to address someone as 'Madam' as opposed to 'Sir' is about knowing what sex they are. It's not about their gender. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When in doubt, let the Beatles be your guide, as with the beginning of this song: "Dear Sir or Madam / Will you read my book? / It took me years to write / Will you take a look? ..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering their education(mostly dropped out of school or bunked off playing in bands),no,I wouldn't use them as an example.hotclaws 14:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

blood donation

Resolved

Do you get paid to donate blood in the UK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.90 (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. If you're lucky you might get a cup of tea. There is an explanation of what happens here.Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aww damn. Thank you for the answer.

In Scotland you get Tunnocks Teacakes, but in England it's only dismal little British Rail biscuits. 87.112.154.130 (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., they are eager to pump you full of sugar. Its usually sugary cookies and fruit juice. And if you pass out you may be served undiluted soda syrup. (I passed out too many times, they won't take mine anymore.) Rmhermen (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad, I love donating blood. Free Pepsi, a bottle of water, some chocolate chip cookies, and a free shirt. What could possibly beat that? Why getting paid of course! The Reader who Writes (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You get free crisps too in London. Plus a lapel badge for 10 (bronze) 25 (silver) and 50 (gold)[35] donations. When I got my gold badge they also gave me a rather nice pen in a presentation box. I understand that payment for blood donations is a good incentive for people to fib about their health record[36]. This led to quite a lot of people in the UK being infected with HIV from US blood imported before adequate testing was in place[37]. Alansplodge (talk) 09:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got Eccles cakes in Manchester, but only bourbon biscuits in Oxfordshire. Maybe donors in Oxfordshire are expected to have more moderate cake requirements? 86.179.145.61 (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the famous NHS Postcode Lottery? Alansplodge (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We (South Wales) get Penguin buscuits or those individually wrapped buscuits you get in posh hotels... That and orange squash or hot drinks... But the main attraction to donating is of course the warm fuzzy feeling Mitch mentioned... Gazhiley (talk) 10:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the main reward for donating blood is a warm fuzzy. Our article tells us that the World Health Organization would rather all donations were unpaid. This reference explains why. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Ireland you (used to?) get a glass of Guinness- It's full of iron supposedly. I kid you not. 212.129.73.65 (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Their website only says "you will be offered a drink"[38]. I did have a pint straight after donating once on Christmas Eve (best bitter probably). I got very merry but I had the mother of all hangovers a few hours later. Alansplodge (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]