Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 April 27

= April 27 =

Why did the British transport convicts to Australia but not to Canada?
Why did British make Australia as a prison colony and not Canada? Why didn't they transport the convicts to Newfoundland or other places in Canada instead? 173.33.183.141 (talk) 03:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I would think they sent them to the most distant point of the world so they wouldn't return. It would presumably have been far easier for them to arrange transport back from Canada (perhaps as a stowaway) than from Australia.  I believe some prisoners were transported to the "colonies" in America, before they had Australia as an option. StuRat (talk) 03:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Think? Presumably?  Believe?  References are for wimps, apparently. :)  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  05:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Canada was already a full-blown colony, see French Canada and Upper Canada and Lower Canada. Besides, it'd've been like threatening someone with the comfy chair. μηδείς (talk) 04:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Transportation to North America occurred for over 150 years before the colonisation of Australia. The article Penal transportation supposes that transportation to North America stopped after the American Revolution because of a fear that transportees might defect. Hack (talk) 04:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, we're taught that in America as well, all sorts of disreputable sorts like criminal transportees, Roman Catholics, orphaned indentured servants, the Irish, the Roundheads, the Quakers and debt prisoners. But the whole point is there was no transportation to Australia during that period, so there's no real point in mentioning Canada as some sort of alternative.  The loyalists wouldn't have liked it and it would have scared the aristocracy to think they'd lose the rest of NA.  As a threat, transportation to North America might have frightened large land owners, to the rest it was a blessing.  There are seven times as many Irish in the US than in Ireland, and more Germans and Irish than English. μηδείς (talk) 06:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * There are seven times as many Plastic Paddies in the US than in Ireland. There are far fewer actual Irish in the US. Contrary to popular belief, just having a vaguely Irish sounding surname, not having Irish citizenship or generally having ever been anywhere near the place, does not qualify you for being called Irish. I wish you Yanks would give up on that nonsense, it's just plainly insulting. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 07:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The 7X number takes into account percentage of descent. I'd hardly think you would call a person who grew up in Ireland but who had an English mother names, would you? Especially since plastic paddy seems to be a term of british bigotry. Well over a third of Americans claim some Irish ancestry.  I suggest you consider a rancorectomy as regards us Yanks, even if we did invade your land and annex a fifth of it. μηδείς (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * And they transported political prisoners from Canada to Australia, see Upper Canada Rebellion and this. Nanonic (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ireland did officially send one ship to Newfoundland. The local government wasn't informed that they were on the way and the town was a bit overwhelmed. Nanonic (talk) 06:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It should be remembered that when the British decided to create a penal settlement in Australia (and later Tasmania) in 1788, there was no European colonization there; in fact no Europeans had visited the place since Captain James Cook had landed at Botany Bay eighteen years earlier. It was a completely crazy plan and it's a wonder that anyone survived the attempt. In contrast, Canada had been settled for almost 200 years by then. Robert Hughes' book The Fatal Shore is highly recommended to understand the whole concept of Australia as a penal colony. --Xuxl (talk) 06:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * And actually, they did send prisoners to North America in other capacities as well. See Trustee Georgia, which was founded as a sort of debtor's prison. The large numbers of Scotch-Irish American in the United States mainly arrived because they were shipped there by the British as prisoners from various rebellions and revolts.  They had been using the Americas as a place to offload undesirables for some time, the fact that the American Revolutionary War ended in 1783, the First Fleet arrived in Australia in 1787 is no coincidence. See First Fleet: "British convicts were originally transported to the Thirteen Colonies in North America, but after the American Revolutionary War ended in 1783, the newly formed United States refused to accept further convicts."  The process of using Australia rather than North America as a penal colony is covered a bit in that article as well. This is an old paper, but it is titled "British Convicts Shipped to American Colonies" and I'm sure it, and other resources, can show how the British used the Americas in this way before the Revolution. -- Jayron 32 14:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Many victims of the Highland Clearances were deported to Canada. There may have been a filing system. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * 1788, not 1787. But yes, there was a neat dovetailing of events.  The British needed a new place to send convicts to, and they had a place going begging since Cook happened, conveniently, to have claimed the eastern part of New Holland as "New South Wales" in 1770.  I don't remember reading what their plans for NSW might have been had there not been a need to locate convicts somewhere distant, but that's merely footnote fodder now.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I see that you don't believe in references, either, Jack. :-) StuRat (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * There's a difference between stating stuff that's commonly known and easily verifiable, and stating opinions, thoughts, beliefs and presumptions that are the writer's own. Our users are interested in reading things here that at least stand half a chance of being confirmed in a source.  When you state what you call a thought, a presumption or a belief, you draw solely on your own cerebral processes, which you elevate to the status of an external published source, while relegating actual published sources to silly things that researchers need not concern themselves with, because good ol' StuRat can put you on the right track quick smart.


 * If presumptions are your thing, a good presumption to make is that whatever we tell OPs here is food for their further enquiries and research. But how can anyone further research your (or anyone's) thoughts, beliefs and presumptions, without subjecting you to a comprehensive grilling? Would anyone bother to do that?  If not, what point was served by your utterances?  But if so, would you welcome being treated as a one-man Brains Trust by all comers?  If so, fine, but set up your own website, and don't continue to steal ours.  If not, don't continue to act as if you were a one-man Brains Trust. Find out who you are, where you stand, what you want, and act accordingly.  That may take quite some searching.  I'm told the Himalayas are full of gurus who can help you on this glorious spiritual quest.  Don't worry, we can manage while you're gone.  Bon voyage.  :)  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  03:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I did include easily verifiable facts, like that the British sent convicts to the American colonies before they sent them to Australia. StuRat (talk) 03:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You prefaced that with "I believe". Don't you understand that that immediately removes the statement out of the realm of something that at least is asserted as having happened, and into the realm of your personal beliefs?  Since we're all anonymous here, why would anyone care what another anonymous person thinks, believes, supposes or assumes?  If you think anyone cares, you've got an ego problem, Mr Rat.  Personal opinions, assumptions etc have NO STATUS here.  They don't belong here.  People have been telling you this for years.  Why do you persist in ignoring us?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  05:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * People have been doing the same things they accuse me of for years. No facts can ever been 100% certain, and I try to let the OP know how certain I am by using properly chosen words.  If you think we should only include facts that we are 100% certain of, then we should never answer any Q at all (state that the Earth is spherical, and somebody will correct you that it's an oblate spheroid, then somebody will correct them, etc.).  Or is it your contention that we should just lie and claim we are 100% certain when we are not ? StuRat (talk) 05:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That misses the point in about 17 ways. But you're a past master at that.  Why, if I didn't know better, I'd think you miss points on purpose, to evade responsibility for anything. I'm not getting sucked in to your disingenuities this time.  Bye.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  05:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

God, the Devil, Opposite and Equal
God and the Devil are opposites? In order for two things to be opposites, they must be equal. If they are not equal, then they are not opposites. God and the Devil are not equal. How can God and the Devil be opposites if they are not equal?

Fivult (talk) 07:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Is this a different question from the one above?
 * In any case, I question all of your premises. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  07:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Did you have a particular mythology in mind? The concepts will be quite different in Daoism, Shinto or pagan circles. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * As gods and devils don't exist, they are whatever you believe them to be, as with any other fictional concept. Fgf10 (talk) 07:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Dualistic cosmology, Manichaeism, Marcionism, and Devil in Christianity might be useful articles to start with. Tevildo (talk) 08:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Mainstream Christian theology is pretty clear that Satan is opposed to God, but is not in any way his equal or equivalent. The idea of a logical 'opposite' of the sort you're discussing is pretty much irrelevant to the philosophies from which early Christian theology derived. Arguably the strong personification of Satan in some veins of Christian thought may derive from the more clearly dualist religion of Zoroastrianism - but that's not certain, nor does Christianity take on that dualistic approach in any developed form. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not always opposed. The big story in the Book of Job wouldn't have happened if God didn't agree with Satan's idea. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Note that saying good (God) is more powerful than evil (the Devil) introduces the Problem of Evil. StuRat (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * As indicated by Teifling and others note here, the premise that they must be "equal" is not correct. The "forces" of good and evil are not Newtonian mechanics. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * And this is true of other opposites, as well. Light and darkness, for example.  Most of the universe is quite dark, we just happen to be near a star, where light is more common. StuRat (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * In the introduction to The Screwtape Letters, C. S. Lewis argued that Satan is not God's opposite, but Michael's. He almost starts to say that God really isn't bothered by Satan's little temper tantrum.  The Great Divorce and some of his other works also begin to imply that it was Satan put himself in time-out, and is the only person responsible for keeping him there.
 * I can't name any, but there are also some Jewish and Muslim authors who would say that Satan is about as much God's opposite as the prosecuting attorney is the judge's opposite. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Per Cracked's Stories Everyone Assumes Are In The Bible (But Aren't), "the" Satan/Devil/enemy is a bunch of them, rolled into one because dualism is far simpler, and most folk are the simple sort. Same with the different Marys in entry #2. Too complicated. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Jehovah's Witnesses have published the book What Does the Bible Really Teach?, in which chapter 11 ("Why Does God Allow Suffering?") discusses some of these points. Two entities can be mutually opposed in purpose, without being of equal magnitude.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC) and 01:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Equality is not requisite for opposition, opposition simply describes relative alignment. For example, my neighbour's house is on the opposite side of the fence. This does not implicitly mean that he is equidistant, but he can be. One and negative one are opposite (in sign) and equal (in magnitude), infinity and zero are opposite (in finity), and unequal (in magnitude). Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Cheap vs. expensive cola
In many Walmart stores in the U.S., the usual price for colas such as Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi is $1.000 to $1.48 per 2 liter bottle, but a competitor bottled by Cobb Beverages USA (labeled only "diet COLA") is sold for $0.68 per 2 liter bottle. These prices have been steady for at least five years, though $1.00 prices for the former companies used to be the rule and are now a very rare exception. The former brands have a large number of shelf slots while the former often receives only one. (Tastes may vary, but in flavor I think the Cobb product is not quite as good as Diet Coke, but better than Diet Pepsi)

This confuses me because it runs counter to the usual capitalism lectures, in which lower-priced competitors are supposed to take over a market. I assume that the expensive brands pay Walmart for shelf space, partially accounting for their greater popularity (some Walmarts have trouble keeping the Cobb brand in stock, though others generally do). They pay a fortune for advertising. I don't know if they pay more for syrup ingredients - I'd suppose so, but how much can it add up to? But is it possible to say for sure - are the expensive brands simply pocketing as much as half the price as profit? Is the cheap brand a loss leader in some bizarre Walmart social experiment?

Are there existing economic theories that adequately model this sort of marketplace? Wnt (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * See marketing, brand loyalty, generic brand, etc. Lower priced brands where perceived equivalent by the consumer (the most important word in that whole sentence is perceived) would be preferred.  The issue is that, due to marketing, consumers perceive quality differences in the brands, and will pay a premium for what they perceive to be the higher quality brand.  Whether or not there is a measurable, actual, or quantifiable difference in quality is irrelevant: The reasoning is marketing creates perception, perception drives behavior.  -- Jayron 32 15:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Wnt is almost literally comparing apples to oranges in the original question. Apples are cheaper than oranges - why do we still have oranges on the shelves? Because not everybody is interested in eating apples, nor Cobb Cola. Matt Deres (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It's the OP's contention that they are quite similar, and blind taste tests may confirm this. It's only their successful advertising campaigns that make you think they are radically different things. StuRat (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Which is what I was noting above: The public perception is that Coca Cola is a better product than Cobb Cola. So they're willing to pay more for what they perceive is higher quality.  It doesn't matter if we've painted an orange to look like the apple and then convinced people they aren't buying oranges.  They still want to buy the apple.  -- Jayron 32 16:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also see, Veblen good, the situation where sales of an item actually go up as the price increases, because everyone then assumes it's a better item, based on the price alone. StuRat (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Other good reading along these lines are Marginal rate of substitution and Indifference curve where the mathiness gets involved. -- Jayron 32 15:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Just my anecdotal experience from working there, a lot of people shop there because that's the cheapest store where you can buy ground beef, shotgun shells, and underwear at the same time. Consumers who pay attention will keep a mental list of what items to get where and go to multiple stores on a shopping trip.
 * Also anecdotal, but the guy who restocked the Pepsi products told me that the 16 oz bottles (that normally sell for like $1.68) just cost ¢25 at the factory. Between that, the fact that some brand name items sometimes go on half-off sales, and the fact that you can buy a six-pack of the same size bottles (or even slightly larger) for about the same price as two or three individual bottles, I'm completely convinced that brand names (both items and stores) each throw at least a %100 markup.  Ian.thomson (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Here you hit an economic situation where the per unit production cost is low, but they spend lots of money in advertising, so that the profit margin of the company isn't as huge as you might think. So, if it costs them 25¢ to make a bottle, and they sell a few for $1.68, but you have to add a $1.40 to each bottle to cover advertising, then that's a cost of $1.65 per bottle, so they barely make a profit.  How can they then afford to have deep sales ?  Well, let's say they sell 10 times as many bottles when they go on sale at 50¢ each.  The 25¢ per bottle stays the same, but the $1.40 is now spread over ten times as many bottles, so only 14¢ each.  Thus they could make more profit that way.  On the other hand, if they kept the price that low, then perception of it as a quality item would go down, and so would sales. StuRat (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * In our econ class they talked about Price discrimination. The obvious example is flying first class vs. tourist class. There's not enough difference between the two to justify the exhorbitant rate that first class charges, but those who are willing to pay for a few extra perks will do so. As regards foods, I've often seen claims that the "store brands" are nutritionally identical to the "name" brands, and are often made by the same company. But the theory is that you can sell more of your product if you have different pricing levels. It does not necessarily follow that generics would eventually become the norm. Although if the price differential were as great as it is with first class vs. tourist (or perceived to be), maybe it would. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * However, first class is measurably better than coach. Yes, paying 10x as much for just 50% more room may seem extravagant, but at least there is some real difference, it's not just perception. StuRat (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I've flown first class a couple of times (at someone else's expense), and while it's nice it's not worth the huge markup. But to someone who doesn't care, it might be worth it. And I can tell you from anecdotal experience that name brands taste better than generics, even if they are nutritionally equivalent. Economists also talk about "monopolistic competition", for example the fast-food burger joints. It is alleged that they are all the same. That may be true nutritionally, but they do taste different from each other. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "Fast-food burger joints" aren't nutritionally identical. For example, some have added trans fats, and some don't. StuRat (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I should have put that in the past tense. When I took economics class, the general public had never heard of "trans fats". The closest they came to such was "hurry on down to Hardee's, where the burgers are broiled, not fried." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Even then there were differences. Remember the old burger chain named Burger Chef ?  I used to love them because they had a "top your own burger bar" where I could finally put enough tomatoes on my burger, to make it more healthy.  I believe Hardee's continued that practice for some time after they absorbed Burger Chef.  But none of them do that any more, AFAIK, leaving me with one anemic slice of tomato on my burger (or maybe two, if I order "extra tomato", when I really want like 5 slices).  For me, this means I don't order burgers anymore. StuRat (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Is this some weird StuRat thing or is it really like that in the US? I'm fairly sure in NZ, and in fact in a lot of the world, if you wanted 5 slices of tomato you could ask for 5 slices of tomato. The staff may get confused or screw up your order, and in some cases they may charge you unnecessarily high for it, but I'm fairly sure in many burger chains they will be happy to oblige. There may be a limit where they will reject the order, like if you ask for 50 slices, but it's not likely to be 5. Asking for extra tomato probably wouldn't give you fve slices, unless perhaps the normal amount is 3 or 4, but that's fairly understandable and doesn't prevent a specific request. If you really can't make a specific request for 5 slices of tomato that will normally be honoured, that's fairly odd since the US is also the home of the rap drive-thru order. (The US is also the home of tipping, but I understand this isn't common at fastfood chains.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * They typically have an "extra tomatoes" button on the register they hit. I don't know if hitting it multiple times would do anything, so then they would have to go tell the cook to put that many tomatoes on it.  But it's also not just the quantity but also the quality.  At Subway, I regularly have to request red, ripe tomatoes, because the default seems to be green tomatoes, for some reason.  A "top your own burger" bar avoids all those issues, as long as they do have enough red, ripe tomatoes stocked there for me to select.  A full salad bar with tomatoes also works, but the cost of that plus the burger is likely to be excessive.  StuRat (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Choose a piece of beef and ask the butcher to mince it finely. Back home, season it and form it into burger shapes. Heat a cast iron pan very hot, with only a small amount of vegetable oil. Fry the burger on both sides. Take a home made bun. Add the burger and a generous helping of tomatoes from your garden, sliced thinly. You could also add slices of farmhouse Cheddar. I might add basil and coriander leaves from the plants on the windowsill. I think you will enjoy this more, since you will have avoided the arguments with underpaid staff. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I do cook most of my meals at home, but choose healthier meals than burgers. I have a nice salmon fillet with chili recipe I've developed, for example.  I may make that for dinner tonight. StuRat (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm on my way round right now.Itsmejudith (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll leave the porch light on. (I have another variation with a salmon fillet, onions, and cream of mushroom sauce.) StuRat (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a tanget, but first Class or even business class is certainly very much better than tourist class on many long-distance carriers on international flights. Business class on Ethiad gives you individual semi-compartments with completely lie-flat beds. I've only flown it once, but you (well, I ;-) arrive incredibly more rested than after a night in tourist class. On many national or European flights, on the other hand, the difference is mainly where they hang the curtain in the cabin, and the choice of champagne over coke. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Also (on the same tangent, with apologies to the Original Poster), there are sometimes bargains to be found for business class. I have occasionally found business class tickets for less than 150% of the economy ticket.  The lounge access, the champagne, and especially the lie-flat seat seemed well worth it.Hayttom (talk) 11:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I met someone once who worked for a very expensive consultancy firm, who were brought in by a drinks manufacturer, at vast cost, to find out why one of their brands sold so poorly. The answer was that people thought it tasted disgusting. I've never had Cobb's diet COLA, it's probably not available in the UK, but maybe it doesn't taste very nice.

Alternatively, maybe it tastes much nicer, but, as in the memorable Betamax video example, it's losing out to an inferior rival, due to factors completely unaffected by price and quality, such as inherent market dominance, or, likely in this case, brand value. --Dweller (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Kind of. The cola situation is/was an established market; people know Coke and know Pepsi and probably a half dozen other brands (sometimes owned by the two, such as Crush or Barq's). The Beta/VHS and HD-DVD/BluRay situation were different in that their relative worth was not really known to consumers. If someone offers me a Coke at X dollars, I know what I'm getting and can evaluate accordingly. Deciding to buy a Betamax or and HD-DVD involves a whole host of other variables, including market sustainability for the next few years. I might buy a VHS not because I believe it's better, but because I think they've got a better strategy to saturate the market (i.e. porn, if the legends are true). Matt Deres (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think I might have mentioned "factors completely unaffected by price and quality". I did that because the OP mentioned price and I raised the issue of quality. --Dweller (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Exchange member & broker
What the different between them? --79.183.124.139 (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * See Stockbroker and Trader (finance). Historically, on the London Stock Exchange, the broker was the person who dealt with the client, while the traders (stockjobbers) dealt with each other on the exchange floor and determined the share price.  However, this hasn't been the case in London since the Big Bang in 1986.  Different stock exchanges will have different mechanisms, of course. Tevildo (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that buying a seat on the exchange (and it costs an effload) means you have your stock "listed" and can have sellers on the floor. Being a broker just means you have to do trades through a seller who has the right to trade on the exchange's floor.  I'll admit I've not given refs, but I am pretty sure this is correct. μηδείς (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This was the position on the NYSE until 2005. Nowadays, anyone with $40,000 to spare can be a trader. Tevildo (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * thank you all. Tevildo,and today? traders are not exchange member because technical we still need a brokerage firm or a private broker for give order to sell and buy.
 * supposedly it seems work like this: exchange member (sell and buy) --> trader (give order to exchange member) --> broker (find buyers and sellers) --> seller and buyer.
 * Today seller and buyer can work with broker or exchange member yet many brokerage firms (such as Boutique brokerage) says that they can or can't do brokerage (they mean you can't open an account and give order). Apparently, they should say that they don't deal with trade? not brokerage? more accurately, they even don't work with company\ have "interest" for company.
 * but why many of this "boutique brokerage" do issue securities? doesn't it mean they work with member exchange?
 * In other word, today, broker can or can't sell and buy? Does the word become similarly to trade? or he has trades which work with exchange members? 79.182.120.222 (talk) 07:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The position you describe is basically how the markets used to operate - "trader" and "exchange member" refer to the same person, though. The broker would give an order to the trader/jobber/exchange member, who would carry out the trade.  However, since deregulation, there isn't a need for a broker between the client and the trader - the traders can deal directly with clients, and the restrictions on who can be a trader have been lifted.  If you do have $40,000 to spare, you can buy a licence from the NYSE and start trading with your own money, with no other people involved at all.  If, on the other hand, you want to buy and sell shares for other people with their money, you'll need to be licenced as a stockbroker by the relevant authority.  The "brokerages" you describe presumably don't have these licences, which is why they can't deal directly with the public.  Now, _issuing_ securities, rather than _trading_ in them, is a different matter - see Listing (finance).  A firm without a brokerage licence can still issue shares, and traders can deal in those shares, if the exchange accepts the listing. Tevildo (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Armed Policing in England & Wales
This link here says that in Britain, 42 of 43 forces are armed. (As an aside, I think the link means to refer to Home Office forces in England and Wales, but that's by the by.) Does anyone know which is the remaining force? Thanks. asyndeton  talk  21:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This isn't proving easy to track down. This is the official report from Police Scotland which contains the statement (para 19) - note that the issue is whether or not there's a standing authority from the Chief Constable for certain officers to carry firearms, not whether the force is "armed".  Assuming the Police Scotland report is correct, the one remaining Chief Constable only authorizes the issuing of firearms when there's an operational requirement, rather than it being authorized at all times - or, of course, the force could be PSNI, where firearms are authorized by statute rather than requiring the Chief Constable's personal authorization.  However, all that's coming up with standard searches are FOI requests, which are all declined under Section 31 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.  The answer to your question seems to be "Yes, but they've not made the information public."  I'll keep looking. Tevildo (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Tangentially, the OP might be interested in our article Police use of firearms in the United Kingdom. I was thinking that perhaps the British Transport Police do not have Firearms Officers, but I haven't found evidence to confirm or deny that. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The British Transport Police certainly have (heavily) armed officers, as anyone who's passed through a London mainline station during a busy period could tell you. I assume the unarmed one is probably the tiny City of London Police. 89.240.39.255 (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The City Police certainly have armed officers. As the police force for London's financial district, protecting some of the most attractive terrorist targets in the country, they'd be mad not to. Proteus (Talk) 16:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The City Police are also tasked with protecting the Old Bailey, where all the major terrorist trials are heard. I found this image - City officers are distinguished by their red/white diced cap bands. Alansplodge (talk) 12:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that the figures are wrong: there are more than 43 police forces in "Britain" (however that is defined). 43 is the number of territorial police forces (i.e. those covering a specific geographical area) in England and Wales only. Proteus (Talk) 16:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's true. The official report says "with the exception of only one police force in the United Kingdom, every other force currently has a standing authority", and somebody has inserted the figure of 43 into that statement without checking what "every other force" refers to.  The report doesn't make it explicit. Tevildo (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering whether the "42 out of 43" refers to those forces operating under a standing authority. Apparently the Police Service of Northern Ireland don't operate under this type of authority, being legally able to carry firearms at all times.--Phil Holmes (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)