Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 July 17

= July 17 =

Studying Abroad
Does it cost more to study abroad then to study in your own hometown? SlaveofBetrayal (talk) 06:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Usually, but it depends on many things. In some countries higher education is completely free. Most students also need to think about their living expenses. In your hometown you might be able to live with parents or relatives and you would know how to find a part-time job to help finance yourself. Some countries do not allow international students to work at all. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To expand on Itsmejudith's comments, countries that have free or subsidised higher education do not always extend it to all overseas students. UK Universities have subsidised fees (or free in Scotland) for UK citizens, which I think is available to all EU citizens but not people from other countries. On the other hand some Universities have scholarships exclusively available to overseas students. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not EU citizens, strictly. You have to have been ordinarily resident in the EU for three years, IIRC. Algebraist 10:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: whilst EU residents are typically regarded as 'home' students, I don't think this is the case in Scotland, for some reason. The fees here are free only for Scots - English students who come up to study have to pay something comparable to the fees down south (or cheaper - fees for non-ancient universities are generally much lower, I believe, being in the region of £1,500 rather than ~£3000). Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 13:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In the US, at least in California, in-state residents are charged lower fees to attend state schools, than out-of-state residents are charged.  Corvus cornix  talk  21:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably depends on what you mean by "cost", where you're from, and where you're going to. As mentioned previously, most publicly funded universities give discounts to natives (presumably because natives help fund the Uni through taxes, whereas foreigners do not). Also, if you're anticipating paying for college with savings, going to a high cost of living country when you're from an impoverished country will seem more expensive than if you stayed at home. Going the other way may be a lot easier, as your savings will extend further (so it may equate to being cheaper). If you're not using savings, they you have to consider employment prospects. If you stay in your home country, you may be able to find a part-time job. If you're a foreign student, you may be prohibited from working, so the amount of debt you incur may be more than if you stay home. - All that said, there are certainly benefits to studying abroad, especially if the Uni's in your area are not considered top-tier. I know that a large number of Indian and Chinese students come to the USA to study, despite the fact that they cannot work part-time to defray costs, and the cost of living is higher. The perceived value of a US education outweighs the costs. (You really should view education as an investment.) - Finally, even if there is a large difference in general costs, there may not be the same difference in personal costs. Although within the same country, my undergraduate university's nominal costs was about ten times that of the "local" Uni. However, for me the nominally more expensive Uni was actually cheaper because they gave me a generous scholarship, whereas the local University was not as generous. -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"Send this in confidence to..."
OK, this might be dumb question, but what precisely does it mean to send something to someone else "in confidence"? Zagalejo^^^ 06:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It means to send it in such a way that intermediate people who have to handle it understand that it's intended for the end user, and is private for their eyes only. --  JackofOz (talk) 06:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. Thanks! Zagalejo^^^ 07:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Download original Vocals?
I've recently started playing around with some electronic music production software and have found plenty of sites where I can upload any music I produce. But what I can't find are sites where I can download other people's original vocals that I can incorporate into my songs. Does anyone know of a site like this? There must be singers out there with original compositions but no instrumentation, who want people like me to put music to their work, where can I find them? Thank you. Iiidonkeyiii (talk) 07:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This looks like a possibility, but you have to sign up so I didn't check. And here's the google search I used with a few similar sites on it. Fribbler (talk) 10:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the way football (soccer) looks and is played
Watching the Euro 2008 tournament last month, I was struck by a few changes in the way professional football looks and is played now from when I used to follow it as a boy in the 70s and 80s. I would like to know the reasons for these changes, which would include: --Richardrj talkemail 09:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Previously, the goalkeeper would always wear a green shirt, and the rest of his strip was the same as the outfield team. Nowadays, he seems to wear whatever colour he likes.
 * Previously, the referee would only ever wear all black. Now, again, he wears all sorts of colours.
 * Previously, the team would wear numbers 1 to 11 for each match. Therefore, if a team played a different (for example) goalkeeper from one match to the next, both goalkeepers would wear number 1.  Nowadays, players have squad numbers which they keep throughout the season, always wearing the same number for each match.
 * Previously, if the ball went well out out of play (for example, into the stands), it had to be retrieved. It was important that the same ball be used for the whole of the match.  Nowadays, there is an endless supply of balls which are brought into play from the touchline if the ball goes well out of play.
 * Previously, if there was a draw at the end of a big game such as the FA Cup Final, a replay would take place. Nowadays, it is decided on penalties.  I can guess the reason here - that a big final needs to be decided on the night - but I don't necessarily agree with it.  And if that's the case, why were replays used for so long?


 * The referee not wearing all black is likely due to games involving teams with near-black kit themselves. The numbers thing is likely for convenience - you don't need to have several different numbered shirts for a substitute to wear, he just wears his own - and the finals thing I would reckon is due to the problems of scheduling (TV and real life) such a large match at short notice. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In order to maximise revenue from shirt-sales goalkeeper kits are more 'designed' now than in the past. Provided they are noticeably different to outfield players tops they can be any colour. This is required to make it possible for officials to tell them apart with ease.
 * As noted provided the ref wears colours that make them stand out this makes it possible for clubs to be more flexible in their shirt-designs. Clubs like Newcastle Utd/Inter Milan/Ac Milan have a lot of black in their kits so it is better for refs to wear more contrasting kit wherever possible.
 * In the Premiership teams choose between the 'multi-ball' approach and the 'single' ball approach. There was some controversary when during a game I think it was Spurs removed all the spare-balls from the side of the pitch to 'waste time'. The reason for multi-ball is less time is wasted retrieving a ball, so more time is spent with the ball in play (the ball is in play for a shockingly small amount of a game of football as it is).
 * The modern game has huge numbers of fixtures. Replays have been removed to ensure that players do not play 'too many' games, and to ease fixture congestion. I wouldn't be surprised if there was also a part of this that was to do with broadcasters wanting to ensure that they maximise viewing-figures - if it is a one-game final that must end on the day the incentive to stay watching a dull 0-0 is much higher than if you know that with 20 minutes to go both teams are going to end up playing for a replay rather than risk getting beaten.

Other changes you may have not noticed/perhaps purposefully didn't mention: There are others but I don't have the time spare to go into any more, sorry 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The pass back rule - introduced to make the game flow better and to make negative play harder
 * 3 points for a win - designed to promote more attacking football
 * Removal of foreign-player limits. I think it is not only 3 non-EU players per-squad for European competitions, previously I think there was a different rule (can't remember what though)
 * 'active' and 'non-active' off-side. Aimed at making off-sides occur less it seeks only to stop the game when an 'active' player is in an off-side position. This is a controversial law.
 * Thanks very much for that, most useful. You seem to know a lot so let me ask you something else about offside.  I'm sure I remember there used to be a rule that a player could not be offside if the ball was played forward to him from within his own half. But I can't find any reference to such a rule in the literature so am I imagining it?
 * On the ref wearing black kit, I take the points made but what I don't understand is why this change has only taken place in recent years. In the 70s Newcastle were wearing black and white but I bet the ref still wore black to officiate at Newcastle matches back then.  Or if he didn't, I bet it was only for Newcastle matches that he wore a different colour, he reverted to black for other matches.  --Richardrj talkemail 11:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Could another reason for having players "own" the numbers be that it helps with shirt sales? Seven seems like a popular number so give it to guys like Beckham and sell more shirts. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

1) The ownership of shirts was to help the match officials - if every player has their name of their back, it reduces the risk of the wrong name going into the book when a player is booked (especially if a shirt has been replaced during the macth, e.g., if it's been damaged and a new one is put on for the second half). It also makes identifying players easier for commentators. It's an idea imported from sports like baseball and gridiron, and not a bad one.

2) There was never an offside rule about the ball being passed from the players own half. however, a player cannot be offside if he was in his own half when the ball was played. As far as I know this law hasn't changed.

3) It wasn't quitethe case that 'keepers always wore green. They did in the UK and some other countries, though if they were an international keeper they were entitled to wear yellow. It was different in some countries, though - ISTR the great Dino Zoff wearing black for Italy during the 1970s.

4) Not sure about the refs, though with the increasingly exotic colours of team strips, it may have been necessary for referees to have "away strips". IIRC Manchester United briefly toyed with a black away strip, which if worn would have caused problems for refs (as for "only Newcastle united matches", there would have been the same problems with West Brom and some other teams. ISTR that one of Scotland's club sides wears black sometimes, too).

5) Replays are far better than shootouts, and were regularly used in the days when scheduling was less tight. With modern football it isn't always possible for teams to arrange replay dates - and for big matches the logistics of organising security services, of booking the stadium, and of arranging media outside broadcasts are also major considerations. The FA got fed up with scheduling problems with replays sometime around the late-80s and have used penalty shootouts ever since (sadly). Grutness...wha?  13:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding #4 in the original question, we have an article: multiball system. Rockpock  e  t  20:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Nazi
Why when so many Nazis were sentanced to death, did some of them, who were quilty of astounding crimes against humanity, get life sentances, or shorter, or were released from prison after just a few years? Why was the extrodition of so may of them not granted by countries like Argentina, Chile, Brazil ect to countries like Israel, Poland ect, and why does this continue today, see Albert Heim question above. Furthermore, if so many Nazis escaped via ratlines to various countries, why did Hitler not. These ratlines were organized by the inner cirlce, so why did he not jump ship too? Can some one please provide me with links to alternative theories on what happened to Hitler after the war. Thanks people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 11:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hitler killed himself because he was a zealot facing the unthinkable - that he had been wrong. As for what happened to him, there are no other theories worth mentioning. He killed himself.  Plasticup  T / C  12:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Great question! Well, there's no definite way to know why Hitler didn't escape, since the only guy who knows for sure is Hitler, and he's dead. But we can make some well-educated guesses. First of all -- where the hell would he run to? Your average guy in some other country wouldn't know who Aribert Heim is, for example. Everyone would recognize Hitler; he was the personification of all of Nazi Germany, arguably the most famous face of World War II and certainly the most demonized man of the era. He wasn't someone who could easily blend into a crowd, and he would be the most wanted man of all. There are people who could slip through the cracks in the confusion, but Hitler would be very unlikely to be one of them.


 * Furthermore, he didn't want to escape. He was fanatical about the German military might and destined victory, and was pretty clearly in denial about the outcome of the war for a long time, insisting that they could still win even though it was becoming completely obvious that they could not. When he finally accepted that they couldn't, it was a great blow to him, but at that point it was too late to run -- they were already surrounded by the enemy. He could've cut out before, but now it was virtually impossible.


 * So why suicide instead of surrender? Well, he undoubtedly felt betrayed and harassed. Hermann Göring had attempted to assume control of Germany, Heinrich Himmler was secretly negotiating with the Allies. Hitler apparently didn't want to get executed like Mussolini. And even if that didn't happen, the humiliation of defeat was probably bad enough for him; getting further humiliated in a trial was probably an even less appealing thought -- and he really couldn't look forward to anything but another execution after that, if a little more formal one.


 * As for extradition, I'm sure money was a factor in it, but it's not the whole truth: it's not as if people like Aribert Heim are necessarily protected by the countries they're in, even if the governments of the time were friendly to them. They undoubtedly have false identities and long-running ties in the country. The governments in question are unlikely to know what their current names are or that they are Nazi war criminals. That's the whole point: if someone were to contact the Argentinan government and say "hey, by the way, that guy by this name and who lives in this address is actually a Nazi war criminal, and here's the evidence for that, could you go and arrest him and deliver him to us?", they would be likely to say "sure thing, we'll get back to you in a couple of hours when we've picked him up." But they don't know where Aribert Heim is, what his name is, where he lives, or even what he looks like today. They can try and track him down, sure, but it's not like he's living publicly under that name in some nice house with a sign that says "Old Nazi Bastard" on the front...


 * And finally, the sentencing: the death penalty is a pretty controversial sentence, even for Nazi war criminals. And they did hand out quite a bunch of them: of the 24 accused in the Nuremberg trials, for example, 12 were sentenced to death. Only three of them were acquitted. One of the 24 committed suicide before the trial, and one was eventually tried in another trial. The rest of them got prison sentences ranging from 10 years to life imprisonment. So why did Karl Dönitz, for example, get only 10 years? Because he was a naval commander, who perhaps fought dirty, but he was a soldier. It can be argued (and has been argued) that it's hypocritical to accuse him of those actions, when the people responsible for events that claimed extraordinary numbers of civilian lives, like the Dresden bombing or nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- just to pick the two obvious examples -- on the winning side don't end up in comparable trials. Of course, Dönitz was a Nazi and a dick, but neither of those things are in themselves crimes. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And now for an alternative theory... D AVID Š ENEK 17:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not only is that one of my favorite Python bits, it's also a lot more credible than most other theories. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * and don't forget the power of the teutonic myths in the whole nazi movement; lots off heroic tragic endings, going down in flames, etc. way better than getting captured and sentenced. Gzuckier (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * which gives me an excuse to bring up my favorite webpage again: Fuhrerpants!!! Gzuckier (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If Hitler had shed the stupid haircut and mustache, he could have become "Senor Shgruber" and lived to age 80 in South America, seeing his grandchildren via Eva Braun grow to adulthood. Numerous other ex-Nazis moved there and prospered. At the end, he had a pilot and an airplane available. Edison (talk) 05:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ach! Das Wagenphone ist ein nuisancephone! Adam Bishop (talk) 07:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty skeptical here. I don't mean to get into a debate, but really: not that it's impossible that Hitler could've avoided capture indefinitely, but surely, being just about the most famous and hated man in the world at the time, he would've had a really hard time hiding. The resources that would have been expended to find and capture him would have been completely different from the resources spent on people like Aribert Heim, Edward Roschmann, Adolf Eichmann, and Josef Mengele, or whoever. These guys were pretty disgusting human beings for all sorts of reasons, but they were essentially middle management -- sure, there was demand for them, but you didn't see major governments falling over themselves to catch them, undoubtedly partly because the war was over and they had other things to worry about, and partly because the public outcry for their heads wasn't that great. Most people didn't know who they were and probably didn't even care that much. The war was over, after all; who cared about a bunch of no-name flunkies, as long as the big guys got caught and punished? (Mengele, for example, is famous now and often synonymous with the monstrous Nazi human experiments, but back in the day he was just some doctor; it wasn't until years later that the stories from the camp really started to gain momentum that people started to increase priority on him, and even then it's not as if the world suddenly sat up and took notice.) And, of course, both the United States and the Soviet Union had their own reasons to not look too closely what happened to every single German after the war or foster a culture of accountability for every person involved in the Nazi regime or war effort.


 * But Hitler? That'd be a different story. People would have to get their pound of flesh. How could they let him go? He was the personification of everything the Nazis ever did, the man emphatically in charge and -- in the popular minds, at least -- pretty much directly responsible for every person who died in a concentration camp or in combat against German soldiers. Just saying "well, he got away" and leaving it at that wouldn't fly; the manhunt for Hitler would be massive. It would just have to be. Of course, that doesn't mean he couldn't get away, with good and careful planning (not exactly a cornerstone of Hitler's operations, but, hey, maybe he'd rise to the occasion) and better luck. A little plastic surgery, the good sense to keep his profile low and his mouth shut, enough money to pay his way and grease the right palms... Well, anything is possible. But I think it would be extremely unlikely. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Edison, I had been about to add something like, "Why do you think he grew the "shaveable moustache, and adopted the farcical waxed hairstyle", when just in time I saw your comment. Thanks. Come to think of it, I think I saw him working in a Bierkeller in Tenerife last week. The service was appallingly slow though. 92.17.37.124 (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your first question, as the alliance with the Soviet Union broke off after the war, the Western Allies were more concerned with winning the Cold War than they were with punishing the criminals from WWII. That ruled out tough treatment of West Germany. By the late 1940s, much of the responsibility for denazification had been turned over to the German judiciary, itself largely tainted by Nazi-era ties. Occupation authorities overlooked the release of Nazis from prison lest they ruffle West German feathers. The CIA, meanwhile, used ex-Nazis for espionage against the Soviets; lest this be exposed, the CIA didn't take action to capture Adolf Eichmann from Argentina. Some Nazis fled to friendly right-wing authoritarian countries or Arab states that had little interest in bringing them to justice. There was no cooperation with the Communist governments that now ran Eastern Europe, which is one reason why Israel tried Eichmann itself rather than extradite him to the scene of his crimes. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Flax Seed Oil
Where is food-grade flaxseed oil sold? Can I pick it up at most grocery stores and/or mega retailers, like Wal Mart? Or is this an item I would need to get from GMC-type place? Also, what is the average cost for a bottle? Are we talking five bucks or twenty plus?

FYI - I have no access to the internet (other then Wikipedia..) so I can't look this up myself. Thanks in advance.--Endless Dan 17:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * According to some random guy on a random internet forum, Walmart sells 8 ounces of organic flaxseed oil for around $5.50.  Plasticup   T / C  17:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you! --Endless Dan 18:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * it's in the vitamin aisles at stop and shop, etc. mostly in capsules, although i do have a recent small bottle of just the oil, wants to be kept in the fridge when open, one teaspooon per day. or were you looking for frying quantities? Gzuckier (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I wanted to look into taking it as a health supplement. Any noticeable changes? I've read it's a long-term commitment.--Endless Dan 20:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand it's high in phytoestrogens so may be helpful if you're going through the menopause. It has multiple uses, not just in cookery but in the home and workshop, e.g. as a wood preservative. In principle it should be very cheap, but food grades are obviously much more expensive than household grades (which may be blended with turpentine or other inedibles). Itsmejudith (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You might have better luck finding it at GNC than at GMC, unless they sell a bio-diesel powered truck that runs on flax seed oil. :-) StuRat (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Male Cardinal (bird) behavior
The trim on my house is painted brick red and when it get wet and the light is not full brightness due to cloud cover or dawn or dusk male Cardinals are attracted to it and chirp and hop and fly around it as if to claim it as their own or as if they are calling a mate or the owner. They will do this for about five to ten minutes at a time. They do not seem to be attracted to other red objects such a vehicles. What might explain this behavior? -- adaptron  (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

...further reading suggests this is territorial. -- adaptron  (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

WTF - A Googlebomb on wikipedia
I Googled "Jokepedia" which is a wiki about jokes, and Google said: "Did you mean Wikipedia?"

Google "Jokepedia" and you'll see this. 65.173.104.138 (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's just trying to be helpful and correct your spelling. The same thing happens if you type "vickipedia", or various other things with a "K" and a "pedia" in them. --Masamage ♫ 23:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I think this looks like a googlebomb.  bibliomaniac 1  5  23:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Whoops, forgot that part. Had to look up grok in your statement.  bibliomaniac 1  5  03:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Then you do not grok google bomb, which is an attempt to influence the ranking of a given page in results returned by Google. What we are seeing here is not a top ranked listing. What we are seeing is an (entirely normal, as per the first reply) suggestion by google that you might be looking for something else. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As said, I Googled "Jokepedia" and it said, "Did you mean Wikipedia". At the bottom of the page is similar matter, thus is why I suspect a "Googlebomb".65.173.104.138 (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Deep breath. Look at this google search for George Bosh. Note that's Bosh. See the "Did you mean: George Bush" lines at the top & bottom? That's google trying to be helpful. Now click on the image to the right so you can see it really big. That's a google bomb. A search for "miserable failure" has brought back George Bush as the first listing. Notice that there are no "did you mean xxx yyyy" which is what we are seeing in the jokepedia instance under discussion? Now can you see the difference? --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) You can suspect whatever you want, but you're still wrong. What you're seeing is an ordinary Google spelling suggestion.  If it were a google bomb, it would appear as a search result, with the associated "Cached", "Similar Pages", etc., links and the URL in green.  -- Coneslayer (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys. Now to find out where I can move in here at. Don't say "the shithouse". 65.173.104.138 (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (Image was removed and replaced with a "nonfree image removed image", which is confusing. The original image is this one. Click it, yo.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * When Jokepedia was googled, I thought someone was insulting Wikipedia.65.173.104.138 (talk) 02:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)