Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 March 27

= March 27 =

points in direction
I often hear the phrase (when referencing a sighted object from a ship) "its 2 points to starboard". How much of the compass does each "point" represent? Thanks for any help, Bruce — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.141.165 (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Bearing (navigation) says "32 points of 11.25° each makes a circle of 360°." PrimeHunter (talk) 02:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * We have an article on compass points.--Shantavira|feed me 07:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Drunk driving in the United States
From the article on Drunk driving in the United States: "To date, the most successful law in combating drinking and driving has been raising the minimum drinking age to 21."

I have very serious doubts about the veracity of this statement, and I doubt it has done anything to combat the problem. Does anyone have data on the ages of people who are involved in fatal collisions in the U.S. and were determined to be under the influence? Also, does anyone know of any program inside and outside the U.S. that has been shown to work? I suspect that access to good, reliable public transportation has done more to stop drunk driving than anything else. Viriditas (talk) 05:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That could be, but unlike raising the minimum drinking age, there's not going to be a sharp "before" and "after" time to compare on public transportation, as it typically evolves slowly (or, in the US, decays steadily). StuRat (talk) 05:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yup. As far as I'm aware there has been no US law providing "access to good, reliable public transportation" - though maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea. As to whether decent public transport reduces fatalities due to drunk driving, I'm not sure there has been any definitive research, but in London at least, there has been a concerted effort to encourage the use of public transport after New Year's revelries for example - it seems so obvious that the research would be a waste of time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That claim seems rather sketchy, although it might be true from a semantic standpoint if the other measures applied in the U.S. were even less successful. Note that the claimed effect size (which doesn't have a proper citation) is the prevention of less than 1000 deaths per year, amounting to a reduction in fatalities of only about 5%. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The statement is plausible, since in the United States, laws against drunk driving are weak and often poorly enforced. (For example, in my state, judges dismiss most drunk driving cases, so police tend not to bother with arrests.) So, while the statement might appear to imply that young drivers are especially likely to drink if allowed to, the statement is more likely to reflect the fact that there has been little effective legislation on drunk driving in the United States. Marco polo (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Which state is that? Do you have any links to somewhere I can read more about the reasons for judges dismissing the cases? In the UK, we've had a great deal of success in reducing drink driving (mostly through PR campaigns rather than legislation) and deaths from drink driving have dropped to around 20% of peak levels over the last 30 years. It seems like such an obvious thing to try and combat that I'm surprised any developed country isn't taking it seriously. --Tango (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, my perception is that drunk driving used to be tolerated in the US, but not any more, due to the actions of MADD and such. StuRat (talk) 01:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There also seems to be a lack of good data on the subject. Does anyone know the names of any of the top researchers in this field? Viriditas (talk) 09:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The United States has long had a bizarre and unhealthy relationship with alcohol. A bit of recent history:
 * In 1998, Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) was passed. In this highway/transportation funding bill, state eligibility for money was contingent on meeting certain standards regarding drunk-driving laws (among other things).
 * By 2003, TEA-21 and other pressures had prompted many states (that hadn't done so prior to TEA-21) to adopt open-container laws and other provisions to curtail drunk driving. However, eight states (Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Louisiana, Missouri, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wyoming) still allowed passengers to drink in vehicles, while three states (Indiana, Mississippi, and Montana) also permitted the driver to drink.
 * Montana banned drinking while driving in 2005, but didn't really take enforcement seriously until a drunk driver killed a highway patrolman in 2010.
 * By November 2007, only seven states allowed passengers to drink in a moving vehicle (Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Missouri, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia), and Mississippi remains the last holdout state that still permits the driver to have a tipple.
 * Weird as that is, Mississippi law is superseded in some of that state's counties by additional 'dry' laws. In those counties, the sale, consumption, and transportation of alcoholic beverages is restricted or entirely illegal; technically, simply carrying a case of beer through the county in the trunk of one's car constitutes illegal bootlegging.
 * In other words, even with billions of dollars in transportation funding at stake, these states don't want to pass more restrictive laws regarding drinking and motor vehicles&mdash;except when their puritanical streak decides to ban alcohol altogether. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Spinoff question: passengers and open containers
I suppose there is a valid reason why laws that are meant to prevent drunk driving also prohibit passengers from drinking or open containers in the passenger compartment, but I don't understand what it might be. What is the rationale behind those regulations and have those regulations proven successful?Sjö (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * A drunken passenger might prove a bit of a distraction, whether vomiting on the driver or merely performing oral sex on them, or perhaps alternating between the two. Having their bare ass hanging out the window might prove a bit of a distraction to other drivers, as well.  Also, the driver, seeing what fun the passengers are having, might be tempted to drink, too.  StuRat (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * These hypothetical people must have been drinking something else than what me and my friends usually drink. Anyway, wouldn't seeing his or her friends making asses of themselves because they're drunk encourage the driver to stay sober?Sjö (talk) 05:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Category Request: Category:Alumni of the École nationale de l'aviation civile
Hello. The category I proposed, Category:Alumni of the École nationale de l'aviation civile, has been accepted. But there is still a problem. The category needs a clean up from Category Request: Category:Alumni of the École nationale de l'aviation civile to Category:Alumni of the École nationale de l'aviation civile, so the same but without the "Category Request: ". For the moment, it doesn't work when I had Category:Alumni of the École nationale de l'aviation civile to an article. Many thanks in advance for your help. Kind Regards. 78.239.175.7 (talk) 08:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Cross-posted at Help_desk.--Commander Keane (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is fixed. Thanks. 78.239.175.7 (talk) 10:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

lefthanded commercials
why are so many commercials featuring lefthanded actors, particulary when performing tasks such as eating? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.186.120 (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've never noticed. Where are you? HiLo48 (talk) 10:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you find an example on Youtube? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've never noticed either but I'm wondering what these actors are seen eating. If it's finger food, that's one thing but if it's with a fork then that's another.  Many will argue that the proper way to eat with a knife and fork is to use the fork in your left hand and knife in the right.  Then switch the fork to your right hand to bring the pieces of food to your mouth.  Many people also ignore this due to the simplicity of keeping your fork in your left hand all through the meal.  See Eating utensil etiquette for more on this.  Dismas |(talk) 10:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * They don't ignore the rule, it's not a rule to them because they are not Americans and to them the "proper way to eat" is to keep the fork in the left hand, and it is the Americans who are "ignoring" this proper way. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Presumably both Americans and Europeans use spoons the same way (unless they happen to be left-handed). So it still comes back to the point that the OP has made a statement but has provided no evidence for us to review. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, presumably if we knew the answer we wouldn't need to review any evidence, and if we don't know the answer, watching a bunch of commercials probably wouldn't help. (After all, the question-asker has already watched them, right?)
 * However, You-tubing about for cereal commercials, it looks like at there's at least a 5to1 prevalence of righty cereal eaters. At least among the live-action actors. So I'm not sure what the question is about. The cartoon cereal mascots seem more ambidextrous, so maybe that's part of it.  APL (talk) 12:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for filling in where the Original Panda failed to. :) The OP's premise is clearly a false generalization. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I wonder if they are eating with the left while holding the packet with the right. If so, then holding with the right may be the point to question - does doing so project some sort of authority or compelling reason to purchase? Benyoch (talk) 12:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Pure OR here: it's a common trick in TV and film post-production to flip the image horizontally for various reasons. This would make right-handed people look left-handed. Staecker (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. For example, the product might be shown in the lower right corner, but they are worried that the station logo may go on top of it there.  So, reversing the frames puts their product in the lower, left corner.  I'm not sure how often they do this, but, if it was 50% of the time, this would result, apparently, in just as many right- and left-handed people.  StuRat (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * But that would require some tricky editing so that the product image wasn't reversed. HiLo48 (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If it's the product box, yes, but a bowl of cereal isn't a problem. This might be for an ad that shows the box at the end, in a separate scene. StuRat (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * A couple other possibilities:


 * 1) Acting is part of "the arts", and there's a notably higher number of left-handed people in the arts. Thus, if those doing casting don't specify the handedness of the actors, they are likely to get a higher percentage of left-handed actors than the general population.


 * 2) Confirmation bias. StuRat (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * A quick Google suggests the latter. There are pages of blogs suggesting that left-handed people are more creative and have better spacial skills, which is why there arew so many left-handed actors. The only research I could find was Flinders University: Discounting the ‘Leftie’ Myth. Alansplodge (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Minimum-interest rule in US Federal taxation
I've heard of a minimum-interest rule and want to understand how it works. I have a few questions:


 * 1) Can someone point me to a statement of the rule, preferably in some government publication?
 * 2) Is the applicable minimum interest rate based on the date a loan is made or does it vary over the life of a loan like bank interest?
 * 3) How is the applicable minimum interest rate for a particular date (or maybe a period?) calculated? Can it be looked up somewhere?
 * 4) Can someone give or point me to some good examples that show how the rule works?

Many thanks. --173.49.14.61 (talk) 11:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hm, we probably should have an article on applicable federal rate, but we don't. It's used for a variety of purposes under the U.S. federal income tax laws, and the rates are updated monthly here; if you look at one of the linked rulings, it will give you some examples of how the rates are used.  John M Baker (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Peak oil
Is anyone here familiar with peak oil, seen Collapse (on YouTube) with Michael Ruppert, considered all angles, and come away feeling that everything is fine, no need to stock up on provisions? I've just been introduced to this whole idea over the weekend and I'm frankly a little disturbed. Haven't bought 1000 cans of tinned food yet, and I'd like to get some alternative viewpoints before I do. Thanks. Vranak (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Vranak, I haven't seen the film Collapse (and by the way Ruppert is a bit of an alarmist and not always reliable), but I discovered the peak oil issue about 10 years ago. At the time, I sort of freaked out.  It is a somewhat alarming situation.  I have changed my life somewhat to prepare for the changes that seem certain to come.  The problem, of course, is that no one is sure about the timeline.  The thing about tinned food is that it is good for only a few years.  So if you buy 1000 cans of it, you have to rotate them by making them a part of your diet.  I really prefer not to live largely on preserved foods when fresh foods are still available.  I (maybe foolishly) haven't yet stocked up on food supplies because I don't think a collapse is imminent.  When I do, I am thinking of getting freeze-dried and/or vacuum-packed foods that have a longer shelf-life than canned (tinned) foods.  To maximize shelf life, you need a cool, dark, reasonably dry storage space.  There are lots of other issues to consider, including 1) what happens when neighbors or others notice that you aren't starving while they are, 2) water supply, 3) means of cooking, and so on.  Ultimately, nothing is foolproof, and you just have to accept that the future is very uncertain.  But of course, that would be true to an extent even if peak oil were not a reality.  The key to dealing with this reality is to accept the uncertainty and to realize that the most important thing is to enjoy the here and now as much as possible, while taking prudent steps for the future. Besides storing food, I think that prudent steps include getting to know your neighbors, finding local allies (people with similar concerns with whom you might coordinate), and learning skills that might be useful in the event of a collapse, such as gardening, and manual skills that will be needed locally if global industrialism falters. Try to pick skills that you think you might enjoy learning. Marco polo (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The biggest risk involving the oil supply would seem to be gasoline/petrol quickly becoming unavailable or prohibitively expensive. My current car can run on E85, which might help, if we can find better ways to make ethanol by the time the crisis hits.  I've also decided that my next car will be a plug-in gasoline/electric hybrid.  This will provide the ability to use whichever power source is cheaper and more available, so the timing of the crisis won't be as critical (although we can expect electricity prices to also skyrocket, due to increased usage).  I'm not as worried about food becoming unavailable as the price maybe increasing tenfold.  This might seem shocking, but is probably more in line with historic food prices, before 1900, as adjusted for inflation. StuRat (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hubbard cites Cornell professor David Pimentel (news item here) that ethanol requires more energy to create than you get from burning it, and concludes that it is 'an absolute joke' (17:30 of video). Are you familiar with this argument? Vranak (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, that's why I said "if we can find better ways to make ethanol by the time the crisis hits". Making it from corn kernels is indeed a joke.  A process to make it from non-food waste is what we need.  I believe scientists are working on that now. StuRat (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * In Sweden, ethanol is made from waste from sawmills, see Cellulosic ethanol. Mikenorton (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * On a large scale ? Somehow sawmill dust seems insufficient to produce a nation's ethanol needs.  Now if they could produce it from corn, but from everything except the kernel, that should actually lower the cost of corn kernels and everything made from it, not raise the price.  StuRat (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This company] has been running a pilot plant since 2005, although they don't seem to have moved to full-scale production using this method - the pilot plant produces 300-400 litres of ethanol a day. It's not the dust that they mainly use but woodchips. Mikenorton (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm glad they are working on it, but that level of production still qualifies as the research phase, to me. StuRat (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The risk of gas becoming prohibitively expensive isn't just that your own personal car would be expensive to run, it's also that manufactured goods and groceries would suddenly become more expensive. Possibly a lot more expensive. APL (talk) 01:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's why I mentioned food prices increasing tenfold. StuRat (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Once peak oil happens, the entire industrial civilization, as we know it today, will collapse. Although there is a lot of fuss over alternative fuel, none of those are economically viable till now. All the everyday commodities, from the keyboard you are using to post in the ref desk to a mobile phone, from a car to a jet, are manufactured with the help of machines which run in petroleum. Once fuel supply dwindles, no machine will run, so our everyday necessities will not be manufactured. The agricultural machinery will not be produced, agricultural output will decrease. Cement production will stop, no more building will be constructed. Aircraft will not fly, communication will be difficult, large multinational corporations will fail. Simply put, we will be back to the age of stone. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  03:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If you want to know more about the effects of peak oil, I'll suggest you read Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil by David Goodstein. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  03:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Those dire predictions would only be true if there were no alternatives to petroleum. There are plenty, they are just a bit more expensive.  So, life will go on, but prices will rise, at least in the short term.  Once we become dependent on alternative energy sources, we may eventually devote enough research into them, and produce them on large enough scales, to make them even cheaper than petroleum.  Note that we have run out of precious resources before, like natural rubber, but quickly adapted (with synthetic rubber, in this case).  There are other resources which we have stopped using because they are unhealthy, like lead in pencils (replaced by graphite) and gasoline (replaced by several chemicals), or CFCs in spray cans and refrigerants. StuRat (talk) 04:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"The stone age didn't end for lack of stone." (I tend to quote that whenever this debate comes up because I think it neatly summarises the point). It would be nice to think the transition from oil-dependence to -dependence will be smooth but, yes, there'll be some bumps along the way - price-spikes, no doubt some wars to capture remaining supplies/favourable trading terms. But that said...changes are happening in businesses and societies across the world, switching to alternative sources of fuel, increasing efficiency, reducing usage etc. New technologies are on the horizon/waiting to become economically viable. Remember...the world can change incredibly quickly. ~35 years ago computers barely existed in business/individual's lives, they are now in virtually every home in the developed world. ~15 years ago Mobile telephones were for yuppies only, they're now the de facto communication tool in most countries (even developing countries who've skipped land-line phones entirely). In the UK we've reduced household waste created to levels below 2004/5, we've increased recycling rates of the waste we do produce (from 6% in 1996 to 27% in 2005) (http://www.recycle-more.co.uk/nav/page2128.aspx). 2.2% more energy was generated from renewal sources in 2010 compared to 2009 (http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/stats/publications/energy-trends/articles/2082-renewable-energy-2010-trends-article.pdf). I'm not saying there aren't causes for concern and it's frustrating that we're not moving faster but there are success stories out there, there are signs of society's mind-set changing and (being an optimist) I do believe every day we're moving to a place better able to deal without oil/with extremely high cost oil. FYI here in the Uk a gallon of petrol costs around £6.50 (~$10) a gallon, apparently US price is approaching $4 per gallon....though I understand that a US gallon is smaller it gives you an idea of how much more the average cost of fuel could be in the US and the economy still function pretty much normally. ny156uk (talk) 07:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you Ny156 – I find your post particularly reassuring. Vranak (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I hate to undercut the reassurance, but energy is not a technology. This is why a statement like "the stone age didn't end for lack of stone" is just not relevant.  What we have is an impending and really quite dire energy shortage.  Other fossil fuels such as natural gas and coal can partly make up for the loss of petroleum, but at the greatly increased rates of exploitation that that would imply, supplies of those fossil fuels will also peak within 20 years or so.  Renewable energy sources cannot provide energy on anything like the scale that global industrial civilization requires.  Yes, in theory, solar energy could, but that's assuming away the vast amount of energy required to build and maintain a solar energy infrastructure.  We don't have the energy to build and maintain it.  Our technologies depend upon vast amounts of energy.  As that energy becomes scarce and skyrockets in price, the technology will become unaffordable.  As costs skyrocket and the resulting economic depression sets in, businesses will have to intensify the cost-cutting that we've already begun to see in recent years and hundreds of millions of people will lose their jobs in the developed countries.  Without a job, who will be able to pay for gasoline at $10 a gallon?  Of course, energy prices will fluctuate.  Just as energy prices dropped during the 2009 sharp recession, they will drop again during particularly sharp downturns in the future, but as soon as the economy starts to adjust to energy prices, they will resume their relentless rise.  A cycle of sharp downturns followed by weak recoveries will force the economy to shrink along with energy supplies.  There is no technological solution to this process, though it is possible that technologies will be developed that allow people to harvest limited local energy sources so as to allow the limited use of mechanical and electronic technologies.  Marco polo (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * While you're correct that no single source of energy can replace petroleum, the combination of renewables, like wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, wave & tidal, with nuclear and remaing fossil fuels like coal and gas, and more efficient ways of producing ethanol, along with increases in efficiency through changes like CFL bulbs, we can do just fine. The place that should be most worried is Japan, which as a result of the recent disaster, has apparently decided  to shut down it's nuclear reactors.  Such a change, in a place with a high population density and few natural resources, could lead to disaster.  StuRat (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Have a bit of faith in the price system and capitalism. As oil becomes rarer and more expensive the incentive to create an alternative increases. It's not as if we lack potential sources it's just that there isn't a need at present to make them workable. Oil is the low hanging fruit. It's climate change you need to be worried about. Markets won't fix that by themselves.130.102.158.16 (talk) 05:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Markets won't prevent climate change, but, if allowed to work, should help us adapt to it. For example, people living in low coastal areas in the path of hurricanes, like parts of New Orleans, won't be able to get insurance and banks won't approve mortgages for them, unless the government steps in to encourage (re)building in such a dangerous area. StuRat (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Proof of identity in the US
How do Americans who don't have a driver's licence prove their identity? Roger (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Usually with a dummy drivers license that is stamped "For identification purposes only". Or with a passport. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * A useful approach is to look for the lists of "acceptable ID" for various purposes, which tends to include most of the commonly-used methods. When applying for a passport, for example, the US State Department accepts a (different) passport, a naturalisation certificate, "city, state, or federal" government ID, or US military ID. Shimgray &#124; talk &#124; 19:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * What Dominus Vobisdu calls a dummy drivers license is in fact a state identification card. It typically looks like a driver's license and is issued by the same agency, but it is a distinct document. That and student and employee identification cards would be the main forms of photo identification other than a driver's license or passport (which a majority of Americans do not have).  Of course, some Americans do not have photo identification.  There is no legal requirement to carry it.  In some states, documents such as invoices with the bearer's name and address are accepted as identification for voting purposes in some states even though they are not photo identification. Also, election authorities typically send post cards to a registered voter at his or her address, and these are also accepted in some states as identification for voting purposes.  As for how Americans obtain their first photo identification, some obtain them when they register at university, bearing non-photo documentation (birth certificate, school transcripts or the like).  My first photo identification (atypically) was my passport, and I was able to obtain it by bringing an identifying witness (a parent) with me to the office where I submitted my application.  There is probably a similar procedure for those whose first photo identification is a state ID card or a driver's license.  Marco polo (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, to make things a bit clearer, since the answers seem to be discussing when a photo ID may be required, in the United States, there is never any requirement that a person carry a photo ID for just being. That is, unless you are doing certain tasks, such as driving a car, crossing an international borders, or trying to buy age-restricted material (alcohol, tobacco) there isn't a requirement for you to carry a photo ID.  Some individual states have tried to require a photo ID for voting purposes, but the constitutionality of that is in question.  Other than the exceptions noted, however, it cannot be stressed enough that you never have to prove who you, just for being.  This is unlike some countries, where people are required to carry identification at all times.  -- Jayron  32  20:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * California used to have a law that penalized people "who wandered about from place to place" with no apparent business and refused to identify themselves to a law enforcement officer. Since I did a lot of (perfectly innocent) wandering around the streets of California cities at odd times and have never learned to drive, this could be a hassle as I fished around for alternative forms of identification such as my Alien Identification (green) card, Social Security card, Selective Service registration (draft) card, passport, college registration card, etc. The law doesn't explicitly require you to produce a specific paper proof of identity, but naturally the police liked to interpret it that way (how else do they know you are who you say you are?) and equally naturally they were more satisfied with a driver's license or state identification card than with something else. However the United States Supreme Court ruled about twenty years ago, in the case of someone who was even more peripatetic than I, that the law couldn't require identification just for being around or walking around. —— Shakescene (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Now (naturally) that this thread's going into the archives (and thus not indexed on the current page's history or on anyone's watchlist), I find that, once again, WP:Wikipedia has an article on everything! (or almost everything). See this article, with some very detailed points and court decisions, Stop and identify statutes. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * (Feels like Arizona SB 1070 should be mentioned here, which could theoretically cause serious hassles for people not carrying ID. I dunno how much they're actually enforcing it like that, though. )APL (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that what Jayron said only applies to US citizens. Non-citizens must carry the proper identification on their person at all times under pain of fines and/or imprisonment. This is in contrast to most Western democracies where you never have to prove who you are, regardless of your citizenship status.Anonymous.translator (talk) 05:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That's quite a catch 22, since, of course, you can't prove that you're a citizen, and thus don't require ID, unless you show ID. StuRat (talk) 06:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Precisely. The ID carrying clause of the Immigration and Nationality Act appears to only apply to resident aliens at face value, but it actually applies to all US persons (or rather those with a heavy accent or appear "unamerican") de facto.Anonymous.translator (talk) 06:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The opposite, actually; you say "I am a U.S. citizen" and they won't ask for ID anymore. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The burden of proof lies with the guy without a gun.Anonymous.translator (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Is it true what Anonymous.translator wrote above, that in "most Western democracies ... you never have to prove who you are, regardless of your citizenship status"? Belgian national identity card states that "Belgians aged 15 and above are required to always carry it with them unless they are within 200 m from their homes. (Foreigners must at all times be able to provide identification, either a passport, or an identity document issued by another EU member state.)"  Is that an unusual requirement in the EU? -- ToE 08:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It varies. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the OP's statements is quite questionable however since in quite a few what many would consider 'Western democracies', even citizens may have to prove who they are.
 * For example if we look at the EU. In some cases like the aforementioned Belgium and I think also Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovenia and Spain you may be required to carry an ID of some sort (whether photo or not) and may be fined or otherwise penalised for failing to do so. In other cases possibly including Italy, Germany, Netherlands, Portugal, and Slovakia, you may be required to identify yourself at any time but aren't required to do it on the spot so aren't required to have an ID on you (the police may be able to detain you until they are satisfied of your identity or alternatively you may be given time to present identification). In some cases like France, there may be limits on when you can be required to identify yourself but these limits appear to be broad enough (in the France case being in a high crime neigbourhood may be enough) that from a personal POV you might as well say you can be required to identify yourself (although not necessarily on the spot). Note that some countries like the Cyprus, Czech Republic, Gibraltar, Greece, Romania and Poland have compulsory IDs although when you have to present them and whether you can be required to identify yourself by police at any time isn't clear. (In other countries like Sweden & Finland which don't have compulsory IDs per se, you generally have to show some form of ID when dealing with the authorities usually including voting although I'm not sure how different the US is in this regard.)
 * And I don't think it's that unusual that non-citizens may have to prove at any time they are allowed to be in the country and therefore their identity (whether on the spot or otherwise), even when citizens don't have to show IDs (again whether on the spot or otherwise). What may vary is the level of enforcement and how they deal with cases when the person claims they are a citizen but refuses to prove it (if it later emerges that they are a non-citizen then they may have problems even if they were legally allowed to be in the country). I'm also not sure how EU law interacts with this, i.e. whether it allows EU citizens in any EU country to be required to show ID when a citizen of that country isn't required to. Other then the US, it's primarily some commonwealth realm countries that have limited ID or registration requirements and generally strong public opposition to such things which from what I've often perplexes people in those countries (as does other things like excessive database sharing).
 * Nil Einne (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. There's a contradiction for Hungary between Hungarian identity card+Identity document and List of national identity card policies by country Nil Einne (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Presumably a passport would work, but I don't know what proportion of Americans have one. HiLo48 (talk) 06:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently, 38%. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you need one to return by air from the evil socialist pesthole to the north. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

How to make "Let the _____ beware" Latin sentences
Hey, I was wondering how to take Latin words and insert them into the sentence so that they're grammatically correct.

For example, how would you say "Let the stars beware" in Latin? 68.111.164.243 (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna go with caveant astra but someone may need to correct it. --Trovatore (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Oops -- one small correction already
 * Using caveat emptor as a guide, I guessed caveat astor but I have no experience or familiarity with Latin so it's just a guess. 68.111.164.243 (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * ROMANES EUNT DOMUS. I'd rather you didn't try. Adding incorrect or bastardized  Latin only creates more workings  and labourites for other editoresses to correctify the badness of the grammis and vox.  The following  'clip' of  a Latin lesson might elucidate.  For those of whom, all this is Greek, the clip is still worth watching. --Aspro (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, here is the script of the Monty python clip because the dialogue is not easy to make out on the audio drome sound track . --Aspro (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You use the 3rd person present subjunctive forms of caveo: singular caveat, plural caveant with the nominative of the noun, matching number appropriately. In the case of "Let the stars beware", you want the plural: caveant stellae, sideres, or lumines. I recommend the first. Aster is Greek, I believe. Wabbott9   Tell me about it....  22:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Per ardua ad astra is Latin. I was assuming it was second-declension neuter (astrum). --Trovatore (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. It may be a borrowing there. My Latin-English dictionary didn't give it as a translation for star, however. Wabbott9   Tell me about it....  23:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Wabbott9 for that. Now does the Original poster see why if you have a suggestion to included a Latin phase, I suggest you request it the article's  talk page; preferably in English or if you must – in the Americana vernacular.--Aspro (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I see. So it's not as easy as I thought. Regarding the example given, would the correct answer be caveant stellae or caveant astra?

68.111.164.243 (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd stick with "stellae" myself. On further examination, Trovatore is correct as well, though "astrum" has a secondary meaning of "constellation." So it's a matter of what nuance you want: are the stars as constellations to beware, or as lights (lumines), or as timekeepers (sideres), or as such (any)? Wabbott9   Tell me about it....  23:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thinks. When wanting to Latinize (?) an  English translation from text that was in original  Latin, it would be better to search for the original text. Translating back and forth can create subtle changes that  can  distort the  true sentiment or meaning. Like the old joke about using Google Translate to translate 'hydraulic ram' into Russian, then translating it back into  English – result:  Water Sheep.  --Aspro (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Old jokes about Google Translate? The website was launched less than 6 years ago! Jokes get old fast around here, it seems... They have improved it since that joke was written too - it now translates back to "ram" with "hydraulic ram" as the 2nd choice (and "water ram" as the 3rd). --


 * How is it now, at translating idioms such as “out of sight – out of mind” = invisible idiot.--Aspro (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It couldn't do worse than the Japanese, who translated Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath as Angry Raisins. True story.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You heard it on the grape vine ? StuRat (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)