Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 March 30

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

March 30

Islamic problem

From the Kaaba article: "All Muslims around the world face the Kaaba during prayers, no matter where they are."

Which way would a Muslim have to face if they were at the exact antipodal point of the Kaaba? (on a boat ;) -- œ^™ 02:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess that's not as completely ridiculous as it looks because that point is close to some little islands in French Polynesia, but obviously then it wouldn't matter, they could look generally east or west (which is what happens anyway, it doesn't really matter if their eyes don't connect to the Kaaba in a direct line). And if they were stuck on a rickety boat that was not convenient for praying, they wouldn't have to pray anyway. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Is "face the Kaaba" even defined? Do they look along the line of the great circle connecting their location to Mecca, or directly through the Earth in a straight line, or doesn't it matter much as long as they're looking vaguely in the direction of Mecca and thinking Mecca-like thoughts? -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It's very well-defined, but there are two different methods in use: see Qibla#Two methods in determining the direction of the Qiblah. The vast majority of Muslims use the "great circle" rule, while a minority of North American Muslims use the "rhumb line" (straight line on a Mercator map) rule. --Carnildo (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Being stuck on a rickety boat in the middle of the South Pacific i'd say is indeed a cause for prayer! :) -- œ^™ 03:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Although it is full of "citation needed" tags, our Qibla might be of some help. A Google search for qibla also shows numerous websites that help determine the direction of Mecca. That's awesome! Adam Bishop (talk) 03:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Aha! From Qibla: "If someone is inside the Kaaba, or the exact opposite point on earth, they are allowed to pray facing any direction." Thanks for the link! -- œ^™ 04:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone's gotta ask... so, which way would a muslim astronaut face (in Earth orbit, or on another planet/moon)? Astronaut (talk) 11:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

See the section Qibla#The Qiblah from space in the already-cited article. Deor (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that'll teach me not to read the cited article first! Astronaut (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I love the answer: "toward Earth" 130.126.130.161 (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yea, that would be fine from the Moon, or farther, where all parts of the Earth are in about the same direction. But from low-Earth orbit, which I suspect is where all the Muslim astronauts were, the Earth fills almost half the sky, so that's a rather large range. StuRat (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the upside is that you can pretty much see the location of Mecca a good deal of the time (and work out roughly where it is when it's not in your sight. The downside, I guess, is that its position relative to you may change appreciably while you're praying. Deor (talk) 17:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you're on the Moon bowing toward Earth, your angle is probably more accurate than if you're on the earth some long distance away. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The ISS & Shuttle orbit about once every 90 minutes. Looking at Salah, the prayers seem like they'd take 10 to 15 minutes - and over that much time - the correct direction to face would change quite a bit. Tricky! SteveBaker (talk) 01:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

If Cal.'s pot law passes, how/where/from whom can I buy an ounce IMMEDIATELY?

California currently has a ballot measure legalizing pot for individual users (not just for medical purposes). I think the illegality of pot is outrageous and, if the ballot measure passes, I want to buy an ounce immediately as a political statement -- I mean, literally, the very first minute I can do so. But where would I buy it? (Seven-eleven? Walgreens? Obviously not -- they'll take a while to get it in stock! But ... A hip independent liquor store? A former "medical marijuana" center?)

To avoid wasting your time, please don't point out that the law could be pre-empted by federal laws -- I know that. Please presume the question applies to a situation with no pre-emption. 63.17.82.46 (talk) 04:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you have the right idea with the medical marijuana suppliers. However, I bet the bill doesn't go into effect immediately, so you'd have to wait until it does. StuRat (talk) 04:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I mean "when the law goes into effect." I want to see long lines of people all over the state, lining up to buy pot the second it becomes legal ... just to make a statement against outrageous, draconian prohibitions. 63.17.40.224 (talk) 08:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The law proposed is similar to the law where I live. Individual possession is decriminalised, but possessing trafficable quantities is punishable. Local users buy from illegal dealers or grow small amounts at home. The justification given is that the individual users, while creating a market, are not encouraging a new market, so need not be punished. Steewi (talk) 04:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Steewi, what is your source for the assertion that pot won't be legal for SALE, as opposed to possession? Also, the word "decriminalizes" is incorrect; the correct word is "legalizes." 63.17.83.49 (talk) 07:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I take back the above question to Steewi, because I've affirmed he/she is wrong. Sale of less than an ounce per transaction will be legalized, except to minors or if forbidden by (subsequent) local "blue laws." 63.17.40.224 (talk) 08:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was ambiguous - I was describing the laws where I live (ACT, Australia). Steewi (talk) 07:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

For those looking for a reference, here is an LA Times story on the initiative from a week ago; and our article Cannabis in California has some information. To the original poster's question, the medical marijuana outlets obviously have the supply; the thing to check would be whether the initiative, or the law enabling distribution of medical marijuana, specifies any penalties for a medical marijuana outlet that distributes to those without a card from a doctor. Comet Tuttle (talk) 04:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That article says: "It would allow local governments, but not the state, to authorize the cultivation, transportation and sale of marijuana and to impose taxes to raise revenues." That means it may take some time for those laws to pass, and, until then, sale would remain illegal. StuRat (talk) 12:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The law allows for "retail sales," with no reference to medical marijuana providers as such. 63.17.40.224 (talk) 08:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Does the proposed law contain any language allowing taxation of it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. 63.17.40.224 (talk) 08:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I notice that the proposal defines one ounce as 28.5 grams, while it's actually 28.3495231 grams. This could lead to some bizarre legal case where somebody is caught with 28.4 grams. StuRat (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

If it defines the units in which the law is using, then it's not going to create anything bizarre. That's the entire point of defining the units—so from a legal perspective you don't have to argue about them. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

If it just used either 1 ounce or 28.5 grams as the limit, that would be true. But, since it states the limit in both terms, this causes a problem when the actual amount is between those two. StuRat (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

What Mr.98 is saying is that the bill would have been drafted in such a way that for legal purposes "1 ounce" is temporarily redefined to mean exactly "28.5g". Equisetum (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

But are they changing the definition of an ounce or a gram? And why would they use a word with a standard definition to mean something different? --Tango (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

StuRat and Tango, we can make an exception and can give you legal advice on your marijuana habit if you provide a link to the proposal you are discussing. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

StuRat will have to do that because I'm just going on what he says. I have no idea what proposal it is. --Tango (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's the proposal (PDF file): [1]. StuRat (talk) 03:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The wording clearly changes the definition of an ounce for purposes of this act.

This sort of thing is done in legal language all the time -- they define a short term and then use it throughout the act or other document. Why? For convenience. Simple language is easier for everyone to read and understand, even lawyers. (Admittedly "one ounce" isn't a helluvalot shorter and simpler than "28.5 grams", so this is an unusual case.) Computer programmers will recognize the concept as that of a macro. My favorite example is a Canadian one, from our Income Tax Act:

"Taxpayer" includes any person whether or not liable to pay tax.

This allows them to say things like "If the taxpayer has... then the taxpayer must pay..." without anyone arguing that "I am refusing to pay taxes, therefore I am not a taxpayer." --Anonymous, 17:35 UTC, March 30, 2010.

Yeah, that's what I meant. They could have said "one kwazbit (28.5 grams)." It's just meant to be legally unambiguous, even if it is rounded for convenience. Rounding also probably reduces the need for exceptionally accurate scales (just within .5 gram). Anyway, the point is they were pretty explicit about their re-definition, even if it is, indeed, a re-definition of a standard, which would seem unnecessary if it is really a standard. It also immediately tells you how many significant digits they care about, which is somewhat useful, especially if you are a lawyer and have forgotten what significant digits are. ;-) --Mr.98 (talk) 00:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably a medical marijuana distribution center. They'll be the ones who are probably most keen on doing things the "legal"/"official" way, rather than, say, that guy on the corner of Telegraph and Bancroft. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow -- the Board is stumped! But thanks. Other than the obvious guess -- and yes, it's only a guess -- that medical marijuana centers are the answer, nobody has the least idea where or by whom pot would be retailed if this landmark measure passes. Business opportunities, anyone? (I'll guess again that it will be liquor stores, and add "tobacco shops" and "paraphernalia shops" to the guess. One imagines the license will be sought only by child-unfriendly venues (and granted only to them?), so 7/11 and Walgreens are out. I can't believe that all the California entrepreneurs, from so many nations, will allow only the medical marijuana centers to monopolize that crucial early foothold in a high-margin business.) Any educated guesses left? Any actually informed assertions? 63.17.67.8 (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Your initial Q was about where you could buy it immediately after the bill passes, so that would need to be a place which already stocks it and is currently set up to sell it legally, hence the medical marijuana center. Now, if you're asking about long term sellers, I think liquor stores would be a good choice, but I also think places like Walgreens could stock it. They'd just keep it behind the counter like they do with cigarettes. StuRat (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, like booze and tobacco, it will probably require a license to sell it. Exactly what the licensing procedures would be, I don't think anyone knows. So it's not clear if it's the kind of thing that will only be sold in "vice" stores (e.g. liquor stores) or your local Safeway. In the short term, I think the good bet that it'll be in existing dispensaries, since they probably already have done half of the paperwork (and nobody is going to object if they start selling it... again). By contrast, with liquor licensing, there has to be a public announcement, there are opportunities for people to complain about how much it'll junk up the neighborhood, etc. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Walgreens, Safeway, Wal-Mart, Target, Kroger supermarkets — none of these will sell marijuana, for the same reason none of them sell Playboy Magazine: they fear being tarred by the religious right as stoned corrupters of American youth.

Safeways in California sell booze and cigarettes. Who knows if they'd add marijuana to that list at some point? There are vices and there are vices. People get much more up-tight about sex than they do gambling and alcohol and cigarettes. I'm not sure it's apples-to-apples, here. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

how this insurance plan works?

LIC’s Wealth Plus is a unit linked plan that safeguards your investment from market fluctuations, so that your investments are protected in financially volatile times. This plan offers payment of Fund Value at the end of policy term, based on highest Net Asset Value (NAV) over the first 7 years of the policy, or the NAV as applicable at the end of the policy term, whichever is higher. NAV of the fund will be subject to a minimum of Rs. 10/-. The policy term is 8 years with an extended life cover for 2 years after the completion of policy term. This plan will be available for sale for a limited period. LIC India Wealth Plus --V4vijayakumar (talk) 04:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Unit-linked means that your premiums (or investment amount) pay for 'units' within a fund - the units go up (or down) and your investment is worth units x unit-price - any charges. The basic premise (based on the above wording) suggests that your Fund Value will be the 'peak' fund value at the time of the plan ending (e.g. you invest 1,000 and your fund goes up to 4,000 by year 5 but ends at 3,750 - you'll get 4,000). Life-cover wise you get cover for 10 years (2 years longer than the plan) - typically this will mean that if the policy holder dies within this time a lump-sum amount will be payable. You should seek 'financial advice' from a professional if you want to understand if this product is suitable for your needs. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like a plan to reduce risk. As such, average return must be reduced to cover the reduction in risk. StuRat (talk) 12:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't see anything about charges on that page. In a unit-linked plan, some of your premium pays the fund manager's charges, rather than going into fund units. I imagine charges for a fund with this "high water mark" feature could be quite high, especially given current market volatility. As StuRat says, lower risk => lower return. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Inclusive development and Inclusive finance

a. What is Inclusive Development? Its Origin, Principle, Scope of study, Objectives and Importance. b. What is Inclusive Finance? Its Origin, Principle, Scope of study, Objectives and Importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.70.77.194 (talk) 08:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Coursework?Froggie34 (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misevaluation, but it is our policy here to not do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn how to solve such problems. Please attempt to solve the problem yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know.

That said, try reading inclusive development and see if that is applicable to your homework (it is a little hard to tell if you just repeat your teacher's question here with no context). If it is applicable, extend the idea to finance and imagine what inclusive finance is all about. Astronaut (talk) 12:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Institution Building

a.What is Instituton Building ? Its origin, Principles (Approaches, models)? Its opportunity and threats?202.70.77.194 (talk) 08:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Coursework?Froggie34 (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misevaluation, but it is our policy here to not do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn how to solve such problems. Please attempt to solve the problem yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know.

That said, it is a little hard to tell what you are asking about if you just repeat your teacher's question here with no context and no spaces between the words and punctuation. For example, what kind of insitution do you mean - a company, a hospital, a club? Or, is "Instituton Building" the name of a specific building in your town? Astronaut (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Organisational Effectiveness

Conpects,Principles(Approaches),Parameters(measuring rud),strategy to get organisational effectiveness?202.70.77.194 (talk) 08:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Coursework?Froggie34 (talk) 10:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misevaluation, but it is our policy here to not do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn how to solve such problems. Please attempt to solve the problem yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know.

That said, it is a little hard to tell what you are asking about if you just repeat your teacher's question here with no context and no spaces between the words and punctuation. You could try reading the article on effectiveness and then decide which type of effectiveness will best lead to information about organisations rather than physics. Astronaut (talk) 12:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Flie control in poultry houses

Dear Sir I'm an animal nutritionist at a large feed company in South Africa and on a recent visit to Europe saw an article advertising a product that gets mixed into cattle feed and prevents flie larvae from developing. The product was from Boeringer Ingelheim. We use Larvadex in SA but results on some farms not good. I would like to get an alternative product that could be used in poultry feed (egg production)but also in dairy feeds.

Could you please advise me on alternatives? Thanks. Kontiki Boerdery (talk) 12:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Larvadex is an insecticide (the article is simply a redirect to the active chemical, Cyromazine, so I cannot easily find out more about it in Wikipedia). However, we do have a Category:Insecticides which would list some rival chemicals and the insecticide article itself looks promising too, but I'm no expert on which would be effective for your application. A better approach might be to use an internet search for insecticide manufacturers or suppliers. Using Google, I quickly found Boeringer Ingelheim's website which has their contact information for their office in Randburg. Astronaut (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Your searches will be better if you spell it "fly". --Sean 13:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Does U.S. occupation = U.S. empire?

Is the United States the only country in the world that has military bases in other countries? If so, where do they exist? And do other countries have military bases in the U.S.? B-Machine (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No other countries have military bases in the US. The British have overseas bases—e.g. Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Crete. France has bases in Cote d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Gabon, and Senegal.[2] --Mr.98 (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Akrotiri and Dhekalia are in Cyprus, not Crete. 128.135.222.164 (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

D'oh. You're right. I get my Mediterranean-islands-that-start-with-C's mixed up sometimes. I need to just remember that Cypriot sounds like apricot, and is thus amusing! Being called a Cretan sounds like an insult. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Eh, better to live on Crete and be called a Cretan then to live on Lesbos. Googlemeister (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

To be an empire would require that we have taken control of the government and economy of the nations who let us build bases within their borders. Beach drifter (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore having an agreement with a sovereign nation about lease of land for a military base does not in the least imply occupation. Beach drifter (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that Guantanamo Bay Naval Base might be an exception, though. Stretching the original question a bit -- are there other countries that operate an overseas base against the wishes of the host state? — Lomn 15:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Gitmo came to mind right away, apparently we have kept possession of that land since the 1898, and the US still claims that a lease agreement from 1934 is valid. I'd guess the local population in places like Saudi Arabia might dislike US bases but the Gitmo article states that it is the only base that has no diplomatic reason. Beach drifter (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

We send the rent checks. If Castro does not want to cash them, that is his business, but that does not void the lease. Googlemeister (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

If the lease is invalid or no longer valid, then sending the 'rent' checks is irrelevant Nil Einne (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Cuba unilaterally decided that they no longer wanted to honor the lease, when the lease its self says both countries must agree to terminate it. Beach drifter (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No, as I understand it Cuba claims the lease is either no longer valid or has always been invalid for a variety of reasons (the article seems to have information removed, you may want to go thorough the history). I have limited understanding of international law and no idea whether these reasons are legitimate or not but I don't think your view is an accurate representation of Cuba's POV. The article does or did state that the US regard's Cuba under Castro cashing the first cheque as evidence they accept it as valid even though Cuba say it was an accident (which seems plausible to me) which I find rather odd. Neither the US nor Cuba accept compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ and it's almost definite that the US is not going to voluntary agree to take the case before the ICJ. (I suspect Cuba may be more willing, amongst other things, if they lose they're little worse off then they are now except perhaps losing a propaganda advantage, but a win will be a big gain, even if the US then proceeds to ignore the judgement.) So there's little likelihood of the issue actually being resolved in any way which will really answer the question anytime soon. Nil Einne (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

See List of United States military bases for the location of US bases. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The British are still hanging onto Gibraltar, right? Presumably it's for strategic reasons, as with GTMO. A number of the US bases are carryovers from WWII. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find that Gibraltar wants to hang on to Britain - you know, self-determination and all that. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar is British territory and has been for hundreds of years (although Spain does state a claim to it). There are military bases there, but it isn't just a military base. It has very little in common with Guantanamo. --Tango (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Königsberg/Kaliningrad is an interesting example of territory Russia took from Germany during WW2 and used as a military base. They expelled all the Germans and brought in Russians to replace them. Some of the northern Japanese islands were similarly permanently taken over by Russia. StuRat (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Russia still has military bases in almost all of it's non-EU former soviet states. Heck even my native Ireland, a country of 4.5 million, has military bases in Chad and the Central African Republic, though small and temporary only. They are part of MINURCAT. Practically every single developed and many developing countries have a military presence in another country for some reason or another. I think it would be easier to list those who don't.--92.251.191.108 (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Made that a link. --Anon, 17:40 UTC, March 30, 2010.

For an example of how having a foreign base is different from occupation, consider the case of the US base in Karshi-Khanabad, Uzbekistan, which was closed after the US objected to the Andijan massacre. Had it been an occupation, the US might have refused to leave. StuRat (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Re Akrotiri and Dhekelia - "The election of left-wing Dimitris Christofias as Cypriot president in February 2008 has prompted concern in Britain. Christofias has pledged to remove all foreign military forces from the island as part of a future settlement of the Cyprus dispute, calling the British presence on the island a "colonial bloodstain"." Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The United States is an empire. Why? Because the U.S. has and still is invading countries, killing leaders of nations won't bow down to U.S. interests, installing puppet leaders, and building military bases. The U.S. never really left Japan and Germany because they have established interests and bases in those nations after WW2. If you think the U.S. interests will Iraq, you're an idiot. The military might leave, the the interests will remain. And no, you don't have to control other nations physically. You can control nations through political and financial manipulation through corrupt organizations like the United Nations and the IMF. B-Machine (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I have asked for some references to some of your more dubious assertions. Googlemeister (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

And I don't think we really need language like "you're an idiot" towards opinions that are really not that idiotic. There are circumstances in which the US could leave Iraq wholesale (as it did with, say, Vietnam). I think the more "idiotic" stance is one that sees US power as universally hegemonic—it has clearly played out more problematically than that. (As recent stories regarding the US's inability to deal with Karzai points out quite clearly.) --Mr.98 (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I note that the view that America's overseas military bases are a form of empire is covered in the article on American Empire, which also discusses that more common meanings of claims that an American Empire exists. Warofdreams talk 18:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

B-Machine -- Since you already claim to have the answer to your question, why did you ask it? The Reference Desk, and Wikipedia in general, are not soapboxes. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

In the late 19th century, when the U.S. wanted a base in Hawaii, and simply sent in the Marines to shoot the place up and run up the U.S. flag, that was widely described as "imperialism," as was the brutal suppression in the Phillipines in the 1890's and early 20th century [3]. Similarly, dictating to Cuba that they could not have independence unless they signed a perpetual lease for a base at Guantanamo has been called imperialism. Writers have spoken of an "American Empire." [4] The "Project for a New American Century" wrote in the 1990's that the U.S. should invade Iraq. This has also been called imperialism. A founder of PNAC said that the desired U.S. control of the world was not an empire because other countries knew the U.S. would leave, and that the goal was just "spreading democracy and individual rights." Others would say that the U.S. has a history of invading countries to provide them liberty and democracy. The Japanese Empire said similar things about their reasons for sending troops to other Asian countries in the 1930's/1940's, as the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. Edison (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Tube artillery vs Rocket artillery

What are the various advantages of disadvantages of each? Do they differ in the way they are used?--92.251.191.108 (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

See our article rocket artillery. It even has a section thoughtfully entitled "Rocket artillery vs tube artillery". For contrast, see the Artillery article, which has a lot of historical background in it but also modern artillery discussion. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll note one problem with some of the contrasts in the above article: they appear to ignore the use of guided rocket artillery. There's discussion about the relative inaccuracy of rocket artillery being one of its downsides, but the M270 MLRS notes that it can use unguided or guided projectiles. Note that tube artillery can also use guided shells such as the M712 Copperhead, so points about accuracy appear to be a wash for modern systems. — Lomn 20:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Guided rocket artillery is still less accurate than regular tube artillery. I don't know why anyone would bother with guided tube shells when they can jsut use regular ones.--92.251.191.108 (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Source? The MLRS can use GPS-guided projectiles. I'd like to know how regular tube artillery beats that over any significant range. — Lomn 13:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It also depends on how you define rocket artillery. The Pershing missiles of the U.S. Army were classified as artillery systems. Pershing II had a 80 kiloton warhead, 1,100 mile range and 100 foot CEP. MLRS can stop and fire a volley in minutes, whereas a 155 howitzer can take a while to emplace, load and fire. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Below 15 km 155 mm tube artillery is hte queen of the battlefield and will easily annhilate its target. The rocket M270 weapons, even the ATACMS are not as accurate as artillery shells at 15 km.--92.251.164.176 (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

African wuolo dog

Found the mentions of this most interesting dog (the African wuolo dog) came across this unusual breed of dog in a novel that changed the world (Roots - Alex Haley) apparently it is an old world dog - according to my readings - this breed of dog followed an African tribe of people (the Mandinka) a tribe of west Africans - whom it has been acclaimed - that the author of roots is an ancestor to (their village is Juffureh - Gambia - off the western coast of Africa - where it has been determined - that 3 million or more Africans were kidnapped - timespan of 300 years) my research reveals that this ancient breed of dog - roamed with this tribe for centuries - even before the Mandinkan tribe relocated in this current and present geographical region of Africa...

This breed of dog (the African wuolo dog) would be considered a native of its homeland - as well the people they traveled and associated with - so that means that we are dealing with an ethnic custom - this dog has been deemed as one who was a protector and a company keeper of its master - so the story goes - even though it has been described as being a small dog - the slogan utilized to describe this little dog (defined - as a fierce fighter even unto death - but in life it was its master's shadow) in a major story line structured by the author - this small dog fit well into the plot given to it - as it fought to the finish for the sake of its master ...

There are other old world dogs that have come to the western world - not as working dogs but as adornments to the rich and the famous - glamorizing them in their endeavors to capture the limelight - but not this little dog - so what are we waiting on - let us give recognition where recognition is due - for this little dog is considered to be a part of the history of the mother land - or perhaps - where ever this breed of dog originated from - before settling on the coast of Africa - we are in dire need of additional info - essential for the accurracies of (stories and essays) knowledge and understanding gleaned by the professionals - is what the public crave to date

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.94.108.74 (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC) 

I absolutely hate trying to read text in total upper-case. I may try to get interested in the subject matter - but no matter how hard I try - I eventually have to give up. Sorry.92.30.75.211 (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of dropping the case. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

What on Earth possesses people to write in all upper case anyway? Even all lower case is easier to read, even though to give a professional impression, one should at least capitalise the first word of every sentence.

I have made a brief reformatting of the OP's entire post, as it was pretty painful to read. Maybe the OP is dyslexic or something? I would hate to discover that the post above represents the norm of the average Internet user's typing skills. There is still more to reformat, but as I am not the OP's father, teacher, or employer, I don't see the point in reformatting it more. JIP | Talk 19:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be the norm in some online contexts. I met my partner online, but when we first started chatting, he very nearly lost me because he typed everything in ALL CAPS. I had to ask him to please stop shouting at me when we hardly knew each other and hadn't even met face to face at that stage and hadn't yet acquired enough resentment of each other to have our first fight. He apologised and immediately changed his orthographic behaviour. He said all caps was very common in the chat lines he used, so he just followed suit. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I did a Google search on wuolo dog, and didn't find any breed info, but did find this interesting passage from the book Whispers of a Secret God: [5]. My guess is that this isn't an actual breed, but just a local name for a pet/worker dog. StuRat (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I simplified the title of the question for easier reference. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you JIP and Cuddlyable for making the posting more readable. But it still appears to be an essay. Is there a question there? --ColinFine (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

They appear to be asking for info about the African wuolo dog. StuRat (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing English is not OP's first language, judging by strange turns of phrases like "whom it has been acclaimed", "current and present geographical region of Africa", "adornments to the rich and the famous", "accurracies" and unusual use of dashes. Some parts made no sense to me. I presume this novel Roots is a fairly modern creation, so how can its author be an ancestor of an ancient African tribe ("the author of roots is an ancestor to")?

The style of the prose actually reminds me of the gibberish put into internet spam to disguise spam as legitimate posts / emails. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Roots is a 1970's book and TV miniseries about a black American who traces his ancestry back to Africa, including re-enactments of slave traders who take his ancestor from Africa. So, he means descendant, not ancestor. StuRat (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Wulo is the Mandinka word for "dog" - [6]. This article may be of interest, although it doesn't specifically refer to dogs in West Africa. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Rope question

I have some hemp rope, which is otherwise very good, but it's rough to the touch and tends to leave little strands of hemp off. What can I do to it to make it smoother? I was told to boil it. Is this simply a matter of putting it into a pot of boiling water and then taking it out and letting it dry, or do I have to do something more to it? Is there danger of breaking the rope or making it even rougher? JIP | Talk 19:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You may try to apply some type of Wax to the rope, though I am not sure what type would be most affective. Of course, the effectiveness would also depend on the rope's specific use 10draftsdeep (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm convinced that this rope was designed by sadistic gym coaches to tear the skin off the hands of little kids. Note that making it softer would make it less able to "catch" on things (like itself in the case of knots). Therefore, you might want to just wear gloves when using it instead of softening it. StuRat (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I would use a small pair of scissors to cut off the offending bits. But then, I have a lot of spare time!--79.76.190.44 (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Another way is to wear a pair of denim jeans and to pull the rope between your clenched buttocks. This is a well known method. Of course you must not pull the rope too quickly as this may set fire to some of your most precious assets.--79.76.190.44 (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There's an old ropework adage that says that you should never trust well behaved rope - by the time rope has worn enough to be soft and easily handled during knotwork etc. it's too worn to be relied upon for strength or "seizing"/catching qualities. So be glad your rope is rough - you can trust rough rope. Keep your well behaved rope for learning new knots. Equisetum (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

DO NOT BOIL YOUR ROPE!!!!! Sorry for shouting, but for Pete's sake don't do it - you'll weaken the fibres, which will then start to rot as it dries out, weakening them still further. Hemp rope is a bit rough - but the more you use it the tougher the skin on your hands will become. DuncanHill (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

As a Scout, I have handled lots of rope and made quite a bit. I've never boiled rope, but it certainly can't be good for it. You haven't told us what you are using it for. I have used a small torch to burn off the loose fibers on the end of a rope where it is handled, but I mostly just wear gloves. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 20:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, since you ask: it's intended for bondage. I have attended a few bondage workshops where I have had the opportunity to tie up, and be tied up by, women and other men. The last time, I brought the hemp rope along because it was longer than the other ropes I had. I was told it looked and smelled very nice but unprocessed, was far too rough to actually feel nice. JIP | Talk 22:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"Oh, they used nylon rope, it feels so soft against my skin...almost sensual!" - Apu Nahasapeemapetilon. And who could argue with an endorsement like that? I've never used hemp rope for such a thing, but it would seem to be singularly inappropriate due to the possibility of slivers and rope burn. Use nylon, but stay away from nylons as the stretchiness increases the risk of cutting off circulation accidentally. Matt Deres (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't use hemp rope for bondage unless you're also into S&M. I agree with the nylon rope suggestion. StuRat (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess the obvious question is did they offer any recommendations at these classes of the rope type and treatment? If not, you may want to ask. They may have similar recommendations to Matt. If they did and recommended hemp rope, er, you may want to consider a class run by someone else? Nil Einne (talk) 12:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I fondly remember being made to climb a rope during a school Gym Circuit class at the age of 12. And as I approached the top of the rope, I experienced the most overpowering sensation at the top of my legs and couldn't move up nor down. I just hung there in paroxysms of inexplicable delight. The teacher started shouting at me to come down or get off - well - at that age - I didn't know the difference between "come down" and "get off", so I involuntarily chose the latter. Oh, Bliss. Happy schooldays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.49.60 (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Platte River question

Why is the Platte River and the North Platte River nearly straight while flowing through the plains of Wyoming and Nebraska? How is it possible if there is no trench or valley for it to follow? Shannon^talk _contribs 21:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Sadly neither article gives any information on their geologic history, however Braided river does give some good information on the dynamics of them both. Beach drifter (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Compare to Meandering river which gives a great explanation of why valleys and curves develop in rivers. Beach drifter (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

However the North Platte does not meander, it braids and if you look on an atlas, the river is so straight that you could literally put a ruler up against it and it would be perfectly parallel.Shannon^talk _contribs 03:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

See, for example the picture on this page for why Beach drifter pointed you to braided river. Then the bottom photo on that page shows some very straight channels, later answerers: are they natural? --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 06:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The North Platte- main Platte straight run is about 600 miles long. I haven’t ever heard of an engineering project that grand to divert a river into a straighter channel, let alone in a relatively isolated agricultural region. Shannon^talk _contribs 21:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)