Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 June 22

= June 22 =

Kilometer pronunciation
Moved to the language desk, as requested by the questioner

Nationality
What would a person's nationality be? Country of birth, or parents, or citizenship country?

220.244.74.63 (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That would be dependent if the country implements jus sanguinis (citizenship by blood, as in parents) or jus soli (citizenship by birth, as in being born in a country). In situations where a person born to parents whose citizenship is passed down by jus sanguinis is born in a country that implements jus soli (example: a baby born in the United States [jus soli] to Filipino parents [jus sanguinis]), there will be a case of multiple citizenship. --Sky Harbor (talk) 05:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

So you can be multiple nationalities? 220.244.76.63 (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Many countries allow multiple citizenship. For those that don't often the child is allowed to keep citizenships granted at birth, until he or she reaches adulthood at which time the child is, in theory, supposed to choose whether to keep the citizenship of the country which does not allow multiple citizenship, and if so, give up on his or her other citizenships (or at very least refrain from exercising any rights as a citizen of the other country or countries). Nil Einne (talk) 11:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There are examples of various situations of multiple citizenship in its article. Just to raise a point: pointing on the child born to Filipino parents in the United States example: usually, if you do not declare that your child was born to the nearest diplomatic post, recognition of that child as a citizen of the country where he/she acquires his citizenship from his parents through jus sanguinis (in this case, the Philippines) may not be granted.  However, this depends from country to country, and likewise, you can request for recognition after birth through the appropriate agency or agencies. --Sky Harbor (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Witness Protection
Suppose one is testifying against a major figure in organized crime and is protected under the United States Federal Witness Protection Program. After the trial, does this protection last indefinitely, similar to the formerly indefinite Secret Service protection given to ex-US Presidents? Does the duration of this protection change should a witness is testifying against a less "dangerous" suspect? Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 06:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Acceptable, an overview: the first para in the article Witness protection seems to hit the spot. An example of long-term protection is Henry Hill, central figure of the book Wiseguy which formed the basis of the movie Goodfellas. I'm assuming in his case, the witness protection was long-term because his testimony included dangerous subjects and did not change with his testimony against lesser suspects. Someone else here will know more. Cheers, Julia Rossi (talk) 08:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hill may be a good example of protection being dropped or an exception, depending on how you look at it. His numerous crimes after entering witness protection caused the government to kick him out of witness protection.  So, yes, protection can be dropped but in this case, it's not in the way that the OP set out as an example, i.e. the "dangerous" level of the suspect.  Dismas |(talk) 09:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Wet room smell
I inadvertently left my window open in my apartment two nights ago before I left camping and it rained almost the entire time I was gone. None of the water got into the room, but it's very humid here and I think the walls or something got wet enough or it got steamy enough in here sometime in the last two days to leave a really bad smell when I came back. I've tried to look or a particular source but nothing smells when I put my nose up to it; the whole room just smells. I've also febrezed it up and tried to air it out, but the smell remains. Is there anything else I can do? I'm worried that some kind of bacteria might spread/be spreading, and I don't want it to get any worse. 210.254.117.186 (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like mold. Use a dehumidifier or air conditioner to remove the humidity, then wash all the clothes, bedding, drapes, etc., in the room, using bleach to kill the mold.  The carpet may be the issue, too, so move all the furniture out and shampoo the carpet using diluted bleach.  This will, however, make the room damp again.  Don't spend any more time in the room than necessary until this problem is gone, as mold and bleach fumes can both present a health risk.  Sleep somewhere else, like on a couch.  Assuming you have a traditional bed, you may also need to replace your mattress (likely) and box spring (less likely). StuRat (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

alaska gold nuggets
Why do they say the nugget is between 18-24 carat gold? Susan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.228.43 (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A karat measures in this case the purity of gold. 24 karats is considered as the finest form of gold. --Sky Harbor (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Living in a sail ship
How big must be a ship to live on it? How much does the smaller ship where you can live cost? Any hint where I can start learning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.118.85 (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Any size really, though I'd suggest something similar to a narrowboat, unless you are planning to live out at sea, which is probably a bad idea (very dangerous for a beginner). Prices will depend on age, condition etc, but a boat can be a lot cheaper than a house, and as long as it is well maintained there is really no more maintenance required. Try to get as much information as you can beforehand, maybe go down to the local marina and speak to people who are currently doing it, or apply for information from the local authority who manages the canals and rivers. Jessica  N10248  17:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It depends on the lifestyle that you're willing to tolerate. A square raft 2.5 meters (about 8 feet) on a side is enough room to set up a one-man tent and still have space for a small ice chest and a propane stove.  (Think of it as a floating campsite.)  If you're interested in additional amenities (a real berth, a full-sized bed, a double bed; sails, motor; on-board battery-powered lights, radio, AC power, television, air conditioning; satellite navigation; head (toilet), galley (kitchen), on-board laundry facilities; etc.) then the sky's the limit for prices.
 * Poking around the 'net, you can find yacht brokers and used boat dealers who can set you up with a used sailboat – including a small head, galley, berths for two to four (friendly) adults, well-used motor – for comfortably less than ten thousand USD. (Google 'yacht broker' or 'used boats' to find searchable lists of ads.)  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A modern sailboat with a cabin small kitchen appliance and reasonable bunk would be a minimum of 6 metres - although you could always live in an optimist I guess. You should be able to find some from the 80´s in reasonable states for six thousand US dollars up. This doesn´t include berthing fees, repairs, extra equipment you might want to buy in order to actually make you boat into a permanent residence (heater, bigger water tank, more security equipment) as opposed to a week-end/summer embarcation. I wouldn´t argue that it would be in any way very confortable though and you should be looking for 8-10 metres for confort on your own or with other people for short periods of time and 10-12 for real confort and security. Small boats are not designed for the high seas and are less secure than big boats - which can be rendered insubmersible (usually from 8 meters up). Aluminium hull can be a good choice too as they are practically unsinkable since it would take tremendous force to make a hole in one. Other points: boats cost a lot to maintain, there are a lot of small parts that are subject to extreme conditions - make the wrong decision, rip a sail and that sets you back at least five hundred dollars. You have to take into account berthing fees unless you have your own (protected) place. Good luck with your endeavour. Oh yes and LEARN before buying ... you might realise it´s not your cup of salty tea afterall. 200.127.59.151 (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As for learning, where do you live?  It is very easy to find lessons in places like Cowes or Auckland, but some seaside towns offer very few sailing opportunities.  Inland, your options are fairly limited.  Try googling "sailing lessons" with your local town; ring your local sailing or yacht club.  If you live in a maritime place, then check out the local community colleges.  Are you young?  Then consider Sea scouts, or other local mariners clubs.   Some  tall ships  run training programmes, or advertise berths for voyages.  Also see Sail training.  Most importantly, talk to sailors, people who own boats, and try and get out as much as possible.  As the anon says above, there's a lot to it, and you don't want to find yourself in difficulties.  Gwinva (talk) 20:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Cullinan Diamond Discovery Date
Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cullinan_Diamond states that the rough cut diamond was discovered on January 25, 1905

The page for January 25: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_25 does not list the discovery.

However, the page for June 25: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_25 does list it.

I am uncertain which date is correct, and I am uncertain as to whom I should ask.

Rschwriter (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)Rschwriter 6/21/2008


 * According to the book used as a source for the article on the diamond http://www.farlang.com/gemstones/goodchild-precious-stones/page_145, the January date is right. Is there a source given for the June listing? 79.66.22.23 (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

it is possible
could someone survive a bullet through the head —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.220.127 (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, depending on what part of the head it goes through and how big the hole is. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You might survive, but you probably wouldn't know you did —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinage (talk • contribs) 21:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Adam Sandler shot Damon Wayans in the head in the movie Bulletproof,and he survived. So it must be possible!!-- Coasttocoast (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if wikipedia says it's so, then it must be. I'll go do that now, and thanks for the medical advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.220.127 (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There have been recorded cases of people surviving a pole (an inch or two in diameter) through the head. A bullet is probably not too different. The problem is that it could destroy vital parts of your brain. One of the recorded cases (I forget which) ended up losing his behavioural centre (essentially gave himself a lobotomy) and had a large change in lifestyle and behaviour. Add the risk of infection, stroke, blood loss, etc., and it's not likely, but survival is possible with proper care. Steewi (talk) 02:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You're probably thinking of Phineas Gage. More recently, Manish Rajpurohit got skewered by a pole and survived to tell of it. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for the Phineas Gage reference. All I could come up with was Phileas Fogg, quite a different person. Edison (talk) 03:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Since everyone finds Gage so fascinating (with good reason) it's worth straightening a couple of things out: despite common belief, what happened to him was nothing like a lobotomy, nor did it have anything to do with the subsequent development of lobotomy; and the most descriptions of his psychological changes are greatly exaggerated when compared to what his doctor actually wrote about him. See Phineas Gage for more.
 * Unity Mitford shot herself in the brain and survived for years, although the injury eventually contributed to her death. --Anonymous, 07:53 UTC, June 23, 2008.

Hey 79, if you had asked 'what should be treatment for one who has been shot through head?', then that is asking for medical advice. You must have realised that answers to the question 'whether someone could survive...' are opinions, not facts 203.129.237.147 (talk) 03:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't be silly. The OP asked if someone COULD survive, not WOULD survive; that's different from speculation, as has been demonstrated by those respondents who posted above you.  Did you bother to click those links?  Mitchell k dwyer (talk) 07:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It may be possible to live without a head.--Shantavira|feed me 08:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * From Dr. Bizhan Aarabi, director of neurotrauma at the Maryland Shock Trauma Center&mdash;approximately 20,000 people are killed by gunshot wounds to the head each year in the United States. In contrast, about 5% of victims will survive a shot to the head, but only three-fifths of those – 3% of the total gunshot victims – will enjoy a good quality of life afterwards (source).  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Taxes
In the USA ... when you file your income taxes with the government (IRS), does that information then become a matter of "public record"? If so, can I (as a member of the tax-paying public) request a copy of, say, my next-door-neighbor's tax filing ... or, say, Cher's or Madonna's or any famous celebrity's? And if it's not public information, why is it not? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC))


 * As far as I know, it is. You can always ask the IRS for a copy of said tax returns via a FOIA request.  However, if the request is solely for personal use, or if the intention is an invasion of privacy, such request is most likely going to be denied. --Sky Harbor (talk) 00:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Well, then ... what, for example, would constitute some valid reasons for which the request would not be denied ...?  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC))


 * You're welcome. To answer your follow-up, usually this would be for statistical, legal (as in law enforcement), judicial, government (as in Congressional investigations), archival or administrative uses, as regulated by the Privacy Act of 1974.  I think there are also other valid uses, like when individuals or media outlets send FOIA requests for the tax returns of companies.  --<b style="color:#0066ff;">Sky Harbor</b> (<b style="color:#0066ff;">talk</b>) 01:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks ... I meant valid (non-deniable) reasons from an ordinary citizen / taxpayer ... not law, courts, government, etc., ... to see an individual's (not a corporation's) returns ... any ideas? Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC))


 * I checked again on the Privacy Act...you can request this information from an individual only with consent, and usually this would be for any purpose (except accusing someone of a crime, per the Government in the Sunshine Act). So if you're asking for the tax returns of your next-door neighbor via a FOIA request, either it has to be him/her who requests it, or you possess prior written consent from the person(s) involved before you request for it.  There are exceptions where consent need not be granted and usually those are for the reasons I gave earlier. --<b style="color:#0066ff;">Sky Harbor</b> (<b style="color:#0066ff;">talk</b>) 02:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I see. Thanks.  So, for all practical purposes, tax returns are not "really" public records that are open for the public to see ... and I cannot go look at Cher's tax return just "because I want to" ... right?   Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC))


 * I suppose so. And of course, you're very welcome. --<b style="color:#0066ff;">Sky Harbor</b> (<b style="color:#0066ff;">talk</b>) 02:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This sounds right to me. Consider the media hubbub around whether or not Hillary Clinton would release her tax returns for public viewing. If the media could get them without her consent, you can be sure they would have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffjon (talk • contribs) 14:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, makes sense ... thanks to all ... (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 11:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC))

TWO QUESTIONS
1. If Bush lied to us about going to war in Iraq then what was the real reason? Don't tell me he really believed they had WMDs, don't tell me oil, don't tell me he wanted to finish his father's job, don't tell me the Israelis pushed him into it. What was the real reason?

2. Why did Jackie Kennedy climb onto the trunk of the car when JFK was shot? To grab a piece of his brain which was there? Then he must have been shot from the front left, not the book depository nor the grassy knoll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.114.114 (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think for Question # 2 ... wasn't she merely doing what the Secret Service officers were telling her to do? (I believe.)   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC))


 * Consider that a small group of very influential people have made a fortune off of this war. Some of that is oil money, but a lot of it is simply our tax dollars. (See Blackwater Worldwide, Bechtel, Halliburton )  APL (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think rather it could have been a LARGE group of influencial people - the whole military-industrial complex. The military for one didn't have a reason for being and was getting a "no" from congress for all the big items and fighter planes it wanted. 9/11 was a Godsend to them and Blackwater for example. Remember that Pres. Clinton wanted to attack Iraq long before 9/11 and sent his three stooges to the University of Ohio in a town meeting forum where they were booed and everybody thought it was only to draw attention from Monica Lewinski, so it wasn't only Bush's idea.


 * 1) Unless you are one of the types who is prone to believe 9/11 was actually a CIA plot, it is probably most reasonable to believe that Bush did indeed believe that Iraq was a serious threat to US security. There's a thing called confirmation bias - in short, you tend to put weight in even small evidence which confirms what you want to believe, but discount even mounds of evidence which contradicts it. Going into office, Bush had the believe that Saddam was a bad man, and bad men must be stopped (both entirely reasonable). Evidence which supported that view was looked on favorably, whereas doubts were dismissed as insignificant. There is also the echo chamber effect - Bush values loyalty, and surrounds himself with people who have a similar mindset (as do most people). Because of this, though, he isn't exposed to opposition viewpoints as much, and when he is, it's usually from "them", so it's so much easier to discount it. It is highly likely that he convinced himself that Iraq was a real and pressing danger that needed to be taken care of, otherwise the US faced imminent peril. He likely still believes he was correct in that assessment. (Oh, by the way, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - the best you're going to get here is speculation. The only one who knows for sure is Bush.) 2) I believe that the president always has armored protection kept close at hand, to protect him in case of an assassination attempt. I've heard that the official presidential podiums are bulletproof, and in case of an attack, the president can climb inside. My guess is that the trunk of the convertible was reinforced to be bulletproof, and Jackie was placed there so that she was protected in case of further gunshots. This is just speculation, though. -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Confirmation bias = "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts." - George W. Bush

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.114.114 (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * She didn't climb into the trunk, she climbed onto it - it does look like she is going to pick up pieces of brain, which maybe seemed reasonable at the time considering the extreme shock of the situation, who knows. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There has been a lot of speculation about why Bush seemed dead set on going to war with Iraq from a very early period. One is that he had a personal grudge to settle, the whole "he tried to kill my dad" thing relating to Saddam, or that he was trying to finish what his father had started (Freudian theories run wild). Another was that he thought it would provide cheap oil to the US and give the US a good launching point in the Middle East in the post-9/11 era. Another is that he was urged by other neo-Conservatives to do it as part of an neo-Wilsonian effort to remake the world as he saw fit (and to profit certain American interests at the same time). Another is that he was trying to built up a solid "legacy" for his own presidency, as part of the remaking of his image he attempted in the post-9/11 era (where pre-9/11 he was best known for spending most of his time on vacation). Another is that he thought being "tough" there would encourage other "troublesome" nations (Libya, North Korea, Iran) to go along with his policies, etc. It's probably a large mix of things. There was certainly a great deal of confirmation bias in any case, but from all I've read about it, it sounds like he was always just looking for a rationale to do it once he decided to do it. The WMDs might have been official casus belli, but remember that there would have been other ways to deal with that other than unilateral action (well, not totally unilateral, but the "coalition of the willing" was no UN). Anyway, speculation, all. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Scott McClellan discusses the reasons for the Iraq war in What Happened.
 * Sorry but there is no one liner "The Reason".
 * There were many people involved in the decision to go to war; each had their own reasons and priorities. For some, the intelligence reports on WMDs were a major driving force; for others, replacing a rather nasty tyrant with democracy; for others encouraging the democracy movement in Iran (put it between two democratic nations); etc. A decision like that doesn't happen so that one guy has A Secret Reason and one day he suddenly decides to go to war.
 * McClellan writes how the White House made a big mistake in focusing on one reason (WMDs) in public speeches, assuming (perhaps correctly to some degree) that indeed a simple, dumbed down "The Reason" had to be presented to the people. A public discussion on the arguments for war would be too complex for people who want "The Reason" and want to see things in black and white.
 * Read the book, and try not to to think "Don't Tell Me" while doing so. The book won't give you a simple answer; some things in life are not simple. Even though political opposition may want to make you think so. 88.112.43.206 (talk) 09:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe his VP, Dick Cheney, was instrumental in silencing dissenters and convincing GWB to attack Iraq. I imagine Cheney wanted to provide lucrative, no-bid contracts for his old defense company, Halliburton, since this was the most effective way to raid the public treasury for his personal benefit.  After Cheney leaves office, I expect Halliburton to reward his loyalty financially. StuRat (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to all who replied. 2)JFK shot from front left confirmed by large exit wound on right rear skull. Secret service man at left rear of car made her get back into back seat and lie on floor. 1) Bush indeed surrounds himself with yes-men and despises dissent. Remember the "axis of evil" from before 9/11? He adamently refuses to consent to telling North Korea he has no intention of invading them. I do think Cheney was more than just instrumental in silencing dissenters but not for financial gain. I don't think McClellan was in a position to know the real reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.114.114 (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I find the phrasing of the first question interesting. I've got another one like it. Who was the first president of the US? And don't tell me George Washington, I want the real answer! DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Samuel Huntington, of course, was the first President of the United States in Congress Assembled. StuRat (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Huntington (July 16, 1731 [O.S. July 5, 1731] – January 5, 1796) was an American jurist, statesman, and revolutionary leader from Connecticut. He served as a delegate to the Continental Congress where he signed the Declaration of Independence, as Governor of Connecticut, and later as the first President of the United States in Congress Assembled, that is, the presiding officer of the Congress of the Confederation, the sole governing body of the first central government of the United States of America. His office was not that of today's President of the United States, which is a federal chief executive position created under the later United States Constitution.

That's a good one DJ Clayworth :-D Aside from mathematics there is hardly a question which doesn't have more than one answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.114.114 (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 2)The drawings/photos of the Kennedy autopsy show that the piece of skull which popped off was consistent with a shot from the rear. When a high velocity bullet enters a closed fluid-filled container, the high pressure developed can indeed cause the target to move toward or away from the shooter, depending on how it exits. I have confirmed this to my own satisfaction by shooting melons and pop cans placed on a post. The jet of expelled material can exit in such a way as to push the target back toward the shooter. Other times it moves away from the shooter. It is not a block of wood, which could simply absorb the momentum of the projectile and always move away from the shooter. Edison (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. By the way, Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism, and Bush's speech was made by assembling small bits of information that are not nessecarily true put together in a process known as "cherry-picking". Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 17:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Which speech are you referring to and which bits of information?

Placer Gold
How much less is gold placer worth than gold nuggets and if you find gold placers is that a good sign that gold nuggets aren't too far off? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.99.11 (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert but I imagine that the only thing that matters is the purity and weight of the gold. Source is irrelevant to value. Exxolon (talk)

It was my understanding that placer gold was like gold flakes you find in sand, that can't be worth much could it? But would that be a good indication that gold nuggets could be nearby? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.97.50 (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A little synchronicity; I encountered the term 'gold placer' for the first time yesterday in an old book, and now I read it here. Funny world.


 * Well it all depends on the amount you find. You're right that individually each flake is not worth much but if there are hundreds or thousands of flakes then you have a valuable property. Exxolon (talk) 02:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)