Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 February 25

= February 25 =

Makkin wor Cheryl tak proper like
This article in British pseudo-newspaper The Daily Mail alleges that "geordie songbird" Cheryl Cole's Newcastle accent could breach US broadcasting (I assume FCC) regulations, saying "if viewers in the U.S. can't understand what she's saying, the show will be in breach of strict U.S. TV regulations." While I appreciate that network executives might ask Ms. Cole to Atlanticise her speech somewhat, would her occasional dialectical excursions really be "illegal"; or is this merely the Mail's usual febrile view of "foreigners" as some admixture of stupid and evil? 90.220.118.193 (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've seen subtitles used on American TV for English people who are far easier to understand than Cheryl Cole. They could do the same for her. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I seriously doubt there is any FCC rule like this. If it were illegal to air someone with a thick regional British accent, both PBS and BBC America would have been shut years ago. Blueboar (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks like the usual Daily Mail 'anything for a story to justify the pictures' article - clearly there isn't anything important for a newspaper to report on at the moment (yeah, right...). Actually, Ms Cole's Geordie accent isn't that difficult, even for a wet southern b******d like me, so I doubt our transatlantic cousins will find her totally unintelligible - whether she ever says anything important enough to be worth understanding is another issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * To be fair, Brian Johnson's Geordie accent is just as thick and incomphensible, and he's been heard on American TV and radio for years. The U.S. broadcasting rules aren't nearly as strict as they were in the past (after about 10 PM most of the seven deadly words can be heard freely, some even during the daytime), though being "incomprehensible" has never been, AFAIK, a reason for censoring someone, even under the strictest rules.  The Daily Mail appears to be practicing the time-honored journalistic tradition known as "making shit up."  -- Jayron  32  04:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I have little idea of who she is, so I looked her up on YouTube to find a clip of her speaking. I, for one, can understand her without any problem at all, so I don't see what issue any US broadcaster would have.  That's assuming the story in the Daily Mail is correct, which it isn't.  I've also seen native Americans (small "N") such as those from the South with thick marble-mouthed accents get subtitles because the producers of the show felt that other Americans might have a hard time understanding them.  Dismas |(talk) 04:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The Americans certainly didn't find it hard to comprehend John Lennon's scouse accent when he made his famous "Jesus remark".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The Bigger than Jesus comment appeared in print, in more-or-less standard English. Anyway, I don't think many Americans understood the bit about the thick and ordinary disciples being the ones who ruined it. DuncanHill (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * They weren't allowed to think for themselves after the media took it completely out of context and all the fundamentalist churchmen pounced on it as an excuse to crucify the "devil-driven and devil-begotten" rock and roll.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And of course they all immediately turned their backs on rock and roll and it is generally loathed in the USA to this day. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course they did not. My parents continued to criticise the antics of Mick Jagger on the Ed Sullivan show (whilst not switching the channel, mind) in the meanwhile giving me money to buy their records. Then again, my parents were NOT fundamentalists and we lived among the palm trees of Venice in fantastic LA.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Americans are allowed to think for themselves, it's just a sizeable (and very loud) minority of them find it easier not to. DuncanHill (talk) 13:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with Lennon's comment is that the media did not bother to print his entire statement. I wonder how much they are to blame for fundamentalist Mark David Chapman's later obsession with Lennon?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The line in the original article: "A source said: 'If audiences and contestants can't understand her, it is actually a regulatory offence.'" As stated above, this is nonsense; there is no such FCC rule.  A search of the FCC website suggested they're more concerned that their own directives are understandable than whether broadcasters are understandable (which is all as it should be IMO).  Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If this is the "Cheryl Cole" who has Youtube videos of "Fight for this love," "Parachute," and "Three words" then everything she says would be perfectly intelligible to the average midwestern US listener. More so in fact than many videos by minority US residents.The clip cited above of her speaking rather than singing does have quite an accent: "Sōmetāmes..." rather than "Sometimes...(with a diphthong i)" and "Wok" instead of "Whack." In the US years ago we had actor Jim Nabors who spoke with a hick/rural/Gomer Pyle accent, but sang with no accent. Edison (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

āā

Old motto of the University of Bologna?
According to University of Bologna, the university changed its motto in 2000. What was the old motto? I can't find it in the article history or the talk page, and Google gives me absolutely nothing at all. Nyttend (talk) 05:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I tried Google Books and a few different ones came up; "Libertas", although that may have been the motto of the city itself, "Petrus ubique pater, legum Bononia mater" ("St. Peter is the father of laws, Bologna the mother" - since Bologna was famous for its legal school), "alma mater studiorum" ("nourishing mother of studies"), or "Bononia docet" ("Bologna teaches"). Adam Bishop (talk) 10:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Mullah compaign by Khaksar movement not mentioned in the article.
Allamah Mashriqi had written a lot against the Mullah or Mowlvi. A pamphalet titled 'Mowlvi ka Mazhab' was published by the Khaksar Party and sold in public places at a price of a 'Taka' (a two-paisa coin then prevalent) with an interesting catchphrase 'Mowlvi ka Mazhab, Takey Takey'. But nothing is mentioned about it in the article. I would like to read that pamphlet if any body can provide it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.142.11 (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a request for more information to be added to Khaksars. Have you looked at all the references and external links in that article? There are quite a lot of them and they should be able to take you to further information. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Could it perhaps be listed as "Maulvi Ka Ghalat Mazhab" in Allama Mashriqi's works? WikiDao    &#9775;  21:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

seed capital demand curve
If you were an investor considering a hotshot team who was pitching an idea that they say they are in a position to grow to a valuation of approximately $2.6billion within 5 years (Internet company) and are currently seeking seed capital from you, then if you believe their claim as to the potential of the company, what seed amoutn: These are very general metrics, and of course you can price in whatever risk discount etc. you want. The point is, you believe the team, so that if they don't get the capital from you, but from someone else, you are not surprised if the whole company is sold to google for $2b three years from now (after further rounds of funding of course!). Given that underlying assumption, I am interested in vague answers to the above four questions. Please don't tell me "that is impossible to answer". If it were impossible to answer, then the following anjswers would not be wrong: The above answers are obviously wrong. So, if they're obviously wrong, that means you cannot reply by saying "it is impossible to give any kind of range." So, in light of the fact that it is not impossible, it is therefore possible for you to give me general answers to my questions.
 * Would you consider too low to invest seed money in
 * Would you consider a good value for the opportunity presented
 * Consider somewhat pricy for being only a seed investmnet
 * Consider an overpriced request.
 * If the team were asking for $7.50 (seven dollars and fifty cents), then you would not take them seriously. However, over seven dollars of investment sought is a serious seed investment request.
 * $1,000 would be a good value, if they can really turn it into $2.6B.
 * If the two person team is asking for over $1billion in seed money, that is is somewhat pricy.
 * $4billion in investment for a valuation at $2.6billion would be an overpriced request. $3 billion for the chance to lose 0.4 billion over three years is, however, not necessarily out of the question.

Thanks. 109.128.175.163 (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * One possible way of estimating the upper limit of what you should invest would be to estimate what interest rate you would require for such a high risk investment, and then calculate the NPV of the money you expect to recieve in the future. The lower limit could be whatever you can get awayu with. But they should have shown you a business plan that shows you the amount of money they need. If they havnt done so then they are either con-artistes or incompetent. Be warned, most of these kind of things lose money. 92.29.115.47 (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm on the other side of the table actually. I want to know, if I have an idea that is worth $2.6B within three years, then what is the lowest amount of SEED (not first-round) capital I can get away with asking?  Obviously it's not $5,000 - it has to be more.  How much more?  (approx.) 109.128.175.163 (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So you are the "hotshot team"? You should have a business plan which details exactly what you are going to spend the money on. It seems odd that you seem to think you could use any amount, rather than the amount that was needed. If you only need a few thousand to get your billion-dollar business going, then you would raise the money yourself rather than giving away billions of pounds in the future for peanuts now. If you didnt do that, then an investor would think you were not committed or fraudulent. If Dragon's Den is available in your part of the world (Wow! I never expected they'd have a version in Afghanistan of all places, unless that's vandalism), then I would watch that to see the mistakes people make when pitching to investors. I'm not aware of any difference between "seed" or "first round" money - its all money. 92.24.188.45 (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "raise it myself"? I am able to build up a billion dollar company by working 120 hours and sleeping 6.  All day and all night I code.  If I did anything less than that, I would have nothing.  So, there is no option to do both.  Either I code day and night with seed money, or I don't make this project. 109.128.175.163 (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You can raise money by a variety of methods including: credit cards, savings, borrowing from friends and relatives, remortgaging, selling possessions, and so on. Doing this would not take much time. If you believe you are going to make billions, then it is surely a no-brainer, since it would be dumb to give away a large proportion of that future billionaire income for a few thousand now. Not raising the money yourself suggests that you do not really beieve it will work. It is expected that people would use their own equity before asking others for money. 92.28.247.68 (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason it's impossible to answer is that you haven't given us any information about the venture or about the levels of risk involved. Because you have not, both of the answers below are reasonable:


 * An investor would never invest under $2.15 billion in this venture, because you're in the conventional milling business, and no miller has ever made more than a 5% return, compounded annually, and if you ask for less, then you are showing that you are an idiot.
 * An investor would never invest over $50,000 in this venture, because your plan is to finally create a cold fusion reactor out of materials you can buy at the local grocery store, and if you ask for more, then because it's obvious you don't need the money to buy distilled water and baking soda, you're planning to just fleece the investor, who's showing he's an idiot if he gambles away more than $50,000 of his pocket money.


 * Without more information, the only answer that can be given definitively is the rather useless-to-you answer that you can't ask them for more than $2.498 billion, because 100% of investors would instead choose to just pop the money in 1% money market funds and have a sky-high probability they will have $2.6 million in five years. I also have to echo 92 that the fact you are going about this backwards indicates that you probably don't have a very good plan in place, and need some advice from an expert (rather than strangers on the Reference Desk).  Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The most important factor is going to be the risk involved, which will be added to the nominal Discount_rate. Assume I will receive 2.6B from an annuity in 3 years, with no risk of default, and can expect to earn 5% annual (hey, I'm optimistic) on my investments during this period. There's no risk, so the discount rate just accounts for inflation. The continous discount factor is 0.8607, so the money is worth 2.24B today. I will purchase the annuity for less than this amount, and not purchase it for more than this amount. Now assume a low risk of default (say 5%), so my discount rate totals 10%. Now I'll only pay 1.93B for the annuity. Since taking a company from shoestring to 2.6B in just 3 years will involve a (cough) fair amount of risk, the rate you should use would be even greater.


 * I think an investor would expect at the very least a 50%, 100%, 1000% or more return per year for this kind of thing, since most of the time they will lose their money. (There is a financial formula which calculates the interest rate when defaults occur - I forget the details but its used to determine credit card interest rates for example). The OP really needs to write a business plan and work out exactly the amount of money needed; and then if you are so sure its a winner, then raise that money yourself before turning to an investor. The chances of turning a few thousand into billions in five years must be less than one in a thousand, perhaps one in a million. 92.28.247.68 (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * People here don't seem to get that the question is about seed funding. The chances of turning a "few thousand" into a project that will get a sizeable first round of funding, which can be leveraged into a company that will get an even more sizeable second round of funding, which can be leveraged into growth and revenue resulting in a third round of funding, or even IPO, that is close to the amount in question, are NOT as bad as all that.  109.128.175.163 (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * . Obviously you think it's a good chance: it's your pet project. Marnanel (talk) 12:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * One in a million was perhaps too great a figure. Of those projects that actually get off the ground and are fully implemented - a tiny proportion of those thought about - then a proportion of them were worth doing, and the rest of them would be valuable lessons for the next project. So certainly do do your project rather than just thinking about it - which puts you ahead of almost everybody - and good luck. 92.15.3.182 (talk) 10:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

King's College and the police
Last night, Cambridgeshire police followed two people into King's College and made two forcible arrests. An official of the College was quoted as saying: "The police were told by the Vice-Provost, the Admissions Tutor, and numerous porters that they had absolutely not been given permission to be on college property. The police willfully disregarded everything that they said."

Why do King's have the ability to tell the police to leave? None of the reports explain this point. Suggestions I have heard so far include:


 * 1) it is a right King's have particularly because of their royal foundation
 * 2) it is the same as the right I would have to tell the police to leave my house in the absence of a warrant
 * 3) there are areas under the jurisdiction of the Cambridge University Constabulary which are not under the jurisdiction of Cambridgeshire police

None of these came with any citations to back them, and I was rather curious. So I thought I would ask you lot. Any clues? Marnanel (talk) 13:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Can't give you any citations, but I know that when my dad was at Oxford, the police were not allowed onto college property without permission. Offences within the university were dealt with by the university. DuncanHill (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Cambridge University Constabulary and proctor have some more information. DuncanHill (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, even if those two people were crossing an official country border, police would not stop following them and arresting them. A complete different scenario would be entering a private premise to investigate something. Quest09 (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the right of hot pursuit which is relevant to issues of jurisdiction. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It has been reported in the local press (Coventry, Warwickshire) that police from Coventry have to stop chasing criminals when they cross the county boundary because they are leaving the West Midlands Police force area and are no longer their responsibility. I have no idea how accurate this is, but as a resident of Warwickshire I have to say it wouldn't surprise me. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Our article Town and gown may be of interest in this matter. Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've also seen such cases of police officers stopping at a boundary. However, only in fiction. Otherwise, criminals would have an easy game: steal on one side and flee to the other. 212.169.184.39 (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What country would allow foreign police to enter without permission and arrest people they were chasing? The US, Mexico, and Canada have never acknowledged such a right, and I can't think of reported cases of such cross-national border hot pursuit in the 20th century or later, except for military actions such as the US army chasing Pancho Villa, or certain drug interdiction agreements between the US and Mexico. The pursuit is not taken as an innate right of the pursuing nation, and diplomatic protest would be likely. It would likely be protested as  a border violation and kidnapping by the country whose sovereignty was slighted. Police from one country in the Western Hemisphere are usually accompanied by local police to make an arrest, because the visitors lack arrest powers in another country. Administrative subdivisions within a country are less problematic, since there are likely to be agreements between US states, or state laws permitting police from one city or county to continue pursuit into the neighboring one. Has the EU might have set up such agreements between neighbor countries? Edison (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the EU does have such an agreement, it's Article 41 of the Schengen Convention (if you want to look it up!). There are restrictions, which basically boil down to having to let the local police handle it if at all possible, but were necessary it is allowed. --Tango (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with the situation in Britain, but in the US every law enforcement entity has a territorial jurisdiction, and cannot make arrests outside it.  Problems arise from this very frequently, not just in fiction. Looie496 (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The US does have laws allowing hot pursuit, though, does it? Perhaps the police outside their jurisdiction would have to just detain the suspect(s) until the local police arrive, but you certainly can't escape the police just by crossing a state line as they do in the movies. --Tango (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Police officers in Home Office forces in England and Wales have jurisdiction throughout England and Wales (section 30(1) of the Police Act 1996). They are entitled to enter police areas other than their own and exercise their powers in those areas (and often do so - in particular the City of London Police often operate outside the City of London, and officers of the Metropolitan Police in the departments that operate nationally regularly exercise powers outside London). The main police powers of entry without warrant are the common law power to enter to prevent a breach of the peace and those under section 17 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The latter grants power to enter premises, amongst other things, to arrest a person for an indictable offence or for certain other specified offences. It's not clear from the limited facts given what offences the police might have been considering, so it's difficult to say whether they were acting within these provisions. But I can't think of any reason why the college authorities would feel they have the power simply to deny the police entry if they're exercising these powers. (Perhaps there's an informal agreement between the university and Cambridgeshire Constabulary that the officers didn't follow?) Proteus (Talk) 20:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The two universities are governed by their own statutes and charters, and these do include what would be described as "police matters". It is entirely likely that at Cambridge the college or university authorities still have the right to deny entrance to "outsiders", whether in wooden-hats or not. As noted in the town and gown article linked above, universities have something of a tradition as sanctuaries, where "normal" law enforcement does not apply. DuncanHill (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Entirely possibly, but anyone asserting so should really be able to point to the actual statute providing this exemption from the general law, which it seems from the discussion above (and from the discussions that Marnanel seems to have had before asking the question) no one has yet been able to locate. (And I would imagine it would have to be pretty explicit to overrule the wording of an Act of Parliament.) Proteus (Talk) 21:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've had a quick look through the Statutes and Ordinances of the University of Cambridge, but can't find anything relevant. It may be that I just haven't looked in the right section, though. Most of the "law enforcement"-type bits seem to be conferring power to punish members of the university, not excluding the powers of other people. Proteus (Talk) 21:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

France invading Spain/UK
Would it be easier for France to invade Spain or the UK? In both cases, there is an obvious geographical barrier to be crossed. At a first glance a sea a lessen impediment than a range of mountains. Quest09 (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The Alps were not an impediment to the armies of King Charles VIII of France when they invaded Italy at the end of the 15th century, and the Pyrenees are not as formidible. The last successful French invasion of England was in 1066.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Historically, you are right, mountains were less of a barrier than seas. But, would that still hold true for a modern army? Quest09 (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In a modern war the invasion would be carried out by massive aerial bombardments, so barriers of mountains or sea become irrelevent.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Massive aerial bombardment has failed to be a war-winner many times despite the optomistic claims of air chiefs - see Battle of Britain, Bombings of Germany, Vietnam War, Gulf War, Invasion of Iraq - it's usually boots on the ground that count in the end. Alansplodge (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Depends on the military/ political objective that one wants to achieve. Offensive air operations can only have a destructive effect, if one wants to exploit territory and natural resources then one must plan to mitigate for that in occupation.  Boots on the ground are the only way to take and hold ground although offensive air can have a suppressive effect.  A key element of targeteering is identifying how to have a delivery effect that supports the land incursion in a way that's easily rectified once one has taken the ground.
 * Essentially occupying forces still need power, potable water, sanitation, shelter etc.
 * ALR (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * France has attempted to invade Spain on a number of occasions (most recently Napoleon's Spanish campaign, King Louis XVIII in 1823, etc.). Never successfully, mind you, but the obstacle presented by the Pyrenees, which are traversed by numerous roads and passes, is much less problematic than the English channel. However, invading England from France is logistically pretty equivalent to D-Day, so it's not impossible. The real question is, why would France even contemplate either scenario today ? --Xuxl (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this not reason enough! English sparkling wine beats French champagne to top title--Aspro (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt there would be any motivation for France to invade any other EU country. A less hypothetical question would be: is it easier to invade Libya by sea or by land? As a matter of fact, I think that modern armies are able to deploy complete platoons, with tanks and everything, by air. So, forget about crossing seas, climbing mountains or D-Days. 212.169.184.39 (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be extremely difficult to deploy by air. A single division is around 15,000 people.  That is 50 flights of large aircraft.  Next you will need to bring equipment for them.  Sure you might be able to carry one or two tanks on a flight, but an armored division would have hundreds of tanks.  Then there is the question of capturing and securing aircraft landing facilities.  I just don't see how you could pull it off without using ships or roads, especially when it comes to logistics.  I mean flying fuel in for tanks would be a fools errand.  Googlemeister (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * And how was Afghanistan invaded? Did the US, UK, Germany, & co. deploy their troops by ship? I know that they get supplies via Pakistan, but did they also came there through Pakistan? 212.169.176.233 (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * None of these countries is prepared to either invade or defend against the invasion from the others. During the Cold War, Western Europe was set up to defend against a Soviet ground invasion, but since the early 1990s those resources have been put elsewhere (for the most part).  None of these countries would have anything to gain from this kind of disastrous expedition, with their closely tied economies and similar social structures, so the likelihood of this happening anytime soon is near zero.  The OPs real question (I think) is whether it is easier to mount a modern invasion against a nation with similar military capacity across difficult mountains or sea channels.  Both are major barriers to ground combat divisions, which are required to effect a real invasion.  (You can bomb form the air all you want, but governments can dig in and wait it out while the international community puts pressure on you to stop killing civilians.)  That being said, mountains like the Pyrenees are much easier to cross than something like the English Channel.  The Pyrenees have passes and roads which while difficult would still be usable by an invading army.  A modern invasion is a very complex thing and would certainly consist (if possible) of air, sea and land routes being used to some degree, regardless of the geography.  The UK's lack of a land route means it would be more difficult to invade (all else being equal).  For more information on this topic I suggest taking a look at our articles on D-Day, Operation Sea Lion (the proposed Nazi invasion of the UK) and Seven Days to the River Rhine (A Soviet plan to invade Western Germany).  If you can find it, I also recommend Sir John Hackett's book The Third Wold War: August 1985, which gives an intersting perspective on invasions in Europe and is actually a pretty decent read.  -- Daniel  16:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't relevent to the OP's question but I wanted to add that Eleanor of Aquitaine crossed the Pyrenees on horseback to bring her granddaughter from Spain....at the age of 80!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Her granddaughter was 80? Blimey, how old was Eleanor?! DuncanHill (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it was Eleanor who was 80 years old. Her granddaughter, Blanche of Castile was about 11 or 12, I believe. Eleanor was sent to escort Blanche from Spain to wed Louis VIII of France.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It really comes down to a question of control of the sea. You can't get an army across the English channel unless you can at least temporarily control the water there.  Historically England has focused its energy on being the strongest at sea, with much less energy going into creating a strong land army.  None of the land nations of Europe have had the option of doing that.  The thing about the mountain barrier is that the forces required to seize control of it are the same forces required to actually invade the country. Looie496 (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * To add to the list of invasions, Caesar invaded Britain from Gaul, as had, presumably, all of the previous inhabitants of the islands. Of course Angles, etc, invaded from the mainland. There were other French invasions after 1066, in 1216 for example, and of course it worked the other way as much of France was occupied by the English during the Hundred Years' War. There were also invasions of Spain across the Pyrenees. Charlemagne did it, and there was large-ish invasion in 1086-87 that never really amounted to anything. I'm not so sure about Spain, but I think neither invasion route is especially difficult, and such invasions are probably more frequent than we realize. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Historically, France fought many times against Spain in wars, but they didn't often fight Spain in Spain, often the great Valois/Hapsburg (and later Bourbon/Hapsburg) conflicts occured in Italy or the Low Countries instead of Spain proper. One interesting invasion of Spain by France occured during the Peninsular War.  The French basically snuck into the country under the guise of enforcing the Treaty of Fontainebleau (1807) against Portugal.  The Spanish basically let the French in, and once there, Napoleon double crossed the Spanish.  It required no actual invasion across the defended Pyrenees, since the French didn't really start the war until after the Spanish had let them in peacefully.  The war went really disasterously for Napoleon, as he underestimated how royally pissed the Spanish people would be over the issue.  So it has occasionally happened that Franch has invaded Spain proper.  But as noted, during the Ancien Regime and prior, these were usually wars against the Hapsburgs and not Spain per se, so there often wasn't much need for France to invade Spain itself.  -- Jayron  32  04:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It wasn't just the Spanish that won the Peninsular War - they had some help. Alansplodge (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Which also resulted in the invasion of France by Great Britain from Spain.Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Literature & fear of death
Who knows literature works which inspire the fear of death, and most of its readers confessed that after that they have more anxiousness about death. Flakture (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Edgar Allen Poe? Stephen King? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * References, Bugs? This is a reference desk.  He's not just asking for horror authors.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not how I read it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh Lord, there are so many. One that stands out, for me at least, is The Red Badge of Courage. Looie496 (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The Bible? Quest09 (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sartres The Wall, about a man awaiting his execution, it sent shivers down my spine when I was reading it the first time. Dostoevskys Crime and Punishment is another classic in the same vein that conveys the impressions of a doomed person pretty forcefully. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess that is a main theme of existentialist literature as Saddhiyama refers to. I also think of The Big Sleep and other works of that genre.  71.141.88.54 (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * When I was a young girl, it was Alcott's Little Women prompted by the chapter where Beth March dies. The last book I read which made me fear death was Kafka's The Trial. All of us are eventually dispatched to oblivion with the same nonchalance shown to Josef K. by his executioners.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I vaguely recall reading about being buried alive, or concerning ghouls. Anything which suggests that death will be worse than just oblivion. I'm not sure if novels like Dracula or Camus's The Outsider increase the fear of death. 92.28.245.149 (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Leonid Andreyev's Lazarus did it for me. Still makes me shudder thirty years later.  Ka renjc 18:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The Jewish idea of the afterlife seems horrible. No heaven, just an undead existence in the grave for ever I think. I suppose the Torah would be the relevant literature for that. 92.15.20.7 (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If only we could look these things up, to check our understanding. 86.166.42.200 (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I got the above idea of the Jewish afterlife from a previous discussion here on the reference desk. It must have been referring to Sheol. There seem to be many different contradictory ideas about what the Jewish afterlife is going to be like - make your mind up! I was surprised to read from 86s links that a few even believe in reincarnation. 92.15.3.182 (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Gnome in the Lord of the Rings
I'm almost sure, but not completely, that there are no gnomes in the Lord of the Ring. Is that true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.231.17.82 (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There are hobbits, isn't that gnome-like enough? Quest09 (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Gnomes are very different from hobbits. Nothing is called a 'gnome' in LoTR, and nothing is even that close, though Tolkien's dwarves do have an affinity for earth and stone. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There's no place for gnomes. There's no place for gnomes. [tap ruby slippers] Clarityfiend (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Gnome, Gnome on the range...--Aspro (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Was this question inspired by two sections above, which mentions the the Gnoman conquest of 1066?--Aspro (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There may be  gnomes on the moon however, because Neil Armstrong said he was stepping  on  where Gnome Man has  been before. --Aspro (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That's correct, The Lord of the Rings is gnomeless. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Robert Fosters The Complete Guide to Middle-earth contains no entry for "gnome". --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There were gnomes in his earlier writings but he edited them out, probably because gnomes are far sillier than hobbits Noldor  meltBanana  22:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure if one looked hard enough, one could find plenty of gnomes in LOTR. —Angr (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * frankly, I am shocked at the ignominious treatment this question has received. -- Ludwigs 2  22:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

death
Could you be dead and not know it? 109.128.175.163 (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oooooooooooooooo!


 * If you believe in ghosts, then there is Category:Ghost films, which includes several movies in which at least one ghost does not know they're dead. Strangely, I don't see a category or article Ghosts in fiction for the written counterpart.  Category:Ghosts might be of interest, too.  Of course, there has never been any evidence that ghosts exist, and if you can prove they do, James Randi has US$1 million ready to hand to you.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * (e/c)According to the article death it is "the termination of the biological functions that sustain a living organism". So scientifically speaking there would not be a situation where you had a "you" beyond death that could question whether you were alive or dead. But there are a lot of religions that dispute this and claim various versions of life after death, so it is not a question that has an unanimous answer. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That assumes the identification of "you" with an "organism". There isn't really any "scientifically speaking" on that question.  Science has really nothing to say about what constitutes "you". --Trovatore (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course it has. The scientific understanding of consciousness, is that it is a product of brain activity. When brain activity cease, that is the "termination of the biological functions", then "you" as a function of consciousness cease to exist. The dispute related to this question only really begins on the question of "soul" and "afterlife", concepts that science is not really involved in, as it is not a field that is measurable. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The question of phenomenal consciousness, or qualia, is really not accessible to science at all &mdash; there is no way to tell if another being has or lacks phenomenal consciousness. All science can really talk about is whether the entity behaves as though conscious. --Trovatore (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes they can. Scientific consensus is that consciousness (it links to your phenomenal consciousness) involves physical activity (preferably brain activity), and that is something that can be measured fairly easy. As I said, afterlife is not for science, and the discussion the definition of that is still disputed amongst the various religions. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Browsing the article clinical death may be helpful. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Those are the neurological correlates of consciousness, not phenomenal consciousness itself. Phenomenal consciousness links to consciousness but is more specific &mdash; it refers specifically to the subjective experience of consciousness, not to the nerve activity nor to the observable behavior.  This is explained further down in the text.  --Trovatore (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that you could not possibly be dead. If there is any question, then you are alive.  But if "Am I alive?" is not a meaningful question, that means you cannot be dead.

Am I alive -> Yes. Therefore, death is an impossibility. There is no dead state. I cannot die. But that is absurd: of course I can die, and be dead. Therefore, our premise must be flawed, and there must be a possibility that you are dead. Since we have concluded that the answer to the question of whether you are alive is always "yes", therefore the answer is mistaken. In this state, you are dead and do not know it. In fact, every dead person does not know it. Lincoln doesn't realize he's dead. Jefferson doesn't. Plato doesn't.  Socrates, nope. Nobody realizes they're dead. I cannot realize I'm dead either. My opinion will simply become false. Here are my opinions over time: t(0): I'm alive (right), t(1) I'm alive (right), t(2) I'm alive (wrong buddy you're dead). See where the death happened? All this is to say that death is no different from simply being mistaken. By extension, Fox News is the living dead. QED. Back to term paper.109.128.175.163 (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * From reading that nonsense I am beginning to suspect you are simply trolling. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you never studied philosophy? I am simply trying to work th eresponses I've gotten so far to their natural conclusion, just as I've seen in philosophy classes.  The idea of a "you" or a "me" is already something distinct from the molecules of the body; it is perfectly reasonable to attribute thoughts to you whether you are alive or dead.  For example, Socrates has a philosophy.  It's his.  Einstein has an understanding of the physics of the world.  Not that he is practicing it at the moment, as he is quite dead, but the understanding is quite his. 109.128.175.163 (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You are not even close to the "philosophy" of either Socrates or Einstein. Busted. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That line of reasoning vaguely reminds me of the story of Achilles and the turtle or the discourse on when a white horse is not a horse - i.e. meaningless sophistry, bending of words to achieve a desired verbal goal that one knows differs from actual observed reality. TomorrowTime (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I knew a man who had severe heart disease, and who died three times (in hospital settings) before the final irreversible time. He said there was some consciousness while he was dead, with the "white tunnel" and all that has been written about, while he was "dead." I suppose his story would be best interpreted as "He was dead and he DID know it." Charles I probably felt the same way, for a bit, after his head was chopped off. Edison (talk) 03:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, a better interpretation would be that he wasn't really "dead" till he was really dead.  This rubbish about people dying X times on the operating table but making a full recovery is just that - rubbish.  They can call it "clinical" death or whatever else - but it isn't any form of death (of which there is only one - death) until it's a permanent state of non-existence.  If the conventional definition of death has to be altered to conform to my view, so be it.  Have the necessary arrangements made, please, Jeeves.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  04:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There was a film starring Bruce Willis based on this. Who knows? We may all be dead and not realise it. It's equally possible reality is merely a dream (or nightmare!) and our dreams reality. I posed the question before regarding parallel time and other possible dimensions. Remember the universe is without limits......--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You might also be interested in our article on the notion "Cogito ergo sum" (which suggests that if you know you are dead then you must be mistaken;). WikiDao    &#9775;  18:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

British military bases in US
How many British military bases are there in the United States? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.75.101 (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that there were any?AerobicFox (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What? No precautions against the perfidious neighbours to the north? The closest I can find in Category:British Army bases is Warwick Camp (Bermuda). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There are no British military owned bases in the US. There are a number of British military personnel either on active duty (e.g. the RAF/USAF pilot exchange program) or working as liaisons in various locations (Pentagon, Cheyenne Mountain, USSTRATCOM, AUTEC, those posted to HMS Saker etc). Some arms of the British Armed Forces share areas of American bases (2 piers at Pearl Harbour, shared pens in Submarine bases) and train on US establishments such as Fort Hood. There are also some regiments such as No. 39 Squadron RAF that are based solely in the USA. Nanonic (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "There are no British military owned bases in the US"... that we know of. 109.128.175.163 (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * British military bases are not allowed in the US because of that incident of the British military burning down the White House. US bases are allowed in the UK because the US military never burned down Buckingham Palace (or the Houses of Parliament.) Edison (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That's blatant bullshit. There are American military bases in the UK because there are American interests in Europe, historically (World War II, Cold War).  The US had some very good reasons for wanting its troops and equipment close to Europe, and thus Russia/Soviet Union.  The U.K. has no historical enemies in the Americas it needs to keep close to (AFAIK, there is no Anglo-Mexican tension to worry about) so there's really no impending need for the British to have a permanent military presense in the U.S. proper.  -- Jayron  32  03:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry you are unable to detect humor. UK bases in the US would actually be highly welcome, since they would help to balance the outflow of currency presently occurring because of the US defending Europe and the UK from whatever might menace them, long after the end of the Soviet threat, at the expense of US taxpayers. It should be noted that Europe and the UK have a far larger population and a larger economy than the US, and should be capable of defending themselves by now. Edison (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You are talking complete nonsense. US military activity in, say, Afganistan, doesn't benefit Europe any more than it does the US. The activity is intended to prevent terrorism, which is as much a threat to the US as anywhere else. --Tango (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also the US is basically broke, but continues to spend vastly more on military that its UK and European friends, The UK, for instance, announced they were getting rid of their last aircraft carrier, so would not be able to respond to crises in the world as they were at the time of the Falklands war. Edison (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the most proximate reason for American bases being on UK soil is that the UK government agreed to them being there. It wasn't as if the US just set them up there because they had good reason.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  04:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * True, but the reason that the U.S. asked to put them there in the first place is that they had an interest in doing so. I'm not terribly sure that the U.K. has ever had the need to put a military base in the U.S.; there's none here because a) The U.K. never asked to put one here because b) they have no need to.  The agreement between the governments is secondary to the need itself.  Yes, the U.K. government allowed it to happen, but the converse (that the U.S. does not allow reciprocal bases for the U.K. on United States soil) isn't necessarily the case; its quite likely that the U.K. has no impending need to have permanent facilities in the U.S.  The implied question in this discussion seems to be that there is some inherent unfairness in that the U.S. has military installations in other counties, while other countries do not have installations in the U.S.  This is most likely because those countries don't have the need to have installations in the U.S., not because the U.S. refuses to allow them or something like that.  Before we can ask "Why does the U.S. think it can have military installations in other countries, but not allow other countries to have military installations in the U.S.?" we need to ask "Why would other countries need military installations in the U.S.?" -- Jayron  32  04:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a minor point about US bases in the UK - although US forces are based in the UK all the bases and installations are still British and under British control, hence the main American transport base is RAF Mildenhall and not Mildenhall AFB. MilborneOne (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Are there not bombing ranges that are used for practice and training by the RAF, certainly in Canada and perhaps in the US also? 92.28.245.149 (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Bombing ranges and facilities in the United States are regularly used by NATO and foreign forces not just the RAF. MilborneOne (talk) 15:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Notably the Red Flag exercises at Nellis AFB. Alansplodge (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)