Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 September 11

= September 11 =

Refunds from health insurance companies
A few weeks ago, some health insurance companies were supposed to send refund checks to their customers. Is there a list of the companies that were supposed to do that? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * To clarify, in the US, "Obamacare" included a provision that health insurance companies must spend a certain percentage of their premiums on actual medical care (health insurance companies spending money on health care ? what a novel idea !).  Those who failed to do so must refund a portion of those premiums, until they reach that goal. StuRat (talk) 02:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's a list of insurance companies and how much each must refund: . However, note that the refunds don't have to be mailed out as checks.  Instead, they can be applied to current or future premiums. StuRat (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that is very helpful. Our current heath insurance is not listed, but one we had a few years ago is.  But they probably didn't make it retroactive back to then.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. It's an interesting concept, that insurance companies must be forced to spend 80% of their income on health care, versus administrative and advertising costs.


 * I've noticed that you can get a company that goes all out on ads and thus their product becomes far more expensive. One example in the US seems to be Clorox bleach.  It used to cost about the same as any other brand.  Then they started advertising it.  Next they reduced their gallon container to a smaller size, and upped the price.  Now they seem to be playing the concentration game (first double the concentration and cut the size in half, then, when nobody is looking, reduce the concentration back down to the original, while leaving the bottle half-sized).  It now costs something like 3X as much as other bleach, but, apparently, when people see it in ads they think it must be somehow better than the others.


 * This is fine for bleach, since nobody is going to die from paying 3X as much for bleach. But, in the case of health insurance, skyrocketing costs due to them all advertising to try to poach each other's customers could, indeed, lead to people dying, if none stick with the low-cost, no advertising model.


 * In any case, can I now mark this Q resolved ? StuRat (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. And the FAQ there said it went into effect Jan. 2011 (IIRC), so our old ins company is off the hook, as far as we are concerned. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * @ StuRat, enjoyed your commentary. Marketdiamond (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks ! StuRat (talk) 08:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Additional unit assigned to DaNang AB Vietnam
Hi during the period from at least 1967 (possibly earlier) and after Feb 1969 there was a unit on the base designated Air Force Office of Special Investigations Detachment 5003. I was in that unit from 68 to 69. It was not included in the known units assigned there. Thankks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.9.33 (talk) 03:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Not included where? At the top of the article that disappoints you, click "Talk" and raise the issue there. —Tamfang (talk) 06:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Presumably Da Nang Air Base. Alternatively, you could just edit the article itself and add your unit to the list. --Viennese Waltz 07:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And here is supporting reference that you could use, although there are no other in-line references in the whole article. Alansplodge (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Font on cover of Ploughshares
What is it? Or, at least, the font in this image. 67.164.156.42 (talk) 07:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I tried it at http://www.whatfontis.com/ and got Baker Signet. There are a few similar fonts, so try it yourself to see what result you find best. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Identifont says Baker Signet is the most likely one as well. The 'P' and 'g' in particular are distinctive and look like perfect matches. None of the other fonts it suggests seem to match. 209.131.76.183 (talk) 12:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You could use the Ploughshares comment form to ask: http://www.pshares.org/about/contact.cfm --Dreamahighway2000 (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

"Work made for school"?
Is a work created by a student as part of an assignment generally considered a "work for hire"? 68.173.113.106 (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "work for hire" here being a reference to... Copyright law? Tax? Or something else we might be able to assist you with? - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 20:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to copyright law. If I create a paper for school, does the school (or worse, the Board of Education) own the copyright? 68.173.113.106 (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This depends entirely on your particular situation. My school had no explicit policy, but work submitted for external examination was provided alongside a license which granted the exam board pretty extesive rights. My university took limited license where necessary e.g. to allow internal publication of undergraduate dissertations, but was otherwise fairly supportive of students and staff retaining their own IP. I believe at least some universities claim ownership entirely. 92.236.250.154 (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The NYC school system doesn't have a policy for this as far as I know. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Need I mention this appears to be a very direct question about how legal facts apply to a specific situation, a.k.a. legal advice, which we cannot answer. I can point you though towards our article on the subject. Work for hire lists the specific requirements in the copyright act. Shadowjams (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Attending school is not a form of employment. Unless you've signed something that says that what you produce in school belongs to the school, or that you've granted them some sort of rights, there's no reason to assume your copyright would be assigned to the school a priori. (Usually this sort of thing is explained quite explicitly as part of employment contracts. I've signed away my copyrights, patent rights, and other rights numerous times over the years in the name of paying the rent...) --Mr.98 (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The situation may be different in the UK in higher education. Only your academic institution can answer your question. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It is common for UK universities to claim quite extensive rights to student's work. You can see the rules from my old uni here. It's not clear from your question where you are or what kind of school you mean, so there is no way for us to know the answer in your particular case. --Tango (talk) 11:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am talking about a public high school in New York City (Stuyvesant). 68.173.113.106 (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

ebay selling
so, a little while ago, I went to sell something on ebay, but decided against it part way through and stopped, leaving a nearly complete ad all organised and written out. I have since decided to try selling it now, but it seems they have deleted what I had done before, is there any way of getting it back and finishing it off, rather than having to start all over again?

79.66.102.171 (talk) 23:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you contact someone at eBay about this? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

you mean you can actually do that? Kitutal (talk) 09:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure you can. I had a problem with a DVD box set that I was selling, which was reported as being a bootleg.  It wasn't, it was a pressing issued by an obscure label.  I had a long email conversation with a real person and eventually they accepted the DVDs were legit and reposted it. --TrogWoolley (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

libya
Why did the US support Islamist terrorist "rebels" in libya and syria with known al quida affiliations? Arent we taught to learn from history so we dont make the same mistakes again? Are own leaders cant even do it. Now stuff like this is happening   http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19562692  --74.74.255.141 (talk) 23:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Some points:


 * 1) Only a small portion of the rebels in Libya and Syria appear to have an al Qaeda affiliation.


 * 2) The US is so far refusing to arm the Syrian rebels, for fear that they will use those weapons against the US or allies (especially anti-aircraft surface-to-air missiles).


 * 3) The US is providing humanitarian aid and communication equipment to the Syrian rebels.


 * 4) The current Syrian government supports US designated terrorist organizations, like Hezbollah and Hamas, either directly or by funneling weapons and money to them from Iran. They have also been directly implicated in terrorist activity inside Lebanon, including a car bomb that killed a major anti-Syrian politician, and a recent foiled attempt at multiple bombings.


 * 5) Consider that the US wants to be seen as on the rebel's side, in case they win.


 * So, so far the US has decided to give weak support for the Syrian rebels, although Obama hinted that, if Syria breaks out the chemical weapons, then "the gloves will come off". StuRat (talk) 00:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

yes, but why did they support AND arm the rebels in libya? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrk678 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know that the US armed the Libyan rebels. What they did do was provide air support (along with NATO).  Kaddafi was a nut job implicated in the terrorist bombing of a jet over Lockerbie, Scotland and the earlier German night club bombing.  However, the West had largely made peace with him by the time the Arab Spring took hold.  Still, when given the choice, the US chose the rebels over him, perhaps to prevent a massacre, perhaps to get rid of a long-time enemy. StuRat (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that the main reason that the U.S. helped the Libyan rebels was to prevent a large massacre, including of civilians, and to keep the momentum of the Arab Spring going since it felt that seeing the Arab Spring stop while a lot of resentment against the Arab dictators stayed could have led to weaker support for the U.S. among people in the Arab world if the U.S. continued supporting those dictators, which would have meant more problematic relationships with the Arab world once these dictatorships would have gotten overthrown eventually. Futurist110 (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

One man's terrorists is another man's freedom fighter. In this case they are/were freedom fighters to the US, a few years ago the some of the very same people were considered terrorists, the CIA delivered them to Gaddafi. Count Iblis (talk) 00:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that it were only the al-Qaeda ones who were delivered to Gaddafi by the CIA. Futurist110 (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Though I disagree with the Libyan policy the last few years "entangling foreign alliances" and all, to be completely fair from what I have read the majority of arab terrorist groups members seem to have been preyed upon with the promise of money, food, supplies, status and to the extent they somehow agree ideologically to what is basically a serf or employee relationship it is mainly about how that ideology translates to the local village or province. For other reasons I disagree with any assistance directly, indirectly or that could be acquired by them, but on the ground and especially in klannish areas or warlord run regions sometimes my enemy is the enemy of my other enemy and for the limited purposes of the ends they are an ok means.  It is some of what Washington and Jefferson warned us about.  Marketdiamond (talk) 08:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Aren't those alliances "entangling" ? In any case, the world we live in now, and the US's place in it are radically different.  If the US withdrew from NATO, the UN, etc., and sent all their troops home, the world would go to hell in short order.  North Korea would invade South Korea, Iran might invade Iraq, Pakistan would install the Taliban in Afghanistan again, and everybody would race to get nukes.


 * As far as US embassies go, I don't know why all US embassies, consulates, etc., in Muslim nations aren't built like bunkers. Just how many have been attacked, anyway ?  I can think of half dozen right offhand.  We might want to consider doing that in every nation, but let's start where the obvious threat is.  They can start by stacking up sandbags on all the walls right now. StuRat (talk) 08:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * StuRat, excellent observation, that was my point. As far as your theory that the "world would go to hell in short order" I don't buy that NK could invade anyone (now NK and China could), the Iran and Iraq thing isn't Iraq already taking our aid and giving it to Iran, what's the difference after that?  Pakistan installing the Taliban in Afganistan?  I find it hard to imagine political support for increasing forces in Afganistan and then for anything other then a few months.  25 years from now Afganistan will have a Taliban established government and they will be buying McDonald franchises much like those in Ho Chi Minh city are in 2012.  The everyone rushing to get nukes bit is a bit far fetched, some madmen dictators might build up a few inventories but nothing more, the problem with nukes is they are only valuable to you unused.
 * The biggest question for me though is how do you handle Korea, China, Afganistan, Iraq/Iran potentially Venezuela, the coming Cuban and European instability and a myriad of other threats when its not that your broke but that you owe $17, $18 . . . $20 trillion. It is a question that was asked last year by a Congressman from Pittsburgh on the national stage, one who is a vet, an M.D. and a student of economic theory. I still haven't heard anyone answer that question.  I do however agree completely with you on the embassies as bunkers. Marketdiamond (talk) 09:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * NK has a formidable military, not even counting their nukes. SK has little to defend themselves with.  Everyone would rush to get nukes to defend themselves: Taiwan, because it would fear a Chinese invasion, Japan, because it fears NK and China, all the Gulf States, because they fear Iran, etc.  Without the "world's policeman" everybody needs a gun.  At one time, I had hopes of the EU taking over this role, but they seem to be in bad shape financially, and unwilling to step up, in any case.  As for the US national debt, I see default on the horizon.  As with individual and corporate bankruptcies, it might be a good thing in the long run, if the US is then forced to live within it's means, since nobody will loan it money any more. StuRat (talk) 10:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * StuRat this would have very personal impacts on us all then. You seem to agree that the U.S. will eventually default and that the U.S. needs to keep being as you put it the world policeman.  I find it hard to see both occurring, which brings me back to the Congressman's point if we can't choose both lets at least choose to make things safe in Arkansas and California and Iowa, as a Vietnam vet (him not me) all it really took for Indochina to work out its issues was 10-15 years, not every government nor faction out there is interested in endless ever escalating wars especially when the abstract foreign bogeyman isn't around to vent on anymore and its down to your family and your neighbors family suffering for the next decade, having to pay the price.  Iraq is already Irans puppet, Afganistan is already becoming Pakistans puppet, I don't see the U.S. electorate saying strongly yes 10 more years and $2 trillion more for that patch of land on the other side of the globe, though I do see lots of Charlies grandchildren eating at McDonalds in Ho Chi Minh city.  If we had 16-20 trillion to blow I wouldn't mind as much but we have bridges collapsing in Minneapolis and a soon to be $17 trillion bill waiting for us.Marketdiamond (talk) 10:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The US could come out from bankruptcy much stronger, just as GM did. There certainly are nations that we don't need to worry about much, like Vietnam.  I don't see Cuba as a threat, nor Venezuela.  But there are others we very much need to worry about, like NK and Iran.   StuRat (talk) 10:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Nukes are extremely important to control or influence but Iran could change next year (a sizable portion of the Iranians are starting to become like the Vietnamese), add to that the fact that NK is really just a military proxy of China (China has threated to turn off the gas lines and NK reacts like a Pavlovian dog). Over the last 100 years instability and political strife like what Cuba and Venezuela will face when Raul and Chavez pass (you could also include the instability in Mexico in this) has created much more hardship for average Americans than anything nuclear. But again I wouldn't want to entangle just focus on borders.
 * Also GM did go through bankruptcy? LoL Because I do have some GMAC bonds I was gonna use for wallpaper, but since the bond holders are the first to be paid in any bankruptcy I might reconsider lol.  What GM went through was a bailout, its basically taxpayer owned (majority shareholder) or a better word is subsidized.  In short GM will be one of the biggest reasons the U.S. defaults when that day comes :-(.  Marketdiamond (talk) 10:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The US owns a 25% stake in GM, which at worse could mean a loss of maybe $25 billion dollars if all of that became worthless. Even if that went belly up, that's not enough of a loss to make the US default in any way. It's a drop in the bucket of the US GDP and/or total US public debt, whatever you consider more important. It is considerably less than the F-22 Raptor cost to develop, just as a point of comparison. Whether you think it was a good expenditure or not (compared to, say, the F-22 program) is certainly a matter reasonable people could disagree about, but I don't see it as a major threat to the US to have done such a thing. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Bankruptcy isn't a single thing, but rather a range. In GMs case, they used bankruptcy law to reorganize, provide temporary protection from creditors, break many of their contracts, close down or sell unprofitable portions, etc.  This, along with the loan from the US government, in exchange for a portion of the company, allowed them to recover nicely.  As Mr. 98 says, the risk to taxpayers is minimal.  Indeed, the plan is to repay 100% of the loans (have they done so already ?), so that, most likely, there will be no cost to the taxpayers at all.


 * And I have sympathy for GM and Chrysler, who got into financial trouble due to generous benefits to blue-collar workers and widening competition in a world of global trade. Wall street, on the other hand, got into trouble due to taking wild risks, and seems to have bought off so many politicians that they are allowed to continue to do so.  This, combined with their extreme benefits for apparently incompetent executives, at taxpayer expense, makes me quite angry at them.  I suggest they be broken up into companies small enough to be allowed to fail, and that we never bail them out again. StuRat (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the basis for supporting the rebels is pretty simple - as a rule, democracies don't go to war with each other. (I think there's a name for that rule, anyone...?)  The idea is that if you get rid of the dictators, you get rid of the violent armed resistance to the dictators, you get rid of Al Qaida, you get rid of these crazy incidents.  Al Qaida's attacks started with the despotism of Saudi Arabia. Wnt (talk) 04:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It is often claimed that "no two democracies have ever gone to war with each other," but the problem with that is that it often reduces to the No true Scotsman fallacy: defining a "true" democracy is tricky to do, and any historical examples of democracies at war with each other can be dismissed by claiming that one or the other was not a "true" democracy. For example, the Spanish-American war was fought between Spain, which was a constitutional monarchy at the time, and the U.S., which is usually considered a fairly democratic republic.  But then one could claim that the Spanish constitutional monarchy was heavily tilted towards vesting the Monarch with wide sweeping powers, and that Spain didn't have the sort of civil freedoms one expects of a democracy, etc. etc.  We know what principles are defined as being democratic principles, but when you get down to drawing a line in the sand, it is hard to put countries strictly on one side or the other.  -- Jayron  32  04:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, major problem of Rudolph Rummel's Democratic peace theory.John Z (talk) 07:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That was the name of it... and a nice long thorough-looking article. Wnt (talk) 22:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)