Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 August 9

= August 9 =

Coast to coast
I have been searching for every episode of c2c and can't find it anywhere does anyone know where i can get every episode for free? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.142.178.36 (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The first Google result for "Coast to coast" was the webpage, which featured a "Show archive" bit in the search results. Is that what you're looking for? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

That link is the archive and you have to pay for it. i am looking for a massive download for every episode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.142.178.36 (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You want us to help you pirate an entire radio show? No. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

this has nothing to do with copy right violations they offer the episodes free but i need a large download. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.142.178.36 (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You just said that you have to pay for the Coast to Coast websites I found on the official website. If it's being offered for free elsewhere, it's pirated and a copyright violation.  Ian.thomson (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You seem to misunderstand how copyrights work. c2c is the only organization that can legally authorize copying of their programs. The fact that they offer some episodes for free has no bearing on the legality of downloading from someone else, and even if something is free at one point on time, the copyright holder is permitted to make it unfree later on. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, it is possible they might also offer them for free, with ads, like Hulu does for TV shows. StuRat (talk) 03:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Retaining independent participation after rendering sovereignty to US
Gentlemen: I am addressing this request to your unit since no related information was found in the support section.

I am a resident of Puerto Rico, a Caribbean island, first a possession of the United States as a result of the spanish-american war in 1898 and later a territory of the United States In the 19's. As a territory we have an Olympic Committee and participate in the Olympic Games separate from the US and our national anthem is played during the presentation of a gold medal.

Next November 6 we will participate in a referendum or plebiscite in order to become the 51st State of the Union, an Associated Republic, or an Independent Republic.

Hong Kong has participated in the Olympic Games as a sovereign nation since 1952 and in 1997 transferred the sovereignty to the People's Republic of China but remained participating in the games separate from China. Upon the presentation of a gold medal, Hong Kong's national anthem is played and not China's. We are uncertain if this will work for us.

I have contacted several offices of the International Olympic Committee to clarify the issue and how to proceed in the event we become a state but to no avail. Maybe I am not addressing my correspondence to the appropriate unit and this is where I feel you can help me. I need the email address of the office that have the authority or knowledge to answer my question. If not possible, you might recommend where to address my request in order to find how to proceed.

Your help concerning above matter will be greatly appreciated.

Looking forward to hear from you within a reasonable and possible time, I remain,

Respectfully yours,

William Rodríguez - From my iPad Captain, USA (Retired Disabled Veteran) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.176.196 (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Is your concern what will happen to the PR Olympic team? As for "Associated Republic", which clause of the US Constitution does that fall under?  μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I presume whatever clause the Compact of Free Association and various existing Associated states of the US come under. Nil Einne (talk) 03:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The first article does not mention any treaty between sovereign nations, just a US law offering financial aide to sovereign countries. That is not binding above the will of Congress--it does not have the binding status of a treaty as supreme law under the Constitution.  The second article offers nothing about US treaties.  Do we have an article on this pending referendum?  I can see statehood, independence, or territorial status.  But this non-territorial option seems like a fantasy.  (Full disclosure, I have lived in PR, and advocate Statehood, while supporting independence.) μηδείς (talk) 04:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My point is, there is an existing model for a state/republic in free association with the US whatever the constitutional ramifications (which I don't personally care about). Whether this is the model that is planned, or whether free association with the US is even on the table, I can't say. It's somewhat besides the point, as your original question seemed to me to be concerned which clause a free associated state could fall under missing the fact it's hardly a new thing for the US, so there is at least one model which seems to work under the US constitution. If you wanted to know what specific model is planned for PR it would have been helpful if you are were clearer earlier on, in particular I don't see any reason to look at it solely from a US constitutional viewpoint. I presume the referendum planners did consider the constituonal issues and came to the conclusion whatever options on the table were workable (in their opinion). Nil Einne (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As it turns out, there is an article Puerto Rican status referendum, 2012 which seems to confirm the three options are statehood, independence or free association, if they want to change (they will also be asked if they want to change from the current status). The source appears to confirm free association would be modeled after the existing US models. In fact it notes the Spanish name is or was similar to "Freely Associated State of Puerto Rico" in the past, but in English this name was not used because Puerto Rico did not fit the normal definition of a freely associated state. BTW, our article on the compact notes some criticism (albeit from what I can tell, not much related to the constitutional issues), these will likely be something for PR citizens to consider but again based on how the existing models which they aim to follow are working; not because a freely associated state with the US is some sort of untested fantasy which goes against the US constitution. Nil Einne (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The status of Puerto Rico would depend on the views of the US Olympic Committee and the existing PR Olympic Committee, as well as other parts of the Olympic movement. Generally geographical regions only get a team if they're distinct political entities rather than integral parts of another state. If you choose closer integration with the USA, this will mean giving up some of the perks of PR's current status. You could contact the US Olympic Committee and PR Olympic Committee to see if they have an opinion, but it's unlikely anyone can give an accurate prediction of what will happen until all the representations are made. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * BTW, to be clear it seems this will only likely be an issue if Puerto Rico chooses statehood rather then the other 2 options (all the other 3 associated states of the US have their own NOCs). If Puerto Rico does choose statehood, as Colapeninsula has said it will depend on the USOC and the PROC as well as the other members. It's worth considering as mentioned in Hong Kong at the Olympics that the PRC constitution specifically allows Hong Kong to "on its own, ... maintain and develop relations and conclude and implement agreements with foreign states and regions and relevant international organizations in the appropriate fields, including the economic, trade, financial and monetary, shipping, communications, tourism, cultural and sports fields." In the absence of something similar for the US and Puerto Rico if they choose statehood, it's difficult to see how it would work. It's worth also noting HK uses its own flag but the PRC anthem. Nil Einne (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If Puerto Rico chooses statehood, the IOC might well follow the approach used for the Netherlands Antilles Olympic Committee, and insist that, as it had changed status and is not a sovereign state, it cannot have separate representation. Warofdreams talk 14:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

So, it looks like there are four options, status quo, statehood, full independence and free association. Unfortunately the Puerto Rican status referendum, 2012 article does not explain how independence and free association would be implemented. It seems a treaty would be necessary for free association. μηδείς (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * A couple of random related points: The fact that a sporting organization recognizes a territory as independent for their purposes doesn't mean that such recognition is universal, or even widespread, among the international community at large. Consider that FIFA recognizes England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland as seperate for producing teams for the World Cup (which is why Great Britain rarely, if ever, gets a team together for the Olympics; it is too hard to reorganize the football structure).  The Olympics are no different: they recognize several states which are not recognized by, say, the UN as being independent states: Puerto Rico and Hong Kong are two of the more prominent ones.  Regarding the Hong Kong/PRC situation, see One country, two systems, which means that Hong Kong operates like an independent nation in everything except in name, including membership in organizations like the Olympics.  -- Jayron  32  20:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (On a side note, I think "operates" might be pushing it there; it really only holds on a de jure level: I think plenty of HKians would disagree with your assessment that the region "operates like an independent nation in everything except in name" in practice. But it doesn't diminish your point about legal status. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 14:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC) )


 * I don't know if you read the source I linked above but it does say:
 * Under free association, Puerto Rico would become a sovereign nation, but would have a negotiated agreement with the US that sets forth the terms of the relationship between the two nations.
 * So yes, some sort of agreement would be needed although whether it will be a formally binding treaty in the form you mentioned earlier, or something like the compact which was used for the existing associated states and is cited as a model for Puerto Rico it doesn't specify. It may not been something that has been considered yet. However the fact the compact was cited as a model and it was only 18 years ago that Palau became the most recent associated state doesn't fill me with confidence there will be anything different in store for PR.
 * (The Commonwealth of the Philippines is claimed to be the first associated state of the US in some sources. However it's not clear to me what the agreement there was like since I can't find any sources. Our article does suggest US approval was needed for some purposes which seems to go against at least the modern definition of free association where a state has full sovereignty but simply delegates some of it to another state at some times, something which they can choose to abandon (in whatever way their law allows) without permission/approval of the other government, i.e. the 'free' part of the association. The UN also seems to use this definition .)
 * Also from reading the source, it seems clear there's no actual guarantee anything will happen for PR following the referendum bar perhaps the status quo option (and even then....). The House in the US passed HR 2499 which was evidentally the catalyst to organise the referendum but it was never voted on in the US Senate and so died. Even if it had passed, as I understand it ('HR 2499 provided for the results of the plebiscite process to be certified to Congress, but — in contrast to Puerto Rico status bills that passed the House in 1990 and 1998 — did not itemize the steps to be taken by Congress in the event that a majority of island residents voted for a change in status'), the bill didn't actually guarantee anything much would happen from the results.
 * I.E. PR could vote 99.99% for one option, and technically all legislative and executive branches of the US goverment could basically do nothing as a result or something contrary to the desired outcome. Perhaps there are some parts of the US constitution which the judicial branch would see as forcing a significant or different response but the history of Secession in the United States and the way U.S. states are admitted suggests to me that's unlikely. However the various overtures from the executive and lesislative branches (including the bill passes in the House) were taken as signs the government will actually try to implement the results of the referendum if necessary.
 * BTW our article on the House bill mentions there was some debate over the 'free association' bit which is actually referred to as 'sovereignty in association with the United States' in the bill. Some suggesting it meant 'free association' (in the manner of the COFA) but others suggesting an 'enhanced commonwealth' model as advocated by one? political party in the PR; as the term used in the bill wasn't further defined in the bill nor is it a term normally used. However as per our article, the earlier source and, the 'enhanced commonwealth' model which is something between sovereignty and territorial status is generally considered untenable by many parts of the US government (for constituional and policy reasons) so a 'free association' model is accepted as the only possible intepretation of the bill. Significantly, the 'enhanced commonwealth' option (whether part of the referendum or not) was seen as a spoiler for the earlier referendums and so implicitly taken it off the table in the upcoming referendum.
 * P.S. I may have been slightly mistaken when formulating my earlier replies. I was under the impression 'free associations' normally aren't really binding on either side i.e. it's 'free' in both directions. However sources like the UN seem to concentrate on the state that entered in to the free association with another state. In both the extant US cases and NZ cases , it does seem there is potentially nothing really binding on either side (meaning they don't need permission/agreement of the other side if they want to change their relationship, at worse it will damage or end their relationship but they haven't actually failed in any obligations per se since there are none, although in NZ's case at least I think this is unlikely given the damage of reputation that would likely occur and the relatively small cost to NZ). In particular, I can't for example find any evidence of a formal treaty for any of them, and in NZ parliamentary sovereignty is generally taken to largely reign supreme.
 * However a draft treaty was developed for Tokelau's free association with NZ (I think partially to try and allay concerns on the Tokelau side of what would happen  ) even if it wasn't implemented because the referendum didn't meet the needed supermajority. While I don't know much about international law, but I don't see any real option for NZ to unilaterally withdraw from the treaty (it does clearly allow Tokelau to decide to change their status in the future) and it does have some provisions (e.g. plenty of mentions of what NZ shall undertake; and in particular some of the financial ones seem to requiring an agreement from both sides and a roll over of previous support if none is reached) which would seem to be binding on NZ. (The citizen part is less clear to me.)
 * Nil Einne (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Moving to canada questions.
I would like to move to Canada after i graduate. I am getting a small medical degree in medical technology for CAT scan oporation, would i be able to move to canada and retain my status and get a job at a hospital? Would montreal or vancouver be better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.142.178.36 (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea about the licensing, but who cares where in Canada? If you want my opinion, the sooner you leave, the better. μηδείς (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Opinions, particularly rude ones, belong nowhere. -- ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  19:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You can't go around hatting questions you don't like and then give answers like this. Mingmingla (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * All that fanfare about how RD is too chatty and NOT a place for opinion ... Royor (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently the point you two are making is that one can indeed post questions asking for opinion, but neither hat them nor answer them. μηδείς (talk) 05:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Move to Canada, eh? From where? HiLo48 (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I have plans of moving to Canada from the usa for a better quality of life and a safer enviroment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.142.178.36 (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like you would need to write an exam to be certified as a technologist in Canada, see here. As far as moving or immigrating, you can come on a work visa if you have a job offer on the table, but the employer has to show that no Canadian is available to fill the position. There is a point system for scoring skilled workers for immigration. Knowing both official languages would be a big plus, especially if you want to live in Montreal. Montreal is a very cosmopolitan city, but getting a little shabby, and has brutal winters. Vancouver is awesome, unless you have a problem with 4 straight months of rain. :) Toronto is the largest population and economic centre, so you should be considering that area too. However your best bet of getting a work visa is quite likely going to be in Alberta or Saskatchewan where the economic and population growth is. Hope that helps. Franamax (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Brutal winters? I don't really think so. Now who needs to adjust their slipping hosiery, eh? Plus they must be one of the few cities that erect monuments to their enemies. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Franamax. also i want to move to vancouver but i hear its crime ridden how does that compare to a adverage american city? is it really that bad there? Also i love the rain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.142.178.36 (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Vancouver has one area, the Downtown Eastside, Hastings & Main, which is as bad as anything I've seen in the US. There is also a problem with gang rivalry, which the gang members conveniently solve by killing each other, so if you have a hobby of marijuana and cocaine smuggling across the US border you should watch your back. Asian people who keep their money at home occasionally get home-invaded. And cars do get broken into, which is very annoying. Beyond that though, not especially crime-ridden at all, most residents of the city have nothing to worry about, you are not at risk of like or limb here. Franamax (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I really want to move there but could i survive in the town making 60,000 a year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.142.178.36 (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Does your "quality of life" requirement include a desire for lots of snow and ice? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Vancouver isn't very cold. It's warmer than a large part of the US.  It does rain a lot though. -- Daniel  23:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If so, Montreal is a fine choice. Vancouver rarely gets either for more than a couple of days a year. Otherwise, Vancouver is a very expensive place to live.  That said, 60,000 will get you enough to rent a decent place and be able to eat out.  Just don't expect to buy any property in the city.  The average house price is more than $750000, and that's with the Canadian dollar nearly at par with the US dollar.  I've lived my whole live in Vancouver (well, suburbs) and it's a fine place aside from the prices. And if you itch to visit the US, Seattle is only 2 hours away.
 * As for the rain, it's not so bad. It's not like monsoons.  It's more like drizzle most of the time. Mingmingla (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Constant rainfall could be depressing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's better than the alternative. :) Mingmingla (talk) 00:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)