Is there a connection between Betsy DeVos and the Charter Management Organization National Heritage Academies. Both are from Western Michigan and are closely linked with the Michigan GOP. --[[Special:Contributions/67.188.61.95|67.188.61.95]] ([[User talk:67.188.61.95|talk]]) 08:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Is there a connection between Betsy DeVos and the Charter Management Organization National Heritage Academies. Both are from Western Michigan and are closely linked with the Michigan GOP. --[[Special:Contributions/67.188.61.95|67.188.61.95]] ([[User talk:67.188.61.95|talk]]) 08:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
== Odd conditions in sentencing in the US justice system. ==
Noticed this in the Guardian today: [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/08/idaho-judge-rape-social-media-twin-falls Idaho judge says rape is 'a direct consequence of the social media system' ]. The judge made no extramarital sex a condition for the defendant. I've heard similar stories over the years, for example recently one mandating some kids sentenced for racist graffiti to read books about the civil rights movement etc [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/feb/07/vandals-sentenced-to-read-books-about-racism-and-antisemitism (here)]. Here in the UK, I've never heard about such conditions. What is the legality of them? How does it work? It seems like judges can make just about anything a condition, but I'm sure that's not the case. [[Special:Contributions/131.251.254.154|131.251.254.154]] ([[User talk:131.251.254.154|talk]]) 14:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Revisionasof14:31,8February2017
Welcome to the humanities section of the Wikipedia reference desk.
The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
What is the minimum viable population to maintain modern technology?
NOT GENETICS! What I'm asking is how many people are needed to cultivate the all the resources we use, to make the base-level parts we use to make higher-levels parts, how many people re needed to assemble the higher-level parts, and everyone else needed on the periphery in support roles? I've found one article by author Charlie Stoss where he gives an educated estimate, but it is apparently a layman estimate, not based on an in-depth study. Anyone aware of more authoritative references?
KhyranLeander 19:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khyranleander (talk • contribs)
That would be Charlie Stross, by the way. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.94.189 (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that population density may be key. That is, if a million people were left, they could maintain a technological society, but only if they were all together. If evenly dispersed around the planet, it wouldn't work. Think of all the roads, railroads, communications lines, shipping routes, etc., that would need to be kept open in the latter case, but could no longer be maintained. We have a preview of this in Fraser, Michigan (Fraser sewer system collapse), and Flint, Michigan (Flint water crisis), where the tax base no longer exists to maintain the infrastructure. StuRat (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's something relevant in the book Interstellar Migration and the Human Experience, but I'm not gonna go to the garage and get it right now (it's cold!). —Tamfang (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What was the weapon(s) used in the Quebec City mosque shooting? I read through the article and a few news stories but couldn't find any mentions. ECS LIVA Z (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reason you can't find any information is that no one was told what gun it was. this story says explicitly "Police have not commented on the type of gun used." So there you go. --Jayron32 01:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Beckett and bikes
Our article on Waiting for Godot says "Unlike elsewhere in Beckett's work, no bicycle appears in this play...". My question is - do bikes appear in all of Samuel Beckett's other plays, or if not, in which of them do they appear? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 04:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That claim is way off. I know Beckett's plays well and I can only think of one in which a bicycle appears, namely All That Fall. --Viennese Waltz 08:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but they're pretty ubiquitous in his earlier nondramatic works. Deor (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know that, having read them all. But I didn't feel the need to mention it because the OP specified plays. --Viennese Waltz 15:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did specify plays, but that is because I am an ignorant so-and-so and had of course forgot that Beckett also wrote novels, short stories, and poems. I would be interested in the appearance or otherwise of bikes in all his works - and in someone more knowledgeable than me having a bash at our article on Godot in so far as it mentions them. DuncanHill (talk) 05:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Beckett sued for libel by his uncle
Our article Waiting for Godot says "In answer to a defence counsel question in 1937 (during a libel action brought by his uncle) as to whether he was a Christian, Jew or atheist, Beckett replied, 'None of the three.'" Our article Samuel Beckett does not mention this, nor does it mention an uncle. What were the circumstances of this case? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 04:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My copy of Damned to Fame, the authorized biography of Beckett, is not with me at the moment, but I'll have a look at it in the next few days and get back to you. --Viennese Waltz 08:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have an objection to an uncle's brother being called an uncle myself, but it would be good if someone with more knowledge and access to reliable sources than me could clarify the passage in the article, thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is sending one's deceased testicles (as a gift) to someone illegal?
If, say, one gets one's entire epididymis and entire vas deferens surgically removed, those pesky tubes regenerate afterwards (with a hole opening up in one's prostate to once again allow sperm to pass through), and some judge forces this person to pay child support for 18+ years, would it be illegal for this person to send his or her deceased testicles (he got an orchiectomy in response to this judge's ruling) as a gift to this judge afterwards?
Completely serious question, for the record. Also, No, this certainly isn't legal advice since I myself am not in such a situation and hope that I will never actually be put into such a situation. Futurist110 (talk) 04:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Harassment typically has a broad enough legal definition that mailing someone like a judge your nuts in response to something they did would generally go badly for one...--Jayron32 04:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That article appears to define harassment as being repetitive, though--as opposed to a one-time thing (which this is). Futurist110 (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The harassment issue aside, body parts are considered some type of hazardous material in every state (you say on your userpage you are American), and subject to strict regulations as to how they are transported. You can look up the relevant laws for any state to figure out what the penalty is on paper for just dropping a body part in the mail, though how that will actually work out in court I wouldn't know. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, as to why the law is written that way, legislators wisely decided to just assume all severed body parts (and entire dead bodies) are disease hazards that should not be in the vicinity of ordinary mail. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would this still be true if they are in a jar, though? Futurist110 (talk) 05:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have to look it up for the state you are in. In some states, the law states it is OK if the body part is sealed within an airtight steel container. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's usually not simply that it's a "hazardous material", but that there are additional penalties for "improper disposal of human tissue" per se. - Nunh-huh 06:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Look, the more important principle is "Don't fuck with people who have the power to fuck with you worse". It is cold comfort to think that something may or may not be technically not illegal if you're sitting in jail because you pissed off the wrong powerful person. A judge has far more power and ability to make your life absolutely miserable than you do to him or her, so just don't. --Jayron32 11:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's less a matter of the judge ordering castration, as the man deciding to make absolutely sure this time. MChesterMC (talk) 09:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In some jurisdictions, judges can order castration of a convicted sex offender. Only other situation would be a judge authorizing castration of an underage boy, or a man unable to give consent. Many jurisdictions require a judge to approve any sterilisation procedure on a minor or incompetent individual. Parental or guardian consent is not enough. Obviously, the judge will need a good reason. Something like otherwise incurable testicular cancer. Eliyohub (talk) 10:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Futurist110, your fear of fatherhood again? Check out actual vasectomy failure rates, and quit living in fear. Do you really want insurance against this? I've just completed my diploma of financial planning, and it includes insurance broking, but I'd have to ask for a tailored policy. The insurer will think you're nuts (pardon the pun), but out of my own curiosity, I will inquire, including the legal aspects. There will likely be a significant initial cost in drawing up a specialised policy. We don't usually do them other than for multi million dollar coverage, such as events like the grand prix. And even there, the basic framework of the policy already exists, and is re-used from year to year, and grand prix to grand prix around the world, possibly with minor revisions, such as to account for local laws. BTW, policy in question covers liability up to $80 million. Here, lots of paperwork involved for a one-off. There's the huge overhead of initially drawing up the documents, even if ongoing premiums would be tiny. Not value for money. And I say that with my full authority as a financial planner. Eliyohub (talk) 10:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In Britain, castration isn't ordered, it's offered. See Alan Turing. However, the forcible sterilisation of a woman was ordered by the Court of Protection. 81.129.13.203 (talk) 11:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
However, the Turing affair was 65 years ago. Alansplodge (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not a lawyer, but wouldn't this be deemed a classical case of Contempt of court? Anyone know? Eliyohub (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Logically speaking, though, getting one's testicles surgically removed in response to this is quite logical; after all, if removing both one's entire epididymis and one's entire vas deferens isn't good enough for this, why not chop your balls off? Futurist110 (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably not; after all, this would be a nice way to teach this judge a lesson about the consequences of his or her ruling. Futurist110 (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's merely likely to make the judge grossed out and angry, and thus likely to get the judge (who is empowered to do so) to make your life worse rather than better. Again, regardless of whether you feel you should have the right to make a statement like this, people in power can fuck up your life horribly, and so it is best to not commit trite acts of revenge against them, especially ones so baldly gross and offensive as giving them your removed testicles. Your smugness will ultimately be little help in jail. --Jayron32 04:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to what Jayron32 said, it depends what you mean by "consequences". If you mean you want to teach judge that it's a shitty life being a judge at times since you have to deal with people with seriously mental issues like the person sending the testicles such that if they made any mistake in any rulings against them it was in not having the person involuntarily committed for mental health review then yes, perhaps you'll teach them that. If you mean that you'll teach them, hey I should have let this nutcase have what they wanted instead of following the law and caring about the well-being of the child then no there's almost no chance you'll teach them that since it's not a logical thought process. So if you the person felt that the judge didn't sufficiently understand their serious mental issues since they didn't have them involuntarily committed then yes, I guess in some ways you could say it's logical. In any other cases, then no it's not logical. Of course logically a person with such serious mental health issues could simply seek help themselves rather than tring to get a judge to commit them involuntarily. Nil Einne (talk) 07:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Where's my "Like" button? I really miss my "Like" button right now.... - Nunh-huh 07:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See contempt of court. It would be contempt (in the technical sense) if he did it in the courtroom, or in violation of a court order. —Tamfang (talk) 09:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would it make a difference if one sent living testicles? DuncanHill (talk) 05:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do East Asian governments recommend dairy consumption as part of a balanced diet?
In the United States, ChooseMyPlate includes dairy consumption as part of the balanced diet. However, it puts limits on saturated fat, sugar, and salt intake; so, it seems that the best way to meet the dairy needs is to consume unsweetened cow's milk or some kind of fortified plant milk, because many dairy products (ice cream, yogurt, and cheese) contain too much salt, saturated fat, and sugar. What do East Asian governments recommend in regards to a balanced, healthy diet for their own peoples? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the US, at least, the inclusion of dairy as an important food group seems more due to lobbying by dairy producers than out of concern for the health of the population. That is, while human milk is healthy for babies, cow's milk isn't particularly healthy for adults. It may be possible to make it healthy, by removing the saturated fat, adding vitamin D, removing the lactose (for the lactose-intolerant), etc., but there are other choices that are healthier to begin with. (Of course, drinking milk is a far healthier alternative to drinking soda.) StuRat (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And milk with the saturated fat removed is too watery for cereal and too contaminated for water. I like 1%. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that cow's milk isn't as popular in East Asia as with people of European descent. StuRat (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I assume this is linked to lactose intolerance being more common in Asian peoples? At least in Hong Kong, we do still include it in our food pyramids, but if you have lactose intolerance with significant symptoms there are always alternative sources for necessary nutrients, e.g. calcium-added soy milk and tofu. And there's always other milks like soy milk that many people have instead. Alcherin (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like an obsolete food pyramid, particularly where they say the thing people should eat most is grains. I'd put veggies there. Has this info been updated since Hong Kong left the UK ? StuRat (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hong Kong has never been part of the UK. DuncanHill (talk) 05:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you are splitting hairs over a distinction between the UK and Great Britain regarding British Hong Kong. StuRat (talk) 06:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, he's splitting hairs over the difference between the UK and the British Empire. Hong Kong was a British posession, but it was never part of either Great Britain (which is the main British island), nor of the UK (which is GB + Northern Ireland). Iapetus (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify the hairs being split here, Hong Kong was a crown colony and like other crown dependency is a polity under the direct administration of the House of Windsor (i.e. Queen Elizabeth II) but not part of the United Kingdom. In some ways, this makes it similar to nations like Australia and Canada, but lacking in full sovereignty. --Jayron32 16:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have knowledge dating that far back, but it definitely hasn't changed in the past 15 years. And change to food pyramids has been slow to come for other countries as well; Ireland only changed theirs a couple months ago. Alcherin (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
StuRat is uncharacteristically right on this one (though still lacking references). The dietary recommendations of the USDA are mostly based on demands of industry lobbying groups from various food-production concerns like the dairy and meat industry, and less on the actual science of nutrition. You can read a modern nutritionist's perspective on the problem here. Here is a recent mainstream news source on the sausage-making behind, well, actual sausage-making. Here is an article about the historical context (and financial/political mess) behind the development of dietary guidelines. As someone who eats way too much meat and cheese myself, the gist of all of these articles (which you can read yourself) is that the U.S. nutrition recommendations have always been about what food industries want to be in the recommendations to encourage you to buy their products, and less about what is really healthy for you. --Jayron32 04:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
line of command in the 3rd reich
I would like to know the line in command of the 3rd Reich. I want to know who were the superiors of Adolf Eichmann — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.29.104.166 (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article Adolf Eichmann names his direct superior officer in the third line of text. If you want to know more about the general command structure of the Schutzstaffel, which is the paramilitary organization he was a member of, List of SS personnel gives a pretty good indication. It's not a formal org chart, but you can get a sense of the ranks and some of the people who would have held them. --Jayron32 19:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why should people need to save their life before others scrupulously?
In all courses of first aid the instructors say that the safety is very important and that's why if you see someone and you want to help him then be safety firstly because your life is better. What is the basis for that, scrupulously? [For me it sounds like ego-centrism. Should a father or mother -for example- to think that way (that their life is before their children life)? 93.126.88.30 (talk) 00:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the idea is that of you die, or are disabled, then the person you are trying to help will die anyway. For example, if somebody is being electrocuted, just grabbing them may kill you both, but if you find a way to cut the power, you may possibly save both your lives, but definitely will save yours. For another example, they tell parents on airplanes to put their oxygen mask on first. This way, if the child passes out, the mask can still be put on, while, if the parent passes out, they may well die. StuRat (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An additional reason is to avoid cascading accidents. In most cases in modern society, professional aid will be on the way very quickly. But if there is one original injured person, but person two tries to help and is also injured, person three trying to help person two is injured or in danger, and so on, it's easy to overwhelm the system, at least locally and for a time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am all for IP 93 sacrificing himself to save my life. I fail to understand any argument to the contrary. μηδείς (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The OP may be interested into deepening their understanding of the philosophical school known as utilitarianism. It may not provide a neat answer for their question, but it will provide a context to understand their own thinking on this conundrum. --Jayron32 04:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is also a case of [citation needed]. While I haven't really attended a first aide course, whenever I've seen parts of them on video, or seen written instructions etc, they don't generally say "because your life is better". At the most extreme, what they may stuff is stuff like "your own personal safety is above all else" (Wikibooks:First Aid/Emergency First Aid & Initial Action Steps) or more likely stuff like "Do not put your own safety at risk" ([1]) or simply "Ensure your own safety" ([2]). Note there are key difference between all of these examples and your claim. They aren't commenting on who's life is "better" or more important, instead at most saying your own safety is more important than trying to save the person.
As StS and StuRat have indicated, in most situations the most likely alternative is not you save the person but die doing so, but you both die. So from a strictly utilitarian viewpoint, if both lives are valued equally (which doesn't seem to be egotistical) if you have over 50% chance of this happening it's automatically a worse outcome no matter the other statistics. Practically, while there is a small chance of you dying and the person you're trying to save surviving (and neither would have happened without your intervention) and some chance of you succcessfuly saving the person and surviving yourself; in many such situations the most likely alternative (other than both dying) is person still dies. So even if the chance is lower than 50% that both will die, you'll still end up with a worse average outcome. (If you have 30% chance of both dying, 45% chance of either dying and 25% of neither dying the average outcome with equal life value is worse even assuming there's 100% chance of the person dying without your intervention.) But it's difficult for anyone to be able to reliably calculate such statistics in the spur of the moment anyway, so realisticly the best thing would often be to simply consider your own personal safety. Practically, as StS has indicated calculating such statistics is complicated since in many cases it's likely additional assistance may arrive soon. Even without overwhelming local assistance, in such a scenario there's still a greater risk of a worse outcome if they have to aide both the first person drowning and the person who thought it was a good idea to try and save them despite barely knowing how to swim. In addition, encouraging people to think about what they're doing is likely to increase the chance they'll come up with an option with minimal risk to themselves, and so probably much high chance of success for the person they're trying to save. (Although in some cases there may really be no such option.) As μηδείς has sort of indicated, many people aren't going to consider this from a strictly unbiased utilitarian viewpoint anyway. I question if it's really egotistical to think your own life is more important to you then some random strangers life. (The case of your kids or family members may be different.)
From a purely practical point of view, the emergency services need one live person to talk to, so that they can understand more about what happened and make the area safe for others. For instance, two people are lying in a puddle of water just a centimetre deep. What happened? If there is nobody who is able to tell any further rescuers that there was an electrical short which electrocuted one of the casualties, further rescuers may well be electrocuted themselves. This expands on Stephan Schulz's point above. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OP, please provide a source where you read this. I've taken several first aid course and at no point has anyone ever said anything about my life being 'better'. As a first aider, you are cautioned to not involve yourself in any activity that could harm you for the simple reason that, if you get hurt, there are then TWO casualties in need of help. Matt Deres (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say trained emergency responders do make "calculated risks" pretty often. Every police pursuit, for example, could end with someone getting killed (either someone in the car being pursued, or an innocent bystander - seldom a police member), which is why many jurisdictions prohibit pursuits except where deemed unavoidable. You don't pursue someone because they zoom off when you try to pull them over for speeding, or driving without a seatbelt, as you can always follow that up later. Pursuing stolen cars (where "chasing the matter up later" is much less of an option) is a very controversial area, and policies vary. But for those of us with only rudimentary training, there's the issue others mentioned of you not managing to accomplish anything except getting yourself hurt too, without helping the victim.
Sometimes even the experts "get it wrong", or feel driven to push on, such as the 343 firefighters killed on September 11, even though they were at one point told to get the hell out of the building, regardless of the fate of those still trapped inside. It's not clear if the message came through, or if some sense of "devotion to duty" pushed them on. Eliyohub (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of putting the oxygen mask on in an aircraft emergency, parents are advised to put their own on first before helping their child put their's on, because if the parent passes out from lack of oxgyen, noone will be able to help them or the child. And as others have mentioned, if you try to rescue someone without taking care of your own safety, you can easily end up a casulty yourself while failing to save the other. This can easily happen when trying to rescue someone from e.g. electricution (as already mentioned), drowning, confined spaces, etc. Iapetus (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A teenager slipped into a water tank over a weekend and began to drown. Without hesitation a woman dived in and kept the teenager afloat until workers arrived at the start of the working week and saved them. 80.5.88.48 (talk) 07:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No one is saying not to rescue people, just to make sure that you can do so without dying yourself. Iapetus (talk) 11:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I assume the woman could swim. Since I can't, even I were to try that there's a very good chance we'd both die. In fact there's a risk I may pull the teenager down with me. Even if we both survive, there's a good chance I made things worse no better. By comparison, if I gave a little thought and considered that I was just likely to die if I jumped in, maybe I will find a floatation device or someone else who can swim, or something else to help. Maybe I'd fail and the teenager will still die which is unfortunate, but still better then us both dying. And obviously not because my life is worth more than the teenagers (although it is to me). Nil Einne (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Legalizing marijuana in Canada
What problems could legalizing marijuana in Canada create with the United States?
I feel this question can be empirically answered - please do not hat things without consensus. I will note it directly relevant to the OP's question that several U.S. states have already introduced legal cannabis. Any change in the feds' approach to such states (and, along with them, possibly a Canada that went down the legalization path) such as a Trump administration might hypothetically take would be speculation. But assuming the current status quo remains, I can pretty safely say "none".
Mexico also decriminalized personal possession of small amounts of drugs, I believe. They DO have bigger fish to fry. U.S. objected, Mexico did it anyways[3], but I can see no lasting damage to the relationship between the two countries. Eliyohub (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Am unhating this. The OP asks a good and valid question! Not simply crystal ball gazing. Everybody knows that drugs used unwisely are detrimental. Yet mankind, and other primates have always used psychotropics through out history. Currently, dugs that are considered 'controlled drugs' can be bought on many a street corner without the pusher asking the age of '"our"' sons, daughters, nieces, cousins etc. And for anybody that hasn’t stood on those corners, the pushers also push the hard stuff (catch-them-while-their-young). So there is no 'control' whilst it is in hands of criminals. The US & Canada may not yet see eye -to-eye on everything. Common ground is nevertheless less is being discovered now, from empirical evidence rather than blind dogma. How to Regulate Cannabis: A Practical Guide--Aspro (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am all for legalization, but neither of the responses above have anything to do with US-Canadian relations in the future. Maybe Trump will tweet a threat to blow up Canada's Cannabis plantations. Until then, this is not the place for opinion or advocacy. μηδείς (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am unhating this again. The OP is not asking for crystal ball gazing . Rather he is wanting to know of the problems that 'are already known to exist' concerning legal unification. If the hating editor has an issue with this, then let him bring it up on the appropriate community portal.--Aspro (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[I think you mean "hatting" rather than "hating", Aspro, but I concur with your point. (The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.94.189 (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)][reply]
"unification" of what? —Tamfang (talk) 09:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The OP can ask what he likes, but no one has provided a reference that says what will happen if Canada should legalize marijuana. And at the top of this page it says we don't make predictions. Still waiting on Trump to tweet "WEED WAR!" v Canadian Cannabis! μηδείς (talk) 02:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unhatting, as the OP didn't ask what "will" happen, so it's not a prediction. As for what could happen, note that during US prohibition of alcohol, it was legal in Canada. There was quite a bit of smuggling from Canada to the US, however. And current anti-marijuana laws in the US are enforced about as haphazardly as anti-alcohol laws were then. StuRat (talk) 06:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We already have legal marijuana in some states within the US, as opposed to a hypothetical across international borders; so an appropriate question could be, what problems has that situation caused, if any? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 07:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't the governor of Oklahoma try to sue Colorado for negligently exporting trouble? —Tamfang (talk) 09:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Japan, Korea and Singapore school systems
In many world ranks of school systems like TIMSS, Japan, Korea and Singapore are best. How Japan, Korea and Singapore make the school system so good? Is the culture and management? Then why university ranks, Japan, Korea and Singapore not so good compared to American and British university? --Curious Cat On Her Last Life (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Schools aim to teach children, as far as possible, certain things (which may differ between school systems and teaching philosophies) and then measure how well the children have learned them. Universities "teach" (or facilitate the learning of) different things from schools, using different methods, and measure their success in different ways. A given country may be better at one than the other, relative to their "competitors". {The poster formerly known as 98.81.230.195} 94.12.94.189 (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of commentary on this topic online, with experts cautioning against reading too much into the international student assessments. For instance, the East Asian school systems can have a heavy emphasis on spending long periods ot time "cramming" which doesn't necessarily lead to good outcomes after students graduate. Nick-D (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The best Japanese university serves 130 million Japanese speakers, the best American and British university serve almost a billion English speakers. A Harvard-strength endowment would be a large percent of Singapore's GDP. They only have a population of about 0.15 Tokyo. In 2003 they had 7/10ths that. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your first question: "the pressure coming from family and teachers", "the competitive nature of the society", and students in Asia-Pacific countries spending "almost twice as much time studying as children in other countries." (From here, although somewhat of an opinion piece)Alcherin (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answers. So Asian children use more time to study cause culture and parent pressure. Sagittarian Milky Way, I cannot understand this part: A Harvard-strength endowment would be a large percent of Singapore's GDP. They only have a population of about 0.15 Tokyo. In 2003 they had 7/10ths that. I know GDP is country economy and Tokyo population is 13.6 million. But they is what? Why the population change so much from 0.7 Tokyo in 2003 to 0.15 Tokyo now? --Curious Cat On Her Last Life (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Heat set on in the upper 70s
Guessing game
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I live in a house where it often set the heat (not AC) on at 78 (usually between 75-78). My mother controls the temperature of my house. I know most homes set the heat on in the upper 60s to low 70s, so setting the heat on in the upper 70s is an outlier. The reason she often sets the heat on that high is that my mother is sensitive to cold arguably because my 61-year old mother is skinny as she weigh 88 pounds and her height 5'1". I'll curiously ask you the opinion on what percentage of homes have their heat set on in the upper 70s often? I can say 10% of the houses set it that high often as the base percentage, do you think it is higher or lower than 10% of homes, or right around there? PlanetStar 23:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You say 10 percent... based on what? And have you searched Google for possible surveys on the subject? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Around 10 percent (more specifically 9 percent) is my estimate, that is a base percentage used as a starting point for other people to think if it's lower or higher than my given base. I searched and found a couple of reports of people setting the heat on at 78, but didn't find the survey statistics on that. I'm inviting users to estimate what percentage of homes set the heat in the upper 70s often. PlanetStar 04:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that older people also have slower metabolisms, so generate less heat that way. My mom is the same. In addition to the obvious advice for her to dress warmer and eat warm foods (like oatmeal instead of cold cereal), zone heating may help. Some space heaters are dangerous, however, such as a kerosene heater/propane heater or any heater that gets hot enough to ignite paper. I use the type that looks like a radiator, and only on low, so it never gets hot enough to set anything on fire or cause burns. While heating the whole house with such devices would be expensive, you might actually save money if only a small portion of the house, where she spends her time, is so heated, and the rest of the house is kept cooler. If she spends her time in the same room as others, then a radiant heater, pointed at her, may be the only option. StuRat (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the question about the range, some data can be found for the UK from this government survey. See the charts on page 13 to 17, for example. 184.147.116.166 (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
February 5
Elections in France
I understand that French people in France get to vote in two elections: Presidential and legislative elections. Is there other elections that they vote in? If they do, who are the candidates that get to be elected meaning councillors or provincial MPs and governors like US governors and etc? Donmust90 (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some reason why you can't just look at the article Elections in France and follow the various links therein? This seems to be a topic somewhat well covered, perhaps not surprising since France is a major developed country even if not an English speaking one. The article mentions regional, European parliament, municipal, departmental (formerly cantonal) elections as well as referendums. It also mentions senate, but makes clear with more explanation at French senate elections (which I've now linked from that article) that these aren't voted on by the French people but instead by an electoral college which isn't directly elected by the French people for the purpose. It also mentions Party Primary Elections which are used by some parties to select presidential candidates, although these aren't open to all French people. Major recent primaries have been open primaries and haven't required party membership but have required stuff like a pledge and small financial contribution. Then again I don't think all French people barring the standard requirements (of age etc) are able to participate in all the elections mentioned since it depends on where they live (in France I mean), e.g. French departmental elections, 2015 mentions a few places which don't have departmental elections. Such details are hopefully mentioned in relevant articles. So to who is being elected (if anyone) in each. Nil Einne (talk) 04:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it legal in the U.S. (for you) to harm yourself in front of your child?
As long as you are not actually harming or threatening to harm your child, is it legal in the U.S. for you to harm yourself (for instance, by relentlessly cutting yourself) in front of your child?
Also, for the record, this question is purely hypothetical; indeed, I myself don't even have any children right now (or any children on the way, for that matter)! Futurist110 (talk) 03:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This hypothetical person would be given a psychiatric evaluation and have children taken away from them for as long as a judge says so. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is that it? Nothing would get put on this person's criminal record? Futurist110 (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know and am not qualified to guess. I am unqualified to give legal advice to the insane, the sane and the semisane in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that an involuntary commitment is not something to be trifled with, although again, whether this would happen in any particular case is not something we can comment on at the RD. Nil Einne (talk) 05:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are likely to be lots of possible laws this could be considered a violation of depending on the precise circumstances. E.g. Endangering the welfare of a child [4]. Precisely which laws may apply in any particular case is obviously not something we can discuss on the RD. Nil Einne (talk) 04:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this information! Futurist110 (talk) 06:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lenore Skenazy blogs about parents being arrested for all sorts of silly things, e.g. negligently being asleep when the tot escaped; so I wouldn't be a bit surprised if she knows of a case such as the OP describes. —Tamfang (talk) 09:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Companies which "buy ideas"
I have an idea in my head as to a special tool/modified gun which may be of value to police in allowing them to forcibly stop a car being pursued. I am not going to post the details here (it would involve some significant modifications to a standard firearm in several respects, as the target and purpose are totally different), as this would likely invalidate any potential future patent application.
My question then is, are there any companies which provide a sort of "clearing house" for ideas? As in, I send my idea to them, and if they think it's viable, they pursue it, taking it up with manufacturers of such things which might be interested, and if it's deemed viable, doing the patent application for me? In return, I accept that they would get a "commission" for any profits made from the sale of the patent rights. I just have a "concept idea", I have no idea if it would or wouldn't be useful in reality. I'm just asking about whether there are companies which "buy ideas" of all sorts (assuming the company considers the idea commercially viable, obviously), and does the work of patenting them and selling the rights to those in a position to turn the idea into reality? (Obviously, there'd be a need for a non-disclosure agreement first, until a patent is secured, but this is easy). I'm not really looking for Venture Capital as such, as I am not in a position to do the work. I want someone to look into taking my idea, and seeing if it can be turned into reality. And if yes, doing the work to turn it into reality, and taking a "cut" from the profits of the intellectual property, leaving me with the rest. Are there any companies which do such work? Eliyohub (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am a product designer and I am going to follow up with a longer answer later, but the first thing you need to know is that there are hundreds of companies that offer this service, and none of them are good for anything other than lightening your wallet. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have some real-life stuff to do today, but should have a fuller answer by this time tomorrow. One hint for you to ponder while waiting: without doing a web search, answer the following question; "How are beauty pageant contestants, crack dealers, professional athletes, and inventors alike?" (for those who know the answer, please, give him time to think and take a couple of guesses before showing off how much you know.) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Other than crack dealers (whose career I am scarcely familiar with), common theme I see is many dream and try very hard, few actually succeed.
If I have to pay upfront, I'm not interested. Either they see my idea as having potential, in which case there is no reason for me to pay (they'll take the risk, and get the payoff if it ever comes to fruition), or they see my idea as not worth pursuing, in which case nothing comes of it. Why should I be expected to pay anything upfront? I'd straight away be extremely suspicious of any such demand. Interested to hear what practical suggestions you have, when you get a chance to answer. Eliyohub (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You got it in one. All of the above (including crack dealers) have an army of people shooting for the top and losing money while trying, a few that barely break even, and a very, very few that make any money at it. It surprised me to find that most crack dealers live with their parents and many have second jobs because selling crack is so unprofitable for any but the very few at the top. The book Freakanomics has a chapter on it. Gotta go again -- phone keeps ringing. More later.--Guy Macon (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Plenty of information here on what's available:[5], [6], [7]. There's a good geographical spread, but if you'd rather deal with a nonprofit see [8]. If you're trying to get someone else to develop your invention be careful - so many people submit ideas, get a letter back saying the company is not interested, and then a few years later find that company selling the selfsame product.81.151.100.198 (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that all of the links 81.151.100.198 just provided (including the "non profit") charge an up front fee. Eliyohub said "If I have to pay upfront, I'm not interested" Wise words indeed. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to be cautious about having the company steal my idea and deny me my share. But as I see it, NO money should change hands between me and the company, until a product based on my idea makes its first sale. I'm willing to accept that may be years from now, or never. But I am not willing to pay in order to get a company consider a product which is in their interest to develop, from which they expect to make a profit. If they say a genuine "not viable", I'd accept that. Eliyohub (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For a specialised example of the sensible principle you state, see Yog's Law. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.94.189 (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have to consider, before telling anyone about this idea, "why do they need you?" If you have no specialized knowledge or a patent that a company would need to turn a profit out of your idea, then they don't need you, and they don't need to pay you. Making a profit simply by being "the idea guy" is difficult to impossible, unless you're already running a successful company. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably, you'd get them to agree to some sort of contract first, such that in the event that your idea ever becomes a reality, they'd be obliged to give you a cut. I'm not one to quibble, if I don't attempt to peddle my idea, it's worth absolutely zero just sitting in my head. I'd settle for a small cut, as long as I got a share. But I await when product developer @Guy Macon: can tell me how to go about this as wisely as possible. (I understand you're busy, but you are experienced her, so when you get a chance...) I'd be happy to trust him as my agent, if need be, stranger though he may be, I still find it less risky than dealing with one of these companies which want some upfront fee. Yes, he may still shaft me, but the risk is less, I feel. I'm happy with some virtual pennies anyways, I don't expect more. Anything is better than zero, so I don't think negotiating a deal would be difficult. And I certainly am NOT interested on expending money on this. Eliyohub (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ideas are cheap. When a venture capitalist makes an investment in your company, they stake they own is equal to the stake they put in compared to the financial stake you put in. The film The Social Network sorta goes over this, but if you want a really good layman's review of this topic, the book Those Guys Have All The Fun has a good section on what happened to the Rasmussen family as they got edged out of ESPN. --Jayron32 15:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I don't expect much - just if some company already in the business of developing technologies for law enforcement thinks my idea has merit, and wants to turn it into reality, all I want is more than zero, should it ever become a reality. Not a high bar! I want to play for LOW stakes here. Eliyohub (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If your idea is patented, then your idea is worth exactly what someone pays you for that patent, that is, if a company offers to buy your patent for "X" dollars, then your idea is worth exactly "X" dollars. The patent can also only be sold once, so once you have sold that patent, and received that "X" dollars, you can no longer make money on that idea, because it no longer belongs to you. The patent can be bought and sold repeatedly on the open market, and like any other property, its value is basically fixed at the last sale. --Jayron32 16:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you are "NOT interested in expending money on this", we can just end the thread here. Money makes the world go 'round. If you want to do anything with your idea that has any real chance of financial reward, you're going to need to spend money. Patents cost money. Setting up a company to market your idea costs money. Retaining a lawyer to draw up or review a contract to license the idea to someone else costs money. If you're certain you don't want to spend any money at all, you might as well just publish your idea somewhere as prior art, so no one else can patent it. --47.138.163.230 (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Carefully consider whether "patent/nondisclosure agreement/don't tell anyone the details" is actually the right path. Do you have the resources to sue someone who you believe stole your idea? Do you have the resources to sue them in a Chinese court? If not, what good is the patent? What good is the nondisclosure if the person signing it knows that you will never be able to enforce it? Would it be better to make the entire thing open-source hardware, release all the documentation under a CC BY-SA 3.0 License, and collect consulting fees from companies that liked your first idea and want more like it? Or would it be better to start a kickstarter campaign and use the money to hire someone to make the product happen? These are your decisions to make.
What is the name of a fallacious mindset or thought that consists of confusing cause and consequence? It is widespread, it happens all the time, on a daily basis with so many people, not only the limited, also the ones who are supposed to think properly and to rule. I also see it very often used as a trick to fool an audience. For example, against promoting Equality in a discussion, the confused person would reply on the fallacious notion that "equality cannot exist, since human beings are not equal". Another example comes to mind, at the thought someone is so mean and so bad "he probably goes to Hell when he dies", the confused reply would go in the vein of "you should not wish Hell to anyone" (as if saying that person is so bad they probably deserve Hell, was equivalent to wishing Hell for them). Thanks. Akseli9 (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also relevant is the difference between equality of inputs and equality of outcomes (often called equity). This article and comic here is representative of attempts to explain the difference. When we say "equality" do we mean "treat everyone identically" or "assure that everyone is treated fairly based on their unique circumstances" Those are not the same thing. --Jayron32 14:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What level was Jean Bernadotte's command of the Swedish language when he was named Crown Prince of Sweden?
What about after he was crowned King of Sweden? ECS LIVA Z (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly he never learned swedish (civilised people spoke french anyway), but he was adamant his son did. SergeWoodzing, any wisdom on this? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Were the Prince's (and King's) official court functions conducted in French or Swedish (through an interpreter)?
What about the official documents? Were they done in French and Swedish duplicates? Or was there only a official Swedish version and Prince/King had to have it translated in private? ECS LIVA Z (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ECS LIVA Z My guess would be that he surrounded himself with people who knew french, used interperpreters when he had to, and documents where translated as necessary. Found a few not-very-deep sources, they state that he "understood some" swedish at the end of his life, that french wasn´t his first language, he spoke it with a strong accent, that his coronation speech was in swedish but written phonetically (so perhaps his audience got the impression of something of an Inspector Clouseau), and that government discussions where held in french.[9][10][11][12][13]Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[14] notes how a certain Count Wrede expressed concern about Bernadotte's "ignorance of the Swedish language" being an obstacle to his candidacy as Crown Prince. Alcherin (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed, C14J never learned Swedish, nor did his wife Queen Desideria. All diplomats & politicians in those days (everyone the royal couple needed to communicate with) were fluent in French. All official Swedish documents are in Swedish, and the official Norwegian are in Norwegian. Good talk, you guys. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
February 6
Higher education in Russia
I have some questions about higher education in Russia.
1. Does Russia have a post secondary, sub bachelor degree similar to the US associate degree?
2. What is the minimum education required to work in Russia as an entry level policeman?
3. What are the entry level requirements to work in Russia as a nurse?
4. Roughly what percentage of Russians hold at least the equivalent of a bachelor degree?
1. We can't know what goes on in Trump's head, although he's usually, from what I see, quite willing to express his thoughts, often quite vocally. Can anyone explain (either by quoting Trump himself, or some political analysis expert) why Trump decided to include already granted visas in his ban? A ban on any granting of visas (even visa applications already under consideration) would have been far less chaotic than a ban on admitting those with already granted visas. I would think the chaos would be readily foreseeable. I seldom hear of occasions where a person is stripped of an already granted visa, or the visa is not honoured, unless they've broken the rules in some way, either in obtaining it, or in how they use it (e.g. committing crimes in the country, or working on a visa which does not allow it). Scott Parkin was an exception (deemed a "threat to national security", despite no criminal charges, and already lawfully in the country, and deported), and it was controversial. "Policy change"... short of a war breaking out, is there any precedent for a mass denial of entry to a country by people who have already been granted a visa, but are not accused of any wrongdoing? And once again, what would Trump have been thinking - that allowing in these already vetted and approved individuals would significantly undermine any supposed benefit to U.S. security? And are there any provisions in Federal law as to the executive having the right to order the denial of entry to those who already hold a valid and properly obtained visa? (refdesk policy probably requires sources, but I'm happy to hear any views. I find it baffling).
2. Can a Green Card, already granted, be effectively voided by an Executive order, in the absence of any breach of the cardholder's obligations? Is there anything in the Federal legislation that covers Green Cards allowing the executive (president, minister, or anyone) to take such an action? (Obviously, refusing to honour a green card is a MASSIVE step to take. I note that this bit was later reversed, but would it ever have been legal?).
3. The seven countries named in the ban were those named under the obama administration under some specific law which named them (some annexure to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965?) for "extreme vetting". What was the rationale expressed back then as to which countries were or weren't included? (As others have said, Saudi Arabia was not named, despite its citizens being responsible for more terrorist deaths of Americans than any other). How did Obama and his administration and Congress explain the choice of countries at the time - both the inclusions, AND the exclusions? (NOTE: This is a question about actions of the Obama administration, not the Trump one!)
Now, please note what I am explicitly NOT asking for - ANY debate on the ethics of Trump's order. Please stick to the specific questions I asked. Eliyohub (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Questions #1 and #2, especially regarding the "Can Trump..." type questions have effectively been answered by the courts. The answer has been No. Twice. --Jayron32 16:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The question as to the logic of including already-granted visas in the ban still stands. As does the third question about the bill passed under the Obama administration. But will check the links you provided as to the courts' views of the law. Eliyohub (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jonathan Swift has some interesting quotes on attempting to use reason to explain irrational people, and the futility thereof. I'll leave it at that. --Jayron32 17:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the article Yazidi#Pilgrimage, we have content saying that Yazidi are required to visit the burial place of Sheikh Adi ibn Musafir with the following current quotation:『If possible, Yazidis make at least one pilgrimage to Laliş during their lifetime.』No citations seem to be given. As far as I can remember, well into the last century, the requirements were rather stricter, with Yezidi having to go on pilgrimage multiple times a year or run the risk of being functionally excommunicated. Yezidi were even given a special exemption from overseas service in the Ottoman military on that basis. Any idea when that changed, and, maybe, of any sources about the current situation? I would have to assume it has changed, because Yezidi refugees obviously can't go on pilgrimage annually, but I don't know of any sources dealing with it. John Carter (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Current state of the UFO phenomenon
it is my impression it's been quiet around %topic% lately. Was it all Cold War disinfo, after all? Asmrulz (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's just that for sheer weirdness few things can top Donald Trump, and the recent lack of highly rated TV series like the X-Files has also probably caused the whole topic to more or less shift to the back burner. John Carter (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
looks like it's more than one era that came to an end. Please, take the partisan stuff to tumblr Asmrulz (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually a US Republican who voted for him, because I thought Hillary would be worse. Calling me a partisan under such circumstances seems more than a little suspect. John Carter (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
oh, ok. Carry on, then! Seriously though, you have to admit that was a bit random. And does "weirdness" have a good meaning? Asmrulz (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Politics in general is weirdness. I wouldn't call the UFO stories "disinformation" - more like "misinterpretation". Our extensive space exploration since the 60s has made distant planets more "real" and less the object of a pseudo-religion. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One common suggestion (see, for instance, this essay and this xkcd comic) is that the ubiquity of HD cameras has jaded us. In the 50s, you could get away with a photo like this (or even worse quality) as evidence of a UFO. Yet as technology progressed, UFO images never really got any better. The obvious "pie-tin in front of the camera" trick no longer worked, and what was once an omninous blob in the sky was now revealed to be a fast bird or a bit of film grain. By the 90s, UFOs were reduced to weirdlights, just barely mysterious at the resolution of a cheap VHS-based camcorder, and now that everyone carries a smartphone with them, the best anyone can do is stuff like this. Add to that the fact that it's now easy to fake a UFO - you can buy a drone for a couple of hundred, or spend a couple of days learning Blender - and the public are very skeptical of the poor quality evidence for UFOs. Smurrayinchester 09:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
February 7
Right to asylum as a general right to move around within the host country
Just wondering when the idea of giving asylum to refugees became conflated with letting them move around as they please. If asylum means protection from harm, it seems like that could be offered in some sort of internment camp, at least while the refugee claim is evaluated. As opposed to giving what is effectively an exception to the host country's whole immigration policy. I am not a racist and this is not a soapbox question btw, I am honestly curious. The concepts seem to be separate, and I do think it would be politically easier to sustain something like the Australian refugee system when arrival numbers are high. --79.12.135.242 (talk) 10:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I hadn't seen that. It doesn't really get into the philosophy of open v closed detention though, and why closed detention is widely seen as a Bad Thing in principle. There are some examples of bad practice, and an ideal of good practice (the Tinsley model), in running detention centres. Did most countries end up settling on open detention (or even just turning a blind eye to people vanishing) simply because they couldn't process claims in a reasonable length of time, and were unwilling to put extra resources into fixing that? --79.12.135.242 (talk) 10:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which was the first codified international refugee law, states that "Refugees shall be treated at least like other non-nationals in relation to the right to free movement and free choice of residence within the country" - in other words, if a foreigner with a visa can travel freely within your country, so can a refugee. This has been part of refugee law since the beginning. Smurrayinchester 10:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that answers my question. Thanks! --79.12.135.242 (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! BUT, that rule only applies AFTER they've been recognised as a legitimate refugee, eh? What about whilst their claim to refugee status is still being processed? Does a potential refugee, who may or may not turn out to have a legitimate claim to fearing abuse if he or she is returned "home", also enjoy these rights? How is the convention interpreted on this particular point? (Big question!) Anyone know? Eliyohub (talk) 03:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The convention also states that "This Convention shall not apply to a person who is recognized by the competent authorities of the country in which he has taken residence as having the rights and obligations which are attached to the possession of the nationality of that country."It reads to me like an escape hatch for countries to claim that a person is not a refugee. I don't know how this gets handled in a legal sense when you have countries that appear to have no intention of ever addressing the status of persons who wait in refugee camps for sometimes years. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't seem to be what the section you quoted says at all... It seems to mean that you cannot be (e.g.) a US national (or equivalent) and claim refugee status in the US. Most people applying for refugee status in a country would not have "the rights and obligations which are attached to the possession of the nationality of that country". By me reading, this would also apply if a citizen of an EU state tried to claim refugee status in another country of the EU. Note that "country of his nationality" is used consistently for the country the refugee came from - so "the country in which he has taken residence" is presumably a different country. This would only function as an escape hatch where the refugee has fled a first country into a second country, and is seeking refugee status in a third country (who could then claim that he is effectively a national of that second country, and refuse). MChesterMC (talk) 09:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I did misread it. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, back to my question - according to the convention, is it legal to detain someone claiming asylum pending a determination of the claim's validity? And is there any obligation to process the claim in a prompt fashion, or can it be delayed indefinitely? (I note the Australian Government's doing of the latter in certain cases, stopping all processing of certain applications, led to refugee advocates petitioning for Mandamus, saying Australia's Migration Actobliged that claims be processed. But strictly speaking, this was a matter or Australian domestic law, not the convention). Any Convention or UNHCR guidance on this question? Eliyohub (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The law of unintended consequences may come into play here. That is, if any refugees entering your country must be given freedom of movement, and a small portion of those refugees are likely to be terrorists, then this will cause opposition to all refugees, especially those with no papers. So, rather than helping refugees, this may result in them staying in a war zone and being killed or trying to immigrate illegally and risking their lives that way. StuRat (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a logical fallacy. You can prevent people coming in to a country so much more than you can prevent people from giving birth in the US to bad people, or kick citizens out of the country. Sir Joseph(talk) 17:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a fallacy at all. Treating entire populations of people as less deserving of decent treatment because bad people exist is the issue. If there's a gross abuse of logic here, it's the idea that because you can more easily mistreat people who are outside of your own borders, that you SHOULD do so is the problem. --Jayron32 17:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, the claim is that since both groups have bad people, we might as well let in asylum seekers. The issue with that is you just can't kick out US citizens. You can however not allow in any asylum seekers. The comparison itself is just stupid. Sir Joseph(talk) 17:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could just kick out U.S. citizens. They choose not to, because that's the way the laws are set up. Laws are just words on paper, and those in power could make them say whatever they want. Ferners are a convenient scapegoat but there is no evidence that they commit more crimes than native-born people. In the U.S., in fact, statistics say exactly the opposite. See Immigration and crime#United States for all the studies on the issue, which are numerous. "We don't let people in because they might hurt us when they get here" doesn't hold up, because they actually hurt us LESS than our own people do. Statistically, increasing immigration rates would thus have an overall effect of lowering crime rates. --Jayron32 19:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In France, it looks like recent immigrants may be racking up more of a body count than native born citizens. Not sure, but I'd like to see the stats. And, if it can happen there, it can happen in the US, too. So, some fear of recent immigrants isn't completely illogical. It would be nice to have the "protective custody" option, so immigrants could be kept safe, and isolated from society in general. StuRat (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note, many were not from ISIS held countries. The truck attacker was from Tunisia, don't think there's any suggestion he was ever in Syria or Iraq? And he had hardly lived the life of a devout Muslim, until a few months before the attack, from what I remember? France has a problem with generations of immigrants from its former colonies who have never integrated. Kinda hard, because "being a Frenchman" has an ethnic component which being an American or Australian doesn't. The latter countries are generally far better at integrating immigrants, as, minus the indigenous people (a minority in both countries), everybody is either an immigrant, or a descendant of one. Or so I've read from a Stratfor analyst, cannot quote an exact source. Eliyohub (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When you have tiny numbers, it's always risky to try and draw conclusions, but your claim is questionable anyway. It's true Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel was born in Tunisia and appears to have possibly spent more of his life in Tunisia than in France, although was still maybe in Fance for over 10 years before the attacks, but okay maybe he can be called a recent migrant. However it's questionable to call many of the people involved in the November 2015 Paris attacks#Perpetrators. For example the key mastermind Salah Abdeslam was not a recent migrant to Europe, he was simply not a migrant at all. He was born there. Of course the claim was recent migrant to France, but it's still quesiotionable, he was a French national from birth but far as I can tell never migrated to France anyway. He was involved in the attacks there but doesn't really seem to have moved there in a way which would be called immigration (in addition to the complications of free movement in the EU, are you going to call someone born and raised in California a migrant to Texas?). Likewise Abdelhamid Abaaoud was born in Belgium, and even if you are including Belgians moving to France as migrants, it's not clear how much this applied to him. If you look at this list November 2015 Paris attacks#Perpetrators[16], while there's a questionmark over some of them, most seem to have been born in the EU, so aren't migrants to the EU. Likewise the 3 key people involved in January 2015 Île-de-France attacks i.e. Charlie Hebdo shooting#Chérif and Saïd Kouachi and Amedy Coulibaly were not migrants, all 3 were born in France. (N.B. People sometimes talk about second generation migrants, in fact you can easily find sources discussing possible reasons why these people seem to be common perpetrators. But while such terms may be okay in certain contexts especially when simply used as an identifier and sometimes used by the people themselves, it's highly problematic when they are used to imply someone with citizenship from birth by merit of being born in a country and who spent all their early life in that country is a immigrant to the country or somehow less of a full fledged citizen than the other person who had more ancestors born in the country. In other words, a second generation migrant isn't actually a migrant, well unless they themselves migrate to somewhere else. So by definition can't be a recent migrant.) Nil Einne (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Issues do arise with so-called "second generation migrants", but that's not really what the OP's question was about, which is freedom of movement for asylum seekers. I know I'm guilty of some sidetracking myself, just don't want to drift too far. My answer below, I tried to deal with the specific issues asylum seekers bring, and how they could be addressed. Eliyohub (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From a security perspective, I note that with asylum seekers, unlike citizens and permanent residents (who we have at least some history of, and attempt to keep an eye over to watch for signs of straying down dangerous paths), we have little or no way of verifying an asylum seeker's background. They're often from violent parts of the world, which is precisely why they have fled. Many will be fleeing persecution, but some will inevitably be from the persecutors. We can't easily know. Until you've vetted them as best as you can (which frankly, is often not very well, your sources from which to gain info on such an individual are often extremely limited), they often have to be considered potentially dangerous. If you've had the opportunity to vet them in a country along their route, different story.
I do think there's a need for case-by-case judgement here, as to whether the issue causing the asylum seekers to flee their homeland poses a danger to the country taking them in. Those fleeing ISIS are high-risk, as some will inevitably be from ISIS, and ISIS has strong motivations and intentions to harm western countries, particularly those bombing them. Those fleeing a Civil War in Africa or West Papua, for example, generally much less so, as the participants in the conflict likely have absolutely no intention or incentive to target anything in the country the asylum seekers are headed to. "Blanket" rules are unfair, it needs to be case by case as to the risk to the host nation in which the asylum seekers are now residing, by those from the country the asylum seekers are fleeing. I know some will cry discrimination here, that we may need to treat asylum seekers from different origins differently, but I think there's clear logic to it. My question is, "do any participants of the conflict these particular asylum seekers are fleeing likely have any desire or intention to target things in our country?" If the answer is "yes", there may be a need for detention until we've verified the boda files of an individual as best we can, to make sure he or she intends us no harm. That said, the right to speedy justice comes into play here, and we need to devote sufficient resources to do this in as timely a fashion as we can, not leave people languishing in detention longer than necessary. Eliyohub (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tamil Tigers indoctrination methods
How does a mostly non-religious group get people to freely kill themselves for the cause? As in, blow themselves up. Or always carry a cyanide capsule to commit suicide if the danger of capture arises (and they actually used their capsules very often!). Can anyone give me some links to indoctrination propaganda and training methodology of the fighters/terrorists/whatever (not the public-consumption propaganda, that's totally different) of the Tamil Tigers? Liberation_Tigers_of_Tamil_Eelam#Suicide_attacks gives some insight into the mindset (similar to Japanese Kamikaze?), but I'd love if anyone could provide me with say, a youtube link to an indoctrination video or session, with english subtitles (as I don't know the tamil language) about "how to die freely for the cause" and screw any thoughts of fear of death.
I'm in Australia, where watching such material is legal, or at least I feel safe myself that I'm not breaking the law - I will NOT advise others. But anyone in the UK in particular should be careful, and seek legal advice before watching or possessing terrorist propaganda. So maybe our UK members should stick to answering with only analysis links of Tamil Tigers indoctrination tactics, whilst the American ones can safely link me to clips of actual training/indoctrination material. Note, if you have any doubts of the legality of anything, don't do it! This is clearly not a request for legal advice. I just want to get a picture of LTTE indoctrination tactics, and am giving a heads-up on legal issues with UK residents accessing or possessing such material (Section 58, Terrorism Act 2000 - to collect or possess "information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism". Nothing similar in the U.S., where the First Amendment to the United States Constitution would almost certainly prohibit such a blanket law). The legality of my own actions is a matter for me to worry about.
And for the record, I am not Tamil, and have no intention of killing myself, or encouraging anyone else to do so. Just trying to understand this unusual group. Eliyohub (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that cyanide capsules are a bit different, in that they aren't normally intended to be used. But, if you were a spy captured in Nazi Germany, you would be tortured to give up any info you had, then executed, so, once captured, it's not a choice of if you die, but just when and how. StuRat (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Tamil Tigers used to use their cyanide capsules the moment they feared any attempt at questioning, even non-violent attempts. When some of them attacked a target, survived, and were taken to hospital under guard, the Sri Lankan intelligence agents disguised themselves as doctors, in order to pry as to what happened in the attack. Totally non-violent. Yet many of them apparently swallowed their capsules the moment the "doctors" started asking such questions ("What happened? How did you hurt yourself?"), even absent the slightest suggestion of coercion or torture. So I don't think it was actually the same. Even non-violent and non-coercive attempts to gain info were often met with suicide. Eliyohub (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Back when I read Crime and Punishment I was surprised by the light sentence the protagonist received for committing a murder - eight years of hard labor in Siberia.
Years later in a conversation someone brought up that the N years in Siberia thing was actually a de facto death sentence. That the attrition rate was so high that prisoners weren't expected to survive, regardless of the value of N. Is this assessment accurate? What was the death rate like for a 19th century Russian prisoner in Siberia? ECS LIVA Z (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Datapoint, but not the complete answer. Sparticus Education (which I've always taken for a reasonably good source) opines that half of the prisoners died on the way to Siberia; and that those who managed to complete their sentence were forced to continue living and working in Siberia. It's an interesting short article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From that article (which I agree is pretty good. It cites its sources after all) it seems that, when prisoners finished their sentence, they were "freed" as in the "You could leave anytime you want to..." But being over 1000 miles from anything resembling civilization, where are you going to go? You're in Siberia, with no transportation out, no means to earn a living, no means for survival. It's like sentencing someone to Antarctica but not transporting them back when their sentence is over. What were they going to do. "Forced to continue living and working" I took, from that article to mean "because they had no where to go and no other choice..." --Jayron32 19:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More "Russians don't value life" liberal mythmaking. They didn't just drop you from a helicopter over the taiga or something. Banishment to Siberia was as much a means of settling the vast expanse as it was penalty. Not all banishment to Siberia implied hard labor. Some of it was just exile. There are still Old Believer communities who descend from peasants and revolutionaries banned to Siberia. Dostoyevsky himself returned from Siberia to Tver more or less alive and intact. I'm sure someone will be able to provide the numbers Asmrulz (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Siberia is quite an enormous place. It's quite an overreach to assume that all forms of "exile to Siberia" are of the same form. Of course parts are quite livable - it has a population of 40 million people after all. There are ordinary (if cold) cities in Siberia, but there were also gulags. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it is. It is half again as big as the United States, and if Siberia were an independent country it would be the largest country in the world. So of course there are large cities and urban areas and farmable land there. Just not in the places where the labor camps were. You can be in Siberia and still be 1000 miles from any major city which is also in Siberia. --Jayron32 02:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Much of Siberia has long hot summers, so while the winters are certainly harsh, it isn't like exiling someone to the South Pole. A person transported there during the spring, and provided with tools and materials, could perfectly well build themselves a house and grow enough food to last the winter. I don't know if this is actually how exiles were treated though. --95.249.86.81 (talk) 11:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When Poland was divided under the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, many Jews on the Soviet side were sent to Siberia. Their families cried bitter tears, seeing it, understandably, as a horrific fate. One wise Rabbi said "we don't know who will be better off". Everyone thought he was crazy. Yet ironically, of those sent to Siberia, many survived. Those left behind were mass slaughtered by the Nazis, as they invaded days later. See the bizarre story at [17]. I have heard the same story multiple times from other sources, so I'm pretty confident it's true. Eliyohub (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sort of. See Jewish Autonomous Oblast which was the (albeit already designated before WWII) region of Siberia where the Jewish people were sent to. They liked it so much that today, of the 176,000 people who live there, a whopping 0.2 percent or about 350 people are Jewish. --Jayron32 02:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article I linked, Stalin planned to send them there, but most of the Jewish deportees did not end up there. They ended up scattered in the Gulag system. Some Jews moved there "voluntarily" under some sort of "promises" or "incentives" from Stalin. Few hung around. It's not a very hospitable place to live. Eliyohub (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also perhaps relevant, included in the Wikileaks diplomatic cables was one about the modern Russian prison system. The diplomats had serious concerns as to some of the treatment of the prisoners. Yet they noted that despite all this mistreatment, prisoners on average lived longer lives than non-prisoners, where they were mostly safe from the two big Russian killers, alcoholism and traffic accidents. the last bit was the diplomats' views as to explaining this phenomenon (prisoners living longer than free Russians), but there may be other explanations. To quote from [18], very first paragraph: Health conditions in Russian prisons are poor and infection rates for contagious diseases are much higher than in the general population, but surprisingly the mortality rate for men in these prisons is only one-third the rate on the outside - a statistic that says much more about the dangers of alcoholism and road safety than it does about healthy living behind bars. So things may not always be what they seem. The same report is rife with descriptions of serious abuses in the system. Eliyohub (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard similar claims made about army duty, and not just that in Russia. In any case, if the effect is real it's incidental. I'm speaking of things which are by design Asmrulz (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See Hermit. They definitely exist, but every society in the world considers them to be the exception, not the norm, from what I was taught in my brief foray into psychology. Eliyohub (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To the one person who can read this, you are alone. Enjoy the hallucinations! Someguy1221 (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To live without any of the benefits of society, like clothes, tools,. etc., is quite difficult, especially if you exclude education. There have been a few people reportedly "raised by wolves" and such, but they likely still had some benefits from society, like stealing food from it. StuRat (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Proenneke did just fine alone for about 30 years, though he did get the odd visitor every now and again. I can heartily recommend the documentary about him, Alone in the Wilderness. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen it, and he had plenty of tools he brought with him. Had he been dropped naked in the wilderness, I doubt if he would have lasted long. StuRat (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I don't know. This was one seriously resourceful guy. I'd choose him over the survivalists in Naked and Afraid, for example. Now, if it had been Chicago ... Clarityfiend (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How odd were they? --Trovatore (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]
They came in ones, never twos or fours. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not really sure what the OP meant. I live a vivid city, but I see people being alone, as if they're in the middle of a desert. Not talking about drugs addicts or anti-socials, but decent people like anyone of us, and not always the elderly. Some cope pretty well, others don't, some break after a number of years. I don't think people should be alone, whether in a city or on an uninhabited island. Jahoe (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See our article about Alexander Selkirk, the inspiration for Robinson Crusoe; Selkirk lived alone on an island for four years, so we can conclude that he would have been able to live there indefinitely until old age or an unusual disaster (e.g. bad storm, hungry-and-fierce wild animal, misstep leading to a fatal injury) killed him, had he not been rescued. Nyttend (talk) 02:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And Hiroo Onoda, who hid on an island in the Philippines from 1945 until 1974, unaware that World War II had finished nearly thirty years earlier. Alansplodge (talk) 10:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Our article on Loneliness may or may not be relevant to the OP, the question is rather vague. Eliyohub (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
February 8
Per-person tax rate comparison figures
Hi, I want to write a section on the Neoliberalism wikipedia page about whether or not a neoliberal economic system allows its citizens to pay less income tax compared to citizens in other economic systems. I have looked online for IMF and World Bank figures regarding this, but haven't been able to find any. Could you guys give me a lead? Thank you 202.49.159.94 (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt there's such a thing as pure neoliberal economy in the real world -- certainly not among the OECD countries -- so I'm not sure what you'd be comparing... AnonMoos (talk) 04:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So how would one go about figuring out which countries have the most neoliberal economies, even if not "pure", to give the OP some tips? Or any studies on the link between the relative Neoliberalism of an economy, and income tax rates? (The situation in Dubai seems very neoliberal to me, with the inevitable mass exploitation, and they have a zero income tax rate or something? So maybe the OP is onto something here). @DOR (HK):, I can see you'd be a passionate opponent of neoliberalist economics from what you write on your personal talk page, but you're a professional economist - do you have an expert opinion? Any other economists who contribute to Wikipedia who can be pinged? Eliyohub (talk) 12:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Exporting non-tangible non-services
Under US federal law, if you're a broadcast-media company (TV, radio, etc., regardless of whether you broadcast over the airwaves, via cable, via satellite, or some other way) and you enable a similar foreign company to reproduce your signals (under conditions that would cause your actions to be defined as an "export" if you were sending physical products abroad), have you exported your signals? Or what if you're really a broadcaster, located in a city near the Canadian or Mexican borders, and people on the other side of the border receive your broadcasts: again, does this make you an exporter? You're not exporting any physical objects (you're just causing electrons to move around), and you're not really providing any services to foreigners, but the traditional concept of import-and-export was developed before electronic telecommunications developed. Everything I'm finding with Google is related to Import and export of data and unrelated to international trade. Nyttend (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does the article titled Border blaster help inform your research in this area? --Jayron32 02:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you (never heard the term before), but no; I see comments that would be relevant to stations in Detroit, Buffalo, Frostbite Falls, etc., but if there's anything in there about export regulations, I didn't see it. Nyttend (talk) 02:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume a lot of what you're exporting here is Intellectual property (much of which the broadcaster is licensed to use, but does not necessarily own outright), so how would it be different than say, a software company such as Microsoft? I definitely know that there are regulations on software exports, including online exports (where no physical medium changes hands, simply a download). I read the terms and conditions (am I nuts?), and they often include clauses banning the buyer/user from using or bringing the software into countries the U.S. has imposed economic sanctions on. Obviously not particularly enforceable, but the clause is there. Also, there was (is?) a rather pointless U.S. ban on exporting Encryption software beyond a certain strength to foreign countries. "Horse", "stable", and "bolted" spring to mind on this? I'd say this law has done zero to reduce the availability of encryption software outside the U.S. - simply caused difficulties for legitimate software vendors whose software happens to include encryption as a necessary feature (e.g. web hosting software). But my point is, intellectual property is seemingly subject to certain export regulations.
Don't know specifically about broadcasts, but note the issue of Copyright licencing for the broadcaster for those things he doesn't own (e.g. broadcasts of sports games), but has simply bought the rights to broadcast to a specific market. He'd have to negotiate it with the rights holder (in sports, usually the particular sports competition's governing body, I would think, such as the local FA). (EU "free trade zone treaties" have caused issues with restricting such broadcasts within the EU. It has come before the courts. See the big precedent at [19]). But this is not an "export regulation" issue as such.
As to "stray" signals, the issue of radio interference could be a regulatory one, if you're interfering with signals on the other side of the border. If it's giving the other country grief, such interfering with their own radio signals and transmissions, they may well take action by complaining to the regulator in the broadcaster's country (or possibly via diplomatic channels), and there will likely be international conventions or treaties covering such things, enshrined in domestic law, which force the broadcaster's country to take action. Note that this is not often obeyed between enemies, even those not technically at war with each other - the activities of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty for example, would no doubt have been fiercely opposed by the countries at whom the broadcasts were aimed, but it did not stop anyone. North and South Korea have done similar propaganda broadcasts into the other's territory, but they are explicitly de jure (though hardly de facto) at war with each other, so such rules may not apply. Eliyohub (talk) 13:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Betsy DeVos and National Heritage Academies
Is there a connection between Betsy DeVos and the Charter Management Organization National Heritage Academies. Both are from Western Michigan and are closely linked with the Michigan GOP. --67.188.61.95 (talk) 08:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Odd conditions in sentencing in the US justice system.
Noticed this in the Guardian today: Idaho judge says rape is 'a direct consequence of the social media system' . The judge made no extramarital sex a condition for the defendant. I've heard similar stories over the years, for example recently one mandating some kids sentenced for racist graffiti to read books about the civil rights movement etc (here). Here in the UK, I've never heard about such conditions. What is the legality of them? How does it work? It seems like judges can make just about anything a condition, but I'm sure that's not the case. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
