Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 August 25

= August 25 =

Bribery rejected
Is there a famous example of someone who has been offered a bribe and has rejected the bribery? (I am looking for examples besides the one mentioned at Matthew 4:9, 10.) Apparently there is no such example in Category:Bribery. —Wavelength (talk) 02:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Harry Reid 69.228.170.132 (talk) 02:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec) I'll start raise the bidding at to $450,000. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Umoh Sunday Etim (red link now) seems to be notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 04:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Senator Larry Pressler in the late-70s Abscam scandal.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Appearance-enhancing cosmetics as disqualification
Some athletic competitions disqualify contestants for using performance-enhancing drugs. Do any beauty competitions disqualify contestants for using appearance-enhancing cosmetics or body-altering treatments? —Wavelength (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd expect surgery like breast enlargement is out in many such contests. Cosmetics, on the other hand, are almost always allowed, although I can't discount the possibility of a "no make-up" beauty contest somewhere.  (I think this would be a good idea for baby contests, so they don't end up looking like a prostitute/Tammy Faye Baker.) StuRat (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The Donald tried to disqualify Jenna Talackova from the Miss Universe Canada contest for major body work. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you have to be "naturally born" woman to take part on it. Donald Trump seems to have an obsession with this naturally born part. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * So nobody delivered by C-section may compete ? :-) StuRat (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course they can. On the other hand, Tammy Faye's makeup amounted to surgical implantation of a second face, so she'd be out.  -- ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  22:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Carrie Prejean apparently had breast implants prior to the competition for Miss USA - http://inyourface.ocregister.com/tag/carrie-prejean/page/2/. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 03:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Bad future for Wikipedia
Alright according to what I knew, everything in Wikipedia is stored in some place. What happen if there is a crazy guy in the future that successfully destroy the storage that contains everything Wikipedia ever has? If that happened then are we going to lose all our hard work since 2001? What I mean is like if it happens right now then are we going to lose all 4 million articles and have to start from scratch again? Is there a way that can make everything in Wikipedia invincible to anything and can't never be destroy? Pendragon5 (talk) 05:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be best to ask this at WP:VPT because someone there would have a better answer, but I would assume that Wikipedia, like many firms, uses some sort of remote backup system for its data. I know of few companies who consider their data important that don't store the backup off-site.  Think about it, something as simple as a fire in the building with the servers would destroy everything.  Let's say you want to make sure you have backup copies of all of your important documents, like your birth certificate, drivers license, insurance cards, etc.  You don't make a photocopy of them and then put the photocopy in the same file folder as the original.  If you're smart you don't even keep it in the same building: you keep one in a file cabinet at home, and store the other in a safe deposit box at the bank.  Firms like Wikimedia do the same thing when they backup their data: they keep the backup offsite, for the exact reason you note.  -- Jayron  32  05:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay let say it this way. I'm sure if someone, that wants to destroy everything in Wikipedia, already knows about this. So that crazy guy will try to destroy "ALL" the storage memory of Wikipedia including the backup. So in that case, is that mean that we are screw? So the hard work of millions editors around the world are wasted at one point in the future? One more question: So there is not really something that invincible to destruction? I hope that something like that will exist so we can protect this great work of mankind!Pendragon5 (talk) 06:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * People that batshit insane usually lack the means to enact their insanity. Supervillains don't really exist like they do in the comic books.  If some guy blew up the Wikimedia offices, and then started blowing up all of the buildings that housed the backup servers, and THEN blew up all the buildings that housed all of the servers that housed all of the non-Wikimedia forks and mirrors of Wikipedia, well, at that level we're getting just silly.  It isn't going to happen.  -- Jayron  32  14:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well it has happened once before actually... Adolf Hitler would be a good example. I would categorize Hitler into "extremely insane person" but he is not stupid. Who can say Hitler is dump? He is crazy yea but not stupid at all. Let me remind you of something, some people are really smart but what they want to do "make" others people think they are insane. Perhaps they are not. What kind of reason is there for someone want to blow up everything about Wikipedia? I don't know but there isn't any reason or maybe just some dump reasons like Hitler had to kill the Jews. And as technology continues grow, you can use it either for good thing or can also use it for the bad thing... Imagine 100 years from now... What kind of destruction our technology enable us to do. If a smart bad guy trying to do insane thing get the hold of something destructive then destroy everything Wikipedia has is just a piece of cake or they can even destroy the entire Earth.Pendragon5 (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that people are that batshit insane as to want to destroy Wikipedia as you describe. How would the get the means to do so?  Hitler is a non-sequiter: He wasn't a weirdo with a vendetta against a website.  How would a U.S. resident manage to destroy so many hundreds of buildings without getting stopped at some point.  The scale of the endeavor to completely erase all of Wikipedia, and the impossibility of carrying out such a plan is what is silly.  -- Jayron  32  01:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, it doesn't need to be a US resident. Anyone in this world could be that nutter who wants to destroy Wikipedia. It is "not" impossible to destroy all the storage of Wikipedia. I think if what Hitler did was possible then destroying Wikipedia is nothing. What Hitler did is just simply on a WAY BIGGER scale than destroying that many buildings. How would they get the means to do so? Don't ask me. They can get it by whatever they want and capable of. It is hard yep but not impossible. So I can make a conclusion that Wikipedia is not completely safe yet. Maybe it is 99% safe but... As long as it is not 100% safe then we can't be so certain that something bad won't happen. Better be over careful than be careless.Pendragon5 (talk) 05:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I do a bit of IT work for a owner operated business. Even that one person operation has two backups.  One onsite and one off.  Wikimedia, I'm sure, has something similar.  Dismas |(talk) 05:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * See Mirrors and forks.—Wavelength (talk) 06:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * See User:Emijrp/Wikipedia_Archive. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And even more relevant, Terminal Event Management Policy. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The contents of Wikipedia are stored in a huge MySQL database, and secured in a number of ways. First, the database is replicated in a number of servers; second, the entire contents are backed up regularly and the backups are stored on multiple computers in multiple countries.  To destroy all of that would take enormous skill and enormous effort. Looie496 (talk) 07:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how much effort or skill it would take but what matter is is it possible to do it or not? It sounds like it is a possible thing to me. So I think we can't be too sure that Wikipedia is safe because one day in a future, some smart badass crazy people may successfully destroy it. The only to prevent this 100% is to create something that, store everything Wikipedia, can't never be destroy like matter.Pendragon5 (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have a recent SQL backup. It's not everything, but it's a good start. The crazy guy has to get it from me (and I assume I'm not the only one with some database dumps) first. Shadowjams (talk) 10:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you don't have a full dump of all the images en.wikipedia relies on (its entire collection, and a lot of commons). That has grown to such titanic size, and at such a rate, that distributing a complete copy online is mostly impractical. I'd hope the Foundation would spend some money making (perhaps a few hundred) copies and distributing them to libraries and universities around the world, but I'm not aware that they or anyone has done that. If this were the world after Apophis, someone may find your or another wikidb replica. So they'd know Ross married Rachel and that Homer's middle name is Jay, but they wouldn't know what a daffodil looked like. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 12:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have 0 affiliation with the foundation, but my understanding is that the entire text history of wikipedia is accessible from the SQL dumps, notwithstanding revedel, etc... [those who know what that is don't wonder about this sort of question]... the image database hasn't been easily dumpable for a very long time, however many of those images are accessible elsewhere, although it might a very useful project to figure out which of those are not and to back those up. The internet Archive has been very open to things like this lately, so if there's a real concern about wikimedia content (which is different from wikipedia, but I'm pretty sure finlay knows that) perhaps they could pick up some slack. In any case, this scenario is one of the last concerns. If this actually happens, getting the internet infrastructure back up matters more... especially for things like phones, etc.... us learning about encyclopedia topics will be a conclusion that can be dealt with later. Also google has a huge database of all of this...that might be more of a target of your concern than this website. Shadowjams (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is just a website. If it disappeared tomorrow, very few would care. And if some extraordinarily obsessive vandal plotted such a crime, he would be extremely unlikely to have what it takes to carry it out. I'd be more concerned about it being hit by a natural disaster, like a hurricane or a Republican presidency. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The contents of the articles are released once a month or so in database dumps at database dumps. A complete dump of English Wikipedia in compressed form is around 30-40GB (maybe a little more by now), which is a cumbersome but still practical amount to download over a home broadband connection to a hard drive.  I have a bunch of those dumps and lots of other people have them too, and you can download your own if you have the bandwidth and disk space (around 10h of downloading with a 10Mbit cable modem).  The image collection at commons.wikimedia.org is a worse point of vulnerability since it's around 15TB, which is somewhat more than can be downloaded easily.  It was really true for a while that it only existed in one physical location, though there is at least one remote copy now.  There has been some talk of building off-wikimedia mirrors though progress that I know of has been slow. 69.228.170.132 (talk) 01:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Destruction will come from within; the political battles for control over what is now effectively an owned resource, of great financial value to whoever wins, have already progressed to an advanced stage. Wikipedia will very likely follow the same trajectory as Encyclopedia Dramatica, including the extent of what is preserved and what is lost, and the degree of reduction of traffic, on a mirror site (akin to encyclopediadramatica.se) after its collapse. Wnt (talk) 03:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nah Wikipedia is not comparable to Encyclopedia Dramatica? It is like compare a mouse to an elephant. I don't think Wikipedia would ever get shut down from within. Remember the SOPA and PIPA are such a big failure. Anything with a bad start will end up like nothing.Pendragon5 (talk) 05:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

What source says. Zeus returned Asclepius and the Cyclopes from Hades.
I read this on the cyclops page. I like that information. I just want to make sure it's true. Because no other website says this. So how is it true. I need the source the editer had. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.228.62 (talk) 05:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This page, which covers the mythology concerning Asclepius in exhaustive detail, attributes to a writer it calls Pseudo-Hyginus the story that Zeus removed Asclepius from Hades and placed him in the heavens as part of the constellation Ophiuchus. Looie496 (talk) 07:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

What source says. Zeus returned the Cyclopes from Hades.
Sorry I was asking about the Cyclopes. What source says Zeus returned the Cyclopes From Hades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.228.62 (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Have you read Cyclops? It describes the different versions of the myth as depicted by various ancient writers. --Tango (talk) 13:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up question
ed note: I moved this from a section below because it is good to keep related topics under the same thread-- Jayron  32  14:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Tango thank you for your answear. I'll describe my question 100% here. My question is. What I am wanting to know. Is what ancient writer. Says Zeus returned the Cyclopes from Hades. I know the Cyclops says that. What I'm wanting to know is where the wikipeidia Editor. Found that information. I'm trying to make sure it's true. Wiki Doc Says "Zeus sadden at the loss of the original three cyclops decided to return them from Hades" I'm asking was this the writer thought. Or was it fact. I ask everybody this question and they cant give me a answear. I've sent E-mail To Greek Mythology teachers and website creator's. They all give me different Answear's. My question where did the source come from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.228.62 (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The Cyclops article says that this story from Hesiod, in his Theogony. I can't speak as to whether this attribution is correct or not. --ColinFine (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Visual art breaking the cyber "fourth wall"
Is there a term to describe a visual artist's referential use of cyber-phenomena within an artwork? I'm thinking this would be some equivalent of the theatrical "breaking the fourth wall" or a metafilm technique. Example (presently viral among huji undergrads): a single-panel cartoon, lower half blank, upper half showing (a) the head to waistline of a cartoon character addressing the reader and (b) truncated text: "Is the Internet in the dorms really slow or is it jus" -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * In their book, Hipgnosis called it "frame breaks" (minus the cyber part, of course)... AnonMoos (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That example does relate to the dimension of the subject/viewer connection, but the cyber part is essential to what I'm trying to grasp: that the medium itself is referenced (or manipulated) in the image and its underlying message. For another example, from the earlier days of television - The Outer Limits that ended with the announcer saying, "We now return the control of your television set to you..." (or words to that effect). Possibly an upgraded electronic aspect of Magritte's Treachery of Images ("This is not a pipe", etc.) -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * How is 1960s television "cyber"...? -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * True, not cyber but a telecommunications medium - not the conventionally spatial "fourth wall" of a frontal visual or audiovisual medium like painting or theatre. -- OP Deborahjay (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "Cyber" used to be an abbreviation of cybernetic, while now it's mainly an abbreviation of cyberspace. Neither meaning correlates very well with what you seem to be trying to say... AnonMoos (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * An early example of this "fourth wall" breaking (clearly, minus cyber reference) would be Velazquez´ Las Meninas, where the painter has not only included himself (and the rear view of the canvas) in the picture, but also shows a (possible) mirror image of the Spanish royal couple, who would be standing "on the other side" of the painting, observing its progress. There is also the Arnolfini Portrait, which shows a mirror of the scene (possibly including the painter) and the tag of an early grafitto hooligan, Kilroy, oops Jan van Eyck.  Our article does not give a painterly / graphic term for this technique.
 * Both examples, as stated, have no cyber connection, they do, however, recursively reference the painterly procedure.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the PBS(?) show I was watching, Velazquez was possibly painting the royal couple. He certainly wasn't doing a portrait of the infanta from the back. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * PBS or not, this is one of the most-discussed paintings in art, so don't take any one source on it as canonical. It's either him painting the couple, or him painting the infanta from a large mirror. As our article puts it, "No single theory has found universal agreement." --Mr.98 (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * OR: Actually, this is quite simple.  Diego Velazquez had a - somewhat obscure - twin brother, Jimenez Velazquez.
 * The painting Las Meninas depicts the infanta and, on the left, the above mentioned twin brother Jimenez Velazquez painting the royal couple, who are reflected in a mirror in the rear of the painting. The painting Philipp IV and his wife depicts the royal couple and, on the left, the above mentioned twin brother Diego Velazquez painting the infanta, who is reflected in a mirror in the rear of the painting.  This latter painting - now lost - was produced simultaneously to the above Las Meninas.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 08:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * In terms of painting and the fourth wall, “Escaping Criticism,” by Pere Borrell del Caso is perhaps a more obvious example... - Nunh-huh 01:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

China vs United States economy
Hi. When will China's economy overtake the United Steates and become the largest economy in the world? --41.196.252.32 (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It is difficult to say with any certainty, but it will probably be in a few years. Just Google "Chinese economy overtake US" and you'll find plenty of predictions. For example, the IMF predicted last year that it would be 2016. I think the Chinese economy has slowed a little since then, so it may take a little longer. --Tango (talk) 13:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * BBC says 2020, others 2030 and others even say it has already overtaken the US. The most honest answer is economist always make predictions that are no better than guessing (not educated guess, but just wild guesses). No one know for sure whether it will happen, and if yes, then when. Maybe they are hit so hard by their own bubble that nobody talks about it again. OsmanRF34 (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * They're a lot more than wild guesses. You can extrapolate from current and past trends relatively easily in order to narrow it down to a few years. Getting more precise than that requires some educated guesses about how trends will change. The large differences between predictions you mention are mostly because they are measuring slightly different things. For example, people that say China has already overtaken the US are probably including the unofficial economy (things that don't end up on tax returns - neighbours exchanging favours, for instance, when can be a very important component of rural economies and China is significantly more rural than the US). Once you agree on what it is you are predicting (for example, GDP as measured and published by the IMF) then most economists will make predictions within a reasonably narrow range since it isn't too far in the future. --Tango (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't believe they would make better predictions that the average Joe and I don't believe a time range of 10-20 years is short term. Lots of things (wars, bubbles exploding, internal conflicts, new technologies) can happen, consequentially the most honest answer is that we don't know what will happen in the next years. This is a position that's rare among economists, admitting the unpredictability of events is apparently not acceptable within their profession. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm also not sure the event is all that meaningful, given that China has four times the population of the U.S., so on the day that China overtakes the U.S. in GDP, it will still be 1/4th as rich on a per capita basis. In other words, China's economy would have to grow over four times what it is now in order to overtake the U.S. in terms of average living conditions and development and all that.  The U.S. is still, on average, a better place to live.  Much of China still lives in abject poverty, especially areas outside the big cities.  -- Jayron  32  16:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Exceeding the US in GDP would mean that China has more revenue to spend in the military, research, and investment. Diplomatic and trade relationships with China would become more important for every country in the world, and China's political power would greatly increase.  GDP might not be a good indicator of the quality of life, but it's a very good indicator of a country's power in the world.  --99.227.95.108 (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm skeptical their GDP would have to go to four times U.S. for arguably comparable living conditions. I think a lot of the U.S. GDP is held in the sort of fiscal sand castles that innovations in the derivatives markets and such tend to create.  I have no idea, but I'd bet a larger portion of Chinese GDP in tangible wealth.  Of course, direct comparisons of wealth are problematic anyway.  The U.S. is said to be wealthier than Britain, but Britons don't have to worry about whether they'll be able to afford medical care when they get sick.  A country's rights for its individual people, political and economic, seem to me to be a truer sort of wealth, and one which can be created, or lost, for no money at all. Wnt (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Slate had this chart from Newsweek that predicted it would happen in 2017: . 194.171.56.13 (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we're allowed to discuss future events in here but I think I saw Goldman Sachs economic projections that said that it would occur in or around 2027, so in about 15 years. Futurist110 (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no universally-agreed way of measuring the size of an economy, so any answer to this question (even after the event) will be a rough approximation that might be out by many years. The Gross domestic product ("the market value of all officially recognized final goods and services produced within a country in a given period") is often used as an indication, but that article discusses many of the problems with this approach, including the problem of how to convert between GDP values in different currencies.  One critical quote from the article: "The GDP framework cannot tell us whether final goods and services that were produced during a particular period of time are a reflection of real wealth expansion, or a reflection of capital consumption. For instance, if a government embarks on the building of a pyramid, which adds absolutely nothing to the well-being of individuals, the GDP framework will regard this as economic growth. In reality, however, the building of the pyramid will divert real funding from wealth-generating activities, thereby stifling the production of wealth." 81.98.43.107 (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think extrapolating current trends is really accurate here. China could stumble in a number of ways:


 * 1) They seem to be getting steadily more aggressive with fishing rights and territorial claims with their maritime neighbors. This can cause blowback, with reduced trade between them.


 * 2) If they invade Taiwan, this would likely result in a global boycott on Chinese goods.


 * 3) The new wealth in China is extremely unequally distributed, leading to tensions. This may cause unrest (strikes, riots, etc.), damaging the economy.


 * 4) They need to clean up the environment from years of neglect, and this costs a lot.


 * 5) They seem to prefer to support military dictatorships, like in Syria and Sudan. If those governments fall or lose territory, this reduces China's power and trade.


 * 6) The One Child Policy will cause a "demographic bomb", where they will have few workers to support many retirees. StuRat (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Goldman Sachs isn't extrapolating the current Chinese economic growth rate to 2050. Rather, it projects that the Chinese economic growth rate will decline over the next 40 years as China becomes wealthier and gets less favorable demographics. And for the record, Goldman Sachs has actually underestimated China's, Brazil's, and Russia's economic growth over the last 9 years when it made its original BRIC projections in 2003. And for the record, I'm talking about nominal GDP, not PPP. Futurist110 (talk) 02:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, China tends to avoid taking risks when it comes to its economy. Futurist110 (talk) 02:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Here’s what you need to know to make a reasonable forecast for when the Chinese economy will surpass in size that of the US (assuming it happens): (1) The size of each economy today (this is highly problematic in the case of China, as noted in the reference to the underground economy above). (2) Each economy’s rate of nominal growth, also problematic as China’s figures are highly suspect, and some question the basis for US inflation. (3) Whether to include Taiwan, Hong Kong and / or Macau as part of China; and finally, (4) The exchange rate.

For those who recognize that PPP is actually intended to measure only consumer goods, that means making an assumption on the Rmb:US$ exchange rate. Make your assumptions, do the math and pick any year from 2012 on. Others may wish to blindly copy the CIA or IMF, where the unstated assumption is that a PPP exchange rate would also be valid for foreign trade, capital investment or services consumption.

Government revenue is not necessarily a factor, as different economies may take different amounts out of their economies, and allocate it to different types of spending. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Previous death sentences and re-introduction of the death penalty in the US in 1976
When the death penalty was abolished and re-introduced in 1976 in the US, what happened to previous death sentences? Did they tell inmates, ''hey Joe, guess what? We actually are gonna execute you.'' OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * My understanding, which might be wrong, is that Furman v. Georgia said, more or less, that all state death penalty statutes are currently unconstitutional. This meant that the states in question had to commute all of these convictions under those statutes into life without parole. Many of the states then re-introduced new death penalty statutes, based on the Furman decision, that applied to anyone convicted after them, which were upheld in Gregg v. Georgia. If this understanding is correct, then nobody who had been on death row prior to Furman would have been on death row again — you can't uncommute a sentence. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not aware of any action to try to reinstate the penalties. Had there been it would likely have been a 9-0 decision to overturn reinstatement based on the Fifth Amendment prohibition of double jeopardy.
 * No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
 * μηδείς (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's about being tried twice for the same crime, not about sentencing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Had they meant tried twice they would have said that, not twice put in jeopardy of life or limb for the same offense. Once put in jeopardy never twice. μηδείς (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This reminds me of something I once heard, "The constitution doesn't need to be interpreted. It's not written in ancient Egyptian heiroglyphs." 203.27.72.5 (talk) 03:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * However my understanding supported by Ex post facto law, is that ex post facto laws (laws that 'retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions committed or relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law') are unconstitutional in the US, and from the description given above, an ex post facto law would be needed here. From the article, it sounds like some additional legal consequences (like registration of sex offenders) which are not punishments are allowed, but applying a death penalty after the fact would surely be. Nil Einne (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Although I do believe there are good reasons to believe retroactive commutation of a sentence is not possible, as Mr.98 points out above, I do not see how this Ex post facto clause would work. I was talking about people who committed murder and were sentences to death according to the law at the time of the act, before the death penalty was put on ice. You wouldn't be applying a new law after the act, just the law at the time of the fact, provided this period without death penalty was just a kind of moratorium, and not an irrevocable commutation to life imprisonment to all. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The reason you need an ex post facto law is because the convicts were sentanced under a law that was invalidated by Furman v. Georgia, so the death penalty could only be reinstated by a new law (one compliant with Furman v. Georgia) and that new law cannot apply to actions that preceeded it's enactment. So the old law cannot be applied because it's invalidated, and the new law can't extend back to that date, so the convict gets to keep his sentance commuted. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 03:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't. As with double jeopardy (I'll take Amendments for 100, Alex!), ex post facto or "after the fact" has to do with crimes being committed. Like if someone discovers that you can get high from inhaling the aroma of jalepeños, they might declare them a controlled substance and criminalize their use. But the guy who reported the findings is off the hook, unless he continues to abuse jalepeños after the ban goes into effect. As a practical matter, once a sentence is commuted, I don't think it's going to be reinstated. There might even be laws against it. But that would be another story, barring some comments here from a good lawyer. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note clarifications from an actual lawyer, the Hon. Wehwalt. Ex post facto applies to this situation after all. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * But if Mr.98 is correct then you are applying a new law. The death penalty part of original law was invalid, therefore the only way you could give the death penalty was with a new law. The fact that the outcome of the law may be the same doesn't change the fact you are trying to apply a new law after the crime was committed, which logically would violate the restriction on ex post facto laws. You could of course still apply the old law but if Mr.98 is correct and the death penalty part of that law was unconstitutional then you could not apply that part of the law without violating the constitution (or changing it). You can't have a 'moratorium' on something that isn't valid.
 * P.S. If you're still confused, perhaps ignore the death penalty part completely. Imagine a law (law A) is enacted which is later ruled unconstitutional for being to broad and violating the first amendment. A new law (law B) is passed which the Supreme Court finds is okay. Someone who violated original law A after it was passed but before law B was passed could not logically be held accountable for violating law B for those actions, even if their actions also unsurprisingly violated law A and law A imposed the same punishment. Law A is an invalid law, and law B can't be applied ex post facto as with all laws in the US.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 02:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The pre-Furman death sentences were not revived by Gregg v. Georgia (1976). That is why you had so few death sentences administered in the late 1970s (Gary Gilmore and a couple of others).  Ex post facto can be more than the crime itself, a state can't up the maximum penalty between offense and sentence.  Also, once the statute of limitations has run, that's it, the state can't revive it (this differs from civil cases) I've never done a death penalty case (I am not "death certified", in the phrase) but you use the statute as in effect on the date of the supposed offense.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So your point is that because all existing death penalty clauses of capital crime cases were invalidated by the Supreme Court, none of those case could be resentenced later, because it would have had to been based on a new, hence ex post facto law? μηδείς (talk) 05:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't recall what the mechanism was, but those on death row at the time of Furman had their sentences redone. They could not be executed unless they killed again and were tried under a statute that would pass muster.  Needless to say, legislatures moved quickly to pass statutes that satisfied Furman and those cases moved through the courts and resulted in Gregg.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. My memory (which seems to be mostly correct, though not perhaps all of the legal reasoning) came from reading something about Charles Manson and his sentencing (he was sentenced to death then commuted post-Furman; Vincent Bugliosi wasn't happy about it, etc.) years ago. (I am not a lawyer, but my father is, and he is "death certified", so I've picked up a few other notions over the years as well talking with him.) --Mr.98 (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Minor point: Manson's sentence had already been effectively struck down before Furman was decided; several months earlier the California Supreme Court had already taken care of this in California v. Anderson.  I say "effectively" because I don't know whether he was still formally under sentence of death at that time. --Trovatore (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall that when Ginny Foat was charged post-Furman, in Louisiana, for a pre-Furman murder, the authorities asserted that the death penalty was under consideration (presumably under the law as it existed in 1965). Of course they can assert anything they like, and for all I know it was just a tactical measure to prevent bail from being granted or some such.
 * Anyway, I guess my point is that the situation is a little more complicated than "Furman struck down all existing death penalty laws, and those laws were thenceforward invalid". Maybe not a lot more complicated, but a little more.  For example, the state could perhaps have tried her under their 1965 law and then attempted to argue that that law (which perhaps had been changed by 1972?) was not one of the ones struck down by Furman.  Whatever the case, they didn't do that, and she was acquitted in any case. --Trovatore (talk) 07:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Largest bunker by population ?
What/ where is the largest bunker in the world that can had the largest number of people?

Also what limits (if any) of the number of people or how big one builds the bunker etc are there?

For example in various films, they build bunkers that can hold millions of people for decades or more, could one actualy build a bunker that big?80.254.146.140 (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it depends on what you define as a "bunker", but the entire London Underground was used as an improvised bunker during The Blitz. See History of the London Underground.  I'm not sure what the total number of people there were sheltered in the Underground at any one time during The Blitz, but it must have been impressively large at times.  No idea how large it is compared to other bunkers, but the secret bunker built under The Greenbrier resort in West Virginia (aka Project Greek Island) was designed to house all of Congress and their families, which with support staff would mean that at least 1000 people if not more.  It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest, however, if other purpose-built bunkers were larger. -- Jayron  32  14:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Our article on air-raid shelter says on the London tube: An estimated 170,000 people sheltered in the tunnels and stations during World War II. It also mentions that Finland has over 40,000 air-raid shelters which can house 3.8 million people (71% of the population).  Helsinki, built on bedrock, certainly has a large "underground city" which, partly, is used commercially.  Some of the deep sections of the Moscow Metro and the Prague Metro (one of the escalators is reportedly 100 m long and the longest in Europe) were planned to be used as fall-out shelters during the Cold War.  For Russia, see Metro-2.  China is also reported to have build vast underground complexes.  Beijing´s Underground City reportedly covers an area of 85km^2.  Of course, it may be speculated that numerous underground shopping malls in a variety of cities have been planned as fall-out shelters.
 * If you are also interested in "non-human" bunkers, our article on the Norwegian submarine base Dora 1 states that it was designed to house 16 submarines and 200,000 soldiers. The size is about 150m * 100 m.  The usable area would have been less as the walls are 3m thick.    --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed the 200,000 claim from the Dora 1 article, as it's unsourced and wildly unrealistic. The entire German force in Norway at the time was only around 300,000 and I suspect that's where the misunderstanding has come from. The aim was to protect the U-boats, and the people building the base had enough trouble just trying to do that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Underground city has lots of potential answers. Also see cave for some of the largest natural cave systems, some of which could be usable as bunkers.  Subterranea (geography) is a catch-all article.  I'm not sure you will get a solid answer though - a lot of natural caves haven't been fully explored, while a lot of underground buildings are in a state of disrepair and many are not open to the public. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not what the op asked, but Albania has the most bunkers for its population: Bunkers in Albania.Smallman12q (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Canada and Islamic fundamentalism, terrorism
Hi, something that's always caught my attention is that terrorists, Islamic terrorists have never aimed their violence at Canada, despite Canada's involvement in the War in Afghanistan and support of the War on Terror. My question is, has there been any foiled terrorist plot against Canada? or some attempt by terrorists to hit Canada? Thank you. Nienk (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * There's at least the 2006 Ontario terrorism plot, there may be others. See Terrorism in Canada, though that article is about terrorism in general, not only Islamic terrorism. - Lindert (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure, there was the 2006 Ontario terrorism plot. There is also Omar Khadr, although he was caught in Afghanistan. And not Islamic or aimed directly at Canada, but Air India Flight 182 originated in Canada. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Some more: link 1, link 2. According to prime minister Stephen Harper, Islamic terrorism is the biggest threat to Canada (I'm not saying I agree with that, I'm just reporting it.) - Lindert (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If Islamic terrorism is the biggest threat to Canada, then Canada's a pretty safe place. HiLo48 (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't underestimate Islamic terrorism nor Harper's words since Canada has been pretty active in the War on Terror and War in Afghanistan. Nienk (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It is hardly Canada's fault that Muslim terrorist plots are generally highly incompetent. As someone said, they only have to succeed once, we have to prevent them every time. μηδείς (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "We have to prevent them every time"? I've usually seen such an attitude in the context of nuclear missiles or something like that — where one failure is total failure — but I haven't seen it for terrorism. Whomever voiced that particular opinion has an exaggerated fear of terrorism. There are many things to be afraid of in the world; I'm not sure terrorism qua terrorism should be at the top of the list, at least in the Western world, where it is still an exceedingly rare way to die. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This sounds very much like an inversion (which may well have itself been an inversion of an original) of part of, I think, a statement issued by some version of the IRA as a threat to the Prime Minister of the UK of the time (probably Mrs Thatcher) after a failed assassination bombing, along the lines of "This time you were lucky: you have to be lucky every time, we only have to be lucky once." Doubtless another editor can pin down the quote(s) more exactly. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A terrorist with bomb materials was apprehended while crossing into the US from Canada near Seattle. There was also arson in a Jewish library in Montreal. StuRat (talk) 05:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot also seems to have been partially aimed at Canada. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)