Miscellaneous desk
< April 1	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 3 >

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

April 2

Travel from USA to India [not by air]

I'm curious whether there is any way to travel from the USA to India without needing fly.

It doesn't matter whether it requires a combination of modes (sea/bus/train/etc.) just so long as there is no air travel.

And how would one go about making arrangements to do so? Pine (talk) 06:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick Google search with "cruise Los angeles to india" got me to this site. It's a very pricey cruise, but I'm sure you can find other ones. Probably a travel agent would be the easiest way to arrange this. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 07:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The non-luxury option would be to travel as a passenger on a cargo ship. You could try to go the whole way from the US east or west coast by ship, or it might be faster to first go from the east coast to a western European port, then across by train to some place in Greece or thereabouts, then onward by another ship. The availability of ships might require still another route.

If you search on "freighter travel" you will find people who arrange this sort of thing -- I have no idea how easy it is. The wikitravel web site (which is not part of Wikipedia) has an article on "freighter travel", which explains some of the advantages and drawbacks, but I don't know how reliable that is either. The primary thing is to understand that these are working ships and nothing would be arranged for your convenience as a traveler. --Anonymous, 10:58 UTC, April 2, 2010.

Luxury or not, travelling by freighter can be expensive (~$100/day). A search for LA to India by freighter gives lots of links. If you fancy going elsewhere on the Eurasian continent and getting a train into India, Seat61.com has info on Indian Railways, which also includes a short paragraph about getting to India by train and a link to a longer page on getting from London to India overland. I'm sure you can google for ways to get from China to India by train or bus, or from Singapore to India by ferry. Astronaut (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been taking a closer look at Seat61.com. There are limited land route options to get between China and India via Nepal (Lhasa to Kathmandu by non-running bus service or an organised "tour"). It might turn out to be easier to go via SE Asia. So, assuming you have got yourself to China, you can get from there to Thailand (via Hanoi, Vietnam and Vientiane, Laos), using train and bus. The barrier to India though is Myanmar (Burma) which apparently doesn't like foreigners crossing its land borders. From Bangkok, you could continue south into Malaysia or perhaps onto Singapore and get a cargo ship or ferry to India. Astronaut (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Freighter travel is excellent, expensive against flying, cheap against cruising. Go for it! Google "Cargo Ship Voyages" for long list of specialist booking agents .--Artjo (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in reading Gavin Young's dual travelogues, Slow Boats to China and Slow Boats Home. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard has cruises from US to Europe: [1]. From Europe it should be relatively straightforward to get to India (see seat61.com), though in some areas an US passport might be more obstacle than help (just guessing, but thinking about Iran in particular). Jørgen (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bank draft payment legal dispute

i have negotiated 2 pay orders originally issued by karur vysya bank on 19 mar 2009.drafts issued by kvb on 18MAR 2009. when presented for payment IN clearing on 20 mar 2009 they were returned unpaid saying that" 1.dd cancelled 2.fraudulently obtained 3.police investigation in progress" 1. as we possess the original drafts and negotiated ,can kvb say they have cancelled the drafts. 2.fraud not take place at kvb 3.poloce investigation is nothing to do with original drafts issued by them.

kvb confirmed in writing that they have issued the above drafts. can they countermand the drafts issued by them with out any request from either purchaser or payee.

on enquiry it revealed that a alleged forged cheque paid at hdfc mumbai and funds transfered to kvb thereafter kvb issued drafts by debiting to their customer account. when this come to light on 19 mar 2009 they received fax from mumbai police to freeze their customer account. by the time amount debited to customer account and issued dds in favour of our customer and we have negotriated the drafts on 19 mar 2009. subsequently they have received fax from mumbai police.

in the circumstances kindly advise me the legal recourse available against kvb under various sections of law particularly NI Act kindly help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.219.219 (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reference desk cannot provide legal advice. If you want to know about any "legal recourse" that may be available to you, consult a lawyer. --Anonymous, 11:00 UTC, April 2, 2010.

Commies

Why did communism collapse in Russia and the USSR but not in China? is china still communist? why has it not failed in other countries such as Korea and Vietnam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.59.90 (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

China seems to be in transition from communism to capitalism (but not to democracy). In some places it seems to be even more capitalist than the West, since they lack our unions, regulatory agencies, and democratic controls on capitalism. I think Vietnam is undergoing a similar transition. South Korea is, of course, capitalist, and always has been. North Korea, on the other hand, is a totalitarian state with almost no tolerance for capitalism. I personally blame the collapse of communism in Russia to all of the initial revolutionaries having died. China didn't start to change until after the death of it's founder, Mao Zedong. Similarly, in Cuba, I wouldn't expect change until Fidel Castro, and maybe his brother, Raul Castro, dies. StuRat (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the term communism is used to describe two different arrangements: 1) the totalitarian control of the economy by the government roughly based on policies developed by Vladimir Lenin; and 2) the totalitarian control of the government by a party calling itself the Communist Party. It used to be, before the late 1980s, that there was a group of countries in which both 1) and 2) both existed. The Soviet Union and China were examples, as were Vietnam and North Korea. Today, both 1) and 2) coexist only in North Korea and Cuba. The other countries where 2) still exists, namely China and Vietnam, have abandoned 1) for versions of capitalism. So, it's hard to answer your question because the term communism is so ambiguous. As for why 1), totalitarian control of the economy by the government, persists in North Korea and Cuba, I think the simple answer is that there is a consensus among those in power that their interests are better served by the preservation of this system than by opening up to capitalism. The powerful elites in these countries probably fear that they would lose social and economic status and power in a transition to democracy. They may even fear (particularly in North Korea) legal sanctions or even violent attack by their own people in response to a lifetime of repression and abuse. In both cases, the elites also probably believe in the worthiness of their respective causes. In the case of Cuba, those causes include resisting U.S. imperialism and maintaining a more socially just alternative to capitalism (in their view). In the case of North Korea, those causes include resisting U.S. imperialism and defending the independence of the Korean people from foreign domination. Because they monopolize power in a repressive state apparatus, they are able to stifle most dissent, or, in the case of Cuba, to induce most dissenters into emigrating to the United States. Marco polo (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to think that, if they really ever did believe their own propaganda, that era ended long ago, and now they're just trying to hold onto power any way they can. For example, how could the leadership of NK and Cuba possibly still think that communism will bring economic prosperity, despite decades of evidence to the contrary ? StuRat (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea isn't even that ideological of a state anymore. It is maintained by the Cult of Personality of its leadership (The Kim family) and little else. Cuba, on the other hand, still maintains a revolutionary ideology, so could at least lay claim to still maintaining a communist government. NK is communist in name only. --Jayron32 21:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They could always blame imperialism, foreign meddling, bad luck, etc., which is the standard approach of such regimes. Or they could point to their (perceived) successes (some real, some not), emphasize that Marx always said that it would take a long time for the Communist thing to work out. I'm not a fan of Marxism or Communism (utopias, all), and don't think they appear to work that well in practice (at least not in self-proclaimed Marxist/Communist regimes), but I can imagine how a true ideologue would justify it to themselves. Facts are slippery things, for all of us! --Mr.98 (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How long ? They've all been around for over half a century now, so I'd think that would be long enough to "work out the bugs", unless, of course, the system itself is fundamentally flawed. StuRat (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not like capitalism doesn't have its bugs, either. Every system has bugs. Whether you consider them fatal to the model will vary with what you perceive the bugs as implying about the overall system. Plenty of democratic, capitalist countries have lousy economies as well. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the difference seems to be that capitalism improves over time, while communism declines once people lose their "revolutionary spirit" and thus any reason to work for the benefit of others. StuRat (talk) 02:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat, do you get the general point I am trying to make, or are you just arguing for the sake of it? The issue is that if you wanted to believe that communism works out, you can hold on to that for quite a long time. Just because you are not convinced of it does not mean that others could not be. There are a million obvious arguments against saying that capitalism has improved over time (the economy goes up and down with some frequency—it is not a universal "up" machine, unless you are in a bubble that is about to pop!), and historically, communist countries have gone up and down over time too (your lack of knowledge of such is probably just because that sort of thing is really not discussed in the US in any popular media—but if you read a longer history of, say, the USSR, it had its various ups and downs, for example). I don't want to just go 'round and 'round here — I think my general point is pretty clear and nearly self-evident, if you take the time to see things from another point of view. I am not trying to argue for which point of view is objectively correct, just that there are a variety of non-delusional points of view out there. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly am aware of "boom and bust" cycles in all nations, regardless of economic system, but consider this to just be "noise", with long-term growth being what actually matters. And communism can actually be beneficial in the initial stages, as redistribution of wealth can make more resources and capital available for rapid industrialization and education of the workforce. It's the long term where communism fails, where the lack of incentive to work, and the realization by the population that the economy thus remains stagnant after generations, leads to it's eventual failure. People who want to believe might be able to overlook economic problems in their area, for a while, if assured by government propaganda that the nation, as a whole, is undergoing strong growth. But, eventually, from talking with others and noting no improvement for decades, they will know for themselves that the propaganda is false. Similarly, the leaders of those nations would have to live in total isolation to fail to notice the poverty of their citizens. Even self-delusion has it's limits. StuRat (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you can see though that people are good at rationalizing. In the US, everybody still thinks its system is great even when it hits rock-bottom economic times. They say, "well, it's bad luck, and maybe we need to make some reforms," but nobody "sensible" says "ok, let's scrap the entire system." Most people in most countries are not interested in scrapping their entire systems—it's hard to know what you'd want to replace it with, or whether the replacement would be an improvement or not. (There is a strong argument to be made that the Russians were doing a lot better under the USSR than they are today in many ways!) If you are going to try and understand why other people believe what they do, you are going to have to make an effort to see things from their point of view, and not just repeat American stereotypes of other nations. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not repeating stereotypes. In particular, that part about redistribution of wealth initially doing some good is not something you will find taught in US schools. And, during the Great Depression, there was a substantial portion of the US that did want to scrap capitalism. They eventually settled for a mix of capitalism and socialism under the New Deal. Also, in many Latin American nations in the 20th century, they regularly scrapped their economic systems and tried something else, with most of them also ending up with a mix of capitalism and socialism. StuRat (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Cuba, it's easy: there's a very obvious case of capitalist repression preventing them from achieving prosperity. --Carnildo (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Capitalist repression"? How about "threat of anihilation", from Cuba, when Castro allowed his pals in the USSR to begin building missile launchers to be used against the US. The situation in Cuba is all Castro's fault. Things will get better once he croaks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The embargo pre-dated the missile crisis, and in the end, the USSR agreed not to base them there. I hardly think you can blame Castro for looking for a security umbrella, given that the US did try to assassinate him a bazillion times, did try to invade his country, and happily propped up repressive right-wing regimes all throughout the region because it was in their commercial interests. Castro isn't a peach but claiming the US has dealt with him in good faith is ridiculous. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Castro may has also wondered as does a substanial proportion of the world nowadays why the US was so high and mighty about it when they had nukes within roughly the same distance as the USSR. It's also not entirely clear to me how exactly:

but Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara disagreed. He was convinced that the missiles would not affect the strategic balance at all. An extra forty, he reasoned, would make little difference to the overall strategic balance. The US already had approximately 5,000 strategic warheads[16], whilst the Soviet Union only had 300. He concluded that the Soviets having 340 would not therefore substantially alter the strategic balance. In 1990 he reiterated that "it made no difference...The military balance wasn't changed. I didn't believe it then, and I don't believe it now."

was a '"threat of anihilation", from Cuba' particularly given that it's clear that it was only the Soviet Union commanders, not the Cubans who could actually ultimately use the warheads and there was clearly no intention to use them at that time, except perhaps in the event of an invasion of Cuban.

With ICBMs etc the US of course learnt to live with the threat of (mutual) destruction.

Of course there are the plenty of specific examples relating to Cuba Mr. 98 mentioned including the aforementioned attempted invasion and the embargo and other examples of events predating the missile crisis

The United States considered covert action again and inserted CIA paramilitary officers from their Special Activities Division.[7] Air Force General Curtis LeMay presented to Kennedy a pre-invasion bombing plan in September, while spy flights and minor military harassment from the United States Guantanamo Naval Base were the subject of continual Cuban diplomatic complaints to the U.S. government.

In September 1962 the Cuban government saw what it perceived to be significant evidence that the U.S. would invade, including a joint U.S. Congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force in Cuba if American interests were threatened,[8] and the announcement of a U.S. military exercise in the Caribbean planned for the following month (Operation Ortsac).

which logical would have caused high concern to Cuba at the time. And there are plenty of other examples, such as this recent one or this which continue to illustrate to the world that lacking an effective deterent against an attack from a significantly larger power is always problematic. (Note that whether or not those attacks are justified in your mind, including in the Georgian case their actions which lead up to the crisis is somewhat irrelevant to the point that in the absence of an effective deterent, big powers including the US are always willing to invade smaller ones particularly if there's little to stop them.)

Of course having WMD is no guarantee against an invasion and can even make the situation worse, but it's hardly surprising that many feel and felt they were useful, even more so in the 60s. It's a catch-22 situation of sorts.

In any case, I'm not entirely certain why Castro even comes under so much strife over this, it clearly wasn't primarily his idea, and it's not even clear how much here really wanted them.

Arthur Schlesinger, historian and adviser to John F. Kennedy, on National Public Radio on October 16, 2002, concluded that Castro had not wanted the missiles but that Khrushchev had forced them upon Cuba in a bit of political arm-twisting and "socialist solidarity." However, Castro has said that although he was not completely happy about the idea of the missiles in Cuba, the Cuban National Directorate of the Revolution accepted them to protect Cuba against U.S. attack, and to aid its ally, the Soviet Union

As with Mr. 98 I'm not saying Castro is a peach and there may plenty of bad things he has done particularly within Cuba and also including some other stuff which have contributed to the problematic relationship, but pretending that the US is somehow blameless and in particular somehow proscribing all the ill will to Castro's role in the Cuban missile crisis is just plain silly. In reality of course, it's an extremely complicated mix of factors many of which aren't Castro's fault. (I'm not of course saying that things won't change significantly once Castro has gone, Castro is course a convinient boogieman for the US just as the US is for Castro and his demise a convient way to pretend things have substanially improved there even if little has changed or things get even worse.)

Nil Einne (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem is that capitalism is also used in two senses: for free markets and for state economic regulation in favor of large existing firms. (Both Marxists and the beneficiaries of the latter kind of 'capitalism' prefer to maintain the confusion.) —Tamfang (talk) 03:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be picky (but hopefully a little helpful in thinking about this)—Communism didn't collapse in the USSR, the state did. (If the USA collapsed tomorrow, you wouldn't say capitalism collapsed, you'd say the USA collapsed.) This is not just being pedantic. The reasons the USSR collapsed are many—and very related to the style of government it adopted. But saying Communism collapsed in the USSR seems to make it look inevitable. It wasn't. There are all sorts of ways you could imagine that the USSR could have continued into the present in one form or another. The USSR failed for a lot of reasons—corrupt infrastructure that was buoyed for years on petrodollars that eventually collapsed; the attempt by Gorbachev to liberalize the system which led to increasing instability; its ruinous defense spending policies, etc. Remember that for most analysts at the time, it was completely shocking that the USSR collapsed when it did—it would not have been predicted 5 years previous, or really even 1 year previous. "Communism" didn't collapse—the USSR did. The USSR is not synonymous with Communism (under any definition). (For an excellent, truly readable account of the final days of the USSR, I heavily recommend David Remnick's Lenin's Tomb: The Last Days of the Soviet Empire. Totally fun to read, and gives a sense of the complexity of what was going on, without being a chore.) --Mr.98 (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding North Korean motivations, this blog post is insightful. Marco polo (talk) 00:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism is functionless art

Can someone please fix the deer article's vandalism I cant as I am viewed as a troll because I never sign my posts or sign in. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.59.90 (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. Most vandalism doesn't last long. Matt Deres (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're not blocked, as far as I can tell, so vandalism-fixing edits should work, and may even reduce the opinion you are a vandal or troll. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user may be referring to ClueBot reversing their edits. Woogee (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

smugger

My problem in simple words is that I am not serious about my education. According to my friends I have excellent communication and debating skills, sketching ability and above all a passion for excellence. But I don't have this ambitious bent of mind to succeed in life. I never took up any major endeavor like getting a seat in prestigious universities or getting excellent scores in exams............I just revel in other's praises in my mediocre abilities!!! On other hand I am too excited about my chocolate boy image among females and all the rat shit! I think I am strangling my life and getting numb about the situation at hand..........what can I do to stop it???

I think you already know exactly what to do. JFDI. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Attention deficit disorder. Naturally, as we are prohibited from giving medical advice, we may only advise that you should see a doctor if you think you have it. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think either of those responses is helpful. Aren't there organisations devoted to helping people find direction and determination in their lives? Connexions did it for me when I was younger (well...sort of), but I suppose the chances of the original poster being 13-19 and in England is fairly slim. Vimescarrot (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try the book What Color is Your Parachute?. StuRat (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was like that.I went out,worked and had fun then went to Uni in my 30's..hotclaws 20:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who's the announcer?

Who is the announcer whose voice is heard in the beginning of this video? [2] --77.127.214.65 (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Hite (announcer) was the announcer on the CBS Evening News for much of Walter Cronkite's tenure, however the Wikipedia article notes that he started as the announcer in 1971, while imdb notes 1970, however that doesn't jibe with the 1968 date. I am not sure if that announcer is Hite; it may have been since Hite had been working for CBS as an announcer for decades at that point. It does sound a but like other soundbites of hite, like this one: [3] but it can be hard to say. --Jayron32 04:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

African Railway

Was there any plan for a railway that went from north to south africa? The former British colonies seemed to join up from north to south. 89.243.36.35 (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was such a plan. See Cape to Cairo Railway. It was something of a pet project for Cecil Rhodes. During the Scramble for Africa, Britain did indeed try very hard to create a contiguous chain of colonies through Africa. The main roadblock came in the form of two colonies, the Belgian Congo (Modern DR of the Congo) and German East Africa (Modern Tanzania). After WWI, the German colony became a League of Nations mandate overseen by The U.K., so techincally the U.K. did, for a few decades, have the contiguous land availible, but for various reasons, the drive to create such a railroad largely died with its champion (Mr. Rhodes having passed in 1902) and as a result, the line was never completed. The railway exists in parts, though it currently has three different guages on its different sections, making a "single train" traverse of the continent, even if it were completed, somewhat impossible. The current gaps also cross the Sudan, which for political reasons, makes it highly unlikely to be completed anytime soon. --Jayron32 21:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These days, international transport infrastructure in Africa has once again come under consideration. See Trans-African Highway network. Astronaut (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]