Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 June 18

= June 18 =

Can I work as a translator?
Greeting! I have posted these questions to the "Help desk". I did not if they receive my questions. I was not either given or noticed any signs that say my questions are sent. So I am posting it here. I want to contribute to this organization in someway. However, I am not professional on any particularly subject and so I cannot creat a good, exact work myself. I found out that many works in my native language (Vietnamese) have not been translated into English (I cannot find the English version of the same work on the left side of the page). For examples like these: and many more I know there are now auto-translators engine like Google translate, however, I think the translated version made of engines like that may not be exact and accurate, sometimes they are even meaningless (the engine does not seem to understand some of the idioms, phrases, and also vocabulary) So, I think I can contribute to Wikimedia as a translator, which means I will only translate other's work into my native language and vice versa. I will make sure to write down the orgininal page link so readers will know to whom do the information and all the media files belong as well as not including any of my own ideas into the translated version. My questions are: Thank you triet96 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triet96 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) http://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%E1%BB%AB_Cung_Ho%C3%A0ng_th%C3%A1i_h%E1%BA%ADu (about Tu Cung Queen of Vietnam)
 * 2) http://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nguy%E1%BB%85n_Tri_Ph%C6%B0%C6%A1ng (about the famous general Nguyen Tri Phuong of Viet Nam)
 * 1) Numbered list item Is it allowed to do that?
 * 2) Numbered list item Is it what it is needed?
 * 3) Which/what page/information should I know on Wikipedia about this matter before I can get to start translating?


 * Welcome, Triet96! I am a native English speaker.  You do not write perfect English.  But I can understand everything you say!  Understanding is what matters.  Please translate whatever you want to translate, from English to Vietnamese or from Vietnamese to English.  If it is not perfect English, someone will fix it.   Humans are always better than auto-translators.  If you translate an article and you want someone to check it, let us know, and we will make sure it is understandable.  Go ahead and choose an article you like, and work on it now.  Let us know what you have done and we will help you with it. (Si tu parles francais, il y a beaucoup de francophones ici aussi)!μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Triet96, it has been several years since I was active in the translation efforts at Wikipedia, but it appears that there are still some guidelines and useful links at Translation, which may be of use to you. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 06:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for answering my questions this fast. I am now learning the way around on Wikipedia, how to use some basic codes and some other things that I may need. I am surely need your help to look after my translation, so thank you so much TMT (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Nisour Massacre video
I know that a lot of footage from Iraq/Afghanistan was removed from the Internet a few years after the Iraq war started (i.e. after they started forcing troops to go through the censors at "Trooptube"), due to the military's concern that people were seeing too many of the atrocities that were occuring there.

However, several videos seem to have been scrubbed more recently, and I'm wondering if someone could help me find one of them. In particular, I'm looking for uncut footage of Blackwater's Nisour square massacre -- not news clips that show bits and pieces of it, and not the sanitized footage (that showed the aftermath of the shooting) which they used during their defense -- but the raw uncut footage from the rooftop where the contractors were shooting from, laughing/joking as they were gunning people down.

Does anyone know of a site that has this video archived? It seems odd that there isn't a *single* copy of the full video from the Nisour massacre in the search results on Google ...

Thanks, Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I am still going with the conspiracy theory--the Cigarette Smoking Man has had them all removed. But if you are an American citizen in good standing you can always try the Freedom of Information Act (US).  Might even find what you need on a site that hosts snuff films, but I wouldn't have the foggiest idea how to go about that. μηδείς (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. I couldn't understand why you were so intent on disrupting this thread before. Now it makes more sense: you think it's a "conspiracy theory" to think that the military had videos removed from the internet during the Iraq/Afpak wars ... I suggest you go look into the history of "TroopTube", and of the military's attempts to shut down blogs and video sites hosted by servicemembers during the war in general. This is not a "conspiracy theory" -- it's a well-documented fact (including by the corporate media, which I'm guessing is your primary news source -- e.g. "The military has struggled to cope with a new generation who use social networking tools to share uncensored records of their life at war. In 2006 the Pentagon ordered troops to stop posting "trophy videos" – films shot as service mementoes – and attempted to close down or silence a number of blogs and messageboards run by active personnel." ). ... In the future, I suggest you do some research on a topic before you start making sarcastic responses about things you know nothing about. Anyhow, now that you've made yourself feel better, do you think you could stop disrupting the thread so that someone can give me a real answer? Thanks. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about my feelings, thanks. Interestingly: http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/18/tech/web/google-transparency-report/index.html μηδείς (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. Good article. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

HMS Penelope
I am looking for the Captain's name of HMS Penelope 1965-1966 Mr FJH Glover Wigan UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.110.235 (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Think that Stan Blackman might be your man: Best to contact the web authors here for confirmation:. If this is correct, please let us know -so that we can add it to the article. Happy sailing; pip pip. --Aspro (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

director (education)
Director (education) redirects to head teacher, but I can't find out when and where is a school principal is referred to as a director. Does anyone know anything about it? --Quest for Truth (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Several Google searches have convinced me that, while the term Director is used in an education context in English-speaking countries at least, it rarely if ever refers to a head teacher/school principal. Director and School Director seem to be used in university faculties or departments (also known as schools, particularly in the UK) to refer to the head of department.  I also found one independent school in the UK which uses the title for several posts on the senior leadership team, but not that of the head teacher.  The ongoing changes within the England's primary and secondary education system (see Academy (English school)) does mean that more and more schools are moving to a similar legal structure to that of a limited company, and their school governors are actually company directors and thus technically "directors" of the school.  But unless anyone can shed more light, I would agree that the redirect is not necessarily a helpful or accurate one.   Ka renjc 08:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I proposed to delete this redirect. Please see Redirects for discussion. --Quest for Truth (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The disambiguator is "education" not "school". A company director may be a director of an educational organisation (or a film company, or a funeral company, etc.) but "director" can have a different meaning in these contexts (although according to the comment by Karenjc, more likely to be something similar to Director (business) than a head teacher). Peter&#160;E.&#160;James (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I just added to the discussion on the discussion page. --Viennese Waltz 13:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The normal meaning in the UK would be a Local Authority executive administrative post called "Director of Education". The redirect was definitely misleading, and the suggested link to Head Teacher should be labelled "rare" if it is kept.    D b f i r s   07:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't read my contribution to the deletion discussion. "Director" is the normal term for the head teacher of an international school. --Viennese Waltz 07:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I looked for it and didn't find it. Found now, and point taken.  In that case, we should indicate the context, and not have "UK".  I'll make the alteration.   D b f i r s   07:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Reputation management (managerial economics / game theory)
I came across this short-answer question in an old MBA exam paper, which mostly covered business economics and particularly game theory. "How can you build a reputation for being tough if you are not actually tough?" For several reasons that struck me as a fascinating question - unfortunately I can't find a model answer, but given the rest of the paper there the expected answer would have been couched in terms of economics, and possibly game theory, rather than e.g. marketing or PR theory. Is there a branch of managerial economics that analyses reputation management from a primarily economic or game theoretic perspective? (Presumably related to information economics?) And can anyone who has done a similar degree suggest the kind of answer the paper would be looking for? Unfortunately the wiki article on reputation management is very poor, and the articles on information economics are at a relatively low level of development given the breadth of that field. ManyQuestionsFewAnswers (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * One way is to hide incidents when you do something which would be perceived as "weak". For example, if your company is sued and likely to lose the lawsuit, leading to other suits, it might be better to settle quickly and add a gag order provision to the settlement that all future payments will be forfeit if they talk about it in public.


 * There is also a way of talking that makes your actions sound tough, when they are not. For example "The officer involved in the shooting of the allegedly unarmed teen has been suspended, pending an investigation".  Sounds tough, right ?  But the reality may well be that they were suspended with pay, which is basically the same as being given a vacation, and that the "investigation" will just be a white-wash, which will come back with something vague like "there is insufficient evidence to bring charges", once the media has moved on to the next big story.  StuRat (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "Talk up things that sound tough, stay quiet things that don't" sounds about right in general. I wonder about the more specific context here - on consideration, "tough" in this instance seems [based on surrounding questions in the paper!] to refer to an established company in an uncompetitive market that can, and will, aggressively respond to any attempts at market entry (e.g. by predatory pricing). The game-theoretic implication is that a rational potential entrant will choose not to attempt market entry because they would face unsustainable losses and be forced to withdraw. Even if the established firm would not respond so aggressively in reality (because it too would lose money in doing so, and may fare better just accommodating to the rival entering the market and accept reduced profitability as a consequence) it still makes sense to "act tough", because if potential rivals take the firm's stance seriously and stay out of the market, then the firm can successfully protect its coveted position without either having to engage in an expensive price war, or accepting reduced market share. What steps could such a firm take to reinforce its reputation of being "tough", if it doesn't actually engage in anti-competitive behavior? ManyQuestionsFewAnswers (talk) 00:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * In that context, they could secure lines of credit and such, and then leak that this is so that they will be in a comfortable cash position in case they need to engage in a price war with any new competitors. StuRat (talk) 00:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * These all seem to be business strategy concepts, in a world of actualities, not applicable to a game theory or economic model environment. In particular ManyQuestionsFewAnswers' game theoretic proposal is indistinguishable from "actual" toughness. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's an MBA paper, which is why it's heavy on business strategy. Why game theory? Because that's being used to analyse the market entry decision. Staying out means no cost or benefit, entry brings profits if the incumbent accommodates them taking a slice of the market, but entry brings losses and forced market exit if the incumbent uses its advantages to aggressively resist the entrant (by launching a price war, patent war, or similar). To evaluate expected profits at the nodes of the market entry decision tree, potential entrants must estimate the probabilities of the incumbent choosing to "fight" or "accept" their arrival on the market - in reality we are considering an incumbent firm with low probability of choosing to resist, but their rivals are not assured of this, hence the importance of cultivating a "tough" reputation. Why is it on a "business economics" paper? Because the module material includes analysis of competitive markets vs monopoly/oligolpoly etc. You need to grasp the economics of the situation to understand why the incumbent is so keen to design a strategy that deters market entry (because profits will be lower in a more competitive market), and you need to grasp the game theory to analyse whether the economic situation is sustainable (i.e. can market entry be successfully deterred even by a company that is not "tough"). The (I suppose theoretically quantifiable?) economic benefit of successfully maintaining a perception of toughness is that it allows the capture of future monopoly profits. Potential entrants who assign a high probability to the incumbent aggressively fighting to protect their monopoly will rationally decide to leave the market to the incumbent - who is never forced to reveal they were "soft" all along, and profits from their rivals' incorrect perception. ManyQuestionsFewAnswers (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If we consider reducing this to iterated prisoners dilemma with different costs per round, the theoretical model is that the early rounds are low cost, with an ultimate round that is high cost. In this situation the agent betrays in all early rounds, signalling a willingness to betray regardless of cost in later rounds.  Thanks for explaining how there might be a difference between apparent and actual toughness.  (I can only see this being really valid in a world of imperfect analytical agents, because we can evaluate the early signalling rounds as being less indicative given the shifting costs of rounds.) Fifelfoo (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Can someone please indicate how "toughness" is reducible to the value form, making it valorisable? I can't see how economics or game theory can deal with the difference between reputation and actuality, they both posit environments of unconstrained knowledge about past actions. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Economics frequently has to deal with intangibles, like "consumer confidence". StuRat (talk) 04:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But incredibly poorly equipped to deal with the difference between substance and form, unlike political economy whose dialectical elements are better off in this regard. Economics reifies intangibles into values, it incorporates externalities.  There's no economic difference between "toughness" and "acting tough" as the substance is reflected in the form in economics.  (That question might have been good for an essay question in a philosophy of economics or PE class, but it looks quite ridiculous from this perspective.) Fifelfoo (talk) 04:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * ...Or 'money'... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this question relates to signalling (economics). I read a Marxist critique of this stuff, which Fifelfoo would be interested in, but it was in French. It pointed out that qualifications are necessarily invisible to neo-classical economics (if information is perfect, who needs a bit of paper). Yet in the real world they are ever more important. Oh, must be the state interfering in the education market, which would obviously operate perfectly without that involvement, just like the training market does (not). Itsmejudith (talk) 08:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * While I deeply regret being monoglot, I'd be happy to have a look and see what automatic translation does for my understanding of it. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Aaargh. I don't have it electronically and the journal's not on JSTOR. Early 1990s paper. I'll see if the author has published in English. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A citation'll be good enough for inter library loans. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Vinokur A. (1995) Réflexions sur l’économie du diplôme. Formation-Emploi, n°52. Her CV and publications list, seems that the paper was never translated into English, but it is a very detailed critique of human capital theory and its variants. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Brilliant, I don't have it at any of my libraries, but I do have ILL access. Many thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The answer so far which seems most on-target from a "what the examiner was expecting" perspective is StuRat's suggestion of (publicly) procuring a line of credit, warning potential entrants that the funds for a devastating (for both parties, but likely terminal to the entrant) price war exist ... but not forcing the incumbent to "fight" either (so consistent with a company that is not actually "tough"). The best I could think of was for the firm to advertise something like a price-matching or price-beating promise. Such a promise could be dropped if it ever turned out to be necessary (with attendant loss of goodwill, but preventing a damaging price war) but signals to competitors that they should not hope to enter the market by undercutting the incumbent (if they believe the advertised price-matching strategy would continue post-entry, then they would expect be forced to withdraw unprofitably, and therefore decide against entry).

For comparison, the classic strategic entry techniques are to make irreversible pre-commitments (reversible ones not being considered a "credible threat" and therefore insufficient to deter entrants) usually involving large, fixed, sunk costs. For example, to invest in unnecessarily large capacity - a company geared towards high output is sending the signal that it intends to maintain its market share, and is committed to aggressively preventing any encroachment. Other classic example that works in similar ways are massive advertising (an investment in goodwill) and brand proliferation (forcing entrants to compete against a wider range of products). These investment decisions actually reduce profits in the absence of competitors, and if it was known for certain that nobody intended to enter this market, then the firm would not make them. However, just as entrants face a market entry decision tree, incumbents face a strategic entry deterrence decision tree. They must weigh up the costs of otherwise unnecessary levels of investment, with the risk of failing to deter competitor entry and subsequent loss of monopoly profits. This is all very standard stuff (first year microeconomics at most universities?) but deals only with companies that are "tough", whereas this question is about a company that isn't but wishes to be regarded as such. Is such a firm really able to make "credible threats"?

(An interesting, non-standard example is given in Begg Vernasca Fischer & Dornbusch - an incumbent firm's shareholders would delight if a Martian publicly announced it would zap the firm's board of directors if they were to allow an entrant to successfully take a foot-hold in the market. Competitors would know for certain that market entry was doomed to failure, as the incumbent would be entirely committed to crushing any such attempt. The firm could continue raking in monopoly profits, and would be spared the expensive inconvenience of occasional contests to wipe out new entrants since nobody would bother. It could even cut back spending on strategic entry barriers such as excess capacity and marketing. I am not sure that "the 'non-tough' firm should invest in a Martian suit and fake a death threat to the board of directors" is the answer the MBA question was expecting!) ManyQuestionsFewAnswers (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Reducing profit could be dangerous, though, as this reduces the cash in the war chest. I'd go the other way, and reduce costs to increase profits, putting your company in a strong cash position to win a price war.  Also, beware that, if it comes to a price war, lowering your price below cost to squash the competition may fall afoul of the law, depending on your jurisdiction.  So, having a lean organization is critical in this respect, too, so you can sell at cost, yet still win the price war.


 * Certain mechanism to ensure brand loyalty can also be used, like lifetime warranties, as in Craftsman (tools), or repeat customer discounts, or customer rewards programs. StuRat (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Railways
Is it possible to get to Buenos Aires from Santiago Chile by train? 109.74.50.52 (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like it is. This comprehensive website on train travel around the world  only mentions a line that links Santiago with four other cities in Chile, nothing going east.  The Chilean railways website is here but it doesn't look like there is any way of getting an online timetable from it.  Various forum threads I found seem to indicate that if you want to do this journey overland then the only way is by bus. --Viennese Waltz 14:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is the bible of exotic train travel. Hayttom (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah I already linked to that in my response above. --Viennese Waltz 18:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (EC) Per Empresa de los Ferrocarriles del Estado and Transandine Railway, it sounds like this was definitely possible in the past, but that line is long closed. There is still the Salta–Antofagasta railway linking both countries. That article suggests the line may be linked to Santiago in some fashion and Antofagasta mentions a connection to Ferronor and suggests at least in 1997 this may have been connected to Santiago. However I have been unable to confirm that it's definitely possible and either way it sounds like it's now used by freight trains only so any passenger travel (e.g.  and other results/info I haven't provided) will have to be by special arrangement (and considering it'll likely involve multipl trains will probably be fairly difficult). In any case, it's a moot point, while not clearly stated in Rail transport in Argentina, from some searches it definitely doesn't sound like there's any extant rail connection from anywhere in Salta Province to Buenos Ares. Similarly while it may or may not be possible to get to Bolivia by train from Santiago, considering the impossibility of getting from Salta. there's definitely no connection to Buenos Aires to Jujuy Province by rail. I haven't really looked in to the possibility of something strange like going from Buenos Ares to Brazil to Bolivia to Santiago but from a quick look at Rail transport in Bolivia and particularly Trans-Andean railways and my earlier searches, I don't think it's possible. Nil Einne (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

interwiki links aren't capitalized anymore?
Hello, I've just noticed that the names of the languages in the interwiki column aren't capitalized anymore. Where it formerly said, for example, Русский, it now says русский; same with other languages (Deutsch is still capitalized, I guess because so is the name of German in German.) Will it be this way from now on? Уга-уга12 (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I assume it's been changed to conform to the capitalisation protocols of each language. For example, the Russian word for "Russian", русский (or any languages, for that matter), is not capitalised unless starting a sentence, so it would be correct to use lower case in a list like that.   --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  20:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have noticed the same thing too. I assume it's to conform to the capitalisation rules of language names in different languages. I assume that "Deutsch" is still capitalised because in German, all nouns are capitalised (although language names used as adjectives apparently aren't). I know for a fact that in Finnish, language names aren't capitalised. I'm fairly certain they aren't in Swedish either. I'm also fairly certain that in English, language names are always capitalised. I'm not sure about any other languages. So thus of the languages I'm sure of, English is the only one where language names are capitalised. I have also noticed that so far, this change only concerns the English Wikipedia. J I P  &#124; Talk 21:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a deliberate change, in accordance with the analysis above. And it is currently live on all projects except non-English Wikipedias, where it will go live later this week. HTH, - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 21:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Streamlined ships
"In the future we will no doubt see streamlined ships which will be faster, more comfortable and safer than anything we know today" says the narrator about the vessel at 4:12 in the video (after novelties such as the amazing monster aeroplane that speeds from London to New York in a day). Shall we, or if not, why not? DriveByWire (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * From casual observation of large ocean liners in Southampton harbour (where I happen to work, though in a non-marine context), I would say that this has to a certain extent already happened – the exterior of large liners like Queen Mary 2 are much less irregular in outline, and more contiguous, than that of typical liners of the era in which the film was made, while those of fast ferries such as the Isle of Wight Red Jets come even closer to its forecast.


 * However, I suspect that further development along the (stream)lines suggested would be pointless, because much the greater proportion of drag on a ship is caused by water on the submerged hull, where improvement would have the greatest effect, while that achievable by further smoothing of the superstructure would be comparatively insignificant and would come at the expense of restricting passengers' access to the open air. Is there a Naval architect in the house? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.109 (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * What if they turned the Queen Mary into a hydroplane? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I can see why streamlining might increase speed, but why would it increase safety and comfort ? Since increased speed makes collisions more likely and more serious, I think streamlining would have the opposite effect.  As for comfort, streamlining would involve removing all portholes and sealing off the top decks, which doesn't sound comfortable.  The more important thing that it might improve is fuel economy.  Thus, if fuel becomes more expensive, then you may see more streamlining. StuRat (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think the quoted words imply that the expected safety and comfort would result from the streamlining, merely that all three factors would independently improve. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * We don't have ocean liners any more (except for the QM2) because the airliner killed them off in the 1950s. Today we have top-heavy, lumpy cruise ships, where the emphasis is on gimmicky "luxury" and everyone having a window rather than on speed and efficiency.  In terms of smaller ships like ferries, they certainly are sleeker and faster today than they were 90 years ago. FiggyBee (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sailing on the QM2 this week to New York and it is going to take seven days, did the same journey on a container ship a few years ago and it only took 6 days, wonder why?--85.211.222.224 (talk) 08:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Because for you, the journey is the destination, while for containers, the destination is the destination. In other words, you book a luxury cruise across the Atlantic, while the container shipper pays for getting the container delivered at a specific date (usually ASAP) at a specific place. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Or, to put it explicitly, cruise ships aren't designed and operated for speed, since speed isn't the goal of their owners. This is because people are willing to pay more for a 7-day cruise than a 6-day cruise.  If they weren't, cruise ships would be faster. StuRat (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Disagree. The energy needed to go above 25- 30 knots starts to increase dramatically. Ship It's fine for nuclear powered aircraft carriers to maintain a steady 40 knots (which is about the maximum that a fast passenger vessel can go) but not for cruse ships on general trips.--Aspro (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That's not in conflict with what I said. If there was a large market for people wanting to "cross the pond" at high speed, in luxury, but who hated flying, then they would pay the premium to do so, and the cruise ships would provide that service.  This is similar to the market for the Concorde, for those who wished to "cross the pond" at high speed, in luxury, but who enjoyed flying.  (If not for the deadly crash spoiling their safety record, we might have a new generation of Concordes by now.)  But, the reality is that most people who buy cruise tickets actually prefer more time on-board, not less. StuRat (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Then why aren’t their faster passenger ships already? My Mom has sailed on the Queen Elizabeth 2 (yes, she did meet the captain) and that was just a tad more (?) than Concord. It can do 39 mph but usually 28.5 knots. Why... It has about the same fuel efficiency per passenger mile as the belated and much loved Concord (see article).  On top of that, there was still enough time for her to fritter away more of my inheritance by playing blackjack, poker etc. A costly trip indeed.  Going at 40 or even 50 knots would have still left me a pauper. --Aspro (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The fact that she bought a ticket, knowing how long the trip would take, indicates that she was not too terribly upset with the speed. If she, and many like her, refused to buy tickets because the ship was too slow, then they would go faster. StuRat (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If people refused to pay, these liners would be converted into floating hotels with the result that  passenger liners would join the rest of the obsolete forms of transport such as the fly-boats, Hansom cabs, Growlers,  Litters and Zeppelins. You have it vicky verky. The technical ability to transport at  a economical price comes first – passengers then and only then, will  follow. A individual with more money than sense can go into orbit for just 10 million but it will be up to entrepreneurs like  Branston to offer cheaper means with which to  elicit enough passengers for regular service -  so that they can end up where they started from. The Founding Fathers refused to pay for space travel Yet !!!  it wasn’t until a German national, provided the US with the hardware to put a West African into obit; and when was that? Wait-for-it-wait-for-it..... 1961..! And I might add it was all at  at the taxpayers expense and not out of his own pocket !!!--Aspro (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know why you think they wouldn't offer faster service at a premium price, if there was a market for it. As I've already pointed out, this happened in the past, in the case of the Concorde.  In another example, the Pony Express offered faster delivery service at a premium price, and many private delivery services continue to do so today, such as Federal Express and DHL. StuRat (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You said : “if there was a market for it.” Before you said: “If she, and many like her, refused to buy tickets because the ship was too slow, then they would go faster.” Its a logical fallacy to suggest that refusing to pay for existing speeds means that the punters would then dip into their pockets for faster speeds. The  'Plateau effect' effect (well known in sales and marketing) is a real understood limit. Event the rich, who exclusively buy designer goods, draw the limit at some extravagances and those that don't go bankrupt without fulfilling their dreams because the technology couldn't deliver. --Aspro (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Very high (440km+) underwater speeds can be reached with supercavitation. μηδείς (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)