Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 January 16

= January 16 =

What is Nu-Austerity?
What is Nu Austerity? 59.167.252.197
 * Aside from being misspelled, this Googley searchey seems to indicate that it's a company of some sort. As with most other companies having flashy names, they seem to produce mainly buzzwords and cliches. (Okay, I didn't look that far into it, but I got turned off before I could get much more involved.) V-Man737 02:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to be a name invented by a marketing company called thefuturelaboratory for a supposed trend they want us to seek their advice about how to exploit. --mglg(talk) 04:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Jesus
Which literature/historical/fictional characters are similar/can be compared to Jesus? For example: Simon in "Lord of the Flies" by William Golding. Jamesino 02:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Loads of 'em. Perhaps one of the more famous examples is Valentine Michael Smith in Stranger in a Strange Land. Grutness...wha?  02:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Aslan, Donnie Darko, Simba, and Neo are the first to come to my mind. (edit: I neglected to mention Spock and Brett Favre(see thread on him above) - I am so ashamed.)V-Man737 02:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Gandalf. He comes back from the dead, or so the other characters thought, he goes from being Gandolf the Grey to Gandalf the White, white being a color for purity.  He performed what may be viewed as miracles.  He could communicate with animals which may be looked upon as a trait of a Christ figure.  Dismas|(talk) 03:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Does he really communicate with animals, minus the Great Eagles? I thought that was mostly Radagast. But aside from that, he has been compared to Jesus. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I always thought his relationship with Shadowfax at the least bordered on direct communication. Dismas|(talk) 05:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Prometheus as well. Check out Christ figure for more. Wolfgangus 03:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Billy Budd (amazing--he's not in Christ figure, at least not yet). Casey in Grapes of Wrath.  There's lots... it's fun thinking of these.  Antandrus  (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Santiago in The Old Man and the Sea. Someoneinmyheadbutit&#39;snotme 04:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The man in Whistle Down The Wind (a great film, btw) is mistaken for Jesus by a group of children. And then of course there's Brian... --Richardrj talkemail 08:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ghandi? | A ndonic O Talk · Sign Here 12:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Gandhi! ^_^ V-Man737 13:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Long John Willoughby in Meet John Doe. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  15:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Brett Favre?  J I P | Talk 17:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Tommy


 * Atlant 17:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

dill in scar night.

Superman - he died, attracted a cult and then returned from the dead. --Larry laptop 20:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with JIP Rya Min 21:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Izola Ware Curry
Please shed some light on the life of Izola Ware Curry, the woman who attempted to kill Martin Luther King, Jr at a New York City book signing and photo op event in 1958. She was whisked away to a mental institution (where she may still be), and the public was told she was just paranoid-schizophrenic. My husband worked for MLK Jr in the early 1960's, and the word then was that MLK Jr knew Mrs. Curry back in Georgia and may have had some responsibility for her taking leave of her senses. Was she ever able to get back to a normal life? Or were they able to make their diagnosis permanent? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Livylee (talk • contribs) 03:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
 * There doesn't seem to be much in the way of activity beyond her institutionalization. It would have been big news to hear that a previously would-be assassin of Dr. King had been released; this Google search doesn't shed much light beyond 1958 (Although this website should be useful for entertainment purposes). On a sidenote, an article on Izola Ware Curry would be a great addition to Wikipedia, especially in light of the holiday. V-Man737 03:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Headphones
Can anyone help me to find decent quality circumaural headphones for under ninety dollars with a good range (at least 20 hz to 20.5 Khz) and even frequency response (low bias toward or away from any frequency range), or at least reasonably so for the price? And not wireless? And don't say Sennheiser HD 497; they're apparently discontinued. Thanks. Someoneinmyheadbutit&#39;snotme 04:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sony has never let me down; those are 99 bucks, though... *still searching* these cost $35.49, making me wonder what's wrong with them (site lists full details); this Google search provided those links. For the sake of optimism, this might interest you. V-Man737 05:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for tryin'...the second Sony ones were wireless (forgot to specify that in the original query). Someoneinmyheadbutit&#39;snotme 21:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)



Stepfamily
The daughter of the first wife is the stepdaughter of the second wife. What is the relationship of the daughter of the second wife to the first wife. BD LongBdlong 09:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be referred to as "daughter's step-sister" by the first wife, or "step-sister's mother" by the 2nd wife's daughter. V-Man737 09:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Was Jesus born out-of-wedlock?
If so, is a pejorative term applicable?

lots of issues | leave me a message 12:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The Bible doesn't say if Mary and Joseph were married at the time Jesus was born, but certainly they were not married when he was conceived. Mary was a virgin. And, for the same reason, a pejorative term is not applicable. BenC7 12:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Mary and Joseph were Jewish. According to Jewish law, a marriage is not complete until consummated, so if you believe she was a virgin her whole life, she never married. I suppose you could argue that she therefore married God, as the reverse also applies in Jewish law (ie sexual intercourse is a method of marriage, willy nilly) but I believe that only applies to sex between Jews... and Judaism certainly doesn't regard God as Jewish. --Dweller 12:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (in general, you really shouldn't apply pejorative terms to religious figureheads - it's rather tactless.) V-Man737 12:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also to my knowledge the marriage was the public taking home, which Joseph did before the pregancy was apparent to the public, in order to avoid the implications for Mary. Agathoclea 12:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Some people have claimed that Mary wasn't a virgin at the time, just that she hadn't had sex with Joseph. 惑乱 分からん 13:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Joseph and Mary were married according to Jewish law, thought the marriage had not yet been consummated. Still they were married.
 * Agathoclea is completely right in what he said.
 * Wakuran, "some people have claimed" is not enough for such claims. You are simply stating the most sensible alternative to the Virgin Birth.
 * God certainly is not Jewish but that whole issue is irrelevant because God has not, does not, will not, cannot have sex with a human being.
 * Str1977 (smile back) 13:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah... I guess I am... 惑乱 分からん 15:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Str1977, even if they had a wedding ceremony, they were not married. They're not the same thing in Jewish law. Nor, it would seem, in some versions of Church law... I recall that Henry VIII used this argument in his efforts to have an inconvenient marriage annulled.

I'd be interested to learn whether conventional Christian teaching has it that Mary and Joseph ever consummated their relationship. --Dweller 16:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Dweller, your take is not accurate. They were married even if they did not consummate. Of course, this could be a ground for an anullment (to use canon law language) but that only applies if anyone wants to annul it.
 * Tradititional Christian teaching held that Mary was ever Virgin and they did not consummate their marriage. Str1977 (smile back) 00:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Mary and Joseph weren't Christians. They were Jews. As such, a wedding ceremony is only part of the Jewish marriage process, which in their day would have comprised separate erussin and nissuin ceremonies and intercourse. Marriage is incomplete until consummated. Just to enlighten you as to how different this is from conventional understanding of wedding ceremonies, the erussin (betrothal) would often take place a year before the nissuin (wedding), but if a couple decided not to proceed with the nissuin, they would need to divorce. --Dweller 09:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The first chapter of Matthew deals with this question quite thoroughly, especially the first verse, which establishes that Jesus was descended (via Joseph) from Abraham.--Shantavira 16:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Matthew gives a legal descent but also says that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus, who - according to Matthew - conceived by the Holy Spirit. Str1977 (smile back) 00:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It may be of significance to note that all four Gospels make reference to Jesus' mother and brothers trying to talk with him while he is surrounded by a crowd (implying that Mary did, indeed, go on to have more children, and thus must have consummated the marriage with Joseph). V-Man737 09:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Brothers was used as a figure of speach; it means his friends/followers. | A ndonic <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:black; font-size:x-small;">O</b> Talk · Sign Here 11:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I always figured Jesus used the situation to make it a figure of speech by hyperbole: "Hey, JC, your mom and brothers wanna talk to you." "My mom and brothers? Look, see these people following me? They're my mom and brothers!" V-Man737 11:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera. See also Desposyni.  User:Zoe|(talk) 16:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Progression of disciplines
I remembered hearing (in a human geography lecture, I think) about a sequence of stages that someone came up with which all fields of study were supposed to go through.

It went something like (a completely mangled version):

1. Description: early work in a field just describes observations (what?)

2. Categorization: later work groups observations

3. Theorization: finally, (why? / how?)

My question is, who came up with it and what did it actually look like (I think it's fairly well-known).

Thanks, --Halidecyphon 14:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

MARRIAGE OF JOSEPH AND THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY There is the example in the Old Testament which shows the marriage customs of the Jews, (duplicated with Joseph and Marry), in the story of Abraham, (the Father), his good and faithful unnamed servant (the Holy Spirit), and Isaac, (the son) who received the bride (the church), Rebekah. The Father, (Abraham -- not the son, Isaac), sent the servant to get a bride for the son. The servant chose the bride, (Rebekah). She was not asked if she WILLED to be the bride of the son. He went to the father of Rebekah and asked for her for Isaac, the son. The servant took with him a great price. When agreement was made between her father and the servant the price was paid --- she was married. The Good News, (Gospel), was then delivered to her that she had a husband and he was described. She was thrilled. Fulfillment for a woman was to be married and a rich one was even better. The custom was then to leave home and visit the home of one or more relatives and tell them the Good News, (the Gospel), that she was married and had a wonderful husband who paid a great price (crucifixion) for her. In Rebekah's case she was asked if she wanted to forgo the visits and go directly to her husband, Isaac, which she did.

Advance now to the marriage of Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary: She was his espoused wife. She was fully wife. The only part of the marriage that was pending was the consummation. When Joseph heard through gossip that Mary was pregnant, he thought he would put her away (divorce her) quietly. If they were not fully married, he would have had no authority to put her away. Until the woman is married, she is still under the authority of her father. There is no mention of a ceremony anytime before, or after she conceived or after the birth of Christ. They were poor and probably could not afford that extra. But they were already married for in the New Testament references to Joseph he is called, "her husband." The Holy Spirit tells Joseph to "fear not to take unto thee Mary, thy wife."

If the Blessed Virgin Mary had not been legally married, then according to Jewish Law Jesus would not have qualified to be a priest. For a conception outside marriage would have meant the Mosaic Law was broken. Jesus was sinless, spotless, and never broke the Law. He fulfilled all righteousness according to the Law.

Following typical Jewish custom, Mary went immediately after the marriage to visit Elizabeth and give her the Good News— more than that she had a husband but about the conception of Jesus. The paver-of-the-way, John the Baptist, proclaimed it to Elizabeth by leaping in her womb before Mary got the chance. Mary stayed three months and left as Elizabeth was about to deliver. For to touch blood was contamination and associated with uncleanness.

When Joseph and Mary arrived at Bethlehem and the Inn keeper saw she was about ready to delivery there was no room for them. If she gave birth in his inn, that room would have been considered unclean for 30 days and would have deprived him of revenue.

I'm bored.
Help me out! 206.176.119.180 16:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Click on the Random article link to read a random Wikipedia article. Or if you want something more active, take a look at the list of tasks atCommunity Portal. If you are new to Wikpedia, you can learn more about how it works by starting at Introduction. Gandalf61 16:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That's no good anymore. Now 1 in 5 articles you get will be a stupid, boring stub about some municipality or county. I wish there was a "random article" from inside a category &mdash; Kieff 22:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I wish that too, buddy. --Taraborn 19:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Check out Wikitravel. Vranak
 * Get StumbleUpon. Someoneinmyheadbutit&#39;snotme 21:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

tennis
What is the largest number of tennis balls that can be stacked in a pyramid on a tennis racket? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.38.127.235 (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Wouldn't that largely depend on the size of the racket? Oversized ones can be about twice as big as old, wooden ones used in the past. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

one, the rest would fall off :]Hidden secret 7 19:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I can make a big one (the largest I know of); my mid-size (100 square in.) raquet can hold 35 balls. | <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:black; font-size:x-small;">A</b> ndonic <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:black; font-size:x-small;">O</b> Talk · Sign Here 11:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Would rackets be square or hexagonal, the stacking would be improved. -- DLL .. T 19:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Animal Rights
I don't understand why anybody supports animal rights. Could somebody provide a list of the main reasons supporters use? Thanks.--216.164.249.7 18:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC) With the Theory of Evolution in mind, which essentially starts with humans being just another animal, perhaps the question should be reversed, and be "Why do some feel that other animals are not entitled to the same rights as humans ?". One argument, which seems completely absurd, is that other animals can't feel pain. There is all sorts of evidence that they do feel pain. Another is that they don't have "souls", but religion was invented by humans, so of course any invention of humans will tend to favor humans over other animals. Another argument is that other animals aren't "self-aware". This may apply to lower animals, but not some highly intelligent primates, dolphins, whales, elephants, and certain birds. One way to show this is with the "mirror test". Any animal that spends a significant part of the time staring at itself in the mirror, once it figures out that it's looking at itself, can be assumed to be somewhat self-aware. Another justification is that they have short memories, but this is not true for many animals. Perhaps the most universally accepted justification for animal testing, and the like, is the "selfish motive", that while other animals have rights, another animal is less important to us than a human, much as citizens of other countries are less important to us than our own. StuRat 15:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, we taste as good as they do. V-Man737 16:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with the questioner, however. From a rational point of view, since moral values are just our invention for living better, there's no reason for apply them to animals, because that won't provide us any benefit. My opinion is that some people support animal rights because misunderstand the concept "do to others what you would like to be done" or for some emotional reason. --Taraborn 19:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Help with finding a better-suited website for me
Hi. I've used wikipedia RD for a while now, but I tend to get frustrated with it when asking about political stuff because almost everybody here is a libertarian, and nobody shares my views.(For example, I asked the question above about animal rights.) Does anybody know a political website that I would like? I favor policies that support people as a collective and favor policies that further national objectives, and disapprove of policies that support individual "pursuit of happiness", private ownership of the means of production(I favor state ownership), and disapprove of unnecessary pursuits. Of course this is brief and doesn't go below the surface of my beliefs, but hopefully you can get the jist and can help me. Another possibility is that Wikipedia's libertarians will insult me and be unhelpful, and I hope this doesn't happen.--216.164.249.90 19:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Also, as a bonus, if you help me instead of saying I shouldn't ask for this on the RD, I won't be here to bother you anymore.--216.164.249.90 19:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * em.. maybe a link from here? http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/Links.htm --Larry laptop 20:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You want a website where people are just going to agree with your views? I find that I learn more from being exposed to opinions I don't already have.  The website http://forum.darwinawards.com has forums, including one on politics- they probably get a decent cross-section of ideologies there.  Friday (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I want to summarize your statements here, let me know if I'm wrong. First, You believe that almost everyone here is libertarian. Second, you are really looking for a website that has completely different views from libertarianism. Third, You decide that the best source to ask for a anti-libertarian website is... a bunch of libertarians on the RD. Good luck with that. --Measure 21:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologize to Mr. Contentious Topic dialog box. And, if needed, to 216. --Measure 21:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Odd straight path across upper northeast Canada
What is the wide straight path (currently white) that crosses Labrador or upper northeastern Quebec for what seems to be hundreds of miles? It occasionally angles off to the southeast but remains straight to an amazing degree. I saw it from too high up to be able to judge its actual width, but it looks like at least the size of a six-lane highway. I was thinking Hydro-Quebec, but I couldn't see any power lines, or pipe lines. It was most mysterious. Mothperson cocoon 20:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * To me, it sounds like it was probably power lines. You would not be able to see the thin power lines and metal supports from high in the air.  However, a swath of vegetation is normally cut back beneath power lines, and you could have seen this snow-covered swath from the air.  Marco polo 21:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That's what I was kind of expecting. But from where to where?  There were no settlements anywhere in sight.  It was a vast wasteland of snow and rock, and this line had to be going from somewhere to somewhere else (which is why I thought it might be Hydro-Quebec).  It was a little creepy, such a straight wide path going on indefinitely.  I really would like to know for sure what it was.  We can't put such major marks on the earth without a lot of people knowing what they are.  Or maybe we can.  The Nazca lines of the future.  Eh? Mothperson cocoon 21:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This shows their system map, with a big straight line right to the Churchill Falls power dam. --Zeizmic 23:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's it! Thank you very much, Zeizmic.  Mothperson cocoon 06:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The Caine Mutiny Court Martial Verdict.
I know the above novel was fictional, but had the events occurred in fact, and had Lt. Maryk been found guilty as charged by his Court Martial, what would have been his punishment under the then current US Navy Regulations - perhaps they remain the same today? Would he have been hanged from the yardarm perhaps?
 * Our articles claim that in the book, he is not charged with mutiny - it is less clear from the article what the charge was in the movie. The U.S. military does still retain the use of the death penalty; however, as the only execution for mutiny in the U.S. Navy was for the USS Somers incident in 1842, it seems unlikely. Rmhermen 01:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In the novel, the court martial charge was "Conduct to the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline".&mdash;eric 02:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * According to this, the last example of this kind of hanging (usually resulting in slow strangulation rather than the neck being broken) took place in 1860, ye swab. Clarityfiend 05:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That was punishment by a different Navy for a different offense. Rmhermen 05:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And your point is what? That the USN would resurrect a method of execution last used over 80 years ago? Clarityfiend 07:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * if the laws back then are the same today (I havne't looked into that), I'd say yeah, he would be hung, to the consternation of great crowds of angry people against capital punishment. V-Man737 06:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * After further thought, I don't believe he would have been executed. Consider Eddie Slovik, the only American executed in WWII for something similar. The army gave him several chances to get out of his court martial, but he was too stupid to take advantage of it. Plus he wasn't even an officer. I believe the USN proudly proclaims there has never been a mutiny in its entire history; it wouldn't have wanted to blemish its record. (Now the French army in WWI was a different story.) Clarityfiend 19:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: New entry
To whom it may concern:

How do I make a new entry? Like, a new page all my own?

Thanks!!!

Smskid123

Just type the page name into the search bar and then click the red link in "You searched for [Index]" 206.176.119.180 21:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see here and here.Serenaacw 22:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note that a new article you create will not be "all your own". --Lambiam Talk  22:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You might want to start by creating a user account for yourself. Amongst other thing, this gives you a user page which is slightly more of "a new page all my own" than an article page. If you aren't already signed in, on the upper-right hand corner of almost every page there is the option "Sign in / create account." If you click on that, you are given options and instructions to create a new account. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Bicycle wiki...?
Is there a wiki devoted to bicycle assembly, repair and maintenance? I can find lots of excellent sites on the web that are not Wikis but none that are. -- 71.100.10.48 22:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Bikiwiki looks promising. V-Man737 03:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * -O They even have wikis for that?! | <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:black; font-size:x-small;">A</b> ndonic <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:black; font-size:x-small;">O</b> Talk · Sign Here 11:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's important to stay zen in the cycle of life. -- DLL .. T 18:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sidewalk projects basis of priority..?
How are sidewalk projects in an urban area given priority? Is it a political (favoritism) or "squeaky wheel gets the grease" method or is the assessment of every project in an urban area based on the degree of improvement the work will provide for each necessary user on the basis of:

1. the level of necessity for its use (such as it being the only way to cross a river),

2. the level of safety (such as whether holes are hidden by puddles),

3. the number of necessary users (such as the number of people that must use it to cross a river), and

4. monetary cost?

By who's mind (or minds) and by what method is the significance of such criteria determined?

-- Barringa 23:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In New York City the building owners are responsible for maintaining the sidewalks, so the level of maintenance depends on how much money the owner has that they want to spend on the sidewalk. -THB 23:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is just off the cuff, but I think in certain cities, a sidewalk code is eventually instituted, that says new improvements to lots must include the addition of a sidewalk, but older properties are not forced to build a sidewalk on their property... unless they apply for a permit to improve said property. --Measure 23:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A few thinks later, it's really up to the specific urban area how these things are decided. I don't think there's a federal sidewalk program in the USA, anyhow. (Although with the size of our government, I wouldn't be surprised...) --Measure 00:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You're substantially correct. As a community grows, the local governing body may implement requirements that new developments improve the streets as they build, and "build out" to the ultimate road configuration along the frontage of that property.  So you may see a new development of houses having a nice three-lane road with sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and planter strips, but it will be adjacent to older homes with no sidewalks, open drainage ditches, and a narrower road.
 * And the Federal Government is involved in that it has (again, for the U.S.) enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act which does enforce minimum standards for accessibility in new construction. This is why new sidewalks will be 5' wide, with large curb cuts and wheelchair ramps, whereas older sidewalks are narrower, and have substandard wheelchair ramps, among other things.  So the federal government is not mandating where we build sidewalks, but it does enforce the standards to which they are built.
 * To answer some of the original questions, many factors go into sidewalk projects, several of which you have listed: safety, access, number of users, and cost. An area with a high volume of school-age children and also vehicle traffic above certain threshholds (volume, speed), will easily merit the construction of new sidewalks to provide paths for the children to get to school.  Unfortunately, environmental requirements make some areas more costly to develop, especially if they contain wetlands or other critical areas.  There's no one easy formula, and yes, sometimes it does boil down to the squeaky wheel getting the grease.  If an influential town councillor wants a sidewalk in his neighborhood, he may very well get one during the next construction season.  192.168.1.1 7:55pm, 16 January 2006 (PST) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.144.196 (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC).