Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 December 29

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 29

Why aren't iron, steel, iron ore, electronics-grade silicon, uranium and sand or basic plate glass prices more prominent?

The Wall Street Journal has tallow, lard, "grease", pig bellies, cow carcasses, wood (maybe two grades of each), ethanol, electricity, aggregate rock (the concrete fuel).. but only scrap steel I think. What about new steel? And why do they expect you to know the units (i.e. ¢/lb) but tell you bond prices move inverse to yield every time like you're an idiot? (notice that people who aren't sure if a bond getting cheaper will yield more might need to be explained what a bond is) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I presume that new steel is a finished product, not a generic commodity. A lot of attention was paid to iron and steel prices in the trade disputes of the 1970s and 1980s... AnonMoos (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I think they might even have burlap spot prices but only non-ferrous metals. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Steel is listed as "Steel, HRC USA, FOB Midwest Mill-S". Iron isn't listed presumably because the vast majority of it get processed into steel; the rest, as cast iron, have already been cast into custom shapes and thus aren't fungible anymore . Iron ore is listed as "Iron Ore, 62% Fe CFR China-S". WinterWall (talk) 07:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The age of Caribbean ascendancy

Our article Puerto Rico (board game) talks about "the age of Caribbean ascendancy", but I can't find any article that would describe such an age. Are there any historians that use that term, or was it just made up for the game review? — Sebastian 05:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It's set during the 16th-18th centuries, I think, an age where Caribbean islands were economically essential for colonial powers, and had huge effects on international diplomacy. France, for example, basically gave up all of Canada for the far more valuable sugar plantations on Guadeloupe. I've never heard the term "Caribbean ascendancy" either, but it is clearly referring to those couple of centuries where Britain, France, and Spain were conquering all the islands from each other, no matter how small. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Sugar, molasses and rum were major items in the triangular trade that drove much of European expansion in early colonial days. Sugarcane was produced primarily in the Caribbean, usually under horrendous conditions, establishing a strong demand for the slaves that made the third leg of the triangle. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Prevention of shoplifting and theft while using self-checkout lanes in a supermarket

This is a question about those relatively new self-checkout lanes that we see in supermarkets. Two comments I have about them: (1) I have read the self-checkout article; (2) I have never used one, so I am quite unfamiliar with the explicit details of their use. So, my question: Isn't it incredibly easy to engage in shoplifting and/or theft while using one of those self-checkout machines? It would seem that the easiest way is to pretend to scan the item, but make sure that it actually does not scan (by having the scanner avoid the barcode). And then just conveying the item down the belt as if it had been correctly scanned. (Not to mention, many other ideas that come to mind that would constitute very easy ways to manipulate the system and thereby shoplift and/or steal.) So, my question: how are these myriads of ways avoided and/or eliminated by the supermarket or by the company that manufactures the machines? Any ideas? Aren't these supermarkets being robbed blind? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

When you scan something, the mechanism beeps, and you place the item in a bag or on the shelf the bags are on. It's got a scale. If you don't set the item down, it will tell you to put the item in the bag. If you pretend to scan, it won't beep, so when set the item down, it will say "wait for assistance" or something like that. And they have someone monitoring the self-checkout area, to help with problems or to deter shoplifters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

That scale is a constant cause of trouble. It always seems to say either "Put the item on the belt" or "Remove the item from the belt", presumably because the weight of the item isn't quite what it expected. Just repositioning an item on the belt can mess it up. They need a more intelligent system, like RFID, to tell them if an unscanned item makes it to the bagging area.

There's also a problem getting those annoying tiny plastic bags to open. They need a system where they open automatically, on a rotating carousel. StuRat (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Wait. I am lost already. Do you scan just one item and then immediately place that one item in the bag and then continue on to scan item #2? Or is it just like when you go to a human cashier: she scans all of the items, they proceed down the conveyor belt, and then they all get bagged after they have all been scanned? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you scan one item, put it in the bag, and then scan the next one. And if you run into problems or get confused, you ask for help from the person monitoring. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

In my experience (at CVS) you have to put the items in a bag immediately or it will start sounding alarms. -- Calidum 06:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised he hasn't seen one, they were around in 2010 at least. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I have seen one. I've seen many. I just never actually went into that lane and, in fact, have always specifically avoided that lane in favor of a human cashier lane. And, needless to say, I have never stopped and actually watched another shopper in the process of his self-checkout. From my peripheral vision, it always just looked like people scanning and bagging as per my usual experience. I've never looked closely. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

If you can find an open lane with a cashier, or don't mind waiting, it's usually better to use a live cashier, since they can do it faster. Those things were installed to cut down labor costs, presumably, so it's a question of what your priorities are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

There are two kinds. One kind you scan and immediately put in the bag (which weighs it to make sure you did it). Another kind has a closed conveyor belt you put it into, which also weighs it then send it down to the bagging area. To answer your question about shoplifting: Most people are honest. It would be very easy to steal from one of these machines, but most people don't. Ariel. (talk) 06:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

So, essentially the "weight" of the items is the key to insuring that no theft occurs? So, the computer systems are essentially loaded with an extensive database that says, for example, "this can of peas weighs 12 ounces and it costs 99 cents". Is that how it works? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

That would be my understanding of it. And that's why by-the-pound (or kilogram) items have to be weighed as part of the process. Instead of scanning, you enter the item's code, put the item on the scale, and then move it to the bag when it tells you to. It does take some practice, but it's worthwhile to know, in case you find yourself in a hurry someday. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's how it works. Akseli9 (talk) 06:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

This system allows employing only one human cashier for several customers at a time, usually eight. It is yet another of the thousands of examples where it's now the customer who does the work, while still paying the same price as if the service was still provided by employees. Akseli9 (talk) 06:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

If there is an attractive female watching the self-checkout area and the machine summons "assistance" because of something you've done wrong, you can tell her that the machine doesn't trust you and that the machine doesn't know that you are a trustworthy person. This may result in her smiling and saying that you're good. This in turn could really make your day. Therefore I always recommend using the self-checkout lines. Bus stop (talk) 06:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

In my experience, they usually stick the older, "plainer" ones on the self-checkouts. But whatever floats yer boat. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I've seen a younger plainer girl, but didn't pay attention to demographics. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe when they see creeps coming by who want to letch on people who are just trying to do a job, they deploy the more experienced workers who know how to respond to creeps without being upset for the rest of the day by the professional requirement to smile and say positive things when people are creeping on you. 86.156.148.98 (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Please tell us—how do the "more experienced workers" respond? Bus stop (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Without getting upset and having their day spoilt, unlike younger, less experienced women who don't expect creeps. They also possibly go to some of the many communities online for moaning about this, and laugh about the creeps who abuse the requirement of professional conduct from workers to make themselves feel better. 86.156.148.98 (talk) 15:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

While there may be cases of random homeless people asking to help you with your groceries in the US, I was referring to when employees of the market offer to do so, with management consent. StuRat (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It's starting to make sense now. So, just out of curiosity, what happens when you purchase/scan an "oddly shaped" or "oversized" item that one does not typically bag? For example, let's say I purchase a large mop or maybe a bouquet of flowers? Things that you don't really "bag"? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

There is an option on the screen for items that have no barcode. Akseli9 (talk) 06:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. What I meant was: the mop (or the bouquet) does indeed have a bar code. But, after I scan it, I won't place it in a bag. Yet, the computer will "expect" me to do so, or "require" me to do so. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

That's where you turn to the monitor person for help. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

And an option to "use your own bag" which is what you'd pick for oversized items. I never chose this, but presumably the human would then be called over to verify what you are doing. StuRat (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Or if it does have a barcode but won't easily fit, you can ask the monitor to let you ring it up and then put it back in the cart. Or you could try draping it over the bags. Tip: Ring it up last. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

BTW, there are some potential advantages to self-checkout:

1) It could theoretically be quicker, if they can now have one human watch over several lanes instead of just one. However, the reality seems to be that they never have enough humans to do all the checks that the automated system requires, so it can be even slower than a regular lane. They often have no human on duty at all, causing everything to stop until they get back from their smoke break or whatever.

2) It's harder to get overcharged on a self-checkout lane, as you always have time to check the price that rings up, unlike at a regular lane where, if you can even see the prices that ring up, they fly by too quickly to check them. You then have to call the human over to fix it, though, if you can actually find one.

3) Since you do everything yourself, you will presumably take better care of your items. I once carefully handed a greeting card to the cashier, only to have her drop it right onto the puddle of spilt milk I was trying to avoid on the belt. Another time a bunch of bananas was dropped into a bag with enough force to split them open. I also put frozen foods in one bag, fridge foods in another, and pantry foods in a third. StuRat (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

A bit off-topic but, supermarkets vary by their utilization of self-checkout technology. Some devote a lot of space to it, and others don't have any self-checkout lines. Also, some supermarkets have separate "baggers" on non-self-checkout lines. This calls into question the wisdom of self-checkout lines, I think. A separate "bagging" person presumably makes the line move faster, because that additional person frees the cashier from the duty of "bagging". But of course that "bagging" person is an additional expense to the supermarket. Bus stop (talk) 07:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

About the only place in the world I've seen "baggers" has been in the US. They seem to be very unusual everywhere else. And if you want your things carefully stowed in your backpack so that you can take it on one of these new-fangled two-cycles things which a) don't use any gas to move you and b) provide a free workout while travelling, you have a lot of explaining to do ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

There are pros and cons to various setups to get you and your paid-for merchandise out of the store. I am partial to self-checkout, for some of the reasons User:StuRat mentions above. But there is a coddled feeling generated by a second employee bagging your food. It is a superficial feeling because, as I think Stu alludes to above, the abuse to the food can exceed tolerable levels. My pet peeve is packaged salad at the bottom of the bag. Bus stop (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Baggers can just be part-time teenager workers, so don't need to be paid much. At some high-end grocery stores they not only bag your groceries, but ask if you want them to load them in your car for you. When I was asked if I wanted that service, I was tempted to say "Do my legs look broken to you ?". :-) StuRat (talk) 15:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Not just high-end, at least not here. Standard at both my "normal" stores. Best not to risk breaking your own legs, especially in winter. Teenagers heal quicker. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

For a healthy person to need assistance in loading their groceries in their car is a bit like needing a valet to park your car, it all seems rather frivolous and silly to me, and we could all due with bit more exercise, to boot. On the other hand, my elderly mother does need help loading a 20 lb box of cat litter into her car. (I later unload it for her and put it by the cat pan where she can scoop out a bit as needed.) StuRat (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not so much that I need the help, but I'm not going to turn it down when they offer. If I paid extra for it, or had to ask, I'd call it frivolous. But if it just happens, I say thanks for the job. Kitty litter isn't quite immovable, but it is a bit heavy. Minor wear and tear adds up. "Take a penny, leave a penny" thinking applies to more than just monetary change. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Personally I don't like the idea when I'm in the US. It reminds me my childhood when I was in Africa. This kind of stuff was done by beggars and it was a way to give them money and them not losing dignity. Akseli9 (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

That actually sounds like a better reason, to me, unless you were worried they are so filthy they might contaminate the food. StuRat (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It's in the US that I don't like the idea. I don't like the third-world aspects of the US, and that one is particularly obvious to me although I know it's only me and I may be wrong. Akseli9 (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

While there could be cases of random homeless people offering to help with your groceries, I was referring to paid employees of the market offering to do so, with management approval. StuRat (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

In Florida I saw elderly people doing that, with management approval of course. I just don't like it because the only other place where I saw that was the Third-World, I know I'm wrong and off-topic, sorry. Akseli9 (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Probably About half of NZ supermarket shopping takes place at places that doesn't bag your shopping for you, with or without a self-checkout. Nil Einne (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

In France's 90% supermarkets you need to buy the plastic bags. They are sold near the cashiers, several models, a very weak one that's a steal to sell that, a middle-size-middle-strength one, and a large, strong one that you can reuse and that cashier marks so you don't pay it the next time you use it. Akseli9 (talk) 13:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

In the UK there are now at least 2 supermarket companies that offer a check-as-you-pick system where you register for a wireless hand scanner which you use to read the barcodes on goods you put in your bag as you walk around. When you check out you download the scanner to a pay point, 3 seconds, and then pay with cash or card. This appears to have an even higher risk of theft but I guess the companies have done their homework and I notice from personal observation more staff in day clothes carrying shopping baskets, presumably keeping a covert eye on the shoppers. Random checks occur, but only about 1 in ten visits. Richard Avery (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

What advantages does that have over regular self-scanners ? I imagine there's less delay at checkout, but more delay waiting in the aisles as people scan their items there. And what do you do if something rings up at the wrong price ? Maybe you can cancel that item, but is there any way you can get the item, and still pay the advertised price ? StuRat (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The advantage is for the store. They can analyze things like how long it took you to decide to get something, where you're coming from and going to, and what you grab there. Watch your face and body language on replay right at the moment of purchase. Then someone gets paid a fair chunk to say "We should put the tampons nearer the olives" or "The Maroon 5 tunes are working exactly as intended in the Johnson & Johnson aisle." Or something like that. Then the store can theoretically pass the savings on to the customer. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Beyond advantages to the store InedibleHulk mentioned, it would seem an advantage to the customer. Rather than having to pull out goods to scan only to put them back in the trolley/box/bag to then take to your car/bicycle/walk, you scan, put them in and then take them directly. Of course thus is counterbalanced by the random checks. I presume the scanner has a running tally so you also don't have to manually enter prices for those who prefer to keep track. Also I can't comment on stores in the UK but definitely most supermarkets here in NZ where these are also used but I haven't seen, have aisles wide enough for two trolleys. So except at real peak times or with careless or inconsiderate people, queing in aisles isn't so much of a problem but it doesn't necessarily take much for there to be a que at the self checkout. Since these it sounds like, eliminate weighing, they reduce this source of problems. The staff time balance may also be in favour. Of course you could remove these without personal scanners, but it sounds like you have to be trusted so it may be a simple way to have two streams while reducing the risk of annoying those untrusted. Nil Einne (talk) 03:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

How do they eliminate weighing ? Are items no longer sold based on weight, or do they all come in pre-weighed packages with appropriate tags affixed ? This last one sounds rather expensive to do, especially for inexpensive produce, like bananas (which here run under 50 cents a pound). If you just sell them based on count, then customers will take the big ones and leave the little ones to rot. StuRat (talk) 05:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

For clarity, by "eliminate weighing" I was referring to weighing of prepackaged items as a security measure which is the norm for most normal self service checkouts. As has been discussed, this is one of the most common causes of errors requiring staff assistance so effectively costing the store money and the customer time. I'm not really sure how items sold by weight are handled, I would guess either these have to be done at checkout or there are machines to handle it around where these items are picked up. Again, while I can't speak for the UK, in NZ these only represent a small percentage of purchases in supermarkets as it's only used for fruit/vegetables and pick and mix items (confectionary, nuts etc). But many people buy their fruit and vegetables at specialised shops because they tend to be cheaper and may be better quality or at least are often more convient (as someone may shop at a supermarket once per week, but depending on requirements may find it better to get these items more frequently). Meat and deli items are also often sold by weight, but for hygeine and related reasons, these are handled and weighed by staff. Nil Einne (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

In my local ASDA, which has a self-service bunch of machines, if I buy alcohol, it says I need to wait for assistance, just to verify my age and whilst waiting I put everything into my backpack (I don't use their bags because they fall apart if you put too much heavy stuff in). No-one ever checks what I have bought (or put in my backpack - there's a computer in there, there's an iPad, and all sorts of stuff which I brought with me before entering the supermarket), so, yes, I can understand the OP's premise. It would indeed be easy to steal from there (though I never did, of course). KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 05:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I like the self-checkout, and use it at stores where it is available. There is often less of a wait than in the staffed checkouts. I bag the items more efficiently that some of the baggers, who often put one or two items in each bag. One challenging thing is finding the PLU (price lookup) code for some of the produce, since it may be alphabetized oddly (celery might be "organic celery" or "celery). If someone were a dedicated cheat, they might determine high value and low value items of the same weight, and do a switcheroo after scanning the cheap item, then drop the very pricey item into the bag, followed by the cheap item.A checker seeing 10 cans of the same thing often drops them into the bag, and scans a single can 10 times. The dedicated thief might also enter a PLU code for a cheaper item than the untagged produce in a plastic bag, since organic produce costs more than ordinary, or colored bell peppers cost more than green ones. or red cabbage costs more than green cabbage). Stores encourage checkers to check the bottom of the basket to make sure no merchandise was accidentally left there and not rung up, so a self-checker might "forget" there was merchandise in the shopping cart which did not get scanned. If store security spotted this on the inevitable security cameras, they might prosecute. It is no better than shoplifting. Edison (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

In the UK, every product has a bar code, so we don't have to type anything in. It's quite feasible (if you were to do it) to just scan a few items, and then put the rest in your bag, at least in my local ASDA. The staff are hardly ever there anyway. If it's food items or magazines, books, or whatever from the ground floor, there are no security tags, so you can go through the security scanners at the door without anyone being any the wiser. From upstairs it's different, because that's where all the 'valuable' stuff is - i.e. stuff that won't get thrown away after a day or two by the supermarket itself (clothes, computers, etc.). KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 02:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I seem to recall reading an article (though I can't recall where, possibly "The Banker") that presented error statistics for self-checkout machines: approximately 5% of self-scanned checkout totals are wrong, and this has been consistent for several years. I don't recall any mention of whether the balance was in favour of or against the customer; only that about 5% are in error. (If anyone can provide the correct reference to this, I'd be very interested to see it. I think it was in the sort of magazine that gets left around in investment bank meeting rooms (don't ask!).) Personally, I don't fancy those odds! RomanSpa (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Preparing potatoes in Ireland the 1840's.

According to Irish potato famine people ate almost exclusively potatoes to the point that "men could eat 60 potatoes, women 40, and children 25".

Are there any records on how they prepared them? Did they just eat boiled potatoes every day? Or did they have any interesting recipes to add variety? Ariel. (talk) 06:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting recipes would require interesting ingredients, which, unfortunately, they couldn't afford. I imagine some kind of gravy would be about the most they could typically manage. If the woman of the house happened to work as a cook for a English lord, then perhaps she could take home the scrapings from the pan after cooking meat and could then make gravy from that. StuRat (talk) 06:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a very good point, StuRat. I expect that those who had run out of the usual source of meat instead garnished their tatties with a piece of nutritious and tasty peat or some pond weed. Other European peasant societies might make use of the plentiful fish around their coasts - salted cod and pickled herring, for example, mackerel and shellfish in season (which added to potato to make fish cakes) - chicken and pigs - milk and the occasional piece of beef - fruit from an occasional tree and berries from bushes - rabbit, both domestic and wild - goat and mutton (that staple of Irish stew and shepherd's pie) - cabbage and neeps - minced offal, sometimes bulked up with oatmeal - potages, porrages, and soups - but the Irish, with their mystic devotion to the potato (which was conflated with their adoration of the Virgin Mary - known locally as 'Our Lady of the Potato') preferred to eat only the potato, exclusively and au naturel. Indeed, it is not widely appreciated that any attempt to adorn the potato with additional ingredients was deemed a form of heresy and would bring down the righteous wrath of their neighbours, including furious denunciations from the pulpit and ostracism, for getting above themselves and adding 'filthy foreign muck' to the wholesome Irish potato; the one exception being on New Year's Day, when it was traditional to offer callers at one's hovel a potato matched with a piece of coal to eat. By coincidence, this anniversary is shortly upon us, and I sincerely hope that all contributors to this page will join me in eating a potato and some coal 'for auld lang syne'. 178.42.169.226 (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

^{irony alert!} --TammyMoet (talk) 12:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I once saw a documentary (I'm in the UK but can't remember which channel showed it) which showed that the Irish people would leave the potatoes in their skins in the embers of the house fire all day, and when they came home they would just eat them with their hands. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

(ec) The above post, while sarcastic, does give you an idea of what else was available. Irish stew, champ, colcannon and boxty pancakes are well known Irish potato dishes. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I think our article explains much of the problem -- that great quantities of other food were continually being seized by the landlords the English had put over the island, and exported even at the height of the famine. The intention of this was not particularly clandestine. The potato was an efficient crop to grow on small land holdings. But I think the article omits that it also had a unique advantage, that it could be left in the ground rather than being harvested. A family that diligently takes in a good crop of grain would only have been asking to have it taken away at gunpoint by the landlord's middlemen at their pleasure, but one with a crop of potatoes might have left them to dig them out of the frosty ground on their own. Wnt (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, potatoes then, as now, weren't worth much, making it not practical to seize them and try to export them. If a more valuable crop was buried underground, like truffles, then it might have been worth the effort. StuRat (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Truffles??? WTF? Alansplodge (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, truffles. WTF is the "WTF" about ? StuRat (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

a) You can't cultivate truffles - they're gathered by trained animals from woodland b) We're discussing the Irish Famine; "about three million extra acres of grain would have been needed annually to meet the food shortfall caused by the blight" [1] so a few truffles aren't going to help. I usually accept your meanderings with good humour, but it's a valid question about a serious issue. Please try to say something that could be remotely helpful. Alansplodge (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@Alansplodge.Fallacy alarm bell rings. Just because one editor here doesn’t know how to cultivate truffles doesn’t mean that no-one else does.--Aspro (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I never proposed that truffles be used to cure the Irish famine. Truffles were my example of a valuable buried food source, that, if it existed in the same quantities as potatoes, would indeed have been stolen by the English. Thus my point that it's not only the fact that potatoes were buried that made them safe from theft, but that, along with their low value for export, which kept them safe. StuRat (talk) 05:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, but clarity wasn't a strong point of your post. I still think that you're over simplifying a complex issue. Alansplodge (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Note that "WTF" isn't exactly clear in meaning. :-) StuRat (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Professor Kevin Whelan says the Irish farm labourers added milk (presumably in mash) when they could afford it - see Prelude to Famine: The Potato. The rest of that site is worth a read, since the Famine was a more complex problem than just a potato disease and greedy Anglo Irish landlords, although both of those loomed large in the equation. Alansplodge (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Getting back to the original question, not to say the real world, the estimated daily consumption of potatoes sounds to me absurd; every day Paddy and Colleen, together with their wee bairns Seamus and Maureen, would apparently consume a sack of spuds between them. No wonder there was a potato famine - there simply weren't enough to go around: the problem wasn't bight, according to this analysis, it was greed.

The usual fare for the English Victorian working poor was bread (in huge quantities) and oysters (read Dickens as evidence of this latter point). Many of the foods we think of as luxuries, through scarcity, today, such as salmon, were relatively common at the time. A rural, peasant, society, would have shared, bartered, and traded within itself. As a rural society, it would have had better access to food than the urban poor.

I can think of no country that has misused its historical record to support its nationalist agenda more than Ireland. It makes little sense to denigrate 'the baddies' as 'the English' because the two 'races' are genetically indistinguishable and, anyway, the two countries were politically joined at the time. It is noticeable that the article on 'The Potato Famine' is locked and the subject of special measures, which hardly inspires confidence. By far the best book on the subject is The Irish Famine, and the talk page of that article graphically exposes the nonsense spouted about this undoubted tragedy, which is ill-served on Wikipedia. 178.42.126.148 (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course the Irish ate lots of potatoes, having nothing else to eat. The book you reference denies that Ireland was a net exporter of food during the famine, but there's also the issue of the Irish having been pushed into an all-potato diet prior to the famine, setting the stage. And saying they were politically joined seems rather silly, in that the English had conquered the Irish, and treated them as conquered people. StuRat (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, while not wishing to denigrate the extent of the tragedy of the famine, Ireland has a large coastline and access to fisheries. The idea that Irishmen willingly would prefer to ignore this source of food in favour of eating potatoes, and starving when they were unavailable, is simply wrong. Secondly, Toibin's book makes other points, and is primarily about the abusage of the famine as a nationalist fable. Thirdly, 'the English' did not conquer the Irish; the conquest was by the Normans, led by the first of the Plantagenets, a man who did not even speak English. This was, in any case, 700 years beforehand; by the time of the famine, Ireland was an equal member of the United Kingdom with an independent judiciary. It might have been a harsh life at the bottom of the pile, but it was not the existence of a West Indian slave or American Indian. 178.42.84.232 (talk) 10:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Fishing: Did the average Irish man own a fishing boat ? Were they allowed to fish and keep their catch without paying fees (which they likely couldn't afford) ? Were the coastal waters depleted of edible species ?

Since the Normans had previously conquered England, they blended with and became "the English". Your argument is a bit like saying "American Indians were not abused by Americans, because those 'Americans' were in fact European". There were no doubt some Indian fighters who didn't speak English either. Also, see Cromwellian conquest of Ireland for the more recent an unambiguous conquest of Ireland by England.

The Irish were by no means treated as equals. Theoretical legal equality does not mean actual equality. For example, blacks have theoretical legal equality in the US, but this doesn't seem to prevent white police officers from killing them with impunity. StuRat (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You seem to think that the entire population of Ireland in the early 1840s was composed of cotters tyranised by despotic English landlords, which is far from the case; notable Irishmen included Bernardo O'Higgins, the Duke of Wellington, and his brother (a notable Governor-General of India), Jonathan Swift, and Edmund Burke, all of whom rose on their merits.

The Normans apparently interbred with the extant English population such that within 100 years of the conquest they were indistinguishable; yet 700 years after the Norman (or English, as you have it) invasion of Ireland, no such inter-marriage had taken place between the foreign invader and the noble, long-suffering Irish. 83.28.205.18 (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

There was no meaningful valid "racial" difference, but unfortunately for you, there was glaring and obvious contrast between a large bloc of impoverished Catholic peasants vs. those with governing authority, who were mostly Protestant and/or originating outside Ireland. Extremely few impoverished Catholic peasants could "rise on their merits" to become part of the governing authority, unless they were prepared to renounce their Catholicism and become part of the system which kept the other impoverished Catholic peasants down... AnonMoos (talk) 13:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The difference between us is that I am arguing on the historical facts and you are arguing on your beliefs. At least the Scots admit that those responsible for the Clearances were other Scots, whereas you seem to believe that being Protestant or 'originating outside Ireland' some 700 years previously in some peculiar way disqualifies one from being Irish. There is a name for beliefs of this sort. By way of contrast, the first president of Ireland had the distinctly un-Irish name of de Valera, and, despite having ceremoniously demolished a statue to one Englishman, the Irish have erected another to an Irishman of distinctly dubious antecedants. 83.28.205.18 (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

What "facts" ? Do you have proof that the income distribution between Catholics and Protestants was equal then in Ireland ? How about that those of 100% Irish ancestry had an equal income with those of English/Norman ancestry ? StuRat (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

This really is a fatuous conversation. If I were to determine the mean income between three different types of American - African-American, Native-American, and Jewish-American - I might draw all sorts of wrong-headed conclusions. Am I to say that the Native-Americans have been economically exploited by the Jewish-Americans, because that is what the bare figures would show? And why can't someone be both Protestant and Irish? It was quite possible prior to Irish independence, at which point the Irish state defined itself as Catholic and somehow different from and opposed to the English; de Valera commissioned his official history of the famine to buttress this nationalistic nonsense. Toibin has good fun with it in his book, noting how the historian claimed to have left his notes in a taxi.

All states have their nationalistic foundation myths, whether the American War of Independence or the Battle of Britain, lauding their own exceptionalism and defining themselves in opposition to their neighbours. 83.28.205.18 (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any facts there, just a bunch of random assertions designed to confuse the issue. StuRat (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

There's actually a whole sorry side to this that you are just discovering: the Irish were growing high-yield, low-nutrient varieties of potato with a lot of water and less starch for calories than a more sensible variety. This is where some philanthropists actually had a chance of doing some good, and tried to, but it's hard to persuade people to switch to lower-yield crops they have less experience with. So the reason the Irish ate such quantities of potatoes isn't just that they were nearly their only reliable food source, and they were engaged in manual labour, but also because the potatoes were so nutritionally poor that a person had to eat quantities of them to get enough calories to live. 86.156.148.98 (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I doubt it. 178.42.84.232 (talk) 10:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

That's nice. Irish lumper. 86.157.27.87 (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I still doubt it. 83.28.205.18 (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

178.42.126.148 -- I'm not entirely sure what you're complaining about. Serious people do not claim that those in authority in Ireland then were uniformly a bunch of stereotypical melodrama villains in black capes twirling their mustachios. However it is a fact that the population of Ireland decreased by over 20% during the 1841-1851 decade (while the population of the other components of the UK increased). Also, many officials in Ireland didn't take broad effective action to match the scope of the crisis because of their rigid adherence to all the Scroogesque Victorian "political economy" shibboleths (such as the contrast between the deserving vs. the undeserving poor, the "pauperizing" effects of direct charity, the idea that the best-off man on relief always had to be worse off than the worst-off employed worker, or otherwise poor people would immediately resign employment en masse to live on relief etc. etc. ad nauseam). And the British conspicuously failed to take several symbolic steps (such as temporarily banning food exports from Ireland), which might not have had a large impact on the overall situation, but which could have reassured people that the British were taking the situation seriously and had the best interests of the Irish at heart (and whose refusal had an opposite embittering effect). Taking all this into account, it's hard to refute the idea that if overall the British had really cared about the Irish, then they would not have allowed inflexible adherence to a narrow economic ideology to override basic humanity and common sense as often as they did... AnonMoos (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

You ignore the fact that I am trying to make that, at least at this period, Ireland was politically as wuell as geographically part of Britain. Therefore, it is misleading to refer to the different parties as 'Irish' (subtext: suffering and downtrodden) and 'British' (synonymous with 'English', subtext: uncaring and cruel), which has more to do with de Valera's use of the famine as a creation myth of Irish nationalism than historical reality. It would also be more realistic to cite Malthus instead of Scrooge. Nor were 'the British' uncharitable; having already banned slavery within the Empire, Britain was moving towards the much more difficult (and expensive) policy of banning the slave trade worldwide. There was a limit, however, to the scope of the early modern state, especially one such as Britain which was, then as now, effectively funded entirely by England. Had the famine occurred 30 years later, it would have met a much more effective response. 178.42.84.232 (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Whatever -- it's quite useless to ignore that in 1845, Catholics most of whose ancestors had been living in Ireland for generations made up the great majority of the population of Ireland, yet had very little political or economic power overall. It's disingenuous to try to cover up this basic reality by quibbling over terminology. Protestants and those with proximate origins outside of Ireland had managed to arrange things so that they had the greatest power -- and therefore they also had the greatest responsibility at that time. The British with authority in Ireland were by no means uniformly cruel, but unfortunately too many of them allowed disdainful attitudes and blind dogmatic devotion to rigid economic ideology to keep them from doing all that they could have done. AnonMoos (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The fact that they were Catholic had nothing to do with the treatment that they received; Catholics were emancipated by this point; able to vote, own property, hold public positions (including join the army), had freedom of assembly and religion, and equality under the law. The British Empire, particularly in India, ruled all sorts of different heathens and upheld their religious rights (excepting thugee and suttee) with equanimity.

The proximate cause of the potato famine in Ireland was over-population, subsisting on poor quality land. We can contrast the situation in Ireland with that in Scotland, where the bight also caused starvation deaths, although much reduced because much of the land had already been depopulated due to the process known as the Highland Clearances. Had that process not occurred, Scottish deaths might have been comparable to Irish deaths. The process of famine relief in Scotland was similar to that adopted in Ireland - ie. a form of workfare - and, importantly, included roadmaking - previously, often proper roads had not existed, making any form of large-scale overland transport at best extremely difficult. In both countries, land which previously supported whole communities is nowadays considered of such poor quality that it is not even cultivated.

Of course, had landlords instituted a process of land improvement in Ireland comparable to the Clearances 'the English' would nowadays be damned for breaking up settled communities and forcing them to emigrate. 95.49.217.160 (talk) 08:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

First off, according to the most correct definitions, Ireland was NOT part of "Britain", but was actually part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland -- so there's absolutely no contradiction or paradox in contrasting "Irish" vs. "British". And it's true that in the 1840s there were fewer laws with explicit overt anti-Catholic provisions than before 1829 (though Catholic peasants still had to pay tithes to support Protestant clergy, since the disestablishment of the Church of Ireland didn't occur until 1869). However, that did almost nothing to change the fact that the majority of Catholics were impoverished tenant farmers -- which was not an accident, but a direct result of 17th-century wars and turmoils and subsequent anti-Catholic and pro-landlord policies (see Act of Settlement 1662 etc.). I really don't see the point of trying to compare Ireland to Scotland. Ireland's population plunged from 1841-1851 and in fact consistently declined for a solid century (from the 1840s to WW2). Scotland no doubt had problems of its own, but its population kept increasing during that period. I've never heard Scottish nationalists praise the highland clearances, and it might be argued that Scottish highland clearances and Irish oppressive landlordism had in common that social arrangements and economic systems were radically re-shaped to fit the preferences of a small aristocratic elite, without much consideration of the interests of the majority of the pre-existing population of those areas... AnonMoos (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, a fair amount of the "roadmaking" in famine-era Ireland was a farce -- weakened men who could barely lift a shovel being made to stand around and pretty much pretend to do work as a condition of being given aid, because those who were giving out the aid had a rigid inflexible dogmatic belief in all the Scroogesque Victorian "political economy" shibboleths (to some, it seemed to be more important to guard against the supposed "pauperizing" effect of charity, and to allow no exceptions whatsoever to the principle that the best-off man on relief always had to be worse off than the worst-off employed worker, than to simply give food to people who were not too far off from starving to death...). AnonMoos (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, Ireland was and is part of the British Isles. At the time of the famine, it was governed by the British parliament, including Irish MPs and peers. You point is semantic nit-picking. Secondly, the reason for the over-population at the time of the famine was that Ireland had been governed well; there were no wars and the economy had grown such that an increased population could be supported. The alternative situation would have been that the increase in population would have instead died in infancy or war, unnoticed by posterity. Thirdly, post famine, Ireland's population declined because of Irish emigration - thirty years of the period you mention when it was independent and labouring under de Valera's twin policies of Protestant ethnic cleansing and a Brezhnev-like period of cultural and economic stagnation - and most of which can be explained by urbanisation and economic opportunism rather than 'British oppression'; many Irish emigrants traveling to Glasgow, Liverpool, and London; the Irish navvies, of course, building the railways, and the British army continuing to recruit in Ireland. Finally, the requirement to pay tithes also affected non-conformists, such as Methodists and Quakers, and was not unique to Ireland; English Methodists, for example, were required to pay them as well.

Ireland never had a proper agricultural revolution like England or Scotland, the effects of which were brutally uncomfortable in both countries. Although nowadays right-minded people such as yourself deplore the Clearances, there were those who recognised its necessity, erecting statues to its proponents. Today, both Scotland and Ireland continue to suffer rural depopulation for the simple reason that not many people want to live a dog's life farming marginal land, reliant on mean subsidies, and being patronised by politicians. As far as I can tell, the roads built as famine relief measures remain in use today, albeit tarmacked, so some worthwhile work must have been done at the time that they were built. 95.49.217.160 (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

"Well-governed" for whom? If pre-1848 Ireland was "well-governed" for the benefit of mainly absentee landlords, then it could be simultaneously rather poorly governed for the benefit of the majority of the population. And you seem to be more obsessed with Scottish highland clearances than I am, but it would appear that the pre-20th century "agricultural revolutions" in England and Scotland were largely based on organizing the countryside for the exclusive benefit of a small elite, while the majority of the previous population was either reduced to the status of landless labourers, or driven out of the countryside to emigrate, to the cities, or to industrial areas to become workers in rising factories. AnonMoos (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Michael Pollan's in his book Botany of Desire explained that most Irish just ate potatoes rudimentally and supplemented it with milk for all the nutritent they needed. see here--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Classification of art collections

I'm trying to populate a new category - Category:Art collections - which has two main subcategories: Category:Public art collections and Category:Private art collections. I'm unclear as to the distinction between the two. For example, the Arundel collection is classified as private; it was originally amassed by an individual, but is now in an Oxford museum. So just what are the criteria for public collections? Collections that are owned by some level of government? By university museums? By privately owned museums which are open to the general public? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, the Arundel marbles (which you linked to) is in the category for former private collections not simply private collections, and has been for a long time [2]. I'm not sure why the redirect Arundel collection (which you didn't link to even if it was the text you displayed), is in any category like that, but it probably shouldn't be (since it's a redirect) so I've removed it [3]. Nil Einne (talk) 13:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Sexual Offences in England & Wales

I am currently comparing section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape) with section 9 (sexual activity with a child) and am struggling to see why a person would be charged with s9 instead of s1 in the case that the offender penetrates the victim with his penis. In this case, where lies the distinction between this offence and rape? Is this just meant to cover the case where the prosecution feels that the actions committed amount to an offence that is less severe than rape? This could occur, for example, in the case whereby the offender is an 18 year old male, the victim is a 15 year old female, they have had penetrative vaginal intercourse, and the victim is deemed to have been 'willing'. This is rather specific though.

I have looked on the CPS's website but can't see any information that sheds any light on the matter. Does anyone know the raison d'etre of this offence? Thanks for your help. asyndeton talk 22:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Section 9 covers non-penetrative sexual activity (such as mutual masturbation), in addition to penetrative sexual activity. Section 1 only covers non-consensual penetrative sexual activity. In the case you posit, the offender could be charged with rape under Section 1 if the activity was non-consensual, rape under Section 5 if the child was under 13 and the activity was consensual (the term "statutory rape" isn't used in the Act, but this is the section that creates such an offence in English law), or sexual activity with a child under Section 9 if the child was aged between 13 and 16 and the activity was consensual. See Sexual Offences Act 2003. Tevildo (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

See Sexual Offences Act 2003 for the content. It seems to me that the difference is that for Section 1, it needs to be proved that there was no consent, whereas in Section 9, consent or no consent is irrelevant. But then I'm not a lawyer. Alansplodge (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

But person B has to be under 16 for section 9 to be applicable, so they are unable to consent (age of consent in E&W is 16), so that's not an issue. The reason I said 'willing' in the above example was to indicate that the 15 year old was happy for the intercourse to take place, despite the fact that the law does not recognise her consent (I have amended my original question to introduce genders to the characters). [It's also worth noting at this point that a person who is under 16 but is 13 or over cannot consent to sexual intercourse, but I believe that they can 'voluntarily agree' to such activities.] asyndeton talk 23:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

No, this was the position under the Sexual Offences Act 1956, going back to R v Prince and the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, but Sections 5 and 9 were introduced so that "ability to consent" (and similar concepts) were no longer relevant - all that matters is the age of the child. Section 74 of the 2003 act states: "[A] person consents if he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice", with no additional age-related elements. ("Capacity" isn't defined, and I don't know of any cases where the issue has come up, as such cases will be charged under Section 9 or Section 5 rather than Section 1). See Age of consent, and, as Alan has mentioned, be aware that we are not lawyers and cannot give definitive advice. Tevildo (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Whilst I am not rejecting what you say, I am going to quote from Blackstone's Handbook for Policing Students 2014 (section 17.7, page 372 if you have access to a copy).

"Consent cannot be given until a person reaches the age of 16 years. The issue of consent does not apply if the child is under 13 years of age: such a person cannot legally give consent. However, the law considers that there is a possibility that children aged 13 to 15 might have 'voluntarily agreed' to sexual activities with other children or young people, provided there was no use of coercion or corruption. In these circumstances, a prosecution is not always considered to be in the public interest."

How does this work in tandem with what you have posted above? Does it depend on the exact interpretation of 'young people', which is a self-evidently vague term? I originally thought that this would specifically refer to persons above the age of consent but not significantly so, such as 17 year olds. This link is also referred to in the text as being relevant to the discussion, but I cannot find a specific reference to the case at hand, rather the slightly more vague discussion in the final paragraph of Youths (though perhaps this vagueness is intentional, and all encompassing).

And, addressing your final point, I worked under the, perhaps tenuous, assumption that capacity in section 74 would be held to encompass the person being above the age of consent. I take it, though, that it should be interpreted in a colloquial rather than legal sense? asyndeton talk 00:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

[I've taken the liberty of reformatting your link so that it displays properly]. This is how I would interpret the handbook - again, bear in mind that this question can only be definitively answered by a lawyer (or a law teacher). I would add "effectively" to the first sentence to clarify it ("Consent cannot be given effectively"). Even if a person between 13 and 16 consents to sexual activity, it's still illegal, although it's not rape under Section 1. The last sentence (and the link you mention) refers to the excercise of the DPP's discretion not to prosecute, even though an offence has been committed. (There was a case a couple of years back where such a prosecution did take place (BBC article), but the children in question were all under 13.) On the "capacity" issue, this really is a question for a lawyer (or a judge). "Capacity" _might_ be as defined in the Mental Capacity Act 2005, but this is an incredibly big "might" for the Reference Desk. Tevildo (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, I think that's cleared up what I wanted to know. Thanks. asyndeton talk 01:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I am afraid I have misled you; I am not quite done. You say that sexual activity with a person between 13 and 16 years old is not rape despite being illegal. Suppose the person they engage in this activity with is also between 13 and 16. What offence is this? Would it be a section 4? What about if the other person is 16 or 17? Section 4 again? asyndeton talk 01:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Section 4 covers non-consensual sexual activity where the perpetrator isn't physically involved, such as coercing or deceiving someone into masturbation, or forcing two people, (at least) one of whom doesn't consent, to have sex with each other. Consensual sex between two people, only one of whom is between 13 and 16, is a Section 9 offence. Unlike in some other jurisdictions, there's no element of age difference involved - the older person could be 15, 18, or 60, but the offence is the same. The age difference would be an element in the "public interest" test for discontinuing the prosecution, and (possibly) an aggravating or mitigating factor when it came to sentence, but it doesn't affect the offence. Non-consensual sex between two 15-year-olds is Section 1 rape. Tevildo (talk) 01:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure? This link says that a Section 9 offence is only for perpetrators aged 18 or over. asyndeton talk 01:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right. Section 13 extends Section 9 to persons under 18. I've amended my answer accordingly. Consensual sex between a 17-year-old and a 15-year-old, or two 15-year-olds, is a Section 13 offence, consensual sex between an 18-year-old and a 15-year-old is a Section 9 offence. Tevildo (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Brilliant. Thank you for all your help! asyndeton talk 02:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

(EC) I don't know much about E&W law, but it sounds to me like the Handbook for Policing Students 2014 is intended to be a guide to the law for certain people which hopefully reflects the law, but isn't the actual law or regulations of E&W. The issue of consent seems a decent summary of even the 2003 law even if the wording may not totally follow the law. Regardless of whether or not people under the age of 16 can technically consent, it's an offence to have sex with them so the issue of consent is largely moot. Also even if someone below 16 can be said to lack the capacity to consent, it would seem to be an unnecessary and risky legal avenue to pursue if it isn't explicitly defined in law, when there are already other explicit offences which avoid the issue. It seems to be something more likely to come up when the person is chronologically above the age of 16, but may still be said to lack the capacity to consent due to intellectual disability. (Presumomg there isn't something that already deals with this.) BTW, section 75 and to some extent 76 goes in to issues that may come up relating to consent. Nil Einne (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. You're right in the observation you make in your first sentence; I am, ultimately, more concerned with the real life and practical applications of the law than I am with the law itself. asyndeton talk 01:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

[4] (Currency exchange rate stability)

Why are there (2 day) long periods of stability between (7 days) long periods of instability?174.3.125.23 (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

If you're talking about a pattern, having a regular period of instability would actually be remarkably stable, on the whole. Doesn't seem to be happening here. Currency markets fluctuate for a few reasons. If you're wondering about the December dips in particular, Russia's economy had a bad November.

Also, that's a terrible section header. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I added to it to make it actually useful as a title. StuRat (talk) 00:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Forex is open 24h. The pattern that I pointed out implies that the currency fluctuates during 5 days a week. The graph indicates that it fluctuates during the Russian work week. This implies that the currency exchanges are open on regular office office hours. This further implies that the currency is fluctuating largely due to the Russian population.

Is this correct?174.3.125.23 (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The 2 days of stability are simply Saturdays and Sundays, when bankers are not trading, so the price does not change. --147.85.186.6 (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Well that can't be right: Bankers are not the only people who do buy and sell currency.174.3.125.23 (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

They are generally the ones trading the significant amounts, though. Even tourists in Russia exchanging a little shopping money do so less on weekends, when there are fewer places to shop. Tourists from Russia are apparently not so welcome at other countries' kiosks lately. Nobody wanting to buy is worse for confidence than nobody wanting to sell. Even freaking out distant Cambodia, to an extent. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

But every currency can exchange with each other; currencies do not have to exchange through the US dollar before exchanging into the terminal currency.174.3.125.23 (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

True but I don't really get the relevance to any reply here. There are some countries with a different work week, but most do observe the Saturday/Sunday work week and in any case, those with a different week probably still aren't that significant in currency trade. In any case, this question was specifically about the RUB/USD so other currencies don't seem that relevant. I have no particular comment on that currency pairing, but having paid attention to NZD/USD before, I can say the currency reaches stability in the evening UTC of Friday. I guess this is reflective of a few things, the UK or particularly London is a major point for the currency markets and most have likely knocked off work by that time. For New York, another major point, it's still early after noon, but still with everyone else closing down they're probably starting to wind down as well. For NZ, this is tends to be well after most banks are closed so it seems unlikely it's just the local markets. The currency starts to change a bit in the morning NZ time Monday. It does depend I somewhat think on whether there's been anything major to affect the rate. Still it often starts to change well before Monday in the UK, let alone the US. This all suggests both local and intrnational currency markets affect the rate. Trade outside the major markets (like by tourists or even overseas payments/purchases) has little effect on the rate, as has been said they're likely only a tiny percentage of transactions. I'm not really sure how these set their rates anyway, I would guess some of them may not even settle any exchanges until the working week. (I know HSBC Global Transfers do warn against transferring currency during the weekend because of poor rates even if they do allow it.) In special cases, I would presume they will adjust their exchange rate to expected changes coming when trading starts in bulk, but note even if they do do this, it may not be reflected in any rate monitoring service until this happens since these sources may not be getting that information. Of course the Rubble case does illustrate that in extreme cases such small scale non speculative traders may be reluctant to risk such changes even on a day to day basis let alone anything that could happen during the weekend. (Although I suspect the risk of capital controls is as much as concern as volatility.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I woke up today and also want to highlight that the graph indicates stability of 2 day spans between 7 day spans of instability, not 8 hour spans of instability. So I want to highlight this contradicts the information " ... when bankers are not trading ... " that User:147.85.186.6 provides. What do you mean when you say "non speculative traders"?174.3.125.23 (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

And note within the last ~20 hours (31 Dec 2014 15:45 UTC - 1 Jan 2015 15:49 UTC) there has been trapazoidialtrapezoidal movements of the rate. Why?174.3.125.23 (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Or yehuda little Iraq israel

In Israel, Or yehuda, a development town is dubbed as Israel's "Little Iraq" because when it was built the majority of the residents were Iraqi Jews. Is there other places in the nation that has been dubbed as "Little Morocco", "Little Tunisia" and etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.33.36 (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

When you say the nation do you mean other countries? There's some big Iraqi communities in the American Mid-west. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 8 Tevet 5775 23:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems perfectly clear to me that the OP was asking about communities in Israel from places other than Iraq. I don't know the answer though. --ColinFine (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey, some Israelis can have interesting ways of speaking English just because of the way the language works or forgetting a word. Happens, though this fellow is in Canada and hasn't given his background. Anyway, for Israel, the area around HaHagana train station is often called "Little Juba" because of the massive number of South Sudanese refugees who live around the station. As for little Morocco, many of the border towns founded after the State was found were filled with new arrivals to Israel, including about a million Moroccan Mizrahi Jews. So they're quite common throughout Israel. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 9 Tevet 5775 15:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)