Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 March 6

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 6

Chavez death international reaction

So far, Argentina, Cuba and Ecuador have proclaimed 3 days of national mourning, and even the president of Bolivia Evo Morales broke down in tears.Sometime in modern history, the death of some president provoke such a international reaction, including national mourning in several different countries?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CubanEkoMember (talk • contribs) 03:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

JFK ? Not mourned quite so much in Cuba, though. StuRat (talk) 03:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Yitzhak Rabin might work as well. As for non-assassinated leaders, maybe Ronald Reagan (just a guess). Futurist110 (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

After the death of Kim Jong-il, Cuba declared official mourning. --PlanetEditor (talk) 04:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

When Australian Prime Minister Harold Holt disappeared while swimming in the surf in 1967, we started inventing rumours. They haven't stopped yet. HiLo48 (talk) 04:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget the swimming pool named after him! [1] Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

It would speak very poorly of a sitting head of state if his death goes unnoticed in the international arena. The death may or may not generate political changes, but international people sending their condolences, that's for sure. Cambalachero (talk) 12:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

For us, here in Cuba and Latin America(including head of state), Hugo Chavez was and always will be more than just a president, is a symbol of broterhood between our countries and people, and specially the cuban people has Chavez like his own son, and our pain is much more than just a formal condolence message, you know that, Cristina Fernandez was a close friend of Chavez. CubanEkoMember (talk) 12:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem with places like Cuba, Venezuela, and any number of other countries, is that cults of personality inevitably come to an end, and then there's the risk of a period of chaos. In countries with a "system" in place, there's less risk of that chaos occurring. The presidency is merely a "job", held for a limited amount of time, while the "system" keeps going. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

How can we know you are telling the truth? According to Internet in Cuba you have reasons to be weary about what you say. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I would say that it's actually that the Castros are weary, and the citizens are wary. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

While I can sympathize with his socialist and anti-colonial leanings, his anti-democratic/authoritarian leanings, as demonstrated by his participating in a (failed) military coup, ending the independence of the courts, and shutting down opposition media outlets, I can't abide. Had he stayed in power, he might have managed to establish a dictatorship. Hopefully, with him gone, democracy can be restored. I hope the same for Cuba, after the Castro brothers die. StuRat (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd be curious to know if there's ever been a Communist-oriented government that wasn't a dictatorship. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, Chávez hasn't made it onto our list in the Dictator article, possibly because he has submitted himself to four presidential elections and two referenda. He came close to losing the last election, so there must be a some element of fairness about them. In answer to your question, the administration of Salvador Allende comes to mind, and who knows where the Prague Spring might have led? Alansplodge (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Communist is a bit strong for Chavez. After all, it's not like he prohibited the private ownership of property. I'd call him socialist, and there are some fairly socialist strong democracies, such as the Nordic nations.

But now I have to fulfill Godwin's Law by pointing out the comparison with Hitler. Both led an unsuccessful coup, both were later elected, both then set about dismantling democracy, both had unsavory dictators as friends, and both hated Jews. StuRat (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I've just looked at the Wikipedia article that you linked to, and note that "...once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress", with which sentiment I wholeheartedly concur. I bid you all goodnight. Alansplodge (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Fact, fact, highly sketchy, yeah I'd agree, super mega highly sketchy.

Are there any savory dictators?  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, if properly cooked and seasoned. StuRat (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Dictators are often at their most savory after they've been shot. Like Mussolini and his pals, who were no longer empowered, but hung around with their appreciative subjects for a while. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the system itself is a dictatorship, the dictatorship of the capital, where the people like you say just play a minor role,just a merely job imposed by capital logic.I'm not wary or anything of that, maybe here in Cuba we have some censorship, excessive control on some internet conections and other issues that need solutions and open debate, and we're working on it Cuba has changed a lot in last years, but i'm free to say whatever i want as you can see, i'm not afraid that's stupid...the death of Castros will not stop the way Cuba is: a socialist and martian country.Now note that 11 countries have proclaimed national mourning, is a record i'm sure, it seems like the dictator is popular.CubanEkoMember (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

History demonstrates that Communism, or extreme socialism, is an unsustainable system, and eventually it works its way back towards capitalism. Once the Castros are gone, the inch-by-inch changes in liberating Cuba might accelerate. I say "might" because no one knows how their next leader will operate. The Castros dug a deep hole for their country when they allowed the USSR to build missile bases there (not that they had any real choice in the matter), and they've paid the price ever since. Once the Castros are gone, hopefully the punishing sanctions will be eased, and then Cuba will have a chance to prosper again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Communism ended about 75 years after it started in Russia, and about 40 years after it started in China (although they retain the dictatorship, and Russian democracy is somewhat suspect, too). So, based on those examples, I'd expect communism to be on it's last legs in Cuba by now. I believe there's actually quite a bit of capitalism right now, where waiters who cater to foreign tourists make far more money than doctors working for the government, under the old communist system. Such bizarre inequities can't last long, or all doctors will quit to become waiters. Ironically, if the US drops it's sanctions, the rush of US tourists might just push over the house of cards. StuRat (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Other countries supposedly mourning the loss of Chavez reminds me of the old saw that when a mob boss dies, all the rival mob bosses send big bouquets to the funeral. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Cuba is My Favorite Martian country. Edison (talk) 03:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Communism doesn't worked because never existed,a communist society was never reached through the history. Cuba is a socialist state, but his economy and society is not even a true socialist one, is more, what we call a transition to socialism, that combines planned-economy with market tools.Communism is a very long-term objetive and is based in the finite character of capitalism.CubanEkoMember (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Classless society did exist, classless society does exist. A socialist country can never establish a classless society because the cause of social oppression is civilization, not capitalism. --PlanetEditor (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Primitive Communism, despite communism is based on Primitive Community and share some features is not the same.Communism only could exist in a society after Capitalism, after capitalist relations of production were used or existed and productive forces are developed enough,indeed, the main contradiction of capitalism is that developing of productive forces surpass the obsolescence of capitalist relations of production and this lead to a rupture.So,Hadza people are not a communist society, is a form of Primitive Communism society, hunters-gathers.Yeah, that's right,Capitalism is not the cause of social opression, this came from old civilizations, and capitalism continues this with social opression evolving to a new status, Communism is an utopia that born in this context, and express the necessity to introduce a much more fair system, might be or not Communism.CubanEkoMember (talk) 04:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Problems

Disregard

[2] , [3] , [4] . First of all, this is English Wikipedia. Please write your comments in English. I don't speak Russian. I would like to ask you to read the WP:NFCC|non-free content criteria and in particular WP:NFCC#1|criterion 1. Files like :File:Doc balt flot1.jpg are not permitted because someone else can draw a freely licensed map of the same area. There are already freely licensed maps of all parts of the world. For example,Openstreetmap can be used for this purpose. Photos like :File:SMX-25 - Diving frigate.JPG are not permitted because it seems that vehicles of the same model still exist. It is possible to take other photos of the same vehicle model and publish those photos under a free licence. For example, see WP:NFC#UUI §1 which says that you can't upload unfree photos of buildings which still exist. Stefan2 16:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC) File:Подземоход Требелева.jpg ? Podzemohod Trebeleva was tested in the Urals, Mount Grace, in 1946. Trebelev intended to use his podzemohod in various fields: digging tunnels for urban communication, exploration, mining, etc. However, the design proved to be unreliable, and the project was abandoned. - Now it does not exist. File:SMX-25 - Diving frigate.JPG - it does not exist at all. It is only on paper. SMX-25 a gunship project of the 21st century, a hybrid of surface ship and submarine. it seems that vehicles of the same model still exist. - there is no such ships. How can redraw what does not exist outside the project on paper? File:Doc balt flot1.jpg - It is not a geographical map, it is map of the military facilities. This is the result of several experts to repeat that an outsider can not. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 04:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

It's very hard to read all that and get a question out of it. Please state your question in one short sentence. StuRat (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I think what happened is that OP posted File:SMX-25 - Diving frigate.JPG with a non-free fair-use tag, and then User:Stefan2 disputed the fair-use claim by invoking Wikipedia:CSD#F7. They're currently resolving this on Stefan2's talk page. In any case this matter does not belong on the RD at all. Dncsky (talk) 05:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

How to pronounce "bethsaida"

trying to memorize part in play, have not been able to satisfactory pronounce, bethsaida — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.164.76 (talk) 06:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I added a header for you.Dncsky (talk) 07:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Using the IPA pronunciation given at Bethsaida, the best simple transliteration I could give you is "beth-say-ee-duh" the last vowel sound isn't actually the u sound, but rather a Schwa you can see a few examples at Schwa#Description. Ryan Vesey 07:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps: beth-sah-he-dah? Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

What nationality are you playing in the play? That might affect things. Also, is it important to the audience's understanding that all the actors say it similarly, so they don't get confused? In which case, you should get consensus from the relevant other actors. --Dweller (talk) 11:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Right, I was in a childrens theatre back in the day where the directors acted as well. They always used accents and whatnot without having any of the other actors use an accent so it was incongruous with the rest of the play. Ryan Vesey 15:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

maybe a weird question

idea derrived from a legal copy of a copyrighted work is not covered by copyright. how about idea derrived from a pirated copy? please answer without using other's statement typed in exact manner.121.97.111.151 (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Ideas are not copyrighted, period. The source of the idea is irrelevant. One can suffer a fine for possessing, creating or distributing illegal copies, but not for deriving ideas from them. - Lindert (talk) 13:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

As long as they don't rip off too much of the source and try to claim it as their own. "Ah, my Lord / Doo lang doo lang doo lang / My sweet Lord / Doo lang doo lang..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd caution against saying that you can't get in trouble for deriving ideas from a copyrighted work. If you're sufficiently inspired and create another work, it could very well be considered an unauthorized derivative work. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes the line between an uncopyrightable idea and the copyrightable expression of that idea isn't always entirely clear cut. The OP must know this since it's been explained to them at least once in the 5 or so times they've asked highly similar questions about this area (or ranted about the unfairness). The OP's specific question here appears to be whether there's something unique about ideas derived from sources viewed without permission of the copyright holder when it comes to their protection by copyright. The answer here is no, it's the same as we've explained to them every single other time they asked or ranted, ideas themselves can't be copyrighted. Nil Einne (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

supreme court opinions

do supreme court justices write their own opinions with their own two hands or can clerks write it for them per their instructions, as is common with other similar opinions?

has a supreme court ever produced 9 written opinions for a decision? (regardless of its vote). 91.120.48.242 (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Which one of these many Supreme Courts were you thinking of? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Too lame for words
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
we've had this discussion before, you are quite aware that America is the default standard and only when other countries are involved do they need to be specified. μηδείς (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Your imperialism stops at your national borders, and a good thing too. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC) As compared with Britain, whose didn't, but effectively does now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

How justices write their opinions depends on the justice. Clerks are generally very involved in the process of opinion writing, but the extent, especially on the SC, is highly dependent on the individual. Here is an article on some of the recent justices. Shadowjams (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, the question is about the united states. Could you express whether there are any referenced cases where instead of a single unanimous opinion everyone signs on, or a single opinion and dissenting opinion a divided court signs on, there are as many opinions as possible because the justices don't fully agree with the appointed majority opinion writer and/or minority opinion writer (regardless of their votes)? Basically, I know there are cases where there are three opinions: a majority opinion for example and two differing opposing opinions. Are there cases where there are more total written opinions for 1 decision? (i.e. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9)? Thanks. 91.120.48.242 (talk) 07:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The line would be are there any non per curiam 9-0 opinions since 1938 or thereabouts... the answer is yes... i know of a few but I can't name them off the top of my head. Hopefully someone else will answer you here, although I suspect if you google for the phrase I just used you'd find them. Protip: most come out of the 9th circuit. Shadowjams (talk) 12:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Apparently the majority of SCOTUS opinions are 9-0. http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/SB_votesplit_053112.pdf Shadowjams (talk) 12:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Guys, correct me if I'm wrong but can't there be two written opinions even in a 9-0 vote? A majority opinion and a justice differing on at least some points of it? Therefore my question can have a response from any of those columns! The question is what is the most number of textual written opinions (regardless of the vote) that justices have produced? The minimum is two: any decision that is not unanimous must have at least one supporting and one opposing decision. But it also could have two minority/opposing/dissenting opinions (raising the number of written opinions for that case to 3), or for any other reason and regardless of the vote there could be 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9 opinions. The only posssibility that does not exist is any more than 9 opinions, since one justice cannot write two opinions for the same case. So out of the possible 2, 3, 4, 5,6, 7, 8, or 9 differing opinions I know that the number "3" exists: does 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 exist? (Meaning this many justices chose to write an opinion.) 91.120.48.242 (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

"Majority" opinions are those in which the judges (SCOTUS or otherwise) all agree that it's the majority opinion. "Plurality" opinions are those where judges agree in decision, but write separate opinions, usually because they disagree on some central point. Shadowjams (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

% of UK people who know who the Prime Minister is

Hello, I am trying to find information about what percentage of the UK population know the name of the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, Chancellor of the Exchequer, etc. Someone told me only 50% of the population know who the PM is, but I can't find any evidence or surveys for this quite remarkable statistic. Can anybody help? 86.26.225.187 (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

A companion question could be, what percentage think that it matters, i.e. that it has any direct effect on them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd be interested in the same percentages with the US. Without checking, I'm thinking it's David Cameron, but wasn't some type of a coalition formed since no party got a simple majority? What happens to the leader of the other party in the coalition, is there a vice PM position? I'd assume that the percentage of US citizens who care about who the PM is would be less than 10%. Ryan Vesey 16:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The leader of the other party in the coalition is Nick Clegg, who is the Deputy Prime Minister. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

...though that's not an automatic appointment in such (rare) circumstances, but came about as a result of the Coalition agreement. There are details of some results for the US here, showing how things have changed over time. I can't find any similar results for the UK. (There's a story (can't find links) that "who is the Prime Minister?" used to be a question used to test elderly patients for dementia, but it started to become useless when Margaret Thatcher had been PM for a while, because everyone knew who she was.) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Not quite what you asked for, but one polling company did a survey in 2008 asking whether people would be able to recognise some potential leadership challengers to Gordon Brown if they saw them in the street. [5] 79% claimed they would be able to recognise then-Justice Secretary Jack Straw. Hut 8.5 17:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

There's something similar from 2010 here. They showed pictures of politicians to people and asked them to pick a name from a list. 96% of people identified David Cameron. Hut 8.5 18:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, but many of the main characters in the cabinet after the 1997 election were at very-nearly-approaching Margaret Thatcher recognition, in a way that I think only David Cameron (and possibly Nick Clegg) now approach. Jack Straw is one of them. A lot of this is personality and publicity based, rather than a general rule about how many people recognise deputy prime ministers in general, and so on. I'd be surprised if most people (more than 50%) could identify anyone in the current cabinet beyond Cameron and Clegg. 86.140.54.54 (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I found this 2003 report which says that "47% of respondents could not name the deputy prime minister (John Prescott at that time). This ignorance rose to 73% among the 16-to-24 age group." Alansplodge (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as the question about Americans recognizing the British PM: [6]. A surprising 54%. That's misleading though because the poll was in 2006 and the PM was Tony Blair, which had a lot of visibility during the Iraq War, so that would explain the high figure. Shadowjams (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Paternalistic bureaucracy

Resolved

A friend of mine recently got a company car, which he thought was a nice perk, until he heard the catch. The company would monitor his entire driving performance, including telling him off if he braked too hard. All of this information would be captured by computer, relayed to a central server, and analysed for driving errors or abnormalities. This kind of paternalism seems very common nowadays, from the group conversation that followed. Nearly everyone seems annoyed at it. It is clear enough that the company is covering itself against lawsuits, and it is expected that there will be some bureaucracy in such situations. But since very few people seem to like this kind of invasion, how did it get this bad? Have any politicians tried to tackle the problem, apart from a few extreme libertarians? The mainstream opinion seems to resent the intrusion, so why does the mainstream of politics not respond? I know it's hard to answer "why" questions here, but any references or knowledge about public debates would be interesting, eg. documentaries about the nature and causes of the problem, and what conclusions came from such documentaries. IBE (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused why you think this solely has to do with lawsuits. It seems to me there are many reasons why a company may want to monitor their employees driving and lawsuits is only one of them. Nil Einne (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I suggested lawsuits precisely because I myself cannot think of any other reasons for this interest. Can you tell me, briefly, just three other reasons? I can imagine in a far fetched way that they might be doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, but I would find the effort rather extreme, and the involvement is unwanted on the part of this employee. Hence, I would find benevolence to be a somewhat strange explanation in this case. IBE (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Well no one ever said anything about benevolence, mostly it will be about financial cost (direct and indirect), but lawsuits are only one factor.

If the company is paying for fuel, then driving style will affect fuel consumption. This may not be a concern if there's only a few cars involved with minimal driving but likely would if there are a lot of vehicles. (In the case of say a delivery, trucking or bus company, the savings can probably be quite substantial, there's even an advert about it from the government's EECA Energywise here in NZ that I've seen before and funnily enough the main page has something about driving economically [7]. I presume 'company car' doesn't mean a van, truck or bus, but such a company may put the same things in their company cars to avoid perceptions of unfairness.) Poor driving will also likely increase maintenance costs for the vehicle.

Poor driving can lead to accidents. Presuming the employee isn't completely responsible for the car, in many cases, the company may either have insurance to cover these or has sufficient reserves that they feel they don't need it. But either way, more frequent accidents will likely lead to higher costs. In fact, the insurance company may be willing to lower premiums if the company has a programme in place to monitor and improve driving. You may try to argue that technically if there are no lawsuits they don't actually have to pay anything even if their employee is totally at fault for the accident. But concentrating at the lawsuit bit misses the point that in the real world most of the time, the company don't even want to hear the word 'lawsuit'. If it's clear the employee is at fault, they will often pay (or their insurance will pay) without getting the courts involved. (Of course if a lawsuit does arise or there is a dispute, the data may be useful in assessing who is correct.)

There may also be criminal charges to contend with, rarely will these involve the company directly (although the PR and downtime may come up) but there may be a minor risk of the employee saying their poor driving was encouraged by the company. In addition, accidents and some forms of poor driving when the employee is working (and for some accidents and poor driving even when they're not) will often mean downtime for the employee and possibly other employees who will have to go to help. These may mean dissatisfied customers/clients, partners or suppliers and other performance failures on the part of the company. Besides that, accidents or simply poor driving (including tickets) may lead to bad PR if the company is identified. Somewhat related but for some companies poor driving may put contracts at risk.

In addition, if there is a substantial amount of driving involved, reasonable performance in that task may be a key job criteria. Even if you have some evidence that the employee is not up to scratch, e.g. their fuel usage is a lot higher, they show up later then expected, (probably not for your friend's case but the cars mileage is a lot higher then expected), having more info (and a well developed policy) will help in managing that. Yes that means reducing the risk of and from a lawsuit if you fire the employee but a company will often also be interested in improving the performance if they can since it may cost less then finding another employee even without a lawsuit (and then there are the cases where it's not worth firing but the better would help).

You can also come up with other random reasons. E.g. if it's a small private company, perhaps the owners have moral reasons (i.e. even if it didn't reduce costs including the risk of bad PR) for wanting their employees to drive well, particularly with company cars. Perhaps the owner's child was killed by a speeding driver.

I have no idea how much of this is likely to apply to your friends case since I know too few details. But note again what I said earlier about delivery vehicles, trucks and buses may also apply in other cases. E.g. if there are non assigned company cars which get regular usage, they may want the monitoring and for reasons of perception etc may put the same thing in company cars provided to managers rarely used on company business.

P.S. So this isn't complete OR a simple search will find sources discussing or offering fleet monitoring and a quick look suggests these mention what I mentioned. [8] [9] [10].

P.P.S. Somewhat related the privacy commissioner of Canada discusses some possible reasons for GPS tracking of vehicles [11] [12] [13].

Nil Einne (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Short summary, based on the references: for meeting legal responsibilities under OHS legislation (the pdf from Victoria, Australia), employee productivity (for workers in the field taking a detour to their favourite bar), customer service (eg. when exactly will your taxi arrive?), and vehicle maintenance. I can see that I didn't give detail in the question, but most of these do not seem to apply, and as stated, things like excessive braking are covered, so it seems to be either safety or maintenance. The person is not out in the field on sales calls. From the conversation, it also didn't sound like maintenance was the issue. So a large part of it is either indemnity against lawsuits, or a similar legal issue of meeting OHS regulations. This is what I am primarily interested in, since this kind of paternalism seems widespread. From what I have found in conversation, such surveillance is rather unpopular, to put it mildly. IBE (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The person may not be involved in any of those, but as I said if other people using company vehicles are then it's possible perhaps even likely the company may want to introduce such monitoring to all their cars to avoid perceptions of unfairness etc. Having one policy for the bosses and one policy for the 'plebs' is likely to be even more controversial then simply applying the policy to everyone. BTW, I wouldn't exactly trust a conversation with someone who is obviously aggrieved with the policy to accurately represent (or possible even know) the reasons for the policy. Also, excessive braking is one factor which will increase fuel consumption. Excessive braking may mean things like tail-gating etc which beyond being a safety issue, could easily be a PR issue as I mentioned. PR risk is less likely if the car isn't clearly identified as belonging to the company, but it's still some risk which most companies will prefer to avoid (whether or not it's worth monitoring may be a different issue). Nil Einne (talk) 06:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Who owns the car? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

A company car is always owned by the company. I am not disputing whether it is actually legal for them or not (ie. legal for the company to collect the data). I am curious about the fact that (or my impression that) this kind of paternalism is highly unpopular, yet the government seems to allow it. The government could, for example, tone down the laws relating to personal injury, or OHS, whenever it is clearly the employee who has endangered himself, without anyone else in the workplace being put at risk. I understand that in driving, other road users are involved, but this is generally a police matter, not a workplace safety matter. Companies don't generally focus heavily on things their employees do to others, since those things are left to the authorities. Furthermore, we are not talking about just obeying road rules, but monitoring of all sorts of things like braking. IBE (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, a company car could be leased from another company, but as you imply, the company is responsible for the car, and it certainly seems it's within their rights to manage their fleet as they see fit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Which isn't the point of the question, but anyways, it is not legal under all circumstances, as Nil Einne's refs show. There are legal limits, when it comes down to managing the people more than the cars. IBE (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

There may be legal limits, but there's no constitutional right to drive someone else's car any old way you want to. They might be concerned about liabilities, they might also be concerned about excessive wear-and-tear on the car, or even about their drivers driving unsafely (as in drunken). Someone who fights the rules too much might find themselves having the car taken away from them. This may not be exactly the same thing, but it's a bit like people who gripe when a company asserts its right to read employee e-mails. The common ground is that if you misuse company property, you can be held accountable for it some way or another. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Pst... Bugs.... he's in Australia. Shadowjams (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if Australians have a constitutional right to drive someone else's car. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

No, we don't. We have a different rule here - "You Toucha My Car I Breaka You Face". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

That works too. Presumably that's the car's owner talking - i.e., the company. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Jack, what's a matter you, eh? Gotta no respect. As far as the constitution goes, we don't have a bill of rights or anything like that, so yes, it did sound US-centric, but I got the gist. The Australian constitution is in fact pretty boring, and just concerns having regular elections. The Australian version of the Gettysburg Address would go something like "Five score years and then some ago, our nation was founded on the principle that we should have elections, that they should be about every three years or so, and that we should take the piss out of ourselves more than anyone else on earth". IBE (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

And that's a fine example of auto-piss removal. But in case you haven't read it in a little while, the Australian Constitution is about a whole lot more than just elections. As for boring, what did you expect? Maybe a joke every second paragraph ("By the way, did you hear about the actress and the bishop? ...")? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I knew I was exaggerating a little, although as a young chap when we had the big referendum on the monarchy, or on what we thought of James Blundell or something, I was rather surprised at how sparse the constitution was. IBE (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

One point you seem to be missing is stuff like 'excessive braking' may indicate poor behaviour on the road like tail-gating (at least one of the refs I provided mentioned this if it isn't obvious) therefore it is easily a 'road rule' issue and unless the company wants to install camera etc and monitor these, ultimately all they will have is computer algorithms indicating poor driving behaviour which may amongst other things, violate road rules. I'm not sure I understand your point about 'Companies don't generally focus heavily on things their employees do to others, since those things are left to the authorities'. I don't know what your experience is or about companies in Australia in particular, but most companies have quite an interest in ensuring their employees behaviour towards others while working is good, way more then simply not being a legal violation because of the PR implication (including customer/client, partner or supplier perceptions) and possible other risks like downtime for that employee and others who have to help deal with it. If the behaviour is so bad as to be a legal violation, that sort of behaviour will often be way beyond what the company regards as acceptable. In other words, leaving it up to the authorities is not something the company wants to do since a lot of the time, if it reaches the authorities, it's reached a level definitely not acceptable. When the person isn't working for the company, usually if it doesn't relate to something that may affect their jobs, companies are usually wouldn't care so much about that their employees may do, unless the person is going to be linked to the company. Nil Einne (talk) 06:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes this kind of paternalism is obnoxious, yes it's awful, and I bet you more than just "extreme libertarians" are against it. But trade your liberty for safety and this is the path. Shadowjams (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

In the USA, Progressive Insurance has actually been advertising some kind of tracking gizmo that's supposed to get you lower rates if you drive safely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

At the end of the day, it's not the employee's right. Nor are they forced to accept the car against their will. It's theirs to use on whatever terms and conditions the employer specifies. If they don't like that, they can drive their own car, and can do so any way they like. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. The fact an employer thought not only this was a good idea, but that most prospective employees would see it as worth it, is what bothers me. Shadowjams (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Was the employee told up front, or did he find it out through the grapevine? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I presume it was specified somewhere in the contract or the employee was clearly informed of it, otherwise in a country like Australia I think there's a risk of it being seen as violating the employees privacy and in particular, using any data obtained from it in managing the employee suspect. (One of the refs I provided about GPS tracking mentions something similar for that case in Canada). Nil Einne (talk) 06:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point bubs. The notion that most employees would accept such an agreement is disturbing. The idea that asking to reveal your basic movements is acceptable should be worrying... similarly with Progressive's tracking service. Shadowjams (talk) 10:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It's YOU that's missing the point. The employee does not own the car, the company does. If you're worried about being tracked while driving someone else's car, then maybe you shouldn't be driving it. Allowing someone to track your personal car, or not, is your choice, since you own that car. Again, if you don't want to be tracked, don't drive something that has a tracking device. Just like with your office PC - don't got to websites that the company doesn't approve of. If it's your own PC, that's different. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

By the same argument, nobody forces you to eat at Ye Olde Burger Bar, so if they serve their burgers with a side of hepatitis, it's caveat emptor. Similarly, you are free to chose a hospital, so we should not force hospitals to use properly sterile equipment and procedures. And you don't have to work at BigCompany, so it's no problem if they install cameras in the toilets and showers, and publish the videos to entertain the board and potential customers. Or maybe we do accept that property rights are subject to potential limits, just like all other rights. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

If they tell you that their burgers are made from horsemeat, or that their equipment is not sterile then you can make an informed choice. Likewise, if the company tells you that their cars are tracked and that your email and internet are subject to monitoring, then you can make an informed choice. Not that the two groups of ideas have anything to do with each other. In your examples, you're a consumer, i.e. the buying public. Using your company's property is totally different. You're an employee, and you are subject to the company's rules. There can certainly be legal restrictions on those rules, such as disallowing restroom cameras, although I could imagine that if security is a high priority, that might be allowed. And there are laws protecting consumers, hence the brouhaha about horsemeat in European burgers. But the notion of "privacy" when using company-owned equipment like cars and computers is a bogus argument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, so far I quite agree with Shadowjams and Stephan, and as usual, I have confirmed that, on matters of opinion, I am always right ;) But we are still missing the point of the question. I am under the impression that most people side with me that monitoring your braking is a bit much, and they don't like this sort of thing. For me, it could make my driving worse, not better, because the "back seat driver" would always be there, just he would be sitting behind a desk in the back seat, with a title like "Health and Safety inspector". The feeling of being nagged would get a bit much, and affect my decisions, even if only slightly. Since it is apparent that a part of the reason is still very clearly the legal framework, I am still curious as to why governments have done nothing about it, and not put more of the onus on the individual. As mentioned in the question, there are ways of providing references (Nil Einne has gone some way towards this, in the last line of his/her second post). If people can't reference this, I don't mind people giving the debate a good flog, but I'd be interested in the actual topic, of the government's response regarding paternalistic laws. I accept some of this paternalism, but it seems to go much further than most people would like, which in a democracy suggests pressure groups etc. may be controlling things. IBE (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of "references", there's your totally unreferenced comment, "It is clear enough that the company is covering itself against lawsuits." Clear? It's not clear at all. What's your basis for that claim? Lawsuits by who? What makes you think it isn't about trying to keep their drivers safe and keep the insurance and repair costs down? And what makes you think it's any of the government's business how a private company manages their own vehicle fleet? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear, well I don't know quite where I've bothered you so, but I acknowledged Nil Einne's work in providing references, and my last post shows a stepdown from my previous position. As I said, part of it, from those interesting references, is clearly the legal framework. That is wider than just lawsuits, and encompasses OHS legislation. That means companies must meet certain legal obligations, which can exist in the absence of personal injury lawsuits. It is still the legal framework, under jurisdictional/ parliamentary control. So the premise of the question is still true enough for it to remain relevant. Sorry to have bothered you. IBE (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Gentlemen, this is the war room, you can't fight in the war room. Shadowjams (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

That cracked me up ;) and for those who don't get the reference, you really need to stay in more. A good point to put "resolved" on it, but I don't mean to stop all further contributions. I just mean from here, only add something if it's really big, like a huge doco you saw that I can watch online, on the exact topic, etc etc. I'll still check back, I'm just putting resolved since it looks like too much of a political topic, and I don't mean to inflame anyone. We had a spirited discussion, and I enjoyed reading the posts; I was just trying to bring it back to the exact topic since it was my primary interest. IBE (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The core question was, "Why doesn't the government more closely regulate how companies manage their own property?" and the answer is, "Why should they?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I can see I was unclear. My apologies to everyone. But I did eventually state what I was referring to: "The government could, for example, tone down the laws relating to personal injury, or OHS, whenever it is clearly the employee who has endangered himself, without anyone else in the workplace being put at risk." That was from roughly my fourth post, but I did state it. I never said they should make any particular laws directly against companies monitoring driving behaviour. I only suggested they could make laws to change the injury lawsuits that could arise. I was not campaigning for it, just curious to know what's going on. I didn't realise it was so unclear at the beginning, because there was a bit too much else in the thread, so I didn't get that was the primary problem. Sorry for the confusion. IBE (talk) 00:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I should add that I find it slightly amusing that I put "resolved" at the top, and only after that, finally worked out my own question ;) IBE (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

It went from re-solved to solved. Go figure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche one of the best philosophers?

I always find the Nietzsche's works to be poetic than analytic. I do not know what made Nietzsche surpass Heidegger and Moore in the top 10 philosophers. I am not saying that Nietzsche is not as good as Moore or Heidegger, but is not that Nietzsche criticized some of the key elements in analytic philosophy? He said that logic is just an evolutionary product. Why did he say this? And, why do we consider him as one of the best thinkers despite of this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.205.15.149 (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Your question seems to be more of an invitation to discussion than a request for references. The best source is Nietzsche himself. I think it's in Beyond Good and Evil that he discusses "the history of an illusion" where he criticizes the systematizers through Kant, and rejects them. (I have to apologize, I haven't read him in 10 years and my books of his are in storage, so others should correct me, please.) Nietzsche is perhaps the most brilliant writer I have ever read, and The Antichrist, regardless of one's opinion (I largely agree) is simply a tour-de-force. Unlike, say, Kant, he's a writer who's far better simply to read than any commentary written on him. μηδείς (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

While Nietzsche is just peachy,

I also have high regard for Kierkegaard. StuRat (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya 'bout the raising of the wrist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Socrates himself was permanently pissed... --Jayron32 03:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Italy and Netherlands census Muslim population by cities

I was wondering if there was a website that shows and allows you to download an excel spreadsheet that shows you which cities has the most Muslim populations in numbers and in percentage in Italy and Netherlands? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.230.50 (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• If anyone does, it'll likely be Eurostat. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Biblical hermeneutics...

I am wondering if there is such a thing on secular biblical hermeneutics, where secular people without a faith commitment study the Bible academically in a public university somewhere in the United States, and because some secularists find the work personally moving, inspirational, and thought-provoking - making them sink deeply in contemplation - and attempting to apply what they've gained into a modern-day context, thereby influencing how they behave in society. Is there such a thing for secularists? If a secularist wants to hear opinions on the significance of scripture in modern times, then where would the secularist go, and who shall the secularist consult? Is there such a thing like a "secular pastor" or someone who is an expert on the Bible and how it may be relevant in modern times? 140.254.226.228 (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Chaplain, perhaps? From my understanding of the article, there are secular chaplains, who, I think, tend to people's spiritual needs. 140.254.226.228 (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Many universities have religious studies departments, which sounds like what you're talking about. thx1138 (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

From what I know of religious studies departments, they seem to view religions as a psychological, sociological, and anthropological phenomenon. I think they study religions rather than applying religious texts to modern-day times, which would presumably be done by pastors and priests. 140.254.226.228 (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

[[14]] seems to direct to academic journals on biblical criticism. However, the websites seem to be down. Usually in academic journals, people may write on Discussion to reflect on how the research is relevant or significant for further research or to society, and of course, that do not presuppose any theistic belief or deny such supernatural beliefs. Is biblical studies a complete science like anatomy, or is this an ongoing field of study? If this is an ongoing field of study, I wonder how do these academics study the Bible and forge a new understanding of scripture, which involves theological and practical implications. 140.254.226.228 (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

There are Christian atheists and philologists, who study the bible, although the latter not to apply the knowledge in their private lives. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Ducks

Does Wikipedia have an article on raising ducks? Wakeenahh (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

No, but you may find information on how to raise ducks here. 140.254.226.228 (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

And the Ref Desk also has a resident bird expert, although his specialty is sea gulls. He is User:Kurt Shaped Box. So, you could leave him a note on his talk page: User talk:Kurt Shaped Box. StuRat (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I found an article on Poultry Farming that covers the subject. Wakeenahh (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

As the OP has demonstrated, the easiest way to raise a duck is to become one. Looie496 (talk) 06:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

A way to fight inflation whenever stimulus money is pumped into the economy?

When there’s a lot of inorganic money being printed by the U.S, known as stimulus, in order to pay down debts and deficits, alleviate or stop a recession, or do whatever Bernanke is doing, can inflation be alleviated or even prevented if the dollar where to be backed up by more gold like for example, by putting more gold into places where the country's gold is stored like in Fort Knox? Or will this not help fight inflation while stimulus happens? If it would be effective in alleviating or stopping inflation, would adding more gold to back up the dollar be too costly to do so anyway if the goal was to pay down a U.S debt? Willminator (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Inflation is caused more by an increase in the velocity of money rather than the simple amount of money. The U.S. has been effectively printing huge amounts of money, several trillions of dollars since 2008, without any increase in inflation, interest rates, or the employment ratio, mostly because it's all being soaked up by corporate profits which are sitting in banks that don't lend because they get interest on excess reserves, or in tax havens waiting for another repatriation holiday which will never come. My opinion is that the only non-double dip recession way out is improved wealth taxation but that's not popular in the House of Representatives this Congress. 71.215.70.112 (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Which is of course, a leftist and Keynesian analysis. Check out the Chicago school of economics, the Austrian school of economics, and hard currency theory. μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, by all means, check those guys out!

• "demand can be satisfied in far greater quantity, much more quickly, much more reversibly, and without the danger of a fiscal collapse and inflation down the road, if the Fed and Treasury were simply to expand their operations of issuing treasury debt and money in exchange for high-quality private debt" -- Professor John Cochrane of the Chicago School, describing the post-stimulus status quo;
• "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief. The whole intellectual edifice...collapsed." And a few years later, "Is the answer to complex modern-day finance that we return to the simpler banking practices of a half century ago? That may not be possible if we wish to maintain today’s levels of productivity and standards of living." Alan Greenspan the leading Austrian economist, flip flopping and also describing the status quo.

Do those leftist Keynesians have it all wrong, with their far more accurate forecasts? Sometimes when two parties disagree, one is right and the other is wrong, because truth exists and is reflected in observations. 71.215.90.134 (talk) 02:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as backing up all our money with gold, I fear the US has far too much currency and far too little gold to do that now. Perhaps after a currency collapse, the meager gold reserves the US has could be used to back a new currency. StuRat (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

What could possibly go wrong? Not that you'll find any of those concerns in Wikipedia's hard currency article. Wikipedia articles on these subjects exist primarily in the Libertarian universe where all taxes are theft and nobody needs to depend on courts to enforce contracts and laws or on governments to protect society from plagues of any kind. 71.215.90.134 (talk) 02:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Curious point: the US broad money supply (M2) has consistently increased at a faster pace than inflation. Perhaps Milton Friedman got it wrong ?

In the 1960s and the 2000s the average inflation rate (2.3% p.a.) and the velocity of money (60.1 – 61.3) were close enough to exact to make no difference. The money supply (M2), however rose an average of 3.7% a year in the 1960s, and 12.1% p.a. in the 2000s.

Those two decades were the ones with the fastest money velocity in the past 50 years, and the ones with the slowest growth in inflation. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

M2 includes a large proportion of time deposits, which you don't want to count in velocity when they are being reinvested because they're still just sitting in the bank, as far from the real economy as possible. M2 also doesn't include money market funds which are how most institutions held cash before 2008. Use MZM velocity instead to predict inflation. 70.59.15.208 (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

BEMBE BEACH , ANNAPOLIS MD, USA

I wanted to know why the Beach in Annapolis-MD was named after Bembe as Bembe Beach, Bembe beach road, was there Bembe people from Africa settled there as slaves or what?...Because Bembe is a tribe or a group of people in Africa - Congo D.R. If possible you can create an article about it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.18.172.70 (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I've looked through some public domain Gazetteers available on Google Books: [15] and [16] from 1852 and 1904 respectively, and there is no place by that name, nor any similar name, in those Gazetteers. So the name is at least newer than 1904. It is possible the name is from someone's personal name (like a prominent local citizen); many place names take after individual people. --Jayron32 02:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)