Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2019 July 12

= July 12 =

Dry and wet colors
Nobody bothers to classify colors this way, but I find it natural to think that while yellow (the variant that's the color of many diamond-shaped road signs in the United States) is dry, fluorescent yellow-green (which in recent years has replaced yellow on some school-related signs) is wet. Any precise definition of a wet color. (Please look at the difference between the colors before you respond.) Georgia guy (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe this has to do with the glossiness (or not) of the paint? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe fluorescence per se, or maybe a non-opaque solid color on a white background? I don't know how wet colors look on a screen.  Do you have a picture link? 173.228.123.207 (talk) 04:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't it just the gloss that makes a colour look wet (as BB says above), rather than the colour itself? I've never seen your road signs, so I can't compare them.  Might the perception be a form of Synesthesia?   Dbfirs  07:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's the difference between warm and cool colours?- gadfium 08:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In media, toxic slime, radioactive waste, etc is often portrayed as a lurid or fluorescent yellow or green colour. Could this be subconsciously influencing your perception?  Iapetus (talk) 08:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur that gloss is the place to look at. Gem fr (talk) 08:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Gloss is the main factor in visually distinguishing between wet or dry fabrics, except that some fabrics are intentionally made to look wet even when dry. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

"Coal and Power" enquiry - David Lloyd George
I have a copy of In the Introduction LlG says "a number of people, including Liberal Member of Parliament and others representative of the different elements in the industry and of the public life of the country, were invited to form a Committee, of which I was Chairman...", the book is the report of that committee. I would like to know the membership of the committee. John Campbell described it as a "somewhat shadowy, indeed anonymous, body". Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am surprised that the membership is not mentioned in the book. I thought this kind of report always tell who was a member, who was invited to speak, etc. Is this not the case? Gem fr (talk) 13:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not. There is an Appendix by R. A. Scott-James, and the Library Edition, which I do not have, contains additional reports by Mr Ivor Evans MA on Germany and Mr Lionel Hill BSc (no relation) on France.


 * Hi DuncanHill, the "shadowy body" may have been the Liberal Summer School, (though they wouldn't have been the only members, per this: "''The Committee consisted of many

engineers and public men''".)
 * Source one: [The Liberal Summer School] "set up a research department...and began to play an active role in the preparation of the Liberal reports of the 1920s, the first of which was Coal and Power. Although the report, published in July 1924, appeared over Lloyd George's signature, liberals hastened to point out its intellectual pedigree, stretching from the Sankey Commission via McNair's LSS activities and pamphlet." This in turn is sourced to a newspaper article and a book that we might be able to find: 'New Mines for Old', Nation, 19.7.1924 and A. McNair, The Problem of the Coal Mines (London, 1924)
 * Source two: This gives a lot of the names in the Liberal Summer School movement, including those who were interested in coal and electricity.

E. D. Simon, a wealthy Mancunian industrialist, ... was the moving spirit behind this liberal revival and in 1919, together with Colonel Thomas F. Tweed—at the time the Manchester Liberal Federation's agent and later the north?west Liberal organizer—prevailed upon Ramsay Muir, then professor of Modern History at Manchester University, to attend the meetings that a number of Liberal Manchester businessmen had been having since 1918 to discuss the problems of industry. ..Muir was requested to produce a book, Liberalism and Industry....

...By early 1921 the Manchester Liberal Federation had not only adopted Muir's book as ‘a basis for the solution of the many social and industrial problems with which the nation is confronted’, but had successfully pressed its case for the adoption of a stance on industrial questions upon the NLF, as discussed in the previous chapter. Simon jotted down in his diary with justifiable pride: ‘I have been in close touch with Manchester Liberalism for the last few years—am responsible both for the production of Muir's book and (almost entirely) for the fact that the NLF is meeting today to adopt an industrial policy....

...In the summer of 1921 Simon organized a meeting on his farm in Herefordshire with Muir, Philip Guedalla, the liberal journalist, E. T. Scott, son of C. P. and future editor of the Manchester Guardian, and Colonel Tweed. The result was a preliminary summer school that met at Grasmere in September 1921. ...

...The Grasmere meeting, originally limited to fifty participants, nearly doubled that figure.18 The composition of the audience indicated (p.83) the future appeal of the LSS to younger liberals—a ‘League of Youth’, as Stuart Hodgson, the liberal editor, called it.19 No invitations were sent to party officials or MPs—a practice later abandoned as the LSS moved from periphery to centre. The strong Mancunian element was balanced by invitations to prominent liberals and progressives that included J. A. Hobson, R. H. Tawney, Eleanor Rathbone, the economists Walter Layton and D. H. Macgregor, W. H. Beveridge, and A. D. McNair, secretary to the Sankey Commission. Layton later recalled: ‘The backbone of the agenda was naturally Ramsay Muir's book. But even at Grasmere and in increasing volume in ensuing years the thinking of the Liberal Summer School was fed by a series of tributary streams, one or two of which ultimately became great rivers of thought.’20 Thus a dual pattern was set: not only did much British social policy thinking originate in the LSS, but it became the stage for unravelling different strands of post?war liberal theory.

...Following Grasmere the LSS settled down into a regular pattern, meeting alternately in Oxford and Cambridge. Muir and Layton were appointed joint directors of the School and a committee was formed to co?ordinate its work and prepare future summer sessions. Apart from the initiators, the committee included E. H. Gilpin, later co?opting Maurice Bonham?Carter, Major Crawfurd, H. D. Henderson, W. McG. Eagar, Hodgson, and Keynes. Simon was unrepentant about its functioning ‘in a thoroughly undemocratic way’; Muir considered it to be ‘a large and representative council’ despite the lack of elections. The committee held numerous small and private conferences which were not given publicity. ... in 1922 ... Two of the lectures are of particular interest: Layton's ‘The State and Industry’ reflected the general mood of the School on the possibility of radical reform, and was heartily endorsed by the liberal press.31 Many listeners found it ‘a stiff dose of gloom’.32 McNair's ‘The Problem of the Mines’ was important in a different sense—it marked the beginning of LSS ventures into policy proposals that eventually became central planks of the nationally acclaimed Liberal programmes and Reports. ...

McNair developed the ideas that had been unsuccessfully floated by the 1919 Sankey (Coal Industry) Commission. Though that commission had not spoken with one voice, all the commissioners had agreed on the need to transfer the control and possession of mineral rights to the state.35 The rejection of the recommendations by the Coalition government and the association of the Labour party point of view with outright nationalization cleared the way for pursuing what Layton termed a solution ‘on characteristically Liberal lines’.36 For McNair, indeed, the solution was ‘emphatically not the Nationalisation of the industry’.37 The mines would remain private; the coal itself and the royalties on it would be nationalized. The state would then be ‘placed in a strategic position for the control and development of this great national asset’,38 and would also determine leases to the mining companies. McNair and Layton could adopt these suggestions as ‘inspired by the Liberal point of view’39 because they combined two perspectives that were emerging as central to liberal thought in the 1920s. The state was the ultimate repository of responsibility for industrial affairs but it was simply not competent to undertake managerial as well as supervisory functions. ‘That is where’, McNair underlined, ‘we part company with our Socialist opponents.’40 As for joint control, measures on both the local and national levels were necessary, especially if some degree of profit?sharing with miners were to materialize. The war (p.87) may not have popularized state socialism but, in McNair's view, it certainly constituted a point of no return for the key coal?mining industry. Mining labour would never again be content with its subordinate position.41 Pre?war new liberalism had alternated between outright communal responsibility via the state and arrangements, such as national insurance, that shared responsibility among other bodies as well. For liberals such as McNair, the war had one main social and industrial lesson to impart—co?operation with the state, rather than exclusive state activity, was the only viable method. McNair's pluralistic notion of friendly partnership among the various units constituting a society was indeed a liberal one, but at the cost of abandoning hope for the impartial, benevolent, and efficient state the new liberals had sponsored. It is interesting therefore to note that the 1922 LSS also heard early mention of an idea that was increasingly to be suggested as an alternative institutional solution to balancing the public and the private domains. This was the public corporation on the Port of London Authority model, mooted by Muir and McNair as the proper method of undertaking an industrial or commercial concern on behalf of the community, by substituting Parliamentary for ministerial control.42

... 1923 was another important session in terms of producing a liberal ‘groundwork of thought and knowledge’.81 Gilbert Murray gave the inaugural address and others included Muir, McNair, Simon (in his first talk to the LSS), Henry Clay and H. A. L. Fisher. But the novelty lay in the first clear call to liberals from the group of Cambridge economists, Layton, D. H. Robertson and Keynes, their home ground inspiring them to a shared confidence. Robertson's message was simple: "Our remedial thought and effort must be directed not merely to providing stimulants for the depression, but sedatives for the boom. The whole matter is summed up in one word, a word which has become increasingly (p.95) fashionable in recent years, and which it seems to me that the Liberal Party in particular should adopt once for all as the first plank in its social policy—the word ‘stabilization’."

... the Cambridge economists were suggesting—to those liberals prepared to listen—new techniques for attacking some of the moral and social defects that liberals had identified, notably unemployment; they were proposing state intervention in order to facilitate that end, while recognizing the multi?faceted structure of the industrial and commercial worlds...

...By 1924 the LSS had entered on its second phase. The official leadership of the Liberal party now readily acknowledged its existence and, with the reunification of the party and the reemergence of Lloyd George, even its role as ‘think?tank’. ...It set up a research department with the help of the party organization,92 and began to play an active role in the preparation of the Liberal reports of the 1920s, the first of which was Coal and Power. Although the report, published in July 1924, appeared over Lloyd George's signature, liberals hastened to point out its intellectual pedigree, stretching from the Sankey Commission via McNair's LSS activities and pamphlet.93 Muir and Simon may have been less than accurate when they traced Coal and Power (and its later endorsement by the Samuel Commission in 1926) to Summer School discussions;94 nevertheless, the LSS had something to do with the dissemination of the proposals and with the creation of a favourable climate of opinion. It is also only fair to point out that the miners were adamant that nationalization of the mines was the only solution, while both Labour and Conservative governments simply ignored this.95 The report also made recommendations concerning the generation of electricity, similar to those on the mines, though the Nation believed that it might well be made the business of the state, as electricity was an area for large?scale operation.96

70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, that looks like a very promising line of enquiry. DuncanHill (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Pleasure! 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A McNair (The Problem of the Coal Mines) was Arnold McNair, 1st Baron McNair. He wrote for The Daily News, which was a Liberal paper. DuncanHill (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Solomon Islands' country code SB: why?
Why does the Solomon Islands use a .sb TLD, ISO country code etc when the letter 'B' doesn't appear in its name? Amisom (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A 'B' did appear in its name in 1974, when the codes were formulated. The country became independent in 1978 under its current name. See British Solomon Islands. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It happens. O'Hare Airport in Chicago is still ORD even though its name is no longer Orchard. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * See List of Internet top-level domains, where the tables provide the sources for the codes that are not immediately visible from the current English names for the respective countries. For the Solomon Islands the explanation is Solomon Islands, British. --Theurgist (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Northern Mariana Islands ISO code and US postal abbreviation MP: why?
In the same vein... where does the P come from in the Northern Mariana Islands code? Were all the other codes starting with M already taken or something? --69.159.11.113 (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Marianas Pacific, according to the article linked to by Theurgist above.- gadfium 00:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there another Marianas? Thanks, anyway. --69.159.11.113 (talk) 05:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the southern-most of the Mariana Islands is Guam. Loraof (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Which is still in the Pacific. --69.159.11.113 (talk) 05:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * These Pacific, of which Guam was not a part. Шурбур (talk) 08:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah! --69.159.11.113 (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well the second letter needed to be something, but MI as in "mariana islands" was already taken (though soon to be relinquished) by Midway Island. It couldn't be "MN" as in "Marianas North" since that was taken by Mongolia. I suppose they could have chosen NM as in "Northern Mariana", but, hey, I don't make the decisions. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't work for the postal abbreviation, though. --69.159.11.113 (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A pointer to how some of these codes are derived is in the lead of IG postcode area. 2A00:23C5:C708:8C00:B18A:406E:9654:B2B7 (talk) 10:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

When Serbia became independent in 2006, choosing a code turned out to be a difficult task as everything starting with S and containing another letter of the country's native or English name was taken. They eventually went for RS, after the country's full constitutional name.

Interesting what's going to happen if Scotland has to be assigned a code. If they wish to have one starting with S, the only completely untaken options would be SP, SQ and SW. --Theurgist (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * They could do what Serbia did and have KS -- if they want to be a kingdom, that is. --69.159.11.113 (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Is there a place where I can find the rate of natural increase of countries without taking into account immigrant death?
Wikipedia has this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_natural_increase

The article say the rate of natural increase is defined as the crude birth rate minus the crude death rate. The problem is that while you don't take into account immigration (just crude birth rate), while talking about crude death rate, you take into account the immigrants that died. This creates a problem where immigration is not considered as a plus but if he dies he is considered a negative. Is there an place where I can find an version of this list that don't take into account the death of immigrants? 177.177.210.227 (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I cannot think of one. I don't understand your concern, either. You mean that the death of an immigrant should counted as a departure, not a death? Gem fr (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Spawning in the country makes you not an immigrant by definition so there is an asymmetry (though they might be immigrants in non-demographic statistics senses like second generation or being allowed to stay). In some countries this won't effect much. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * My guess is that the OP is interested in figuring out the increase/decrease of the "native" population. That is, is the population growing "on its own", or is it only doing so as a result of immigration. The "problem" is that, once they immigrate, the immigrants are then part of the population and can only contribute to the number of deaths. And, of course, emigrants are not (and can only contribute to the number of births). I doubt immigrant death is tracked anywhere, but I'm thinking you could back into that value by applying the net immigration/emigration. Matt Deres (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Presuming that the immigrants reproduce after arrival, they contribute to the birth column as well as the death column. If you didn't count them in the death rate then the "natural increase" level would reflect what amounts to babies coming out of nowhere.  173.228.123.207 (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * let's see... suppose a country has a number of immigrant each year, who all die in the country and never emigrate nor have children, while both immigrant and native populations are constant (as much death as birth for the native, as much immigrants in as immigrants dying). The "rate of natural increase" is negative, because of immigrants death, and population appears compensated by new immigrants (I can hear political sides "OMG there goes the The Great Replacement"/"see, you loser decadents? you need immigrants, be glad they come"). The "rate of natural increase without taking into account immigrant death" would be zero, but immigrants population seems to build up each years (while it actually stay the same), unless you count death of immigrants as an emigration. Yes, there is a problem here. Gem fr (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If a diplomat gives birth abroad does the new human spawn there for population statistics purposes even if they use that special rule to prevent baby from becoming their citizen or national? Or does his parents' country get the natural increase? If someone gives birth on a cruise ship in the high seas where does the new human spawn? The first country of the first territorial waters the kid enters? The ship's flag of convenience? If kid leaves and goes home to his country of citizenship before the next year does he count as a natural increase for the tourist country, one of their emigrants and an immigrant to his own country all in the same year? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "Spawn". I do not think this word means what you think it means. {The poster foremrly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.177.55 (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Spawn in the video game sense. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Does that match any encyclopaedic sense? HiLo48 (talk) 04:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Spawning (gaming). For instance my spawn point was in the United States, that's usually a relatively easy level, Australia and Western Europe are even easier. As of 2019 most humans have gotten much harder spawn points like Iraq, pre-industrial or Somalia, those are Difficulty Level: Asian. If you got an easy life out of those you either had great luck of the draw or play the game of life very well. Donald Trump started in Queens, Obama started in Hawaii, one POTUS even started on a state border (his mom gave birth in nature while rushing to the nearest midwife or doctor or something like that and he popped out so close to the line no one will ever know which side). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Useful information at Birth aboard aircraft and ships and . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:C708:8C00:B18A:406E:9654:B2B7 (talk) 11:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Denying bail
In bail in the United States, the only reason given for having or denying bail is to make sure the person shows up for trial. Epstein is apparently considered a flight risk (that part makes perfect sense), so he's being held, but it's a big news story that his lawyers have asked for him to be put under house arrest instead. If the only reason to deny bail is to keep tabs on him, then house arrest with enough security monitoring would seem to handle it. However, there is also an obvious concern that if he can go back to his fancy apartment, he can destroy any evidence there that the search team (the one that found the labelled cd's) might have missed. He can also communicate privately with his possible accomplices, blackmail targets, etc. There's a pretty obvious interest in preventing that. The premise of the prisoners' dilemma is that the prisoners haven't yet been tried, but they are still not allowed to communicate with each other. My question: is there legal justification for keeping someone jailed pending trial, other than to make sure he doesn't flee the country? Bonus question: does the SDNY federal court have enough jurisdiction over the US Virgin Islands to order a search of Epstein's compound there, and if yes, why the heck haven't they done it? ObDisclaimers: not seeking legal advice, Epstein presumed innocent, Acosta only wanted to avoid a spectacle, blah blah. NY Mag article about Epstein's island is amazing if you haven't seen it. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You must have missed this sentence in the article: "Legally, bail determination is based on four factors: seriousness of the crime, ties to the community, the flight risk posed by the defendant, and the danger posed by the defendant to his or her community." In this case in particular, there may even be a fifth criterion: the danger posed TO the defendant by his community. --Khajidha (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * US Virgin Islands are under FBI jurisdiction. Epstein having good lawyers is reason enough for some searching to be delayed (keeping in mind the searches may have been done without we still knowing it). Gem fr (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Epstein's charges were brought by the federal government. The U.S. government has jurisdiction throughout, well, the whole U.S. Any U.S. Attorney's office can apply for a search warrant to be served anywhere in the U.S. But, of course, search warrants have to be approved by a judge (a federal judge, in federal cases) who is convinced probable cause exists. As noted in the previous reply, warrants can be issued under seal until they are executed, which may take time, especially in complex cases. From what I've read, Epstein's arrest warrant was issued under seal, which is often done when the defendant is considered a flight risk, to prevent them from learning of the warrant and fleeing before they can be arrested. He was actually out of the country when the warrant was issued, and was arrested on return to the U.S.
 * A question occurred to me: for state charges, what's the typical procedure when the prosecution thinks there is relevant evidence in another state? A little searching pulled up this post on The Volokh Conspiracy. Apparently out-of-state search warrants aren't covered by the Full Faith and Credit Clause. It looks like the "proper" procedure is for State A to apply for a State B search warrant in State B's courts, but according to that post sometimes states will honor out-of-state search warrants although they aren't required to. Note this is different for arrest warrants; the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled states are bound to honor each others' arrest warrants (subject to a few limitations) under the Extradition Clause. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I think in Epstein's case the probable cause for searching the USVI site is bloody obvious. They arrested him after all, and they searched his New York residence quite recently, and if I were them I'd be searching it much more thoroughly right now. I glossed over "danger to the community" thinking that Epstein would be closely watched enough to not commit more molestation directly while under house arrest. I was wondering more of the possibility of his destroying evidence or engaging in conspiracy while confined at home. Jailing him pre-trial for his own protection (protective custody) without his consent seems dubious. Yes, for state-to-state stuff if they don't get the FBI involved, I'd expect the local state's agency would have to coordinate with the other state's counterpart. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)