Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 October 10

= October 10 =

Proper Address of TA's
What is the proper way to address an a) undergraduate and b) graduate Teaching Assistant in University? Can one refer to him/her by their first name?

Also, what is the proper form of address for an instructor that is a Ph.D candidate/student?

Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 01:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Since none of those people have attained any sort of position that would require a title (such as Dr., or Prof.) it would be appropriate to address them by their given names. However, you didn't tell us if you were older or younger. If younger, Mr/Mrs. Smith would be fine, if you're roughly the same age or older just call them by their first names. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Go for Ms. rather than Mrs. in the case of a female unless she prefers otherwise. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 03:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The traditional form is Dude. But you can also try Your Holiness.  Whatever works for you. --Trovatore (talk) 02:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Trovatore, unless you are talking about a dandy or a temporary cowboy, slang use of dude as an address cannot be sourced earlier than 1970. Since traditional means pertaining to time-honored orthodox doctrines, and considering the average age of universities and hence the duration required for such a useage to attain such a status, your advice that Dude is a traditional form may be premature. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, we'll go for "Your Holiness" then! (I've indented your comment a couple more steps to make it the structure of the conversation clearer - hope you don't mind!) --Tango (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I am indented to you. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It has always been first name, when I had them, and when I have been one. (A lot of my profs actually want to be called by their first names too, but I can never do that...) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It will also depend on the conventions that exist where you are. For example, tenured university teaching staff in the US are often addressed as "Professor" and referred to collectively as "professors", whereas in the UK the professor is specifically the person who holds, or who has held, a university departmental chair, and his/her staff are "Mr, Mrs, Miss ... " etc, unless their academic qualifications (and inclination) permit them to be addressed as "Dr". In terms of first name v. surname, why not just ask the person how they would prefer you addressed them, or ask other students how they address them?  Ka renjc 14:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (EC) This surely depends where you live. The OP apparently is from Canada so these answers are mostly appropriate. Here in New Zealand you'd call tutors (basically equivalent to teaching assistants I believe) by their given name and mostly all lecturers too including professors. If you did call them Professor/Dr./Mr/Ms. they'd very likely ask you to call them by their given name. (And it isn't an uncommon thing since NZ has a large number of international students particularly from Asia, e.g. ). Calling tutors (or anyone) dude is likely to get some odd looks or perhaps they'd think you watch too much American TV (unless you are American). Calling them mate would probably be okay. In Malaysia on the other hand it's unlikely you'd call lecturers particularly professors who are significantly older then you by their given name (which may not be their first name even if their First name in the commonly understood meaning of the word). I asked a friend who asked a friend currently at a Malaysian university and he said they usually just call their tutors tutors as calling them by their given name seems disrespectful but the small age difference makes calling them Mr./Ms. seem odd. Which leads to a perhaps important point. You don't necessarily have to call them anything in many cases depending somewhat on the level of interaction. You could just say something like "Hi, could you help me..." I suspect however it's not uncommon that people in Malaysia do refer to their tutors as Mr./Ms. even if the age gap is relatively small and suspect it isn't uncommon in a number of other Asian countries either. Nil Einne (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The answer is the same as for anyone else - call them what they want to be called. If you don't feel comfortable asking them you can usually tell from how they introduce themselves. People often explicitly say "call me X", but even if they don't you can often tell. For example, "I'm John, John Doe" would strongly suggest you should call him "John". --Tango (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the perfect answer. If in doubt, ask them. If nothing else, it should give a good impression, as there are likely relatively few who take the time to ask. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As a corollary to this: if any colleague in an academic setting insists on being called by anything other than their first name, they are very likely an insecure, pretentious arse and you should think twice about working with them. Rockpock  e  t  22:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Years ago there was a movie and then a TV series called The Paper Chase. It was set at Harvard. There was Professor Kingsfield, who called all students by Mr. or Miss. The students mostly called each other by their last names, except maybe those they were close to. I don't recall for sure, but I suspect that the teachers referred to each other, at least publicly, by a title rather than by first name. I wonder if private institutions, at least, still maintain that level of formality? →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That was set in the late 60's/early 70's - things were more formal then. I expect even Harvard uses first names now. --Tango (talk) 03:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As with my comment above, I'm doubtful this is universal Nil Einne (talk) 08:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * True, only applicable to the West (and perhaps only the English speaking West, at that). Rockpock  e  t  20:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * True - I understand the use of titles is far more widespread in Germany, for example. "Doktor FirstName" or "Professor FirstName" would be common there, I think. A teaching assistant/tutor/demonstrator without a PhD would probably be referred to by just their first name. (This is based on what I've heard, I've never actually been in an academic environment in Germany.) --Tango (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It also depends on the school. I've attended two universities in Canada: one out east that's old, expensive, and "prestigious," and one out west that's relatively new, not so expensive, and with less of a reputation. At the first one, we called most of our professors "Dr. Lastname" and at the second, most go by their first names. (But at both, the TAs always went by their first names.) Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 02:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Channel Tunnel depth
The Channel Tunnel article says the tunnel is 75 m deep at its lowest point. Does anyone know whether that is depth below the seabed or depth below sea level? Astronaut (talk) 10:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Our article Channel Tunnel also gives the depth of the sea between Dover and Calais as about 45m and this is repeated elsewhere. If the 75m figure indicated the depth below sea level, then this would suggest the tunnel is only around 30m below the seabed at its deepest point.  However, from a quick Google it appears that many sources (this one, for example), give the average depth of the tunnel below the seabed as around 45m, suggesting that the 75m figure is probably intended to indicate the deepest point of the tunnel below the seabed, not the mean sea level.  This site claims to be written by the consultant geologist to the Channel Tunnel project.  It discusses the geological situation below the Channel in some detail, with statistics, and may be of more help to you.  Ka renjc 12:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A C.S.Harris wrote 'Engineering geology of the Channel Tunnel', so probably as claimed. Mikenorton (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And on further reading, I found this, which states explicitly that the deepest point of the tunnel is 114.9m below sea level. The 75m figure must indeed therefore be the depth below the seabed.   Ka renjc 13:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * At page 114 of the book "Channel Tunnel Trains" by Semmens and Machefort-Tassin (ISBN 1-872009-33-6) is a cross-sectional diagram -- or a longitudinal section, depending on how you think of it -- showing the whole tunnel and the land and sea above it. It's too small to measure accurately but it confirms that the deepest point, which is quite near the halfway point of the whole tunnel, is about 120 m below sea level.  This point appears to be about 65-70 m below the seabed.  The point of greatest depth below the seabed appears to be about about 3 km closer to the British end, about 75 m below the seabed and 110 m below sea level.  But the point of greatest depth below the surface is clearly at Shakespeare Cliff, about 0.5 km in from the British shore, where the tunnel is about 160 m below ground and 25 m below sea level.

(Warning: These measurements were done by applying a ruler to a fairly small diagram; if it is well drawn they should be within 10 m of the true numbers, but I wouldn't take them for any more accuracy than that. In other words, I'm not contradicting the 114.9 m figure, I'm confirming it and giving some other interesting numbers.)  --Anonymous, 18:33 UTC, 2009-10-10.

65 year old WW II book
Historical and Pictorial Review of the 28th Infantry Division in World War II … Normandy; Northern France, Rhineland, Ardennes, Central Europe. Atlanta, Georgia: Albert Love Enterprises. 1946. I have this book fair condition very real printed in 1946 by Albert Love but also has a stamp in it by the War Department 1945. Does anyone collect these type of books and how do I find them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gruo1 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A number of other people are seeking to sell the book on abebooks --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Motorcycle
I'm planning on buying a motorcycle, and I am thinking about getting either a Honda CBR1000rr or the CBR600rr, but I have an issue: I'm very tall, and have long legs, so I think I may need to have the bike extended to make sure I can fully lay down without being curled up in a ball on the seat. Where can I look at these things: 1. Pictures of similar bikes that have been modified similarly to my ideas 2. Different ideas on which products/methods to do this 3. How this will effect the bikes performance (steering, speed, acceleration, etc.)

Thanks! Hubydane (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * How tall is "very tall"? You may find it easier to get a bike more suitable to your size, such as a BMW tourer.  I'm 6'4" and find my Triumph Tiger very comfortable.  --Phil Holmes (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm unimpressed by motorcycle riders too pussy to do this. PhGustaf (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * When you say "lay down", does that mean you're looking to chop the bike to give you forward controls for your long legs, or are you thinking more of a streetfighter approach, with an extended frame to give you that extra knee bend room? This page has some examples of what can be done with a CBR.  But it has to be said that customising a bike is both time-consuming and expensive; when you adapt a bike frame there are all kinds of implications for safety and performance as you are obviously aware from part 3 of your question.  There are also local restrictions on adapting a vehicle for road use, and some jurisdictions are stricter than others about things like extended front forks, for instance.  If you have the time and money to spare, you would be well advised to consult a reputable custom bike engineering firm - you can find them via the specialist motorcycling press - who can work with you to design the bike that suits you.   Ka renjc 23:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For Phil, I'm 6'8". And Karenjc, I'm looking to lay with the streetfighter approach; I wouldn't want to be leaning back on a bike similar to the CBR models. I'm looking for a streetbike, not a chopper. Something similar to the first or second picture on this page, which would allow me to move the feet pegs back and therefore be able to lay more comfortably. I originally posed this question because I sat on a friends Suzuki (can't remember the model), and when I would try to "lay down" (in the position used for higher speeds), my legs were in an uncomfortably cramped position; I felt like I was having to hike my knees up toward my chest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.184.241 (talk) 01:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This? SteveBaker (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"Information Superhighway"
Is the 1990's-era term "Information Superhighway," (meaning the internet) passe? I haven't heard it in a while. Then again, I'm not really "hip" so what I have or have not heard shouldn't matter. Any help? Torkmann (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It is still used by people that don't know anything about the internet but want (in vain) to sound cool and knowledgeable, but that's it. --Tango (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Series of tubes is a much more fun way to refer to teh intrewebz. -- Jayron  32  20:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's tres passé. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Why did you bother to type one accent but not the other? It's très fyi :) --antilivedT 04:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It was passé the day it was first used! As Usenet and Arpanet turned into the Internet, nobody who was using it at the time ever called it by anything other than "Usenet", "The Internet" or just "The net" - the term "Web" started to be used when the HTTP/HTML system started to come into use.  These horrible terms like "Information Superhighway" are almost always dreamed up by journalists.  We had "Silicon chips" (or more often "Silicone chips"!) and "Microchips" - when people working in the field only ever called them "IC's" (Integrated Circuits) or just "Chips".  This goes back in time too - journalists loved "Electronic Brain" (or better still, "Giant Electronic Brain") when nobody in the field ever called them anything but "Computers", "CPU's" or "Processors".  I guess journalists have always felt it necessary to add their own sense of drama to relatively dry technological terms. SteveBaker (talk) 01:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Machine" is another one I used to hear often for "computer", back when it was basically one machine and not a cluster of servers. How would one find out the most common terms? I don't think Google hits would be very reliable. For the internet I hear "the internet", "the net", and "the web" most often, but that's anecdotal. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the internet and the web are not synonymous, even if many people use the former only for the latter. FiggyBee (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Machine" is entirely standard and current terminology for me as a software engineer. Where I work we would use the words "machine" or "box" rather more often than "computer". 93.97.184.230 (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Box", yes, in fact I probably hear that term more than anything now, especially in reference to a server. "Computer" is kind of an old-fashioned word that has stuck around, like "dialing" on a touchtone phone. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * See the 1957 film Desk Set. (Really do, it's a fine film.) No computer as smart as the one in the film has ever been made, and everybody involved in the film has been dead for years. PhGustaf (talk) 05:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Contrary to Steve's assertions, the Information superhighway article seems to point the finger at Al Gore, not journalists. I recall in the 1994-7 period that the term was used extensively in UK and EU government. Journalists can hardly be blamed for reporting the terms that politicians and government use. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between making a one-off analogy ("The Internet is like an Information Superhighway" - or whatever it was he actually said) - and using the term every time the Internet is the subject of the conversation. The former is what Al Gore did - the latter is entirely the domain of the journalists who picked up on the term. SteveBaker (talk) 23:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But it was no one-off analogy. It was the terminology of the time, adopted by government policy wonks and _followed_ by journalists. The traces are still there to be kicked over, vide this google search. Way back when it was not abundantly obvious that the internet would be the winner which took all. ISH was a term that covered a multiplicity of technologies, not least private point-to-point connections of whatever protocol, implemented since there was no good alternative; or DSL, first applied to my direct knowledge in video-on-demand trials which had nothing at all to do with the internet. Thus internet, usenet, the web, etc are terms which cover only a limited segment of that which was discussed under the ISH banner, and are inappropriate terms for discussion of the whole. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Any UK based Mark and Lard fans from their days on radio 1 may recognise this, but I personally like to call it the "interweb" and sending mail via "emaither" (e-my-th-eugh phonetically)... Only in relaxed company though, as it doesn't sound too professional when in meetings Gazhiley (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Limousines
Back when I was a kid in the 1980's everyone of any means had a stretch Cadillac limousine (or in some cases, a Lincoln limo). Now it seems like nobody (and also in portrayals of the rich and powerful in the media) has these sort of limousines except for government leaders. Are strech limousines somehow out of favor these days? (In framing your responses please don't cite the 'current economic downturn' because this trend as far as I know started well before 2007 -- perhaps even in the 1990s?) Torkmann (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I expect this article in the New York Times nails it. Ostentatious displays of wealth defined the 80s (see Wall Street (film) for example), but within the next decade, more understated cars became popular among those with money, leading to the choice of Merc sedans, Porsche Cayennes and top end SUVs being the cars of choice today. Rockpock  e  t  22:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A lot of limousine services have gone on to stretch Hummers. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought Hummer was just purchased by a Chinese company. I don't see anything in the link provided by WTWAG. What is the current status? 174.146.137.114 (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What we need, in these conservation-aware times, is the stretch limo version of the Smart Car. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There have been some edits since your question, but there is information at Hummer. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at the time stamps, it seems that I missed the #Sale. Thank you for your attention to the detail.  68.244.184.167 (talk) 02:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Cost might be a factor. The average price of oil in the last 18 months is more than triple the average price in the 1980s, whereas gold is up by only 112% and interest rates are down by 65-90% (depending on lender, borrower and tenure). DOR (HK) (talk) 02:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Where was McCain born?
I was clicking through some articles related to a recent thread, and I notice that John McCain's bio says John McCain was born on August 29, 1936 at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone, Panama,.... On the other hand, natural-born citizen of the United States says he was born at Colon Hospital in Colon, Panama, outside the CZ. Which is correct? According to some of the theories of what natural-born citizen means, it might have made a difference to his presidential eligibility. --Trovatore (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The former is correct according to most reliable sources (e.g., the New York Times: Mr. McCain was born on a military installation in the Canal Zone, where his mother and father, a Navy officer, were stationed.). However the blogosphere promotes the theory he was actually born outside the CZ. Unverified birth certificates have been produced that are contradictory (e.g. a CZ certificate, but one that also lists the hospital as Colon Hospital ).
 * In reality, one might imagine a scenario where CZ based Americans gave birth in a hospital physically outside the zone for medical reasons, but with the understanding of all involved that it was considered within the zone for legal purposes. I'm sure it would make all the difference for those who like to lawyer over every single letter of the Constitution (when it suits their particular views), but for most reasonable Americans - and I would include Supreme Court Justices in that category - it would be inconceivable to deny "natural born" status to the children of US service people overseas (while in the service of their country) on such technicalities. Rockpock  e  t  22:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm too lazy to look it up at the moment, but Congress did pass a motion that said that McCain was OK as a "natural-born citizen". The clause was apparently put into the Constitution by framers who were, justifiably at the time, afeart of foreign monarchs taking over the new nation.  This fear is long past, and the clause is obsolete.  PhGustaf (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's really pretty simple - you have to have been a citizen from birth. You can't be born as a citizen of some other country, come to the US, take up US citizenship - and then become president.  That's the full extent of it.  McCain's parents were citizens - therefore, he was a citizen at birth...it doesn't matter where he was born. SteveBaker (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again, articles like this suggest to me that while it is very unlikely McCain would be ruled out (not least because his father was in active military service on "US territory" at the time), it is not crystal clear in the constitution whether a "natural born citizen" includes people born outside of the United States to American parents. Perhaps once someone has actually done it and there is a precedent, arguments like this will go away.  But until that time, as the New York Time quotes, "it is not a slam-dunk situation."  TastyCakes (talk) 02:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Tasty cakes hits the nail on the head. Until an actual court case comes to fruition, in which the meaning of the phrase "natural born citizen" can be established via case law, they are literally just words on paper, and it is impossible to say with any reliability what they really mean.  There have now been two "serious" challenges to a President's "natural born" status, those of Chester Alan Arthur and Barack Obama.  There were a few lawyers and political opponents who claimed that Arthur was born either in Ireland or Canada, but those never saw a court, so it was never truly established what "natural born" means.  The same is likely true of the current "birther" nonsense.  This would not be the first case of ambiguity in the consititution, consider the case of John Tyler, the first Vice President to ascend to the office on the death of a President.  The wording of the constitution is very ambiguous as to whether the Vice President becomes the actual President upon the President's death, or if he becomes merely the "acting president".  Though Tyler, by sheer force of will and personality, basically took the stance "I'm the real President in every way, be damned with this 'acting' nonsense", the ambiguity in the text was not actually resolved until 1967, when the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution replaced the original text by a clear instruction that the VP becomes the real-and-honest-to-God-President upon the death of the prior President.  Prior to that, all of the prior VP's to ascend to the office did so by tradition and precedent set by Tyler, but without the actual force of an unambiguous legal standing.  The same exact situation exists with regards to the phrase "natural born".  So far, ignoring the unverified claims of partisan political opponents, we haven't had a single President who claims to have been born outside of the U.S. proper.  We have had at least two candidates who may meet the bill (the aforementioned McCain and Goldwater) however, since neither actually became president, there was no impetus to resolve the ambuguity.  -- Jayron  32  04:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I mentioned Goldwater, myself, a few entries back. What possible justification could anyone have for asserting that a US Territory isn't physically and legally part of the United States? Not liking a candidate does not legally disqualify him from holding office. B00P (talk) 05:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely it depends what kind of territory? I find it difficult to imagine that someone from an unincorporated and technically unorganised territory like American Samoa who doesn't have US citizen parents and doesn't even have current US citizenship nor the right to it and can't vote in US Presidential elections (or most other federal and state elections) in any state could be considered a natural born citizen and suitable to become President, the fact that they may serve in the US military not withstanding. It's possible the Supreme Court may decide that the current situation is unconstitutional and rule that they're entitled to/are US citizenship or something but in the mean time I'm sure you'd agree it seems unlikely. Nil Einne (talk) 09:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No citizen of any US territory can vote in US elections. You can't get much more "organized" than Puerto Rico, but they don't vote in US Presidential elections, either.  In fact, it took a constitutional amendment to allow citizens of the District of Columbia to vote in Presidential elections, yet there was never any question about their being US citizens.  Citizens of all US territories are US citizens.  Where do any of our articles suggest otherwise?  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The situation of the Puerto Ricans is different &mdash; they're full US citizens; the only reason they can't vote in presidential elections (and there aren't any other nationwide elections) is that there's no state for them to vote in. If they move to a state, then they can vote for president, or rather for the electors from that state.  And no one can tell them they can't move to a US state.
 * American Samoans, unless the situation has changed since the last time I checked, are US nationals but not US citizens. They presumably have neither the unconditional legal right to move to a US state, nor the right to vote in any state they do move to, though I'm speculating on both counts.
 * Which does bring up another question I've wondered about &mdash; do I, as a US citizen, have the same right to move to Puerto Rico that I'd have to move to, say, Colorado? Or would I need permission from someone? --Trovatore (talk) 08:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, US citizens can live, travel and work in PR freely, without the need for visas or permissions. Rockpock  e  t  19:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * According to both the later articles I linked to (I don't know personally and didn't check the references but I presumed it was correct) it remains the case that American Samoans are not US citizens but US nationals and they therefore cannot vote in most federal and state elections including Presidential elections in the US no matter where they live. (They can I presume vote in elections in American Samoa.) Therefore and this is IMHO the key point, it seems unlikely they can be considered natural born US citizens unless it's deemed unconstitutional that they are not US citizens or something.
 * As I mentioned above, this is clearly stated in the later two articles I linked to, it's one of the reason's I linked to them. "People born in American Samoa -- including those born on Swains Island -- are American nationals,[11] but are not American citizens unless one of their parents is a U.S. citizen." and "According to 8 U.S.C. § 1408, it is possible to be a U.S. national without being a U.S. citizen. A person whose only connection to the U.S. is through birth in an outlying possession (which as of 2005 is limited to American Samoa and Swains Island), or through descent from a person so born, acquires U.S. nationality but not U.S. citizenship. This was formerly the case in only four other current or former U.S. overseas possessions". The second case I linked directly to the section and the first case a simple search for citizen will find it if you don't have the time to read the whole article.
 * Also mentioned in the section of the third article I linked to (and a number of other articles I didn't link to), generally the only reason why people in Puerto Rico and a number of other current and former US territories are or became US citizens is because they were specifically granted that right thorough US laws.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 08:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In an attempt to clarify this, let me rephrase the question. As I understand it -- correct me if I'm wrong -- there are only two kinds of citizens: natural-born, and naturalized.  Only the former can be president.  If you're born of citizens, you're a citizen, and geography has nothing further to do with it; those throwing geography into the mix are merely confusing the situation (in some cases intentionally).
 * Does that help get to the root of the issue?
 * --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 01:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How, exactly, is that rephrasing the question? The query is specifically about McCain and his place of birth (hence geography), not the different types citizenship. Its the latter that is confusing the issue, not the former. Rockpock  e  t  06:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the only time that the idea of "natural-born citizen" comes up is in the qualification to be President and Vice-President. There is literally no other use for the term anywhere in the U.S.  There is general agreement that anyone born on U.S. soil to U.S. citizens is automatically a natural-born citizen, however, the term is rather nebulous since it is never actually defined anywhere.  Since there is no reason, aside from two people every 4 years, to contest someone's "natural-born" status, it has never come before a court.  So until we have an actual test case, where a President is confirmed (it would likely have to be self-confirmed) to have been born outside of the U.S. proper, and the case comes before a court, then it will remain an undefined term.  The other way to resolve it would be to introduce a constitutional ammendment which more fully defines it, but I don't see that happening ever. -- Jayron  32  06:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This won't be relevant to McCain, but just to round out the picture: is it not also the case that anyone born on U.S. soil is automatically a U.S. citizen, regardless of the citizenship of the parents? The usual example is Nicole Kidman, born in Hawaii of Australian parents.  If that's always true, then U.S. citizenship comes through being born of U.S. citizens, or of being born on U.S. soil.  Mostly it's both, but either will do.  --  JackofOz (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's almost true. It doesn't apply to children of foreign diplomats.  That's the reason for the subject to the jurisdiction thereof line in the first section of the Fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
 * It is still not entirely clear, though, whether natural born citizen is the same as citizen from birth. The most intuitive reading to me is that they are the same, and that's the way I expect the courts will rule if they ever have to.  But as Jayron says, it's not a trivial question.
 * The point is that the United States recognizes both jus soli and jus sanguinis, but not necessarily at the same level of fundamental law. Jus soli is part of the Constitution (as of the 14th amdendment, and was most likely considered part of the common law before that).  Jus sanguinis, on the other hand, is a creature of statute.  To what extent can a mere statute modify the meaning of the Constitution?  To some extent, to be sure, but you see the difficulty.
 * To take an example, the Congress voted specifically that McCain was eligible, but do they have the authority to do that? Possibly, given the facts.  But suppose they were to pass a statute that said Arnold was eligible; that presumably they could not do. --Trovatore (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the intent of the "natural-born" clause was most likely to prevent congress from doing exactly that. The belief in the early days was that a royalist party would seize control of congress, invite a European royal of some sort, like say the younger brother of another King, offer him stautory citizenship, and put him forward as a candidate for president.  I will have to dig for a bit, but I am pretty sure that in the Federalist Papers somewhere it does explain that certain safeguards would be taken to ensure that the U.S. would be a republican government in-perpetuity, and the "natural-born" clause was one method of preventing a sort of "back-door monarchy" from creeping in.  So, while it is unclear if someone in McCain's situation is a "natural-born" citizen (he probably is), the Governator definately is NOT, and Congress specifically could not grant him natural born status.  Regardless of what natural-born status is determined to be, one thing it MUST be is citizenship from birth, whatever that may mean. -- Jayron  32  20:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Getting a  court  to  decide  things  like  this,  either  the  citizenship  status  of  a  candidate, or even worse, of an actual  President Elect,  or  an Election  result,  especially  with  Judges  of  certain  political  loyalty,  such  as  occurred  in  the  Stolen  Election  of  1876  and  again  in 2000,  just  does  not  seem  democratic. Whether Hayes'  opponent  Tilden  would  have  made  a  better  or  worse  President  is  not  the  issue. Both Tilden and Gore had the popular vote in their respective elections, so again, because of laws passed by politicians, the will of the people is ignored, and  I  am  one  who is not a supporter of Gore, yet I do not disrespect him. It would have been intriguing to see the course of History if he had been voted in. This is what you get without Proportional Representation. The only problem with having it here in NZ is that the politicians got hold of it and hurt it, rather than leaving it as the people wanted it to be. It is a shame that  we wait for crises before dealing with them, rather than anticipating trouble  -  just as, when some bad beggar shoots up a mall, only then do politicians pass stricter ( but not necessarily necessary nor more effective ) gun laws, too little too late. If enough Americans are concerned about this, they need to clear up the issue -  either decide what exactly is a natural born citizen ( my thought is one born on US Territory, not necessary in any state, but governed directly by the US ), OR  change the law to let anyone in. Cheers, Arny. Eamonn de Valera tried in on, in being Irish ( and Spanish ), loyal to their cause, but claiming US citizenship due to his American birth, but I do not believe he necessarily had any real loyalty to  America. So just being born there may not be enough for the requirement to be President. It does need to be sorted to avoid a possible contstitutional crisis in future. In England's history, any dispute about the eligibilty of a person to be Monarch was likely to lead to Civil War, and those Poms have had enough of those. I should think both England and America have had their fill of Civil War, and can find more legal remedies to any such situation. The Russian.202.36.179.66 (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Cookie recipe gone wrong
I attempted to make almond blueberry cookies using the recipe from here: http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/giada-de-laurentiis/almond-blueberry-cookies-recipe/index.html and the recipe says 1 stick of butter, but I accidentally put two. Naturally the cookies came out all wrong, but I don't want to throw out the remaining dough, and have to start over from scratch. Is there any way I can salvage it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.90.68 (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Presumably double up the volume of the other ingredients, or slightly less to factor in that quotient of the dough already baked. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Or try and turn it into something that requires lots of butter like shortcake or brioche.
 * Just had a look now, shortbread might work.Dmcq (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The millionaires shortbread on that site might be okay. I don't think the bicarb will matter too much, he butter will probably make it go flat anyway I think. Dmcq (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)