Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 September 15

= September 15 =

Refs for Citizens United backfire?
I'm seeing a lot of editorials for a backfire effect of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, in that the party with the few rich donors seems to have chosen a candidate whose appeal doesn't seem to go much further than that group, but no solid RSes for this. So is this just sour grapes or has anybody really done the research here? Hcobb (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you refer to Mitt Romney ? If anything, rich donors were able to keep fringe Republican primary candidates alive longer, and thus delay the choice of Romney as the Republican candidate.  There are two opinions of if it helps or hurts a candidate to be chosen early, though.  On the one side, the attacks on them by other primary candidates may also work against the in the general election.  On the other hand, learning how to deal with such attacks early on may be beneficial.  StuRat (talk) 00:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hcobb, what is the "backfire" supposed to be in this context? If you're talking about wealthy donors wasting their money on candidates with little prospect of success, the largest case I'm aware of was Sheldon Adelson giving $5 million to a Newt Gingrich-supporting PAC earlier this season (see Newt Gingrich presidential campaign, 2012). Otherwise, the phrase "backfire" doesn't seem to really make sense to me. If the hypothetical rich-people-backed candidate is able to win a party's nomination, then his support necessarily extends beyond that small group, at least into the population of primary voters. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * To me, "backlash" would mean the candidates mostly supported by a few huge donors would be rejected by the voters, because they are seen as "in the pocket" of those donors. StuRat (talk) 02:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Just as a note, the real place where the Citizens United ruling has been felt has been in smaller Congressional races. The Presidential races so far have not been too different, but there have been lots of cases where outside donors have swamped Congressional primaries with funding. NPR did a pretty interesting feature on this not very long ago. It's there that I'd look for the effects, not the Presidential campaigns, which have too much other cultural and political "noise" for such a small sample size. It ought to be answerable — has SuperPAC funding generally led to the election of whomever received the money, or not? There were certainly a number of spectacular fails in the last Congressional bouts, where candidates with lots of external support (namely Tea Party darlings) were routinely rejected by voters, but I don't know if that's actually the trend or just the interesting news cycle. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The GOP's long-term strategy has been to buy as many Congressman and Senators as they can, and then who the President is won't matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Slave trade of women in Mexico
I remember once to have seen a film, which took place in USA in the 19th-century. It was about a Caucasian woman and her daughters, who were abducted by slave traders and taken to a beach in Mexico, where they were taken aboard a ship to an unknown destination, were they were to be sold as slaves. Recently, I saw a completely different film, taking place in the 19th-century and starring with Cate Blanchett, were her daughter were also abducted by slave traders, who were taken to Mexico.

This second film made me remember the first, and I it made me curious: were they a slave trade of Cacuasian women in 19th-century Mexico? This seem odd, for I understand (forgive me if this seem ignorant) that Caucasian people where not slaves in any western country in the 19th century. Who could buy them without anyone reporting it? Were where they sold? Or were they rather taken through Mexico and taken to another location, such as the Middle East, to be sold? Both films made the impression, that this slave trade was well known and common. Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 00:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sexual_slavery has a bit of background, but my understanding is that this was a bit of overblown Moral panic and not a significant threat. Poor women are often forced into working in the sex trade, initially for survival, but then it becomes hard to "get out", but this isn't what is usually meant by the type of "sexual slavery" the OP notes.  There was a widespread belief during the late 1800s-early 1900s that middle and upper class white women were being abducted by non-whites and being exported around the world as sex slaves, though I don't know of a single case of that actually happening.  The panic in the U.S. led to the passage of the Mann Act, which AFAIK didn't actually stop sexual trafficking, but was instead used to enforce Anti-miscegenation laws at the federal level; Jack Johnson the boxer spent time in federal prison for having a white girlfriend.  -- Jayron  32  00:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Barbary pirates abducted Europeans and sold them as slaves until they were defeated in 1805 by the U.S. In the 20th century, ads were placed in European newspapers for models and the women were abducted and sold as sex slaves to Lebanese brothels and to the Shah of Iran. Sleigh (talk) 02:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the Barbary pirates used traditional slavery of the "capture people and force them to work for you" type, but to be fair, so didn't lots of naval powers, some legitimate, see Impressment and Shanghaiing and Blackbirding. As far as your second point, please .  This is the reference desk, and it would be nice to see actual evidence of that having been recorded as happening, and not just evidence of it being rumored to have happened.  I don't say outright that it didn't, but if you are going to claim that it did, it would be nice to see some references.  -- Jayron  32  03:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you meant '....so did lots of....' Nil Einne (talk) 12:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as I understood it, this was truly a question of "being actually bought and sold"- type of slavery. Were there perhaps a market of selling women to brothels? In the middle east, as far as I understand, women from Europe were actually abducted, sold and bought on the slave market to harems? The Ottoman slave trade? Perhaps they were taken there? --Aciram (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Historical evidence for religious founders
What religions' founders are there actual historical evidence for having existed? --128.42.221.171 (talk) 01:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Joseph Smith, Sun Myung Moon, etc.   Perhaps you should qualify your question in some way, so we don't get a hundred such answers ? StuRat (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * L. Ron Hubbard.  And Marshall Applewhite.  And Jim Jones.  And are you looking for cult leaders as well?  Dismas |(talk) 02:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, The Bab, Bahaullah, etc. Futurist110 (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec) Even then there's little historical doubt that Muhammad, Jesus, David, Moses, Buddha or Zoroaster were real people. You need to delimit this question if you want specific answers. μηδείς (talk) 02:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I said that these were some of the leaders for whom there was actual historical evidence for this existence. Futurist110 (talk) 02:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Mary Baker Eddy, Martin Luther, Henry VIII of England, John Wesley, Laozi, Confucius, Akhenaten, Wovoka, Anton LaVey, Guru Nanak Dev all founded religions of various sizes and historical importance, and AFAIK, they were all really real. For realz.  -- Jayron  32  03:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * All the Christian denominations are not religions in themselves, only different branches of the same religion. Futurist110 (talk) 03:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Say's who? -- Jayron  32  03:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia--look at Catholicism, Protestanism, and Orthodox Christianity, for instance. The only Christian branch (at least that I know of--there might be others) which could be theoretically considered a different religion is Mormonism. Futurist110 (talk) 04:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Also most mainstream Christians, when they say the Apostle's Creed; our statement of faith. Alansplodge (talk) 08:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, you could also make an easy case that all of the Abrahamic religions are a single faith with different brances, as are the dharmic faiths like Buddhism and Hinduism, as are the East Asian religions like Taoism and Confusianism. If you look at comparative religions, "religion" itself was invented maybe a half dozen times or so in history, each of the major modern "World Religions" began as an offshoot of one of about three foundational faiths.  There isn't a bright line to be drawn to say when one collection of beliefs is a seperate religion, or merely a sect.  With apologies to the linguists in the room, "A religion is a sect with an army and a navy".  -- Jayron  32  04:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What defines a religion is obviously a cultural and linguistic thing. For example, in Australia, the National Census Form contains an optional question - "What is the person's religion?". Choices for answers are, in order: Catholic, Anglican (Church of England), Uniting Church, Presbyterian, Buddhism, Greek Orthodox, Islam, Baptist, Lutheran, Other - please specify. Make of that what you will. HiLo48 (talk) 04:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Laozi was mentioned above as someone who really existed. I thought the historicity of Laozi is much in doubt and there is little or no real historic evidence he existed, apart from texts written no earlier than many centuries after his supposed life. I thought Laozi was kind of like Homer, in there being "no reliable biographical information handed down from classical antiquity", as our Homer article puts it. As the question is about religion founders with "actual historical evidence for having existed", I'd suggest Laozi doesn't make the cut. I also thought the "actual historical evidence" for Gautama Buddha was rather lacking. Our pages on him says, citing a historian, "although there is very little information that can be considered historically sound, we can be reasonably confident that Siddhārtha Gautama did exist as a historical figure". The historicity of Moses is also in doubt, according to our page about him. Moses puts it "While the general narrative of the Exodus and the conquest of the Promised Land may be remotely rooted in historical events, the figure of Moses as a leader of the Israelites in these events cannot be substantiated". Pfly (talk) 10:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The historicity of any person from over 2000 years ago who wasn't a King is always in doubt. There just wasn't much contemporary record of anyone outside of political life, it's not like we have birth certificates and tax rolls to prove that any specific person existed.  So, while the criticism against the existance of any religious leader may be valid it isn't particularly striking, since there just isn't much corroborative record of anyone from that long ago.  -- Jayron  32  16:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't another big problem that a lot of these figures are kind of semi-legendary? Modern accounts of them might be partly historical and partly fictional, or might be conflating several different historical people into one.  For example, if we define "Jesus" as the person who founded Christianity, then he presumably existed, but if we define "Jesus" as a person who was actually called "Jesus", was born in 5BCE, turned water into wine, and lived in India for a while, then it is more doubtful. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 10:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Searching Historical USSR Censuses
Are there any websites that allow you to search historical USSR censuses, similar to how we have Ancestry.com here in the United States? Futurist110 (talk) 02:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone? Futurist110 (talk) 03:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

How much $/credit-hour are the cheapest online courses in the United States?
Even though I'm only a resident of Kansas, thanks to a "Military Dependent Waiver" for being a son of a former military personnel, I could potentially take advantage of said waiver for any of the 50 states plus the various territories.

What college in the United States offers the lowest-priced online courses? Also, with favorable admissions rates? How much are they per credit-hour?

And just in case I can't take advantage of that military-dependent status after all, what colleges provide the cheapest online courses for Kansas residents? Thanks. --70.179.167.78 (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If a degree is unimportant and learning is your only objective, MIT offers free courses. Dismas |(talk) 15:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Courses offered through Coursera are also generally free. From my understanding, you don't typically get university credit, but you often get a signed certificate that you can try to use to impress other schools or employers. Buddy431 (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * What do you want to study? And at what level? And at what purpose? Cost can't be your primary consideration, since there is no point doing a course that doesn't interest you, is at the wrong level and won't help you achieve whatever it is you want to achieve. You need to work out what kind of course you want to do and then you can start looking at what those courses cost. --Tango (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

It's to study environmental technology (alternative energies, sustainability, etc.)
That's the field of study I'd like to go into online. That'll help you narrow it down, Tango. Having already studied Social Sciences & International Studies by that point, I will have completed certain prerequisite classes so I'd be on an accelerated path to finishing that field quicker, therefore the levels would be appropriate.

If anyone can find (or compile) a list of the cheapest 10 online courses in that field, that would be superb. Barring grants and scholarships, it would be imperative that I be able to pay for them under my own financial power, so the lower-priced the merrier.

Buddy431, it would help that the classes are accredited because I need to enroll in 6 credit-hours to defer student loan payments and the onset of compounding interest, so while I look for a job (which would take longer in this economy) and work the job I land, I would take these online courses as a "loan shelter" to keep me from paying back more than I'm able, and to prevent compounding interest from commencing. I'd like to pay on my own schedule, and make myself more marketable through these classes so that the resulting higher income allows me to pay the loans quicker.

(Again, I would not take out new loans for those online courses. Grants, scholarships, or my own financial might will be in play. If various students can get by with a full brick-and-mortar course-load with a full-time job, I can get by just fine with a full-time job and an online course load.) --75.39.136.230 (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Why hasn't the euro's value plunged?
The Eurozone, to my understanding, is facing serious financial and monetary crises. Greece is near bankrupcy. Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland aren't in top condition either, to put it mildly. A (relatively) healthy Germany and (to a lesser extent) France strain to stop the tide of red ink. The European Central Bank seems to be responding by printing huge amounts of the stuff (Euros) and using it to panic-buy the most desperate members' debts to forestall a default. True solutions to these deep structural problems with the common currency do not seem to be on the horizon - or at least not without MAJOR economic pain all-round (most likely lasting several years). Logically, all this should have the effect of weakening the value of the Euro on the Foreign Exchange markets *significantly*, one would think?

Yet, despite all, this does not seem to have happened. By and large, the Euro seems to have held its' value against the $US *remarkably* well (from what I can gather looking at FX graphs) albeit with some swings. I know the US is going through economic problems of its' own (e.g. massive levels of foreign debt, "quantitative easing", a housing market crisis, and huge "entitlement spending" commitments on the horizon as the baby-boomers retire), but is this the whole story? (The Euro's value against other currencies doesn't seem to have massively plunged either). With all this bad debt and money-printing, what has stopped the value of the Euro from plunging horribly? 58.111.230.117 (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If you sell Euros, what do you buy? USD has long been the safe reserve currency, but as you say there's reason to believe it will default, or inflate to avoid doing so, too. There's concern the RMB will falter, and markets have only so much confidence in smaller currencies like AUD and BRL. There has been something of a flight to metals and commodities, but when people want to keep a proportion of their assets in cash or a similarly fluid equivalent, they're stuck with a currency like the Euro. It seems the markets still have sufficient confidence in the Euro, and to the extent that there is real long-term inflationary pressure on it, that pressure exists on its competitors too. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 15:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * European Stability Mechanism might be a helpful article. As long as the group of countries are bound to assist each other, the risk of a collapse of the Euro is rendered less likely. There are two other articles to consider: Stability and Growth Pact and European Financial Stability Facility. There are also many news reports, political screeds and business papers on the subject. One of the latter can be found here. (In an effort to support the Ref Desk's objective to avoid presenting our own opinions when there are sound others to link, I will leave you to draw your own conclusions.) Bielle (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The description above is wildly exaggerated, in particular "printing huge amounts of the stuff and using it to panic-buy the most desperate members' debts". There has been a 25% drop in the Euro against the dollar over the past year of so, and that's a huge currency fluctuation in historical terms. Looie496 (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * As Looie says, a 25% drop isn't exactly "holding its value". It's been helped by the fact that the central banks of other major currency (eg. USD and GBP) have also been printing a lot of money to stimulate their economies (see quantitative easing). --Tango (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Logically, all this should have the effect of weakening the value of the Euro on the Foreign Exchange markets *significantly*, one would think? As Looie says, there already has been a big drop against the dollar. True, Europe is facing major financial & monetary crises. But the US most certainly is NOT facing any real crisis in public finance. As I explain below, the problem is that Euros are too scarce; the prospect is deflation, not inflation. So in this context - when deflation is threatened, money, Euros should become very attractive - the drop in the Euro is telling, but still entirely rational. If you aren't scared by the Euro & the Eurozone economies, you don't understand what is going on. Despite the invalidity of many of the assumptions underlying the question, your big picture is right, 58.111.230.117 . This rational fear is widespread and widely acted on. Aside from the drop vs the dollar, flight from the Euro has led to Swiss National Bank intervention to prevent further rises in the Swiss Franc - i.e. the Swiss explicitly support the Euro - and to enormous (trillions) movements inside the Eurozone, from periphery banks, including not-so-peripheral Italy, to German ones. (See OsmanRF34's question above & the answers there for some background, btw).


 * The European Central Bank seems to be responding by printing huge amounts of the stuff (Euros) and using it to panic-buy the most desperate members' debts to forestall a default. The problem is (a) the ECB is not doing enough printing & not quickly enough, not too much printing. Not saying it will stand behind member states' bonds, capping interest rates and (b) when it does the printing - it conditions it on entirely destructive austerity, which is the exact reverse of what should be done: major government spending to boost employment & growth. So each time it intervenes, it is just doing a quick surface fix, while making the underlying problems worse. And some of its acts, like the Greek haircut, have been close to highway robbery, at the behest of the US Treasury & Wall Street in the background.  And because each time it acts, the ECB just prolongs and actively causes the real crisis, each intervention is bigger and bigger and at a shorter interval from the last one. The ECB "printing money", doing all the "QE" possible, could not create inflation now even if it tried to. The most fundamental problem is in the member states' debt: WTF is it? In a normal country, like the US, not only does the central bank stands behind sovereign debt but there is an even more fundamentally important answer to the "WTF is it?" question: sovereign debt is a deferred tax credit. You can use your one-year bond to pay taxes in a year. If the ECB stood behind member states' debt, with rational spending oversight, the "WTF is it?" question would have a real answer.


 * The question implicitly exaggerates the USA's problems: massive levels of foreign debt? Denominated in US dollars & actually not too big. Real debt, but always payable. quantitative easing not very meaningful - except right now it's deflationary, anti-stimulatory, in the US, UK, Japan, etc. housing market crisis a real, true crisis, but economic, behind private sector ills, not public finances and huge "entitlement spending" commitments on the horizon as the baby-boomers retire Problems with "entitlement spending" are entirely fabricated, a very Big Lie. Huge "entitlement spending" would be a great boon to the US economy now. There is no economic reason for the US to default, which would be insane and is thankfully legally very difficult, and there is minuscule prospect of inflation either, no matter what it does.


 * True solutions to these deep structural problems with the common currency do not seem to be on the horizon - or at least not without MAJOR economic pain all-round (most likely lasting several years). There's already been major pain in the periphery, and it is spreading to the center. Unless people relearn real economics & discard the nonsensical "economics" of the last 3-4 decades, things are going to be tough, likely to get worse before they get better, especially in Europe. If applied economics returned to the level of say 1950, the crises would be over in a couple months.John Z (talk) 10:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * A lot of people overspent stupidly especially on housing during the boom and then the crash came. Normally a country would just print lots of money to pay off the debts but Germany has made sure the Eurozone follows its way to prudence in finance. Except for Greece the other countries can take it well enough and will come out stronger at the end. For Greece there will have to be continuing support and some attempt made to reform and build the economy and I think the rest see now that austerity is nowhere near a complete solution there. I'm not at all sure the Euro should have gone down so much compared to those other currencies, a lot of the stuff is just herd instinct and avoidance of disruption and uncertainty. It going down has helped the economies a bit which is good but printing loads of Euros without a strong check would have gone against everything Germany stands for, and personally I prefer how they go around things to how the US and UK do it. About the only thing that really worries me about it is that it is more in line with what Republicans in the US want to do! Dmcq (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The last time Germany tried this sort of prudent finance was under Heinrich Bruning. I think it safe to say that the end results were not necessarily to Germany's or Europe's or the world's advantage. On the other hand, (West) Germany has more recently entered into a monetary union - with (East) Germany - using an entirely opposite, non-insane, approach. Normal countries have automatic stabilizers, see the answers to OsmanRF34's question above. The Euro, as designed, is an automatic destabilizer, that will make any problem, like a crash after stupid overspending, much, much worse. Some quotes from Alain Parguez's 1999 The Expected Failure of the European Economic and Monetary Union: A False Money against the Real Economy addressing exactly the OP's questions: "The ultimate result of this race to deflation will be a fall in the real value of the Euro...  Contrary to the hopes of its architects, the Euro will increase financial instability in the world economy. By exporting its self-imposed deflation, Europe will, like in the early 1930s, accelerate the pace of the world crisis. The alternatives are either the collapse of the EMU, or a considerable rethinking of its underlying economic ideology." John Z (talk) 08:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

If you join the U.S. Army, can you choose to stay at home
I'm 20 and I don't really know what to do with my life, I neither study nor work and I'm supported by mom. I want to join the Army but to be honest I don't want to be on any front line. Are there possibilities to stay at home and work on American soil? Timothyhere (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * My (limited) understanding is that the answer to that question is "yes and no". There are plenty of non-combat roles in the military which involve working on the "home front". My understanding, though, is that when you sign up to the military, you effectively give them something of a "blank cheque" to deploy you overseas should they choose to do so. This doesn't mean it's likely they'll do so, just that it's possible. Note, also, that even if you're kept "home" on american soil, the U.S. is a big place, and you could end up being sent far from your mom's home - the military has bases all over america. You may be able to state a preference as to where you are stationed, but the final decision is theirs, not yours. Hopefully, this doesn't deter you - the military needs recruits pretty desperately. Others can correct me if I'm wrong about any of the above. 58.111.230.117 (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It should probably be mentioned that "home" and "war" aren't the only two options for where they might deploy you. The US military has bases all over the world, many of them in friendly first world countries.  My brothers (combined) spent most of their military careers stationed in foreign countries which we weren't at war with.  Dismas |(talk) 15:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm just speculating here, but my understanding is that when you sign up you can get the military to guarantee (?) you will be put into a particular field (infantry, airplane technician, that sort of thing). I've always wondered how airtight those promises are. Anyway, maybe you could choose a field that is unlikely to be needed in a combat zone. But I don't know if there is such a field.


 * Incidentally, I assume the military still has its policy of rotating people to a new location every few years, so there's probably no chance of being located long-term near your mother. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * A few points:


 * 1) The choice of service will affect your chances. The US Coast Guard is not generally used abroad.  The US Navy is, but the nature of modern wars mean that the Navy is relatively safe.  We did have the USS Cole incident, but, generally, the Navy is out of harm's way in modern wars.  The US Air Force is also deployed abroad, but, unless you are a pilot, you would be likely to be in a relatively safe location at an air base.  The US Army and US Marines are where you are most likely to find yourself in front-line combat.


 * 2) The choice of a specialty also matters. If you sign up to be a computer programmer, you aren't likely to be needed on the front line.


 * 3) Be sure to get any promises in writing. Military recruiters in the US are notorious for promising whatever will get you to sign on the line, then conveniently forgetting what they promised.  You can certainly choose which service you join.  Some may also allow you to pick your specialty, but, by all means get it in writing.  However, many selections are chosen as "preferences", meaning they can reassign you based on your ability (or lack thereof) and their needs.


 * 4) Another way to stay home (most of the time) is to join the reserves. Each service has a reserve portion.  As before, you want to avoid services which are likely to call up the reserves and send them abroad.  The US Coast Guard Reserve should be pretty safe.  Note that the reserves, being part time, don't have the same level of pay and benefits as full-time military service.  However, it is a good thing to have on your resume, and the skills/job training you learn there may also apply to civilian jobs.  StuRat (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Careful there. The Navy might be a safer choice relative to the Army, but some naval personnel are being called to the front lines. Now, this may have diminished along with involvement in Iraq, but I have an uncle in his 50s (a naval reservist, actually) who's had a few tours in Afghanistan. So he wasn't on a boat. As I understand it, he was called up due to his rank, and thus was able to provide leadership. Maybe that doesn't happen with midshipmen. But don't assume the Navy is just sitting around in ships. And if we go to war with Iran? Even the ships are going to be more active. --BDD (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily on ships, no, but even at a navy base it should be considerably safer than if deployed to the interior at some small army outpost. StuRat (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * With regard to #2: Even in technical fields, you aren't safe from combat. Back in the 60s, when the draft was going on, My dad got smart and signed up for a technical field: he was a repair technician for coder-decoder equipment, and was asigned to a base in Korea, far from any active wars.  He was an E-6 specialist, no one even wore their proper uniforms around the base, just T-shirts and jeans and stuff like that.  Things went fine until a boat ended up where it shouldn't have been and suddenly the Korean war looks like its about to get hot again.  My dad's base goes on alert, and suddenly he's an Seargent with two corporals and 6 privates he's going to have to lead into combat.  So, the answer is there is no job in the military which is safe from combat.  There are support roles where combat is unlikely, but the military's job is to fight wars and the expect everyone to be ready to do so, just in case it happens.  -- Jayron  32  15:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yep, it's all about probabilities. StuRat (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If you're interested in military service but don't want to be shipped off to Afghanistan, there are many civilian jobs with the Armed Forces branches. [usajobs.gov ] is probably the best centralized place to find them. The caveat is that every time I've applied for a job there, I've found it about as effective as shouting out my window. I can only assume that there are very large applicant pools for most jobs there. But it may be worth a try, particularly if you have any sought-after skills, such as knowledge in a STEM field or an in-demand language like Mandarin, Arabic, Pashto, or Farsi. Good luck! --BDD (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Um, I believe translators/interpreters attached to the military (even "civilian" ones) often get deployed overseas, including in combat zones - particularly if your language is one spoken in a current conflict zone. Ergo, if I was an Arabic, Pashto or Farsi translator, I'd be wary in taking up a position in the armed forces. A massive number of translators/interpreters working for the Americans in Iraq have been murdered. I'd stick to translating languages whose speakers are not our current enemies. 58.111.230.117 (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If someone is 100 percent unwilling to give their life for their country, they should stay out of the military... because as Jayron indicates, once they've got you, you never know where they might decide to send you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I could be wrong, but my assumption is the issue is not so much where your service may be needed, but whether you can be forced to serve there. With enlisted personnel, my understanding is even if written promises are offered as suggested by StuRat (I'm not convinced they are although I don't know whether you have much hope getting one for a civilian job either), you really shouldn't take too much heed of them, stop-loss policy shows that the government can and will do whatever they decide is necessary. I.E. I'm pretty sure a written promise not to be sent into a conflict zone isn't worth much for enlisted personnel.
 * And as the same article or AWOL attests, when you leave the military is often not completely up to you (for enlisted personnel). If you do try to leave and they don't let you, you could easily be jailed. For most civilians jobs outside the military, you retain the option to leave your job at any time. Okay you may be required to give notice, but even if you don't as I understand it, in most countries they still can't force you to work if you don't. They can just sue you and attempt to recover some of the costs (depends on your contract) . Very occasionally you may be bonded usually after training, but again the enforceability of requiring you to work appears to be quite questionable , most likely they can simply make you pay them back. Whatever happens you normally won't be going to jail for it. Obviously this will look rather bad on your CV probably screwing up chances of a future job but that's a somewhat seperate issue.
 * While technically when it comes to the government, there's fair chance they can change the law but it's not clear how likely this would be in the absence of other factors likely making it a moot point. There is a history of civilian service, e.g. Civilian Public Service but these are of course only in play when Conscription in the United States is enforce. So the key question is whether right now, civilians working for the US military can basically be forced to work somewhere if they had a written contract saying they can't (if you can actually get such a contract). It seems that the [Civilian Expeditionary Workforce]] does have a provision for involuntary service so you probably do need to be careful with that. But I couldn't find (not helped by the number of nutcase websites picking up on the involuntary service provision) if this means you can't quit or whether you still have this option which you don't generally have if you're enlisted. (If you can still quit, ultimately it's not that different from a civilian job outside the military where if you contract allows it, your employer may ask you to go somewhere you don't go and your options are either to go there or quit.)
 * Nil Einne (talk) 05:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It always seemed fundamentally unfair that enlisted troops are jailed if they try to leave, while officers are free to quit whenever they please. StuRat (talk) 01:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see here, not one response is linked to any hard information about postings after sign-up or the military's ability to make or keep promises about postings. You may be right, but a little sourcing would be helpful. Bielle (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The only sure way of being in the US Army without being in combat is to be a woman. Failing that, see this website for a discussion of the chances: http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/recruiterlies.htm
 * "This depends primarily upon (1) your branch of service and (2) your military job. For the Army and Marine Corps, almost everyone will get a chance or two to play in the sand, regardless of Military Occupation Specialty (job). Heck, the Marines have even been known to send band members to perform combat missions in Iraq. These two branches do not have enough folks in the combat MOSs to do the job, so they routinely deploy non combat folks to help out.


 * Your chances of being deployed (on the ground) to Iraq and Afghanistan are not as great in the Air Force and Navy, and depend much on your military job. However, both services task members (regardless of their specialty) to train and deploy with the Army in Iraq, under a program called "in-lieu-of," or ILO, tasking. The active duty Air Force has a couple of thousand deployed under this program at any given time, and the active duty Navy about 5,000. Of course, depending on your job, you could also be deployed on a ship patrolling the Gulf region (Navy), or on any number of Air Bases (Air Force) in and around Iraq and Afghanistan. The Coast Guard keeps about five or six patrol boats in the Gulf to assist with port security." --128.112.224.216 (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Women are not directly assigned to front-line infantry units, but in plenty of cases they can be close enough to fighting to be in danger... AnonMoos (talk) 08:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This site (GoArmy.com) is absolutely clear about one aspect of military life: Relocation is part of Army life. One of the things you can count on is that at some point you will relocate to a different installation,. Bielle (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

NASA has archaeologists on the payroll?
Watching a documentary on the History Channel about the Indiana Jones movies and one talking head, Robert R. Cargill, Ph.D., has the label "Archaeologist, NASA." Why is NASA employing archaeologists? 67.163.109.173 (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Either the History Channel was being even screwier than usual or you misread the "label", I think. The relevant initials seem to be UCLA, not NASA. See www.tvrage.com/person/id-336860/Robert+R.+Cargill (which I can't link directly because the site is blacklisted here). Deor (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I got the name wrong, but not the fact that there was an archaeologist on that show whose given label was "Archaeologist, NASA." It just wasn't Cargill. 67.163.109.173 (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Does this answer your question? --ColinFine (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, things like filled-in canals may be visible from satellites, but not obvious directly on the ground. StuRat (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * From that link: "Understanding how ancient man successfully managed Earth is important for the success of current and future societies." I guess that's the reasoning. But I wonder what specific answers about how to successfully manage the land are answered by archaeologists better than, say, civil engineers could answer when designing the plan of, say, a base plot on Mars. 67.163.109.173 (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Cargill appears to edit Wikipedia as User:XKV8R (with OTRS confirmation). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. As mentioned above, I asked the man himself on his talk page, and he confirmed that it wasn't him, but another scholar in the documentary. These documentaries show one commenter after another, and I remembered the wrong name as I came to the computer with this question. 67.163.109.173 (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it was Thomas Sever, whose article says that he's the only archaeologist employed by NASA and explains what he does there. (He also wrote the page linked by ColinFine above.) Deor (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Another thought is that archeology may be useful if we find potential evidence of a long-dead civilization on another planet. For example, if we find rocks chipped in a way that looks like toolmaking, they might be able to help determine if those chips are intentionally made or naturally formed, as this is a common problem encountered during excavations on Earth.  For another example, it's apparent that water once flowed on Mars, and an archeologist could help distinguish rivers from canals.  StuRat (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * But there'd be no reason to keep an archaeologist on retainer until then. It's not like there wouldn't be plenty jumping at the bit if such a discovery was made, and nobody's expecting to make a discovery like that within the lifetimes of any archaeologists currently alive. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I can think of a reason: to keep it quiet until you decide what you have and announce it. StuRat (talk) 03:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Still not a reason to keep one on indefinite retainer. Even if you did find something weird, it is trivially easy to find someone to hire for consultation (archaeologists are not exactly rare). The guy above has a full-time job. He's not being kept on for the reasons you've described, which would just be an obvious waste of money. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * A permanent employee is less likely to risk his job to leak that info than a consultant, who might very well get more by selling photos of the "Proof of alien civilizations !" to the press than he gets as a consultation fee. StuRat (talk)
 * Except of course no one will trust the consultant anymore so his ability to work in the future as a consultant will be majorly affected. In other words, little different from the employee.... (And it wouldn't actually surprise me if the consultant finds it harder to find a job as a consultant, then the employee will find it to find as an employee afterwards. There is a fair chance the consultant will not be someone who's primary job is as a consultant.) In fact, the consultants fee will almost definitely be higher then the employee's annual salary, and the employee will likely receive his salary up until about the time he is fired whereas the consultant will get nothing. Of course both could easily suffer a large financial penalty once the lawsuit comes around, but there's no reason why the financial penalty for the employee will be higher.
 * Also while I'm not saying money doesn't matter, the reality is for most quality researchers (i.e. those NASA is likely to hire), even those working as consultants, it isn't generally the most important thing to them. Working on something like that, particularly if they are the only one as you seem to be suggesting, will be a far more important to any quality researcher and they will know leaking the info will get them cut out of the research rather quickly. And besides, there's a very good chance having been that person, they will get far more money from appearance fees, books, etc, if that's what they want; then the person who leaked info and was promptly cut out.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Not if NASA decides it's not worth releasing. StuRat (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Pssst. Obviously something to do with Stargates.John Z (talk) 08:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Canada's foreign policy, Iran, Israel ...
Canada closed iran's embassy and expelled iranian politicians. Nazanin Afshin-Jam, an activist and the Defense minister's wife, had a major role in this decision (One of the most prominent voices calling for the closure was Nazanin Afshin-Jam CBCnews). Many analyst said Canada's always peace broker role is distorted without any useful outcome for Canada (Canada, a country that was respected around the world as a peace broker, has failed its citizens and the world for taking an unwise decision that would help no one in the long run except the warmongers Prism-Magazine). Except netanyahu's praise. Everything was about israel's satisfaction (Shutting Iranian Embassy Was for Netanyahu, Not Canadians Huffingtonpost). As Tony Burman said: "Netanyahu Is Canada's New Foreign Minister". What is exactly Canada's plan about Iran, and in whose hand it is? Flakture (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * See Canadian-Iranian relations. It's rather surprising that Canada didn't break off diplomatic relations after Zahra Kazemi was arrested, raped, tortured, and murdered.  The timing of breaking off relations now suggests that Canada is concerned that Iran may soon be attacked, and take it out on Canadian diplomats (since there are no American or Israeli diplomats present). StuRat (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Half your links are pointless, and your failure to consistently capitalize names looks amateurish and distracting. Anyway, Israel had nothing to do with Zahra Kazemi... AnonMoos (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It is difficult to respond to assumptions not proven. For example:
 * ♦Nazanin Afshin-Jam, an activist and the defense minister's wife, had a major role in this decision. Not proven, no evidence given
 * ♦Many analyst said canada's always peace broker role is distorted without any useful outcome for canada except netanyahu's praise. Not proven, no evidence given
 * ♦Everything was about israel's satisfaction. Not proven, no evidence given
 * ♦Tony Burman has a near-unique point of view, several degrees away from any other commentator.


 * Your specific question is answered, to the extent that any politician actually answers question, in the WP article linked above by StuRat. John Baird has spoken may times about the decision and the on-going consequences. See here, here, and here for a small sampling. I have sympathy for your general frustration, but you do not help yourself by soap-boxing, using unfounded statements and outlier journalists as your benchmarks. Bielle (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The links are added to question. Flakture (talk) 07:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Baird did not stated anything about Iran-Canada direct issues. What he said was about some international issues like Syria, Israel and some other things. Any country could do what Canada did about iran's embassy. Flakture (talk) 08:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hopefully most other nations haven't had their reporters arrested, raped, tortured, and murdered by the Iranians. And Canada, being close to the US, might also be more of a target should Iran decide to strike back after a US attack. StuRat (talk) 08:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

YouTube question
How to download a video from a website and then upload it onto YouTube when there's no "download" option? Thank you. I asked this on the computing desk but nobody answered. Please help me. Thank you. Timothyhere (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Two people answered you; you didn't answer their follow up questions. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 19:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

But their answers didn't help me at all. As for the first answer, it doesn't matter. As for the second, I know how to handle copyright issues. Nobody answered me how to download it. Timothyhere (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * So continue the discussion there. Don't open another question because the answers you've already received displeased you. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 19:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That's the right desk. Nobody here will know the answer if they don't know it there. StuRat (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Shadowjams (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

majority seats Knesset
Knesset has 120 seats. If a party like Meretz wants to win a majority in order to avoid to make a coalition government with other parties, how many does it need to win? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.149.31 (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's pretty obviously 61, isn't it? Rojomoke (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * (e/c) To be able to govern in its own right, with no need to consider a formal coalition or depending on the support of other parties, a party must have at least one more seat than all the other parties combined. That is, 50% plus 1.  In this case, that works out to be 61 seats.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  20:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Would it be less than 61, if a few seats are vacant, due to deaths, resignations, etc. ? StuRat (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know how the Knesset operates so I can't say for sure. But in Westminster parliamentary systems, decisions are made by whoever happens to be there on the day.  In some places there's a system called pairing, whereby if one member is unavoidably absent through illness or parliamentary or government business, the main rival party will voluntarily absent one of its members from votes, so that they don't get an unearned advantage.  But that's always a voluntary thing, and exceptions are far from unknown.  Our article is extremely rudimentary, btw.  Pairing has a long and significant history in Australia, and its failure to be honoured played a part in the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, which saw Gough Whitlam and his government dismissed despite holding a clear majority in the lower house.  But remember that these movements in numbers are short-term transitory things.  If a parliament has X seats, the basic goal is for any party to win X/2 + 1 seats.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  21:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Rojomoke, that was a disgusting response. If it was so obvious to the OP, why would they ask?  Please be civil and assume good faith.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  20:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I second this comment. Futurist110 (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I assume Rojo assumed that the OP understood what the term "majority" means. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but who knows what leads up to the questions we get? And who knows what level of knowledge our OPs have about the things they ask about?  Who is fit to judge what should be obvious to an OP?  Maybe the OP was in a discussion where one side argued all they need is more seats than any other party (a plurality), and another side said all they need is exactly 50%, and another side said they need a 2/3 majority, or what-the-hell-ever.  There are endless possibilities that could make this an absolutely reasonable question, and we are enjoined to assume good faith.  Unless Rojomoke is accusing the OP of being a troll - in which case, let him produce the evidence - he ought to either answer the question unsnarkily, or not answer it at all.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  02:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. He shouldn't have assumed what I assume he assumed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

It's okay. I got it. the number of seats to win a majority is 56. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.149.31 (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * 56 ? StuRat (talk) 03:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * He's from Canada, so maybe he computed it in metric. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Would a Canadian Knesset be called a Canusset? --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  04:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The Canadian Knesset is known as the Parliament of Canada. Guess they're not as creative with their naming, eh? -- Activism  1234  04:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess I'll have to stop calling them the the Royal Canadian Mounted Politicians, then. StuRat (talk) 04:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "Knesset" means "gathering" or "assembly", as with U.S. states that call their legislatures the "General Assembly". As for the other comment, maybe you're thinking of the boys in the band: a Guy and his Royal Canadians. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There have been 18 elections in Israel's history, and never did the leading party get a simple majority (61 or more seats). What's more, if the party with the greatest number of votes fails to assemble a coalition of like-minded parties to number 61 or more seats, the mandate goes to the runner-up; in the most recent elections, that happened to Kadima and Likud respectively. Minority parties that become coalition partners reap great rewards in the form of government ministries (now of an unprecedented number). This means, for those of you accustomed to directly elected and regional representation rather than the Israeli system of voting only for a party slate* - a majority of voters have their representatives in the opposition. They sit on committees, propose and vote on legislation - but a great deal of policy-making at the ministry level, and associated budget allocations, are in the hands of "special-interest" parties representing minority populations (e.g. religious fundamentalists). *When a parliamentary seat becomes vacant, it goes to the candidate who was next on that party's list in the most recent election; some politicians choose to cede their seat partway through a term. -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

What's the most accurate death toll for serial killer Ted Bundy?
I know he confessed to lot of crimes, but I also know that he later denied involvement in many of the crimes he confessed. What's the most accurate death toll? Thank you. Timothyhere (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * See Ted Bundy. It's not likely that we can give you better information than you will find there. Looie496 (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)