Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 November 2

= November 2 =

Loose railroad track


Do railroaders have any special terminology (standard or slang; I don't care which) for track that's just sitting "loose" as in this image? The whole scene was rather bizarre to me, as I didn't know that track would hold together like this when it's not in place; it looks like an upsized edition of prefabricated toy-train track, not real stuff with separate ties/sleepers, rails, spikes, etc. Scene is south-central Ohio, USA. Nyttend (talk) 04:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The ties hold the rails in place. As to what's going on this picture, I'm not sure. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The term used in the track (rail transport) article seems to be a track "segment".--Shantavira|feed me 09:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What's in the photo appears to be a prefabricated switch. It probably minimizes the interruption of service on the track if the switch is built ahead of time and dropped into place, instead of being built on an active track. See sections 4-48 and 4-49 here. Deor (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Rhyme/reason for US health insurance distinctions
Why are dental and vision often (if not always, as I've always seen) packaged separately from health insurance in the US? Peter Michner (talk) 14:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Historically, US employers offered health, vision, and dental insurance. Health insurance was considered more essential, so some companies might only offer that, while others might add in vision and/or dental coverage. So, simpler to manage if each is a different plan. StuRat (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * By "historically", you must mean after ~1950, right? Because you probably read Health_insurance_in_the_United_States before you posted, and just forgot to cite it, right? SemanticMantis (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I meant recent history, not health insurance in the 1700s. :-) StuRat (talk) 16:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Some info at Health_insurance_in_the_United_States. Dental and Vision are both considered "supplemental". These articles  go in to a bit of the history. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There's a distinction to be made between "normal" vision care (like exams and glasses) vs. "exceptional" vision care (such as eye surgery). The latter would typically be covered under the main health plan. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The same distinction is made in a lot of countries - In the UK, NHS dentistry costs the patient and is only spottily available, and eye care is universally private (although the NHS will fund it for groups such as children, pensioners, and glaucoma sufferers); in Germany, your Statutory Health Insurance will pay for your dentist (for basic procedures) but not your glasses. A key difference between these and other areas of medicine is that they are nearly universal (a large chunk of the population wears glasses, and almost everyone has a filling or two) and fairly affordable for most people – insurance is most useful when it's paying out for relatively rare events that are beyond what the average person can afford. Smurrayinchester 13:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It's beneficial for some to not have to pay for vision coverage if they don't need it. So, it can be split off and benefit many people. I, for instance, do not wear glasses and have fine vision. Have all my life. So, why pay for vision checks that I wouldn't be getting? Dismas |(talk) 15:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Because you will need them when you get older, and because the check-ups can reveal serious health conditions early. Incidentally I have needed glasses for 40 years, but my vision is, according ot my optician, excellent.  It's my sight that needs correcting.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC).

Who is that woman that is being mentioned by Sam Harris here?
In a debate between Sam Harris and William Lane Craig at the University of Notre Dame a few years back (2011?), Sam Harris mentions (here, or if the timestamp doesn't work try this) an academic who he says was of the opinion it was not objectively wrong of the Taliban to force women to wear the burqa (and so, it would seem to be implied since that's how that rule is enforced, to cut off their noses if they didn't), or that one could not say that it would be objectively wrong for a hypothetical culture to gouge out the eyes of every third newborn if it was for a religious reason, but that it would be ethically entirely wrong to use brain imagery to discover for example that a terrorist was lying. Can anyone tell who that woman is? Thanks. Contact Basemetal   here  20:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a transcript of the debate, which took place in April 2011. Harris reports that the academic had recently been appointed to the President's Council on Bioethics.  The obvious candidate is thus Rebecca Dresser, on whom we don't have an article, but who has written various papers (here, for example) on the use of MRI scans in legal proceedings.  However, this is not a positive identification. Tevildo (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer and thank you for providing the link for the transcript. In the transcript the place where Harris mentions that conversation is in his Opening Speech, paragraphs 4 to 7. Contact Basemetal   here  21:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)