Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 March 27

= March 27 =

Wikipedia Destroyed. How Many Months to Rebuild?
Someone just posed this thought question to me and I'm interested in what Ref-Deskers think. If Wikipedia were wiped, leaving only the technology, how long would it take to rebuild to a level equivalent to current? Would our collective memory of what Wikipedia contained be the blueprint? Would certain articles never reappear because their authors don't care to do the work over again? Or would articles be better the second time? My estimate is five years. 67.164.163.15 (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I take it we're assuming something has magically destroyed every trace of Wikipedia but left the rest of civilization standing? What with the backups, the forks, the database dumps, the CDs, the printed articles, and so on, any realistic Wikipedia-eradicating event would also take out civilization as we know it. Algebraist 01:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's an interesting enough thought experiment. If Wikipedia & all forks & derivatives are taken out by, lets call it a Sanger-SmartBomb: Wikipedia's what, eight or so years old. I vaguely recall it had about 250k articles on it in March 2005. It has 1.8M now. Umm. I'd say somewhere between 18 & 24 months to rebuild. I'm assuming there we would benefit from the return of many who have left us, and from many newbies, since the news would be sufficiently shocking. And the relatively short time is because we all have a much firmer clue about what we are doing and how best we can go about doing it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Where 1.8M=2.8M. Algebraist 01:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup. That sort of 2am maths.--Tagishsimon (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WP "wiped, leaving only the technology" leaves lots of variables. Unless those variable are defined as Algebraist suggests there is no answer. -hydnjo (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The question isn't whether something like that could happen, or how something like that could happen, but rather if something like that happened, what would the scenario of the aftermath be like? I hope the original questioner will tell me if I am right, wrong, or in between about that. Bus stop (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Right. 67.164.163.15 (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Although I'd hope that this wasn't possible, haven't the dumps been stalled for months now? Are there official backups for the various projects? How often are they taken? 72.200.101.17 (talk) 01:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The dumps should be at least daily with NO backlog. Given that bit of advice from me, the dumps and the preservation of those archives should be in the hands of folks who have expertise in this field. They have an entire field of study about this that we can only speculate about. Please be doing it right, lots of folks have volunteered lots of keystrokes to get us here! -hydnjo (talk) 02:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ha! Daily you say.  We haven't had a publicly available full history dump of enwiki in over 2 years.  No small part of that is that the (inefficient) dump process wants ~9 months to assemble the 2 TB of data and any database connectivity error in that time fries the fragile dumper.  Fixing the dump architecture is supposed to be a major goal for this year.  There are eight or so realtime mirrors setup, so a single hardware failure can't kill the system, but we'd be in a really bad place if a meteor hit the Florida data center.  Dragons flight (talk) 05:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I forgot. I think that it would take longer to rebuild than to build it in the first place. Why? Because we myriads of contributors have done so with the expectation of, well you know. Destroying all of that effort would result in some folks redoubling their individual effort and some saying "screw it". Your guess is as good as mine and mine no better than your's. -hydnjo (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And your guess plus my guess is better than nothing. Thanks. 67.164.163.15 (talk) 04:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The public dumps are stalled. The servers are backed up privately daily, however. Just like any good website should do. (or any computer user, for that matter) X clamation point  03:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Granting the premise (which is certainly far fetched!) - then we have the tension between "Oh no - I couldn't face doing all of that work again - I give up!" versus "We did it before - we can do it again - but we can learn from our mistakes - this time it'll be bigger and better!"...but actually, I think that's the biggest problem: There would be an awful tendency for the organizers and the movers-and-shakers of Wiki-land to go with: "We'll do it right this time!" and spend an eternity on arguing about these 'improvements' - with the market wide-open, there would be splinter-groups forming rival Wiki-based encyclopedias.
 * (Interrupting SteveBaker briefly) Yep -- see Second-system effect. --Anonymous, 09:50 UTC, March 26, 2009.
 * There are many big businesses who would give a lot to own something like this - and many have tried and failed. The advertising revenues from one of the ten most visited websites on the planet could rival Google - so you can imagine that without a free Wikipedia to compete against, there would be massive efforts to fill the void with non-free or quasi-free alternatives.   Obviously we can't know what would happen - this is pure speculation - but I feel that the loss of inertia coupled with the bickering and in-fighting and commercial pressures would kill the effort stone dead and I'd be quite surprised if it would ever return from the grave in anything like it's present form.  Fortunately - there is no conceivable means for Wikipedia to 'go away' entirely because it's mirrored in hundreds or perhaps thousands of places and even a major catastrophy could be fixed up in a day or two. SteveBaker (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good discussion of the second part of the question, thanks. I prefer to think that enough people would recognize the danger of splintering into factions, and that few of the original contributors would support a non-free or quasi-free model with their volunteer labor. Also, yes, very glad that such a scenario is so unlikely. Original thought question was more broad- how long would it take to rebuild the internet if the only thing left was infrastructure, no data. 67.164.163.15 (talk) 05:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're right. Without the inertia provided by a large existing project, all the people who disagree on basic points of policy (Should we have advertising? To what extent should content have to be free? Which subjects merit coverage? Which people should be allowed to edit? Should some guy with a funny name have quasi-GodKing status?) would have little to hold them together. The community would splinter into policy- or personality-based factions, and Wikipedia's market share would be taken up by a large number of competing projects. If I know anything about splinter groups, many of them would spend a lot of time bickering over who was the true heir to Wikipedia. Algebraist 03:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to think that those that wasted the most time doing anything but writing articles would find themselves playing second fiddle to whoever managed to just get down to business. Some would wait, reserve commitment for whoever emerged as frontrunner in the first several months. Mainstream media would report on it, so it would be common knowledge who was winning. 67.164.163.15 (talk) 05:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If the WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN rules held, it would be an opportunity for fans of U.S. or British grammar and terminology to run around and "tag" article by using "Color" versus "colour," or calling a grain product "corn" versus Maize, thereby forever after requiring that country's preference to prevail in the article to the first disambiguating edit (unless the article is clearly related to one country(language group) or the other. See Press-up, an exercise known in some countries as a "pushup" for an example of the strong feeling about one's favored term appearing in an article. Edison (talk) 04:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's that kind of world. Thanks for the comments. 67.164.163.15 (talk) 05:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Smoking Gun?
What is this reference to? --KingLeian (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That you have just walked in on somebody holding a gun with smoke coming out of it, and a dead body on the floor... A "smoking gun" is thus clear evidence that a crime has been committed. See Smoking gun, strangely enough... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  05:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not only that, it's usually conclusive proof of who committed the crime, unless the supposed smoking gun is actually a Red herring. - 131.211.211.226 (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And, of course, in your average bad movie, the innocent bystander must stumble upon a murder, then pick up the smoking gun so he can be found that way when the police arrive and arrest him for murder. Or, if the victim was stabbed, the bystander must pick up the knife, and thrust it into each of the wounds to ensure that this is indeed the murder weapons and matches the wounds, while this is all caught on video tape (but not the actual murder, of course). :-) StuRat (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Depending on context, it could also be a reference to the website of the same name. 161.181.53.10 (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This term was used a great deal in the investigation leading to the resignation of Richard Nixon as U.S. president in 1974, as in "We've heard of several questionable actions, but there is no smoking gun which could lead to impeachment." Then the necessary evidence was uncovered and he resigned to avoid being removed from office.It was a recording from June 23, 1972, in which he showed he was aware of the coverup of a politically motivated breakin at the Watergate Building Democratic headquarters, and that he helped plan the coverup from the beginning. It can be heard here. Nixon withheld this for 2 years, and had to resign a week after he was forced to hand it over to the prosecutor. More recently presidents have been more careful not to leave evidence hanging around, with the occasional exception such as a stained blue dress which Clinton was sorry to see in the hands of the prosecutor. Edison (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

General officers from Norwich University
This question was also asked here, on the Humanities Desk. Please do not multi-post. --Anonymous, 09:55 UTC, March 26, 2009.

German babies
I vaguely remember that some years ago, the German govt launched a scheme to promote the birth rate, where they gave women money for having babies and mentioned it to someone in conversation. She's a German citizen, who's not lived in Germany for some years and who happens to be pregnant.

So, a few questions:


 * Is the scheme still going?
 * Is it for babies born in Germany or babies born to German women?
 * Is it claimable for babies born in the past few years? (She has older children, too)

Any help in English useful - my German is practically non-existent and I don't think she's very internet savvy for reading stuff herself. --Dweller (talk) 10:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I remember some racist paroles from a mainstream party in Germany like "Kinder statt Inder" what means actually "more children less Indians", as the government where discussing about inmigration from India or investing in their own children to close an age gap. I don't know if they had implemented any such policy or if it has worked.


 * Anyway, it is unprobable that any goverment provides social services to any national not living in the home-country.--80.58.205.37 (talk) 12:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But not impossible - for example, the UK government pays a basic pension to nationals living overseas who have contributed national insurance payments during their working life. Warofdreams talk 15:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe I wasn't clear. It's not services, it was a cash lump sum. Quite a substantial one, IIRC. --Dweller (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Try, and . All resources are in German and neither apply to people living outside Germany.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.37 (talk) 12:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Germany has de:Kindergeld. That is a subsidy paid to help families raise kids.  It depends on the number and age of the children and is paid to German nationals living in Germany.  Since 2007 they also have a de:Elterngeld which is paid to parents of small children and is probably what OP heard of.  There's also a de:Kinderzuschlag which is paid to low income families and for single parents there's de:Unterhaltsvorschuss.  A tax deduction granted to parents is a de:Kinderfreibetrag.  The umbrella term for all benefits for families with children is de:Familienleistungsausgleich.  None of these is available to Germans living abroad.  Raising children in Germany is nevertheless considered to be very expensive and a financial burden.  The government encourages people to have children to keep the age pyramid from tipping over.  Among other things their national pension scheme depends on it.  76.97.245.5 (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all. Very useful, esp 76.97.24.5's contribution. Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 13:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So, if I understand correctly, these resources are restricted to German nationals in Germany. This would seem to exclude the many immigrants there -- according to Demographics of Germany, 9% of the population, for whom citizenship was notoriously elusive, and who often have larger families than the indigenous population. (Turks in Germany are the largest ethnic minority, and most are still Gastarbeiter, "guestworkers", with limited rights.)  On the face of it, it seems like money for white babies. Is this policy deliberately racist, or only so by accident, or am I missing something here? BrainyBabe (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You didn't understand the issue correctly (the given explanations were lacking in details), the Kindergeld also applies to foreigners living legally with proper authorisation in Germany. "In Deutschland wohnende Ausländer, [...], können Kindergeld erhalten, wenn sie eine gültige Niederlassungserlaubnis oder bestimmte Formen der Aufenthaltserlaubnis besitzen.". Flamarande (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Germany has many laws that exclude foreigners from their social system. Normally they can only apply these laws to non-EU citizens and often to people who were born and raised there. However, some forms of these help to children do not exclude foreigners explicitly.--212.79.145.190 (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarifying that! It would be interesting to know in absolute or relative numbers how many babies and children in Germany are not covered by these payments -- after all, it is not the fault of the child that the parents lack the correct papers. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Micro management
Is it important to micro manage employees or let use their own head sometimes? which is better..thanksin advance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.140.188 (talk) 12:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you look at our article on micromanagement, you can see that it is a pejorative term, and it is unlikely that anyone would claim to micromanage employees. Warofdreams talk 12:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Although one very successful entrepreneur like Steve Jobs is considered to be an extreme micromanager, I suspect it doesn't work well in most cases.--80.58.205.37 (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you are working on improving your management techniques, there is an important rule to learn: don't learn your management techniques from random people asked on the internet. There are plenty of courses and books on how to manage, almost all of which are better than the Wikipedia reference desk. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And you will learn all the latest new management buzzwords which the consultants coin for common sense practices, thus convincing us all they are management gurus and we should pay them millions. :-) StuRat (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There has been an important paradigm shift towards micromanagement and granularity, whereby employees should be encouraged to think outside the cardboard box. - 161.181.53.10 (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The management technique that's sweeping the computer software industry right now is Scrum (development) - it is simply astoundingly effective - and the engineering teams love it. It is completely and utterly 100% the opposite of micromanagment.  Managers get to give the teams goals over a 2 to 4 week 'sprint' and then the system agressively keeps them out of the engineering team's hair - except to track the teams own estimate of the progress to completion.  The system (for example) allows managers to come to the teams daily 'scrum' meeting - but the sytems' rules state that they are not allowed to speak.  The improvements in productivity and reliability of getting work completed within sensible timescales is STUNNING.   I know many engineers who now actively ask at job interviews whether the job will be scrum-managed and many will walk away if it's not.   It's tremendously empowering for the engineers - and productivity improvements are typically immediate - providing the system is followed as it's designed and not messed about with by nervous managers.  The system thrives on weird and wonderful techniques - such as the requirement that all engineering tasks are broken down into chunks of no more than two days - which are written down on standard post-it notes using a fat-nibbed 'sharpie' marker and stuck onto a whiteboard in the corridor.  The sheer difficulty of writing anything legible that way forces you to write no more than about three words - plus the time estimate in hours and your initials!  If you change your mind and stick and unstick the note more than a couple of times, it falls off the wall.  All of this is a vital part of the system!!   Where I work, management though it was scruffy and hard for them to track - so they procured a piece of software to replace the post-it notes with a nice, streamlined computer system.  The scrum system produced hardly any benefits - then, when we tried switching to the scruffy post-it's system (you should buy shares in 3M!) productivity jumped up and has stayed that way ever since!  I've yet to hear of any company that uses Scrum properly ever reverting to something else...it's that good.  Managers actually seem to like it too - the nature of the system prevents slackers from being unproductive - because it is their peer group who keep track of them and apply pressure.  While managers can't 'steer' events on a daily or even weekly basis - the much greater predictability and honest tracking of progress towards goals gives them a more solid basis for longer range strategizing than they'd otherwise have.   It's a very odd scheme - but it works like magic - you should definitely give it a serious try if you possibly can.  Oh - and while you can take courses in scrum managment - you can instead pick it up in 10 minutes from someone who'se worked with it (heck, I'll even explain it in detail if you want)...there are no books to buy and no expensive "guru's" involved - it's "OpenSourced" and all you need to get started are industrial-sized boxes of post-it notes in about 3 colors - plus some chunky-tipped sharpie markers and some large white-boards...it helps for one person to have access to a spreadsheet program to compute the daily 'burn down' graph - but you can do that by hand if need-be.  SteveBaker (talk) 03:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's ask some simple questions. If the boss feels that he must stand over the workers and micromanage because they're not competent to handle things on their own, why did he hire them in the first place? And if he's essentially doing their jobs as well as his own, why did he hire anyone - he could be saving their salaries.
 * The best manager I ever had saw it as his job not to make me work, but to allow me to work. He made sure that I had all the resources that I needed, ran interference for me, and stayed out of my hair. He did the same for everyone he was supervising. We'd just check in with him from time to time. Of course he only put people on his projects who he believed knew what they were doing. We did, and we worked better and faster without the pressure.
 * B00P (talk) 04:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't necessarily with the 'boss' who recruited you - it's his replacement who had nothing to do with it! But I strongly disapprove of the word "boss" - it implies a master/slave relationship.  I regard my management team as a resource like HR or IT - they are there to enable the workers to do their work.  It's the workers who make the money - and management, HR and IT are there to make sure that nothing prevents them from doing that...those ancilliary departments are a drain on resources so if they aren't helping the process - they are a drag on it.  The managers I work with mostly earn less than I do - and I use them as a resource.  When I need more equipment, more staff (or fewer staff), training, or to smooth out some 'office politics' issue - then I use the management team to do that for me.  They set broad goals - but hopefully they're doing that by using the marketting team to figure out what the customer wants - and passing on the results to the engineering team.   We work as equals.   It's not a matter of them telling us what to do - as telling us what is needed. SteveBaker (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Cars that can reach an illegal speed
Why do most goverments tolerate that most cars can reach a speed that is actually illegal? Wouldn't it be easier to regulate that factories must not produce any car that can surpass the maximal speed limit? --80.58.205.37 (talk) 12:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure where you are, but in the U.S. there are states that have no maximum speed limit. Tomdobb (talk) 12:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I take that back. Montana briefly had no speed limit, but has since instituted one. Tomdobb (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, the only country that I know that has some roads without speed limit is Germany. However, even then you have to adapt your speed to the conditions of the road.--80.58.205.37 (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)So, why is it possible to sell something that cannot be used legally? Nowadays it should be relatively easy to limit the speed electronically.--80.58.205.37 (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Because there may be times where it is acceptable to exceed the speed limit, for whatever reason. Livewireo (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And even if you could limit the maximum speed, it's likely that people will find a way to override any limitations. Not to mention that most cars on the road aren't new, which would mean all new cars would be limited to say 60mph, while a 10 year old car zips past them at 80mph. It just doesn't seem very practical. Tomdobb (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Northern Territory of Australia has no formal speed limit on roads outside cities and towns, but drivers still have to drive responsibly in the circumstances. --  JackofOz (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * NT Speed limit has been 130kph on the open road for 2 years. An electric motorbike was featured in silicon chip magazine that was speed limit to 100kph. Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update, PW. --  JackofOz (talk) 08:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I sure am glad that cars weren't made this way while the national pretend speed limit of 55mph was in force!


 * Seriously, besides the various practical problems, many of which should occur to you as you drive down the road, motorists would not stand for it. Any politician that proposed this would never be reelected again. His career would be over. People would not be happy with the government crippling their cars. That's in the USA anyway, perhaps people of other, less car-centric, nations would be willing to go for it. APL (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * How would they sell cars that could only pokey along at 46 miles per hour? And what would they name the car -- the new Buick Laggard? Bus stop (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

In most countries, you can drive as fast as you like on private roads. Which is one of the many reasons why the police don't come rushing in to interrupt Formula One races. So your purchase of a fast car can be justified not only for use in foreign jurisdictions without speed limits, but potentially on some patch of road (or off-road, I suppose) that doesn't belong to the government. A friend of mine, who was being an idiotic teenager, only esacped police prosecution for dangerous driving (he turned the car over, while 2 policemen were watching, by reversing and turning at maximum speed) because he did it in a shopping centre carpark (ie private road) and the police had no jurisdiction unless the shopping centre wished to press charges, which they did not. --Dweller (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Come to think of it, I wonder how they manage the legalities for races that include public roads, like the astonishing annual spectacle that is the Monaco Grand Prix. Must be fun for the lawyers. --Dweller (talk) 13:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The roads are closed for the Monaco Grand Prix, so speed limits don't apply. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That said, a lot of cars were built in the 1990s with an automatic warning sounding everytime the driver exceeded a preset speed limit. So you could drive let's say 140 km/h, but with an excessively bothersome electronic beep sounding in your ear. I believe this feature was largely discontinued because of driver complaints, and the fact that there was no evidence that it contributed to road safety in any manner. --Xuxl (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There are two ways to limit car speeds:


 * 1) Limit the engine size. This would result in a car with little high-end acceleration, making highway entrance ramps dangerous.  People probably wouldn't buy these cars unless prices were slashed so much that they could afford to put a real engine in them.


 * 2) Electronic limitation. Adding this to new cars would cause sales of new cars to plummet, to where they would need to slash prices to sell them.  People would then use those savings to pay to have the electronic limitation removed, whether legally or not.  One possibility is a car with an optional electronic limitation, so the driver can override the setting if the car somehow is detecting the wrong speed limit, or if the driver just wants to speed.  Also note that having cars limited to the speed limits would ultimately force the government to set more reasonable limits.  The "all highways are limited to X speed, all residential roads are limited to Y speed, and all exit and entrance ramps are limited to Z speed" approach is stupid enough now, but if people were really constrained to those speeds it would be unacceptable.  How straight the road is, how many potholes the roads has, how wide the lanes are, how many stops are forced on the road, etc., should all be used to determine a reasonable speed limit.  Note that this means that speed limits should start out high on new or rebuilt roads, and slowly be reduced as the road deteriorates.  In the case of exit and entrance ramps, I've actually seen speed limits that were too high, when the ramp has a kink in it that will force cars off the road at those speeds.  If people were relying on the electronic speed limitation of their car rather than their own judgment, I'd expect a lot of accidents in these places.  StuRat (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see why having cars electronicly limited is going to make people rely on the electronic speed limitation anymore then posted and enforced speed limits already do. Note that no one has suggested cars be limited to the maximum for each road (which would be an incredibly complicated and expensive thing to implement), just close to the highest speed limit (e.g. in NZ this is 100 km/h) Nil Einne (talk) 06:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * People are lazy. Watching for speed limit signs and watching the speedometer requires an effort, while relying on the car to limit their speed does not. StuRat (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

In some jurisdictions Tachographs are prescribed for certain types of vehicles like buses or trucks. It would probably be quite difficult to enforce legislation prescribing that all private vehicles use this. --Mr.K. (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In addition to what others have stated, laws can change. As National Maximum Speed Law indicates, the US speed limit used to be 55mph.  Later they raised it to 65mph and finally repealed the national speed limit.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you really think about it, pretty much anything sold can be used in an illegal way. I imagine there's a general feeling that it's simply not practical to try to change this.  Many auto makers have a gentleman's agreement to limit top speeds to around 155mph. Friday (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Several U.S. states are considering installing Traffic enforcement camera which would detect speeding cars and photograph the vehicle, driver, and license plate, so that speeding tickets could be automatically sent out. The prospect of this causes great consternation and unhappiness among lead-footed drivers. In some large cities, almost every car presently goes far over the speed limit ifit is physically possible given traffic conditions, and a driver going at the limit gets honked at and unfriendly finger waves. Authorities might wish to ticket selectively for the motorists considerably above the limit, or they could go for maximum revenue and ticket all clocking enough above the limit to exceed the limit plus the inaccuracy of the speed measuring unit. Some civil libertarians also worry that the cameras could be used to track their movements even when below the legal speed limit. Edison (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Another problem could be that they don't want to totally clog the traffic courts, which if they are giving a ticket to almost every driver is bound to happen. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised the US hasn't got around to installing speed cameras yet. They've been part of Australian driving life for years, mainly in the capital cities.  --  JackofOz (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

See also governor (device), though doesn't go into much depth with regard to vehicles. Many (most?) tractor-trailers in Ontario have governors in them to limit speed to slightly above highway speed limits (100 km/h; the governor is set for 105 or 110, I believe). Could the same be done for cars? Of course. Should the same be done for cars? Not at all; the most dangerous areas for speeding are not the highways and freeways; they're the suburban roads near parks and schools and stuff. Going 120% of the speed limit in a school zone is much more dangerous to human life than doing 120% of the limit on the highway and speed limiters can't take that into account. Matt Deres (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Though there's no great justification for making cars that go twice the speed limit. Just because something wouldn't be perfect doesn't mean it wouldn't be better. I have a hard time thinking of reasons that cars should be made that go, say, 120mph. (As for those who worry about enforcement—all you need to do is make the penalty high enough and enforcement is not an issue. If having an un-governed car carries with it thousands of dollars in fines, then 99% of people who might be tempted to do such a thing would probably not do it. As for traffic courts, just ratchet up the price of the tickets, use it to pay for more judges, etc. All of this can be handled economically using a modified supply/demand sort of model.) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "All you need to do is make the penalty high enough and enforcement is not an issue". No.  This has been tried many times, such as in England hundreds of years ago when they had the death penalty for even the pettiest of crimes.  Guess what, there were still petty crimes.  Similarly with the war on drugs, where we've had life in prison or even the death penalty, but this hasn't stopped illegal drugs, has it ?  For another example, there was Prohibition.  If you pass incredibly unpopular laws like this one, then people will ignore them.  And ticket price increases just have the effect of making cars unaffordable to the poor (and maybe middle-class), as they won't be able to pay the inevitable speed-trap tickets, while the rich will go on driving whatever speed they like and just pay the trivial (to them) fines. StuRat (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually it only make driving unaffordable to the stupid poor and maybe middle class. While I'm not advocating it, realisticly if governors are compulsory and the fines extensive most people are just going to drive cars with them. Prohibition etc may cause numerous problems, but in reality it does work for the majority of people regardless of whether they agree with it. For example, in a number of Asian countries with extreme penalties for drug use and distribution, while they still have drug problems their drug usage profiles is quite different from in countries with much weaker penalties, in particular a far smaller pecentage of the population has ever tried even low-core drugs (like marijuana) and they are a lot less widely available. Social acceptance of course also has a lot to do with it. This doesn't mean prohibition or governors or whatever is a good idea, as I've said there are numeroues problems, but simply that the idea that the majority aren't able to adapt to strict laws is false. The crime example doesn't work here because we're talking about a small percentage of people, not a majority. The bigger questions are ones related to fairness, human rights etc Nil Einne (talk) 06:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Most German cars for the mass-market are artificially limited to 155mph, there's a reason but I forget the detail. The problem with ANY limit of this manner is simply - the vast majority of deaths involving automobiles occur on roads that have maximum speeds under the national speed limit (30/40/60mph zones in the Uk) so being limited to the maximum of 70 (the uppermost road speed limit in the UK) may not do much to reduce deaths. It's an interesting question as it is a case of balancing regulation/rules and 'freedom'. ny156uk (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Cars sold in Japan are also required to be speed-limited to (I believe) 140mph.  There was a section on TopGear a while back about a Japanese car that uses it's GPS system to detect when it's at a race-track and automatically disables the speed limiter while it's there! SteveBaker (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that modern cars and roads are just too good. The major highways have all kinds of safety features and almost every car sold today is capable of being driven safely at well in excess of the posted speed limit when the highway is wide, smooth and straight.  Problems arise when the driver has to deal with other road users - cars coming the other way, joining the road every few metres, bicycles, pedestrians, plus all manner of country specific hazards (eg. thousands of mopeds in Thailand, cows in India, kangaroos in Australia, donkey pulled carts, etc.)  No matter what the car's capabilities, it is the responsibility of the driver to drive at a speed suitable to the conditions prevalent at the time.  Astronaut (talk) 09:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem goes beyond that though. It's not speed - it's inappropriate speed.  Speed limits are set (in part) to fit with the oldest car with the worst brakes in the worst weather conditions - being driven by the worst driver.  Driving at 90mph in a well-maintained, modern car on a dry road in clear daylight - is a LOT safer than the canonical "little old lady" in a 40 year old pickup truck (with no weight over the rear wheels) in icy/foggy conditions, with the windows misted up and the sun shining right into her eyes.  Hence, the speed limits are unrealistically low for most people - and they drive over that limit.  If police spent more time pulling over:
 * tail-gaters (ie people not obeying the "3 second rule").
 * people who cut in front of you and leave you with insufficient stopping distance (thereby making YOU inadvertently break the 3 second rule).
 * the people who weave in and out of traffic.
 * ...and less time stopping one car out of the 200 nearby who were all cruising along at a uniform 10mph over the limit - then the roads would be vastly safer places. On a 100 mile, well paved, dead straight desert road, in a car that can handle it - with no other traffic of any kind of civilisation in sight and a driver who has been trained to drive that fast - driving at 140mph is not dangerous at all.
 * SteveBaker (talk) 12:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * For the question of why cars can go 200 kmh at all, they are built so that they aren't going to go their top speed all the time. You don't travel at your top speed on foot all the time, do you? Of course not, that would be bad for you. It would be bad for the car's engine too. If the car is going only half as fast as it can possibly go, there will be less damage to the engine. I don't know if that has anything to do with speed limits, though. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Re SteveBaker: "Speed limits are set (in part) to fit with the oldest car with the worst brakes in the worst weather conditions - being driven by the worst driver." If that were truly the case the speed limit in residential areas should be well below 5 km/h; as that would be a reasonable speed to allow pedestrians to survive (or at least outrun!) a car with bad brakes and a very bad driver. Arnoutf (talk) 08:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

We tried that, and lost
In response to:
 * "Several U.S. states are considering installing Traffic enforcement camera which would detect speeding cars and photograph the vehicle, driver, and license plate, so that speeding tickets could be automatically sent out." by User:Edison

City of Minneapolis did that with "running a red light" cameras. At a number of historically accident-prone intersections, the camera would switch on when the signal went from green to yellow, and take about 4-6 seconds of video. Survived the court challenges ONLY in those cases where blatent error caused an accident and a law officer had to be called to the scene. In other cases, because the cameras were not able to get hi-res pictures of the driver's face, it crashed and burned because the mailed ticket went to the owner of the vehicle, who then promptly claimed he wasn't driving at the time.

In response to the argument, "Owners (not drivers) are responsible for parking tickets", the counter-argument had something to do with one being a civil offense and the other being criminal. I don't recall all the details, but in the end, the cameras had to be turned off.

In other words, it's not quite as simple as that. --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually in the Netherlands speeding violations are ticketed through automated cameras. Speed violations below 35 Km/h (55 mph) are fined as a civil offense (and is considered the responsibility of the car owner- don't lend your car to maniacs ;-); above 35k/h speed violation can also be criminal (i.e. license taken away; or other punishment). The latter cannot be done with cameras, exactly because it needs to be proven the owner was the driver. Arnoutf (talk) 08:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Only in the United States? Here in Australia, red light and speed cameras seem to generally operate without controversy. You'd be surprised how hard it is to argue your way out of a ticket by saying "someone else was driving". The way the laws are cast, the onus almost shifts to the driver to prove it, once the car has been caught on camera. Short of a reported car theft or a sympathetic friend who is willing to cop the consequences for the owner, it's very difficult to get out of. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Back to the original post, the reason governments don't restrict manufacturers to producing cars that can only go a certain speed is that it is the more difficult way to get to the objective (keeping traffic to a safe speed). Much easier to just limit how fast cars are allowed to go. In addition, building in speed restrictions would seriously undermine the export market. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Question about prisoners
I watched the movies SWAT the other day and had a question. If you are not familiar with the movie, allow me to lay out the premise. A high priority prisoner is captured and yells at TV cameras that he will pay $100 million to anyone who gets him out. The SWAT team is supposed to deliver him to a federal prison somewhere a couple hours away by car. In reality, because of all the chaos one would expect to be associated with that $100 million offer, would it have been permissible for the army to be responsible for his transport instead? I can't think of any criminals in the US who would be able to rescue him from a Bradley APC and throw in a few Humvees to help out, there would be no way he would escape.

I guess the question I am asking is: Is it permissible in the US for the military to transport prisoners who are in police custody within the US proper? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In most Western jurisdictions, there is a provision for the military to "act in support of civilian power", at the latter's request. This is usually invoked in the case of natural disasters, but it can be used to deal with civil unrest, crowd control for large gatherings, etc. Depending on how cumbersome it is to invoke, one could see a case such as the one you describe triggering its application. --Xuxl (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See Posse Comitatus Act, which limits the power of the US military in such situations. It would be highly unlikely that the military would be used under those circumstances: the FBI and U.S. Marshals Service have substantial resources and would be responsible in such circumstances. So it's just Hollywood.  Note, however, that the National Guard is exempt, as it's nominally  under state control.  Acroterion  (talk)  15:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * See, EG. Military Aid to the Civil Power; Also, the National Guards are under the control of the State Governor, however they are easily "Federalized" (Transfer of command to the President). 76.117.247.55 (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In the 1934 criminalJohn Dillinger was being held prisoner in the Crown Poin,t Indiana jail. The National Guard had machine guns] set up around the jail to prevent escape or rescue by outsiders. Nevertheless, starting by using a carved wooden gun to disarm a guard and get out of his cell, Dillinger escaped in the sheriff's car with the deputy sheriff as a hostage, accompanied by another escapee and armed with Thompson submachine guns he seized in the jail. He left 30 guards and jail personnel locked in the cells, after taking their weapons and money. Years ago, the Kentucky National Guard was once called to the Kentucky State Prison to fire machine guns at a dining hall where prisoner were barricaded. National Guard forces have been called to prisons several times to put down prisoner revolts. They serve as state militia rather than federal forces, and in general are not acting as law enforcement officers to arrest people, but as providers of deadly force. The U.S. Marines was called to Alcatraz prison in 1946 to put down a prisoner revolt. Edison (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * See the the use of the U.S. Army against the Bonus Army in Washington, D.C. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  20:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And it is not clear if the U.S. Army Air Corps were flying the planes that dropped the bombs during the 1921 Tulsa race riot. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  00:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see there is a legal issue if the police demand they do this - in peacetime, military personnel fall under the same rule of law as the rest of us. SteveBaker (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

A question about God
The more I read and hear about religious fundamentalism in all its forms, the more confused I become. I was raised in a particularly "strong" faith which I don't practise any more - but I DO believe in the existence of a Godlike power (I actually think the word God doesn't do the entity nearly enough justice, believing as I do that God (in my personal vision) is capable of anything and everything imaginable and unimaginable). But my question about religious fundamentalism is this - given that all fundamentalists believe as I do (I think), that there is an all powerful presence behind all human (and other non-human) behaviour and activity, why can't they as mere humans, and thus God's playthings, accept God's absolute power absolutely, and let that power have his/her/its way with us without interference. Why can't they and we just trust in God to do what God wants to do, and live our lives as fully and peacefully and fruitfully as possible, within the constraints of common human decency, without trying to constantly gainsay what God wants to happen? Sorry, maybe I haven't worded this well, but I would appreciate some guidance here. Thanks. Themoreiknowthemoreiknowidontknow. (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Their religious text tell them to kill anyone who doesn't abide to their rules for one thing. chandler · 15:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah!, isn't religion a wonderful thing!--88.109.57.209 (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Depending on if the religion believes in free will, the members may either feel that they should do what God wants them to do, or that they are powerless not to do what God forces them to do. In either case, religious fundamentalists seem to think that God wants them to spread hatred and violence against infidels, foreigners, those who perform abortions, homosexuals, anyone who disagrees with their political views, etc. StuRat (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they think God wants them to kill people and blow themselves up and that by doing so they are doing his will? TastyCakes (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As with many of the above replies, although perhaps in less inflammatory tones, they may believe that what God wants to happen includes the things they are doing. As Sturat says, free will is an important part of some religions. This implies that humans can choose not to do what God wants them to do; therefore a human who knows what God wants people to do can choose to do so. And if this includes encouraging others to do what God wants them to do, they will do that. And if they know that what God wants them to do includes violence and profanity, they will do that too.


 * And if there is no free will, and God has hir way with us in an all-powerful way, then clearly God wanted all of these things said and done. 79.66.127.79 (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why should they believe in peaceful non-intervention just because you do? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  15:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * (EC) Most religious organizations are Hierarchical organizations. The topic lends itself to developing it this direction because you already have a God (or gods) on top and most religions have added a layer between them and their followers to communicate the supreme beings wishes. This way they keep their society from being ripped apart by maniacs who e.g. go on killing sprees because they claim god told them to.  Those "interpreters of the divine will" then also have to explain bad things that happen.  If their explanations are not accepted by the congregation the followers might wander off to other religions or form a sect within the same faith.  Since that would weaken or destroy the power of those at the top they have a vested interest in preventing that from happening.  BTW. God wants them to tell us what He wants to happen. It's not as though they're making it up. ;-) 76.97.245.5 (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Was there a question asked? Can anybody restate the original question of this section? Bus stop (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't we all just get along? --Sean 16:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Look for the question mark - read the sentence before it. Then read the surrounding sentences for context. I fear restating it, since the context reveals a lot of what they actually want to understand. 79.66.127.79 (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be a good opportunity to not only restate the question but also to ask the original questioner if you have restated it correctly? Bus stop (talk) 05:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If the question is why people don't always do exactly what they believe their god says, I'd say the biggest factor is purely human stubbornness. Why doesn't everyone obey the law and all authority? Because it interferes with their personal life, because it's difficult, because it requires them to put forth effort they would rather not put forth. --Alinnisawest,Dalek Empress ( extermination requests here ) 02:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's hard to understand why. But it's clearly the case.  As a believer, you are running the risk of a literally infinite amount of the most horrific torture imagineable if you don't do what God says.  Why would you ever step even a millimeter out of line?  Yet so-called believers routinely commit adultery, covet their neigbors stuff, steal ballpoint pens from the stationary cupboard and so on.  If you even thought it was REMOTELY possible that what you have here is your honest-to-goodness old-testament god - then on balance wouldn't you keep to the straight and narrow in order to avoid the infinite amount of infinite pain and instead get the infinite wonderfulness of heaven?   This dichotomy leads me to believe that all religious people are either liars about their beliefs (secretly believing it's all untrue) - or they are certifiably insane.  I'm not sure which it is...but it's hard to explain their behaviors in any other way. SteveBaker (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note to SteveBaker: The "old-testament god" never says anything about visiting an "infinite amount of infinite pain" on anyone. That stuff is New Testament - "wailing and gnashing of teeth" (Matt 8.12; 13:43; 24:51; 25.30 and Luke 13.28 and the "lake of fire and brimstone" (Rev 19:20; 20:10; 21:8). B00P (talk) 05:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * SteveBaker, you appear to be suffering from confirmation bias, as well as a stereotyped view of believers. Christians (and many other theistic believers) believe in divine forgiveness. Doing what's right is encouraged, but if we fall away, we can repent and be forgiven. The doctrine of original sin (which I'm not expecting you to agree with, obviously) holds that people are inevitably sinful; but most theologies provide a way out of this through the operation of divine mercy. Have you ever tried considering views of religious behaviour based on prizing virtues such as mercy and forgiveness, or the emulation of exemplary characters, rather than fear of retribution? AlexTiefling (talk) 10:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

If you type into the computer system at the University of Chicago "Why do people pusue short term pleasure, even though they know that they will be regretting it in the long term?" (which I assume is your question) it wll reply "Because God made it that way". Of course it will give the same answer to any question that begins with 'Why '. For another answer see Pascal's wager. 18:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

car chases
In the US there are a lot of programs involving car chases on TV, but those who are being chased are usually in a pretty typical car. I have never seen one with say a Porsche or a Ferrari. This is likely due to the relative rarity of those cars. My question is, do the state troopers or local police departments have any vehicles capable of keeping pace with such a car? The standard Crown Vic PI is limited to 130 mph (OR), do they have special cars for such situations, or would they have to give up the pursuit part and try a roadblock instead? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I know the state police in Pennsylvania do. I forget what the model is though. I imagine many state police forces also have a "fast car" but most municipal forces (besides LAPD) do not. Tomdobb (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * They often call these cars interceptors - I've seen models of Crown Vics with that designation.. also Dodge Chargers are common cop cars there days, and those in highway use often feature the Hemi V8. I've seen cop Ford Mustangs as well.  But I imagine their general tactic does not involved chasing the car down when possible- there are more effective ways with radios and roadblocks.  See also car chase. Friday (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * (double ec!) Occasionally you'll see chases involving those types of super-high end cars, and you're right, the troopers are quickly outdistanced. However radios and roadblocks allow the police force to stay ahead of the car, even if individual officers are left behind. Not to mention that your typical police helicopter has a top speed of ~140 mph and isn't limited by traffic or the curves of your typical road network.  Plasticup  T / C  19:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The saying that I always heard was "You can't outrun Motorola." BTW, the California Highway Patrol has some Camaros.  -- Coneslayer (talk)

Yeah, the interceptor type is PI, which is the run of the mill cop car. At least I have never seen a cop Crown vic without it being PI 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The UK series Police Interceptors might be of interest. It follows the elite police interceptor team of the Essex police force. They drive high powered Subaru Imprezas (which can develop up to 300 bhp!) and Mitsubishi Evos (up to 400 bhp!) - quite a lot more powerful than standard police cars. Exxolon (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The point is...with all racing other than drag-races...it's not about straight line speed. Handling matters too...and it doesn't matter how well your car handles if you aren't good at driving the thing...and hardly anyone is.   I've been on a police driver training course - they emphasise that there are many cars that they can't catch on a straight, open road - so they don't - in those cases, they radio ahead and get a roadblock set up.   But for all other situations, you can't drive at 140+ mph through even the lightest traffic - and certainly not around corners - and at that point, the cops rely on their superior training - and even the humble Crown Vic does pretty good.  The problem turns out not to be catching the guy - it's managing to catch him before he kills someone by driving beyond what the rest of the traffic can cope with.  At the Kilgore, TX police academy - they have a 'pursuit' course - I thought I got a pretty good time in my race-tuned twin-turbo MINI Cooper'S (definitely no slouch in the twisties)...but was a bit humbled when the instructor beat my time...in a badly worn out Crown Vic...IN REVERSE GEAR. SteveBaker (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Plus the cops might well kill somebody too: there's no rule saying that pedestrians can't attempt to cross streets after the baddie has whizzed past at twice the speed limit but before the fuzz has arrived at even 2.1 times the speed limit. Plus if they catch up with the bad guy everybody will be so excited that somebody is likely to do something very stupid indeed: see the relevant part of Blink. All in all car chases are a very bad idea in the real world, as opposed to the excellent editing, hidden gadgetry, timed explosions, etc., that make up Jason Bourne's world. -- Hoary (talk) 08:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah - a large part of the police training is about avoiding the "Red Mist" phenomenon where you get so caught up in the competitive nature of a car chase that you don't consider that your pursuit of the miscreant is actually what's making him drive so fast and taking such enormous risks. Therefore, as a cop, you may be causing trouble rather than preventing it.  Backing off and letting a helicopter unit unobtrusively tail him to his destination is often the better way.  The police (at least, the police who are trained in Kilgore, Texas!) are well aware of these issues.  An actual high-speed car chase is a method of last resort.  SteveBaker (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In NZ there's always a lot of controversy about police chases particularly after an innocent bystander was killed during a chase which was supposed to have been abandoned . There's an investigation after every chase resulting in serious injury or death (including of course the people being chased). It's obviously not just that the police may kill someone but that the person being chased may too which they wouldn't have done if not trying to escape from the police (the fact it's not the police's fault obviously doesn't help the victim). As with many enforcement situations, this is obviously a bit of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation since if an innocent is killed during the chase, some people are going to blame the police and if an innocent is killed by someone that the police let go, some people are again going to blame the police. Nil Einne (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

In Illinois the state troopers are required to evaluate whether a high-speed chase is worse than the crime that was committed. Furthermore, a trooper has to get his superior's permission to pursue someone faster than 20 mph. Phil_burnstein (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It's worth remembering one of the reasons why there are few Ferrari etc chases you hear about is because they're almost definitely a lot rarer. The cars themselves are fairly rare and usually more difficult for idiots to steal so you don't get the insane joyrider with a stolen car very often and people who own them tend to less commonly be that kind of person who will decided to try and escape from the police Nil Einne (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Download
Is there any place where I can download music videos free (not itunes)? 86.45.153.76 (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Like a pirate website? Chaosandwalls (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * MusicJesus? I don't think that's for download, however. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 01:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well of course. Youtube, for one. But if you've heard of Wikipedia you've probably heard of Youtube, so most likely you're looking for something else. Then what are you looking for? Which music, which file format, which resolution/quality? -- Hoary (talk) 07:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Bittorrent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.240.66 (talk) 08:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Jamendo --71.112.83.100 (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)