Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 September 22

= September 22 =

any officials in Asian countries of African origin?
Countries like Australia, the UK. Canada, and the US all have plenty of popularly elected officials,senators, governors even presidents now of African origin. Is there even one such person in even one Asian country? If not, why aren't Asian coutntries ever considered racist they way the countries mentioned are? 04:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What Asian nations have significant populations of African origin? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I recently spent some time looking through the lists of MPs in Japan to see if there were any of non-Japanese ethnicity, and I couldn't find any (i.e. I couldn't see any non-Japanese names). Japan does, although, only have a 1.2% foreign national population (though that number is a bit construed). 210.254.117.186 (talk) 05:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Naturalised foreigners tend to be given Japanese versions of their names, as in the case of Wagner Lopes, the Brazilian player for Nagoya Grampus Eight. Therefore, even if there were any foreigners in the cabinet, they may be hard to spot just by looking at their names. I'm not saying there are or there aren't any, but I am saying that you would need to delve into the individual biographies of each person to find out the status of their nationality, both past and present. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 12:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I stand to be corrected here, but if by "African origin" you mean black, I'd be surprised if Australia has any such elected officials. There are no names in Category:Australians of African descent that appear to be politicians or the like.  There might perhaps be a few white people born in places like South Africa or Zimbabwe who have been elected to public positions in Australia. --  JackofOz (talk) 08:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's possible that some of the West Asian countries have had black officials although many of them are not popularly elected. In any case, many are considered racist given their treatment of black people, foreign workers and Jewish people (although that's complicated by the fact it's perhaps mostly religion that they care about, not ethnicity). Countries with somewhat multicultural societies, e.g. Singapore and Malaysia have had quite a number of popularly elected non majority (Chinese in the case of Singapore, Malay in the case of Malaysia) officials although both have been accused of racism and the Malaysian political set and law is largely implicitly racialist and some say racist and the treatment of non Malay indigenous Malaysians (particularly non Muslim ones) has been controversial (and I don't think any expects a non Malay PM anytime in the near future). In Indonesia there surely been large numbers of non Javanese elected officials including I suspect some Melanesians, although the Javanese don't even have a majority anyway. Indonesia's treatment of Indonesians of Chinese descent in the past has been controversial and their Transmigration program is also controversial. In India, Anglo-Indians are guaranteed political seats by law. Taiwanese aborigines are similarly guaranteed representation in the legislative Yuan. In other words, this is not to say that racism doesn't exist in Asian countries particularly against black Africans (it does) or that they haven't been accused of it (they have) but that the lack of black African leaders is unsurprising given the minute percentage of the population it represents in most such countries as 210 and Clarity have mentioned. Note while I specifically mentioned the complicating factor for Jewish people, in many cases, racial discrimination is complicated due to language, culture and religion. It may not be so much what 'race' you are. This may be enlightening. In a similar vein to JoOz's comment here in NZ (which you didn't mention) accusations of racism have been made particularly regarding our treatment of Māori and non European immigrants (mostly Asian and Pacific Islanders). The lack of elected black Africans doesn't tend to come in to it... In terms of elections Māori are guaranteed representation via the Māori seats (which in itself is sometimes called racism) and there have also been Māori elected via more general means and a some Asians and Pacific Islanders in recent times although I believe their numbers remain lower then their share of the population. Nil Einne (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know about africans, but Marutei Tsurunen is the first foreign-born member of the Diet of Japan. Astronaut (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know any Asian countries that have officials of African origin but, in Africa, there is Mauritius who is African (being member of the AU,  SADC, COMESA,  ACP, etc...). yet most of its leaders have been of Asian origin and some of European origin. 41.212.167.138 (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Israel, which is technically in Asia, has had two Ethiopian-born members of the Knesset: -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

First one must define one's terms. The late Israeli Foreign Minister, Abba Eban, was born in South Africa. I assume you would not be refering to him, but someone with a negroid ethnic background. In which casr, except for the previous item, the answer is "No." B00P (talk) 01:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There is the "Russian Obama", although he hasn't actually won an election yet. "If elected, [he] would be the first black person elected to public office in Russia." Most of Russia is in Asia, geographically. — jwillbur 05:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Facebook Fakebook!
Recently, I took out my Goblet of Fire copy that I bought years ago when I was a kid. While re-reading it, I found a few mistakes that made me feel that the copy might not be an original Bloomsbury copy. For example, in page 503, where Dumbledore, Moody and Fudge are conversing, Fudge's name is misprinted as "Crouch". Also, unlike all my other Potter books (which are definitely original ones), this one became tattered too easily. Is it possible that it's a pirated copy? Also, can someone in the Ref-Desk, who has a copy of Goblet please check whether it says "Crouch" instead of "Fudge" in their book as well? Thanks in advance! 117.194.226.128 (talk) 08:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My son's copy (bought through Amazon) has the same mistake, it happens. Mikenorton (talk) 10:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, one way of identifying early editions of the third book is through the presence or otherwise of a particular misprint. 94.168.184.16 (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If it makes you feel better, page 503 of my copy doesn't even have Dumbledore or Fudge/Crouch on it! And speaking of typos, it's MooNy. ~ Amory ( user •  talk  •  contribs ) 14:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have the book in front of me BUT I think you're wrong. Dumbledore and Fudge/Crouch were likely talking with Alastor Moody and NOT Remus "Moony" Lupin since Lupin was still an unregistered animagus.  Dismas |(talk) 04:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Pirated copies will be photo-reproduced from a good copy, so misprints are no indicator that it's pirated. I'd be surprised if anyone could sell pirated mass-market books in the west and make much profit. In the Far East it's a different story, but over there the poor quality of the paper and printing will be obvious.--Shantavira|feed me 15:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * . "Crouch" was indeed an error which was fixed in later editions. FiggyBee (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is actually Moody that is referred to as Crouch, which he actually is, but that hasn't been revealed by that point. --Tango (talk) 04:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the site I linked, both "Crouch" for "Fudge" on p503 and "Moody" for "Crouch" on p594 were errors in the first edition. FiggyBee (talk) 03:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

respond to high inflation
what does Monetary authority do to cope with undesired high inflation?


 * See Monetary policy. They'd work to restrict the supply or availability of money and/or increase the cost of money by increasing the rate of interest. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This is assuming that they dare to apply these measures, which run the risk of sending an economy into recession. Marco polo (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Today, of course, this isn't an issue. Much of the developed world is suffering from extremely low inflation or even (as in the US) deflation. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Godesses/lady liberty history
i am doing a assignment on godesses/lady liberty history and i came across an icon/graphic/symbol thumbnail that looked the same as the statue of liberty but originated from somewhere else and had a different meaning/related to something obscure. i cant find this graphic now. i have searched all lists and libraries on the wiki site. your assistance would be appreciated. thanking you in advance --120.16.156.19 (talk) 11:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Possibly Lady Justice. Also check out all the images in Statue of Liberty, such as Jules Joseph Lefebvre's painting La Vérité --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe the Goddess of Democracy from Tianenmen Square? Adam Bishop (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Check out La Marianne, the symbol of the French Republic.Froggie34 (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)DT


 * And here she is --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * And let's not forget Liberty Leading the People, whose topless form was once featured on the 100 Franc bill. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * She's an avatar of Marianne. She was taken off the bill when Jean d'Ashcrofte ascended to the French cabinet. PhGustaf (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The Statue of Freedom stands atop the dome of the United States Capitol. --- OtherDave (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Writs of assistance
Why was it particularly hateful to the colonists?Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 14:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Per Writ of assistance, probably because they allowed customs officials to search anywhere for smuggled goods without having to obtain a specific warrant. That sort of thing will tend to annoy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, before the 1760s, New England merchants had carried on a very lucrative, but technically illegal trade with French and Spanish colonies in the Caribbean. British colonial officials were probably aware of this trade but turned a blind eye to it.  During the 1760s, the Writs of Assistance were used to crack down on this trade, which resulted in a serious loss of income for merchants and seamen in New England ports, especially Boston.  Marco polo (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Education
what are the ways of improving the functions of technical teachers?

Hello, what project is this for?Froggie34 (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)DT


 * Teach them to cook? Give them loud hailers? Give them some work experience? Make them sit exams every year? The list is endless....--Shantavira|feed me 15:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * One of the biggest deficiencies I've noticed in university professors is lack of ability to speak English (or the native language, whatever that may be). And, more generally, they lack communications skills.  They may very well be experts in their field, but that does the students no good if they can't communicate.  Thus, they should be required to take courses on English and communication, and should regularly be evaluated based on those skills.  Their continued employment and raises/bonuses should become contingent upon their communications proficiency. StuRat (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Stamp Act
What were 3 ways colonists reacted to it? Btw i know someone is bound to say this. So, yes this is a study guide for a test. And these questions are the ones i could not find. So No, I am not asking for every answer just the harder ones to find in my book.Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 14:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Stamp Act 1765 is a bit too long / didn't read, but even at a distance I can pick out a) protests and b) Stamp Act Congress. I'm guessing a close reading will find a third, such as ignoring it. Ingrate colonists. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The short sighted tyrants should have known better. Googlemeister (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh come on; everyone loved the service but no-one liked paying for it. Plus ça change. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * National Lampoon's High School Yearbook Parody noted in its American History section that the Stamp Act was followed by the Intolerable Acts, the Abominable Acts, and then the Unnatural Acts. War was inevitable. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * [ec] It's not at all clear that most colonists loved the "service". While Britain had expanded its empire (at some cost in colonial lives), colonists derived little benefit from this. At the same time London was attempting to impose the Stamp Act, the Proclamation of 1763 prevented colonists from expanding into the lands that London had won from France, again at some cost in colonial lives.  Meanwhile, London began enforcing the Navigation Acts, cutting off the lucrative trade especially between the New England colonies and the Caribbean colonies of Spain and France.  Finally, colonists were forced to lodge British troops in their homes at the colonists' expense.  British troops often abused colonists or treated them with disrespect.  Understandably, many colonists were less than thrilled to pay for this "service", particularly when they had no voice in the Parliament that imposed the tax and these policies on them.  Marco polo (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Deflection of sound or noise
The speed of sound or note can be measured.The volume of sound can also be measured.Can the volume of sound be stopped,minimized ,deflected or muffled by any electronic device inside and outside a building?15:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably the best we have on this is the article Active noise control. In short, at the scale of a building, or even a room, it is difficult to do; it may work reasonably well at the level of headphones but not so well on a larger scale. Sound masking and Architectural acoustics tend to be favoured methods. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Active noise cancellation basically involves some piece of electronics listening to the sound and generating the exact opposite of that sound through some kind of loudspeaker. This is fairly effective - but only at the point where the 'anti-sound' is being generated.  Because sounds spread out in concentric rings, the rings radiating out from the anti-sound generator don't match up with the rings spreading out from the original sound source at any place other than immediately around the anti-sound generator.  Hence, it works for things like headphones where the listener is very close to the anti-sound machine - but increasingly poorly as you move away from that point.  Eventually, the anti-sound actually makes matters worse - adding more noise!  That's really the heart of the problem - while you can indeed measure the volume, speed, pitch, etc of incoming sound - the exact shape of the sound wave is different at every point in space.  Counteracting that pressure wave in one tiny spot is fairly easy - but doing it everywhere within the volume of (say) a whole room would be virtually impossible. SteveBaker (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So, it then follows that we should put the noise-canceling devices directly on the noise generating devices, so the concentrate spheres of noise and anti-noise will closely match. We can put a collar on each barking dog and loud child, for example.  And, just for kicks, we might as well make them noise-triggered shock collars. :-) StuRat (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's hard to read StuRat's small font. Is that "just for kicks" or "just for kids" ? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Kicks. BTW, did you know you can increase the font size in most browsers ?  It's typically something like View + Text Size on the top menu. StuRat (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Other people's kids" would suit me. BTW it is Ctrl + mouse roller in MS IE v.8 in Vista. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Proof of guardianship
In Canada, what constitutes proof of guardianship of a minor child? As a follow-up, what would generally be required to obtain that proof, assuming no complications? Matt Deres (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are the minor’s guardian and birth parent, a marriage certificate (if your surname is not the same as the child’s), or a copy of the child’s birth certificate showing your name, may be sufficient. Adoption papers showing your name and the child’s name would also be appropriate. Here’s a link to a | podcast on current laws about guardianship in Canada. I don’t know if it answers your question as my sound card recently gave up the ghost and I can’t preview the material for you. Your question may devolve into requiring legal advice, but I can point you to several other links. This | one suggest that, if you are the guardian because the minor is a visitor in this country, Canada Customs has a form to be filled out and seems to require a notarized statement of preparedness from the guardian. (A fill-in-the-blanks form that purports to do this job can be found | here.) From this | site, about documents required for travelling with minors, there is this rather loose explanation of what such “proof of guardianship” might be: Custodial parents or legal guardians must attach a copy of supporting documents, such as a court order or letter of authorization if the application is for a child under 18 years of age who will be travelling with a non-custodial adult.
 * As yours may be a situation requiring specific proof, I suggest you ask those who will be determining if you have that proof, exactly what it is that they require. // BL \\ (talk) 02:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I will check out those links when I get back home. I'll provide a bit more info, if it helps narrow things down. My daughter stands to get an inheritance, but as a minor she can't deal with the insurance companies herself. Since it's my relative who left the money, I'll be the official guardian for all this. The insurance companies are based in the US and have no clue what kinds of documents we use in Canada, and so cannot give me something specific to fill out. I would have thought a simple search of the government sites would get me some kind of standard form to get filled out with a notary or something, but it seems that non-broken, non-dysfunctional families are now so rare as to not require support. :-) If we'd been divorced like normal people, one of us would have court documents proving guardianship, but that ain't the case. I'll ask my contact if a legal copy of the birth certificate will be sufficient, but I fear that would only prove paternity, not guardianship or fiduciary trust. To help keep this off the line for "advice", I'm officially not looking for an opinion about what might work, but rather a link to a Canadian (or Ontario) government site that spells out the various requirements. Matt Deres (talk) 13:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Most common LEGO brick
Which brick is the most common LEGO brick? --88.78.230.207 (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Define what you mean by "most common". →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have thought "most produced" and "found in largest quantities in homes" and "most used" would all be the same thing...(I'm not the OP, I just don't see how there is more than one answer.) Vimescarrot (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Which brick is the most produced LEGO brick? --88.78.237.73 (talk) 18:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Based on my childhood collection, I would state that it is most likely the standard 2x4 brick. Googlemeister (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * See Peeron reports based on mixing one of every set into a big pile. It says the 1x2 is the most common. The results aren't what I expected, I thought the 2x4 were more common. And I'm pretty sure white is more common than black whatever that database says. The tubs analysed at re probably more typical. Dmcq (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Take the Peeron reports with a grain of salt &mdash; or at least be careful about what they're tallying. Their totals are looking at what you would get if you took exactly one copy of each set LEGO ever marketed.  In practice, some sets will have sold much better than others, so the distribution of blocks sold (and found in homes) will not match the distribution in the Peeron reports.  As an example:
 * Set A contains 2 1x2 blocks;
 * Set B contains 1 1x2 block and 1 2x4 blocks;
 * Set C contains 2 2x4 blocks.
 * By the Peeron reports method, a random pile of six blocks will contain three each of the 1x2 and 2x4 blocks. Now, suppose we knew that LEGO had actually sold a million of Set C, and only a hundred thousand each of Sets A and B.  If you take a random six blocks from all of the ones sold, odds are you're going to get five 2x4 blocks and just one of the 1x2 blocks.  I suspect that something very much like this has happened in real life.  The specialty kits (Star Wars, etc.) are probably more likely to contain small blocks, and there are lots and lots of different specialty kits.  On the other hand, there are relatively few big-tub-o-blocks kits, but I expect that historically those have sold very well.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that if you took Lego sets...ie things like houses and fire stations, etc - then the smaller brick sizes would dominate - but if you include the "bulk buckets" (the big red and blue plastic 'buckets' that are shaped like gigantic Lego bricks) then the 2x4 would dominate the count by far. Those bulk buckets sell bricks in much larger quantities than the kits.  So the answer is going to depend on the kinds of things you pick for your samples. SteveBaker (talk) 23:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Money question
In theory, physically destroying units of cash causes the currency's value to rise. How can this work in practice? How will the economy know a particular number of units of cash has been destroyed? J I P | Talk 17:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that money supply is no longer particularly dependent on physical currency, I don't know that your premise can be safely assumed. That said, if it's the case, it's a simple supply curve.  The economy as a singular entity doesn't have to "know" anything; rather, it's the general reflection of the value of scarcity. &mdash; Lomn 18:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously, given that physical currency is nowadays only a small proportion of the overall money supply, the effect would be very small, but still non-zero. After all, the only way I could get the currency back would be to ask the state to print more money and give it to me (required to keep the balance - I wouldn't have been compensated for destroying the cash, so I shouldn't have to pay to get it back), which lowers the currency's value, so I thought the initial act would have the opposite effect. But when the state prints or destroys cash, it is done as a controlled and noted act, which affects the currency's value directly (albeit in a very small way). When I would do it, it would take time for the economy and market to realise there's suddenly a little less money floating around. It's this difference that caused my question. J I P  | Talk 18:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As for knowing in general, the "economy" is just the sum of its buyers and sellers. They don't automatically know anything. If an alien transported all the gold out of Fort Knox, and nobody checked it regularly (ha), the economy would go on humming away as usual until someone had need to go get some of the gold. Then there would be some troubles. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

¶ The real-world mechanisms by which this effect is felt or noted are now, as said above, made very murky by the increase of M2, M3 and other measures of money that include much more than coins and paper-money. However, it should be fairly easy to mentally reconstruct how things would work in a simple, textbook world where all money has a single concrete form (M0), because almost all of us encountered similar situations as children.
 * Remember those board games, such as Monopoly or Scrabble, which had a limited number of pieces, counters or tokens? Don't you remember that in the normal process of child's play over the months, that some of those tokens or counters would eventually get lost? And sometimes you'd hit a limit, where there were no longer enough tokens to play a sensible or enjoyable game? ("We've got 15 greens, but only 6 reds.") You'd either give up on that particular game, buy a new copy, borrow similar tokens from another game, or make up substitute counters, the equivalent of printing money. If the game required you, for example, to amass sets of six colours, and the total pot included 20 each of five colours but only 5 reds (since 15 had disappeared over time), then each player would be willing to exchange more than one of his blues or whites for one red. The players would usually know this at the start of the game, but even if they didn't (perhaps because game's owner who acted as banker kept the knowledge to himself), they'd eventually get the feeling that red was scarcer and "more valuable". In fact, many games like Scrabble start out with uneven quantities and values of pieces (many E's worth 1 point and only one Q worth 10 points). There's a similar process in many card games, where play changes noticeably after the draw stock of unplayed cards is exhausted. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no difference between burning your money and refusing to use it. If you do that, the economy perceives decreased demand for goods and services. A consequence is a rise in interest rates because the risk of loss for investors in production has increased. That means better returns for investors in the currency so the price to buy the currency using other currencies goes up. A parallel example is the sale of jewel diamonds. That effectively freezes money away from circulation. Jewel diamonds are valued unrealistically highly. If large numbers of owners put their gems up for sale in a free market their price would plummet. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It is simpler than all of this (I feel). Money created by banks can only be done so from a base of deposits by players in the economy. Banks create money based on the legislated (or customary) reserve ratio. If you destroy a bunch of money, it cannot become Bank reserves and the bank cannot multiply it into deposits. The money supply decreases by an amount much greater than the amount of money you destroy. Consider an auction. If i was auctioning off some item and I gave all the bidders $50 in play money they would pay a price close to $50. If replayed the game and only gave them $20 suddenly that item would be won for $20. See quantity theory of money203.214.104.166 (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

US Business Visa
I am Vignesh from chennai - India. I have B1 Visa to US. and I am going to Travel to United states. Whether I can take my wife along with me to US. Suggest me what are the Procedures.
 * You should check with the relevant authorities. The US Citizenship and Immigration Services is probably a good place to start.  The USCIS site suggests that your visa does not extend to your wife, but notes that some travelers do not require visas.  Customs and Border Protection may have further info about entry procedures and requirements.  I expect that various Indian government agencies can also be of assistance. &mdash; Lomn 18:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Assuming that your wife is a citizen of India, she would probably need a B2 (Tourist) Visa to accompany you, since visas are apparently required for all travelers from India. As Lomn suggested, the best way to know for sure is to contact your local US Consulate.  According to this page, you should expect to wait 3 days to obtain a tourist visa in Chennai, though the website advises that it can take longer, so it is best to apply as far in advance as possible. This page describes the procedures. Marco polo (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Considering this a little further, before US consulates grant visas, they try to determine whether the person receiving the visa intends to return to his or her home country. I do not know your situation, but it is possible that the consulate granted you the B1 (temporary) visa partly because your wife was remaining in India, which would be evidence that you intend to return to India.  It could be that the consulate would be reluctant to grant your wife a visa, on the grounds that the two of you might decide to stay in the United States once you get there.  (I am not suggesting that you intend this or expressing an opinion on this in any way.)  So it might be wise to consult an immigration attorney and/or to think of ways to convince the US authorities that you both intend to return to India after your trip (assuming that you do intend to return).  Marco polo (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Marco polo does not suggest you intend to stay illegally in the US and neither do I. However US visa officials are explicitly instructed to assume all applicants intend to immigrate illegally until they manage to convince them otherwise. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Buying American food in the UK
I live in England but I'd like to get my hands on some American food such as Cracker Jack, Candy Corn and Lucky Charms cereal. I've looked at some sites but they seem to charge the earth,(Lucky Charms at around £8 a box). I've looked on eBay and you can get stuff slightly cheaper, but is there not a store in England that sells this sort of thing at a reasonable price? As a kid we used to get them from the US Marine base.Popcorn II (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The Defense Commissary Agency lists six commissaries at USAF/RAF facilities in the UK. I don't know which, if any, are accessible to visitors without military ID, but they all have phone numbers, so you can call the nearest one and ask. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 19:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You sure have a sweet tooth, don't you ? You might well find comparable products on sale there, particularly for Cracker Jacks.  For example, do they have Fiddle Faddle, Poppycock, or Crunch 'n Munch there ?  If all else fails, you could make your own Cracker Jacks.  Just make some popcorn, drizzle a caramel glaze over it, add some peanuts, and toss it in the fridge to harden. StuRat (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Imports probably have a high "protective tariff". →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As with StuRat I would be surprised if caramel popcorn doesn't exist in the UK. While I've never tried it myself it appears to exist here in NZ albeit perhaps not that easy to find Nil Einne (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Butterkist sell various (rather nice) flavours over here. 94.168.184.16 (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No one has said it, so let me. Candy corn?!?  Really?  I have never met anyone who even remotely likes candy corn, never mind craving it.  Actually, considering the reputation of English culinary quality, I am surprised they aren't swimming in candy corn... -- Jayron  32  23:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I like it. I don't eat it often, but when I do, sure, it's enjoyable.  Sorta like Play-Doh, except sweet.  What's not to like?


 * Another lowbrow/childlike pleasure: Those little pieces of paraffin wax, maybe half an inch long, shaped like a Coke bottle and filled with sweet, vaguely fruitlike liquid.  Don't remember what they're called.  Easy to find in the South; not so much around here. --Trovatore (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Nik-L-Nips ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 00:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * England has a worse culinary reputation than the US? Where's that? --Tango (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think English food is pretty much universally reputed the worst in the world, which to be fair, is not entirely fair. The English are not great at main dishes (the best bet in London is to eat at Indian restaurants all the time &mdash; great Indian food there) but they're very very good at desserts. --Trovatore (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * British desserts are mere trifles. PhGustaf (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Candy corn is good, but very sweet, so you can only eat so much of it. Regarding British food, I recall two things. One was John Cleese answering the question of why the British never took the time to develop great iconic dishes: "Well, we had an empire to run, you see!" The other is the old saying, "If your guest is Italian, serve French; if French, serve Italian; and if English, boil anything." →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the English reputation for bad food is outdated. It was true when I first went there in the 1980s (apart from a few high-end restaurants in the big cities), but if anything I'd say that, on average, for a town of a given size, you are now likely to eat better in England than in the United States.  Marco polo (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * US food may not be a good comparison, since it seems that only Americans like US food. Everyone else finds it ridiculously sweet and/or salty. --Tango (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hence the lack of popularity of McDonald's, Coca Cola, etc., around the world. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The MacDonald's UK website says a Quarter Pounder with Cheese has 2.2g of salt, the USA site says 3g. That is a sample of one item (the first I picked) and I can't guarantee it is comparing like with like, but it is still interesting. And Coca Cola isn't food... --Tango (talk) 03:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What is "US food?" Other than hamburgers and hot dogs (which are of German origin), there's very little identifiably "American" food, as far as I know. Just about everything we eat comes from somewhere else, except turkey. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Turkey, yes. Cranberry sauce.  Okra.  Grits.  Black-eyed peas. Catfish. Man, don't make me hungry; it's not time to eat yet. --Trovatore (talk) 01:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I just mean food in the US, wherever it comes from. Americans take a dish from somewhere else and either add salt or sugar (or both) to it. For example, the chip (or fry, it you prefer) - most American restaurants I've been to add enormous amounts of salt to chips in the kitchen despite there being salt on the table. I am perfectly capable of adding salt myself if I want it, so why not give me the choice? I once had coleslaw on an American Airlines flight that was so sweet I genuinely thought it was some kind of desert when I first tasted it - that is more extreme than most American food, but it is a good example of the kind of things you get in the US. --Tango (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Americans generally like their food bland, generic, and bad for you. Bleh. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You say "Indian", but it is food served in Britain, often made by British citizens, it just has Indian origins. Few countries can claim to have a large portion of their food entirely their own creation - it's all based on other foods from countries they have historically traded with or had immigration from. --Tango (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether the "Indian" food can be considered British or not would depend on if the same Indian food can be found outside of the UK. Much American food is a combination of different nationalities, but with an American spin on it, since the US is a nation of immigrants.  Thus we get hot dogs and chili dogs, which are based on German sausages, but adding the bun and toppings really makes them into entirely different foods.  Or take pizza, which came from Italy (although tomatoes are from America), but the idea of adding toppings you select and getting it delivered is all American.  Or take Chinese-American food, which bears little resemblance to authentic Chinese food.  And the fortune cookie was actually invented in America.  Even countries with a supposedly rich tradition in iconic foods borrow much from other cultures, like the Italians getting spaghetti from Marco Polo's visit to China. StuRat (talk) 03:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The UK has delivered pizzas with pick-your-own toppings, so by your definition that can't be considered American. Chicken tikka masala is apparently the most popular Indian dish in the UK and it is quite likely a British invention (the exact origins are disputed) and I think it is quite rare outside the UK. --Tango (talk) 03:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose I should have said that the food can be claimed by a nation if it originated there, in it's final form. So, if  chicken tikka masala originated in the UK, they can claim it, even if it has spread elsewhere.  Similarly, I'm pretty sure delivered pizza with toppings you select is a US invention.  Interestingly, in old movies it's always "pizza pie" (or in the song That's Amore).  The "pie" apparently was dropped somewhere along the way. StuRat (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Also interestingly, Hawaiian pizza is not American, and anecdotally, I'm told most "Indian" cuisine in Britain is more Bangladeshi in style and meat content. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your answers. As an adult I don't tend to eat loads of sugary sweets but I've got this nostalgic memory of Candy Corn, etc. from when I was a kid. Yeah we've got toffee popcorn, etc but nostalgia can be a pretty specific thing. Maybe I'll get a friend in the US to send me a package. BTW, George Orwell wrote a great essay called 'In Defence of English Cooking'. He does tend to concentrate on all the cakes and puddings but also has a good word to say about Lancashire hotpot, Shepherds Pie, Yorkshire Pudding, etc. As well as loads of cheeses... Stilton, Red Leicester, Yarg, etc. Mmmmmm! Popcorn II (talk) 07:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a shop in the Trafford Centre which sells Lucky Charms. I *think* the price was around £5 a box, but no promises. Vimescarrot (talk) 07:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This blog says £7.49. This Yahoo Answers post mentions a few places - Chester, London - though nothing specific. This thread mentions 2 for £10 in the Trafford Centre Selfridges store. Vimescarrot (talk) 08:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity, have you tried peanut butter? --Blue387 (talk) 08:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Peanut butter is popular in both the US and UK, although we don't tend to eat it with jam (or jelly, in American English). --Tango (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So, I'm curious, what exactly do you do with peanut butter, then ? Myself, I put it on bread with sliced bananas (although they are more properly called "nanners", in this context). StuRat (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't do anything with it. I'm not really sure what other people do with it - peanut butter on toast is popular, I believe. --Tango (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * To specify, American English uses both jelly and jam, depending on if there are bits of fruit still in there (jam) or if there is no bits of fruit (jelly). We also have preserves, but I am not clear on how that differs from jam or jelly.  Googlemeister (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Our article on preserves only touches on the conservation of fruit and indicates that the word is used interchangeably with jam; however vegetables can also be "preserved" through the process of pickling. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * And there's also marmelade, which I believe also contains zest (hopefully the bits of peel, not the soap), making it more bitter. StuRat (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)