Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 January 2

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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.

January 2

NCIS topless protestor

They said she was on every front page in the country. But it looks fake and I can't find reference to it anywhere. Anyone find this image familiar? http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/5784/screenshotgh7.png Pez00 (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It's fiction. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 06:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Look who's talking. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hee.  :) Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 19:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Elevation of Mumbai

Mumbai is listed in List of places on land with elevations below sea level. The Mumbai article mentions that it is just above sea level. I think there may be few small areas which are below sea level, but does it qualify to be included in the list? manya (talk) 06:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not a good place to discuss that. I suggest the talk page for List of places on land with elevations below sea level. SteveBaker (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

Is the course in the golf game in Wii Sports based on any actual course? If not, are the individual holes based on any actual holes? 60.230.124.64 (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

In general, it's much harder for game designers to use real-world locations than it is to invent them - so unless it says specifically that it's some real-world course - I'd be very surprised if it were. SteveBaker (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I heard that the golf courses in Wii Sports were based on golf courses in previous Nintendo golf games. --Mdwyer (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

food nutrition list

I have a list of all foods and their nutrient content (fat, calories etc) in a booklet released by Tesco in October 1988. The booklet lists all types of food that can be bought in each subject, and their nutrition facts i.e. bread subject, lists all types of bread, buns, wholemeal, white etc etc, thus enabling users to purchase the product best for them (such as lowest in fat or sugar etc). Where am I able to find an up to date version of this for all food sold by shops in England? I don't mind either downloading something that I can print and keep or a book to purchase.

Thanks 217.33.214.210 (talk) 13:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, your booklet is likely to be up to date, as far as its contents go; a carrot's makeup isn't likely to have changed in two decades. Still, I'm sure there are lot of things available now that aren't listed in the booklet. You may find the search engine at the United States Department of Agriculture helpful -- they don't have a chart (that I could find during my short glance through the website), but they do appear to have the nutritional information for a plethora of foodstuffs accessible with their search engine. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This google search for nutrition calculator contains dozens of sites that let you enter the name of a food, either a whole food or a processed food item, and find all of the basic nutritional information about them. Again, while its not a chart, it may be even more useful, given the ability to instantly bring up informtion. This site in particular looks pretty useful. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Christianity and Evolution

Which Christian churches or denominations fully accept evolutionary theory? 206.188.60.177 (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It depends on your definition of what it means to fully accept evolutionary theory: if you believe evolutionary theory precludes divine guidance and doesn't allow for the existence of non-corporeal souls (materialism), then not many; if you mean that our creation by God involved descent from simpler organisms over millions of years (theistic evolution), then Roman Catholicism and most in the Anglican church would accept that. See the articles Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church, Relationship between religion and science, Conflict thesis, and Theistic evolution. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You also have to be careful by what you mean by "Christian denominations". Large parts of Christianity believe that individual personal salvation and one's personal relationship with God is absolute; and that it cannot be dictated from above. Many large American denominations do not make such pronouncements from on high regarding matters of conscience, for example many Baptists are not told what to believe by a central governing body, and when they are, there is often schism (see recent split between the Southern Baptist Convention and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship). While there are individual Christians who do not "believe" in evolution, there are many many many Christians who have no problem understanding and accepting the scientific facts of evolution and who also have a personal relationship with God and accept Jesus as their savior. If there exists conflict between those ideas, it is not in anything inherant in either Christianity or Science; rather it is solely a conflict that exists in the individual Christian. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What you seem to be describing is a form of Christianity that doesn't include all or some of the Bible, specifically the bits that contradict scientific understanding. So I suppose we're back to finding the definition of a Christian. If that means ignoring the bits of the Bible that don't fit to a given worldview, then I would have to concede that there are a great many people out there fitting that description!

--Rixxin (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Many Christians (I would go so far as to say most Christians), and many denominations, don't take Genesis 1 as a literal, scientific description of creation, any more than they take Revelation as a literal, scientific description of the future. That isn't "Christianity that doesn't include all or some of the Bible", it's just interpretation. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Roman Catholics tend to fully accept Evolution (in the form of Theistic evolution - or the view that God used evolution to create humanity and life on earth), Pope John Paul 2 said that religious teachings are not contradicted by scientific concepts such as evolution and the big bang.--Apollonius 1236 (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

What if Girl fakes Rape?

Hypothetically, suppose if a man and a woman have sexual intercourse and both parties consent. The next day, just to be a bitch, the woman blackmails the man for money threatening that she will report to the police that he raped her. Assuming that she does, how will the police verify if the sex was forced or consensual? The Ayatollah (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's a difficult situation. On the most basic level, if it's just her word against his, the cops will probably interview both parties, but without actual evidence, there's not a lot they can do -- which is good news when someone is falsely accused, and less so when someone is not. If there's some kind of evidence of a struggle, bruising, etc., it can be a different story -- but even that's not necessarily clear-cut, since some people do enjoy rough sex. That old "innocent until proven guilty" thing goes a long way; if the thing would go to court, the woman (well, her lawyer, but anyway) would have to prove that he raped her. It's not his burden to prove that he didn't. For this purpose, rape kits are usually used by the authorities to gather important physical evidence about the incident, but that often doesn't address consent in any way. Rape convictions are often difficult to get.

Of course, in this situation, getting that conviction might be irrelevant to the blackmailer. If she made enough of a stink and faked injuries, for example, she might manage to get him arrested for rape, or she might simply start telling everyone that he's a rapist. Even if it never went beyond that, the embarrassment might still be something the man would wish to avoid. Generally, though, unless she was really smart about it, it wouldn't be an easy thing for her to pull off... and that kind of a thing could very easily spin out of her control. As far as easy ways of making a buck go, this'd probably be a pretty dumb one. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

There's all sorts of types of evidence that could be used in such a theoretical case:

1) Is the woman bruised ? This is common in rapes.

2) Did anyone see her acting in a "sexual manner" ? If she seductively invited him up to her room in front of witnesses, this would argue against it being rape. Of course, it could still be rape in such a case, but the point is the lack of evidence.

3) Did she report the alleged rape immediately ? It looks highly suspicious when a woman waits until after a break-up or they catch their man with another woman, and only then report a previous rape.

4) Does the man have bruises or scratches from the woman ?

5) How does the accused man act ? Does he say things like "that bitch was asking for it ?" If so, it makes him look rather guilty. StuRat (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, in the case of blackmail, the man could "wear a wire" and get her to admit to blackmail, then she would go to jail, not him:

MAN: "We both know I didn't rape you, so what makes you think you'd be able to convince a jury ?"

WOMAN: "Because I'm a very good actress, as you'll find out if you don't pay me to drop the charges". StuRat (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

no. 2 is ridiculous. Being flirtatious does not indicate that you want to have sex. Signs of struggle are of course more important here, but even those are problematic (presence of them doesn't mean rape, lack of them doesn't mean consensual). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, ridiculous or not, that is precisely the kind of a thing that can influence a jury. (It's one reason why jury trials can be considered problematic. I think our article on the subject puts it very well: "The positive belief about jury trials in the UK and the U.S. contrasts with popular belief in many other nations, in which it is considered bizarre and risky for a person's fate to be put into the hands of untrained laymen." We don't have jury trials here in Finland, and while I'm very familiar with the process as it exists in the United States, I do find it kind of weird.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, point of order: the word "flirt" does mean that, whether the flirter intends to follow through or not. There is a rude word for the ones who don't. Two words, actually. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"flirt: to behave amorously without serious intent" --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm from NZ where we also have jury trials and I too find it weird and problematic and largely agree with your sentiment. Indeed as with a number of Commonwealth realm countries, we have traditionally had a fairly closed system where details of a case and information considered unduly prejudicial are commonly suppressed for the duration of the case so that they don't influence the potential/current jury. Trouble is in the modern internet age this doesn't work very well and while attempts have been made to allieviate this they haven't worked particularly well [1] [2]. There have been several examples where members of a jury have been found with information downloaded from the internet. IMHO, if you want to have a jury, at least do something like they do in some civil law (legal system) countries like France where the jury sits with professional judges who can hopefully reduce the change the jury convicts or acquits because they want to go home, or because they don't like the colour of the person's skin or because they don't understand or don't care about the law or whatever. Nil Einne (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a good thing that the jury can still access info that's "unduly prejudicial". If I was on a rape jury, I'd want to know if the man was accused or raping dozens of women, or if the woman claimed to be raped by other men dozens of times before. Excluding such info from the jury doesn't serve justice, in my opinion. StuRat (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It absolutely does if the man being charged with rape is innocent of this particular crime, and that's where the presumption of innocence comes in. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. If a man has been convicted of raping dozens of different women before, then it is far more likely that he is guilty this time than someone with a clean record. And, even if not guilty this time, such a person should be in jail anyway. StuRat (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You disagree? Really? Are you seriously telling me that if the man being charged with rape did not do it, it's okay to prejudice the jury against him just because he's an asshole? That's a huge can of worms right there, because how do you know he is an asshole? Because of the previous conviction? But how do you know the jury in his previous conviction wasn't also similarly prejudiced by some other means? You don't get to cherry-pick these things.

The thing is, now you're talking about probabilities, not actual guilt. That's a dangerous way of conducting justice, not only because the possibility of a wrongful conviction, but also because it makes it that much more difficult for a criminal to reform and actually become a useful and constructive member of society, or at least someone who's not at threat to others.

And I understand your point, of course. I agree that a guy with a previous record of rape is likely to commit rape again. But I also think that if he did not commit the rape he's being accused of, then getting hit with that excess baggage that makes him look guilty is simply not right -- not only because my sense of justice says that if you didn't commit the crime, you shouldn't be convicted of it, but also because in cases where a rape did occur, but they have the wrong suspect, that means that the actual perpetrator is that much more likely to get away with it.

We're talking about a fundamental principle of justice here. But we're also talking about rape, and I think the issue gets clouded, because rape is a crime that evokes strong emotions. (As it kind of should; it's a thoroughly shitty thing to do to someone.) But in terms of how we conduct justice, a crime is a crime is a crime; we shouldn't be sloppy or less careful about how we go about the trial just because the offense makes us really angry. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You can never know guilt or innocence with 100% certainty, even with a confession or DNA evidence, both of which can be faked. So, then, the object is to determine the probability of guilt with the highest precision possible, and that requires knowledge of the full criminal history of both the accused and accuser. I make no distinction for rape; previous crimes should always be admissible evidence. I would bet that a conviction for the same crime previously is actually a better predictor of guilt than other "evidence", such as a lack of an alibi. Also, you seemed to ask if it's OK to use previous convictions against someone we know is innocent of the current rape charges. Isn't it wrong to use any evidence, such as the testimony of the woman, in such a case, since we know it to be wrong ? StuRat (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a great deal of difference between evidence against the accused for the crime he is being tried for and descriptions of his past crimes. We don't know the evidence is wrong, but we -- or rather, the jury -- supposed to assume that the person in question is innocent of the crime, unless proven otherwise. That is a basic, fundamental tenet of most, if not all, legal systems in the Western world, and it exists to protect the innocent. And it's a pretty good idea, too, precisely because we don't know whether someone is innocent or guilty. Dragging out past deeds or otherwise casting people in a bad light doesn't sound that bad or undeserved when they are actually guilty, but it'd be pretty fucking awful if it happened to someone who simply isn't guilty of the crime they're being charged with. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Before you said we absolutely knew the person was innocent, so in that case would would also absolutely know that all the evidence against them was faulty. If we don't know if they are innocent or not, which is the reality, then all evidence should be admissible. You seem to be saying that the jury can't be trusted to weigh past offenses along with other evidence, to come to a good decision. Note that previous offenses are routinely used to determine the severity of punishment, especially in the cases of three strike laws and probation violations. StuRat (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Of note: similar fact evidence, prior bad acts. Neutrality^talk 23:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I said no such thing, actually. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If you mean you didn't say we knew the person was innocent, you said: "Are you seriously telling me that if the man being charged with rape did not do it, it's okay to prejudice the jury against him just because he's an asshole?". If you mean you didn't say that "juries can't be trusted to weigh past offenses along with other evidence, to come to a good decision", isn't that the whole reason to deny such evidence to the jury ? If you trust the jury to give that evidence the proper weight, then what is your reason to hide it from them ? StuRat (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, I did say that, but it doesn't mean what you think it means. I think you're missing the point. The point of a trial is not to convict someone, but to determine whether someone is guilty. What I was referring to was a situation where a person with prior offenses comparable to the crime in question, in actuality, innocent of the crime he is now being accused of. (If we know what took place to such an extent that there can be no dispute about the events that took place, then there is usually no trial in the first place, because few prosecutors are willing to waste their time like that.) What we're talking about is the principle of the thing; not even about what can be proven, easily or otherwise, but about what actually happened -- which is exactly the case in situations where most of the evidence comes down to one person's word against another's. If the accused didn't do it, then prejudicing the jury against him is a gross misconduct of justice for reasons that I believe should be obvious.

And no, I don't trust juries to give that evidence the proper weight, but then, I find it -- and I quote again our article on the topic -- "bizarre and risky for a person's fate to be put into the hands of untrained laymen". Which is not to say that some juries aren't more than capable of dealing with things like this, mind you, but it's not as if the process of jury selection, at least as practiced in the United States, is designed to produce completely unbiased and intelligent juries; rather, both the prosecution and defense attempt to remove bias against their argument while hoping to bolster bias against their opponent's. But, honestly, that's a separate issue; I'm talking about the principle of assumption of innocence until proven guilty.

And I don't want to argue here! That's not what I'm trying to do, but I think I'm explaining myself badly here, because you don't seem to quite get what I'm getting at. I mean, if you understand my point and disagree, that's fine. Let me put it this way: if you'd committed a crime in your past but then changed your ways, and then suddenly ended up accused of that crime again even though you are innocent, would it be fair to tell the people who have to decide whether you're guilty that you used to do the same thing? And bear in mind that I'm not talking about probabilities here. If you're facing a prison sentence for a crime you didn't do, getting convicted because it's statistically more likely that you're guilty doesn't strike me as justice. Proving that you didn't do something can be a challenge, as proving a negative often is. That's why the prosecution is expected to prove that the accused did, in fact, commit the crime. And yes, absolutely, this means that guilty men sometimes walk, but the principle is that it is considered to be preferable to innocent men being convicted of things they didn't do. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

But aren't all convictions or acquitals really based on probabilities ? That is, while alibis, passing lie detector tests, etc., decreases the probability that the accused is guilty; eyewitnesses, positive DNA evidence, and confessions increase the chances. In this context, previous criminal records of both the accused and accuser would just be two more factors to figure into the probabilities. The concept that guilt or innocence can be proven absolutely is simply false. Therefore, in order to ensure that no innocent person is ever convicted, you would need to never convict anyone. StuRat (talk) 08:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't claimed that guilt or innocence can be proven absolutely. That's precisely my point: we don't know whether the accused is guilty or innocent, but the system operates on the principle that guilt needs to be proved (beyond a reasonable doubt), but innocence does not. Previous acts on part of the accused are not considered proof that the accused has committed the current crime... which I consider to be a good thing, because, well, it's not actually proof. Not that I'm pretending that the system is somehow perfect, but even though it is certainly an injustice for a guilty man goes free, it's considered to be a greater injustice for an innocent man to be found guilty. Perhaps you disagree. A lot of people do.

Personally, my idea of "justice" is incompatible with innocent people getting convicted of crimes they didn't do, and therefore, in my view, a system that attempts to minimize the chances of that happening is better than one that is willing to risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater. (And yes, it can of course be argued that if someone has previous convictions, then it's no big loss if he gets in trouble again, but I disagree. Not only does that create an incentive to make false accusations, make some people easy targets for blackmail and possibly help the actual offenders escape punishment, but, well... it's not justice. And while I realize that there's a big difference between the ideal and the actual day-to-day proceedings, at least we should try to keep the ideal in play in the principles we employ.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You said "Previous acts on part of the accused are not considered proof that the accused has committed the current crime". But I also argue that nothing is actual proof that the accused has committed the current crime. Confessions can be coerced, DNA evidence can be faked, eyewitnesses can be wrong, etc. I would certainly considered some evidence of previous crimes (like having a record of cutting off the pinkies of victims, when the current victim's pinkies have also been cut off), to be far better evidence of guilt in the current crime than some allowed evidence, like "the accused matches the general description" (when such a description may match 10% of the population). Also note that I would make the criminal record of the accuser available, too, so, if they have a habit of accusing everyone they break up with with rape, that would tend to protect the innocent. Thus, I'd say that having ALL the evidence provided to the jury wouldn't increase the conviction rate, but would ensure that the guilty are more likely to be convicted and the innocent are more likely to go free. StuRat (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if that's what you'd prefer, sure. But I'm explaining the principle that dictates why it isn't done the way you'd like it to be done. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I was looking for something else and came across this. The example you use is rather extreme. A better example, would be if a defendent had commited an armed robbery 20 years ago. It's quite questionable whether that means they're more likely to have commited a recent rape, yet it's likely to significantly negatively affect the minds of the jury about the person. Even if the defendent had a history of brutal and violent armed robberies but never with any sexual element it's quite questionable how much more likely it makes it that they commited a rape (particularly if other aspects of the crime are quite different) yet it's easy to see juries thinking 'he's a bad guy so let's just convict him'. [3]. While I believe the US allows such info on previous crimes to be presented in court more regularly I'm not sure to what extent, I'm somewhat doubtful they'd allow the first example yet it's easy to see it getting significant coverage in a highly public case. Note that as far as I'm aware, it's common in both cases that if the defendent actually testifies in their defence it's more likely the prosecution will be allowed to question them about their crimes (as opposed to them raising it when it had no real relevance to the case and the defendent never testified). Another important consideration is I used the term fairly loseless and not in the legal sense. Information supressed in the media in NZ also usually includes information not presented at trials because it is considered unreliable or whatever. For example, hearsay evidence. This usually won't even be presented in courts in the US yet the media is free to discuss it and if jurors hear about this sort of stuff it's easy to see if influencing them. There's also information excluded because it was coerced or improperly attained. Again likely to be excluded from trials even in the US. If you believe that any of this information should be allowed to be presented at trials that's your right. But the key point is that in NZ (and many of those following the England system) this information is generally suppressed because it isn't going to be presented at trial. It's one thing to say, you want to allow juries to consider this evidence. It's another to encourage juries obtaining information from sources outside the trial where it may be presented in a misleading way or could even be completely bullshit and the defendent's lawyer and the judge can't address it. To use an extreme example, consider the recent Capitol v. Thomas which involved Kiwi Camara who got into controversy at university for language some felt was racist. While it's not really something that I expect would have been suppressed in NZ nor was there wide spread discussion would it really be acceptable for the jury to be negatively influenced against Thomas because they didn't like her lawyer? (If he were involved in the Rodney King case defending the police accused of brutality there would be a very real possibility that the media would have discussed his history extensively and yes I am aware the case happened long before the controversy but that's not the point.) It seems to be if you want to allow juries to consider this evidence, you should be encouraging it to be presented at trials rather then encouraging juries to get their 'evidence' in such dubious ways. Now you might argue for freedom of speech reasons it's a bad idea to allow such things to be supressed but that's neither her nor there since I wasn't so much saying that it's ultimately a good thing but rather explaining why it was done and why I feel it is beneficial (regardless of whether the pros outweight the cons). Nil Einne (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I actually thought of a better extreme example then the above. If for example several of a defendents male relatives (say his father, brother and perhaps an uncle) have been convincted of other completely unrelated rapes but there's no question the defendent was any way aided by them nor that the defendent aided his relatives nor is their any reliable evidence for any psychological problem or whatever which would make the history of this defendents relatives of any relevance. And I'm not aware of any court which will allow such evidence to be presented, I'm not even convinced it will be allowed in civil law (legal system) ones who I believe are usually less restrictive in evidence since they believe professionals can give appropriate weight, e.g. (as mentioned in our article albeit unsourced and I know is the case in Indonesia) they often allow evidence considered hearsay in most common law jurisdictions (although it obviously isn't going to get much weight). Yet I would say it's rather likely being aware of this history of the defendents relatives could be a strong contributing factor in why some of the jurors believe the defendent is guilty (and given the way jury's work, this could be enough even if they don't mention it in the deliberations). And I would hope most people would agree unless there is actually some established connection, the crimes of a defendents relatives should have no influence. Nil Einne (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Gary Dotson was sentenced to 25 to 50 years in prison for rape and 25 to 50 years for kidnapping, apparently based on lies. He was later the first person exonerated by DNA testing and was freed, but served 6 years in prison. If there was consensual sex and the woman later falsely called it rape, DNA would not help. Bruises could be self inflicted or inflicted by a partner in blackmail, after the DNA was collected after the sex. Fox News [4] not my favorite source, but here with a sourced report, says that the percentage of false rape accusations are estimated to range from 41% (men's rights sites) down to 2% (feminist sites, and of scant sourcing). Barry Scheck reports that since 1989, 20% of sexual assault cases referred to the FBI excluded the accused, and 60% matched the primary accused man. If inconclusive tests are included, 40% of the accused men might have left DNA. In some cases a rape might have taken place without DNA from the perpetrator being left. In some of the nonconfirmed cases, there could have been an actual rape but a misidentification. Salon, the polar opposite on the political spectrum of Fox News, discusses false rape accusations done from "revenge for rejection or betrayal" and similarly questions the assertions in recent years that women do not bring false rape accusations. It discusses an alleged rape accusation hoax done to get money from the accused rapist's employer. Salon says men who are falsely accused are "subjected to a long and costly ordeal." Such an accused who has the financial means might choose to pay the money, but it is unclear how he could be sure there would be no additional demands. A scholarly historical discussion of blackmail via rape accusation and the views of U.S. law writers is at "Legal Issues in Child Abuse and Neglect Practice" pp 25-28. Per that chapter, many male law students writing in law reviews only a few years ago in the 1970's asserted that "No, no, no!" really meant "Yes, yes, yes!" Edison (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that the fact the accused is excluded by the FBI, doesn't really prove that the generic rape accusation was false (as opposed to the specifics of who was accused) or that there were any what would normally be considered 'lies' involved. Eyewitness identification is notoriously unreliable regardless of crime and the victim may face a variety of pressures to identify the perpetrator, particularly in the case of rape and if the he's known to be a 'bad guy'. Obviously this doesn't help the person who was incorrectly identified, who can also be considered a victim, but it does mean that just because the alleged perpetrator was not really the perpetrator it doesn't mean a rape didn't happen. In some cases e.g. Gary Dotson or if a person the victim knew well was identified, this is clearly not the case. But from what I've seen, quite a number of these historic cases in the US where the person found guilty was cleared by DNA (or whatever) are cases when it is highly likely a crime did happen (be it rape or whatever). It's also worth noting not all false rape accusations actually identify any specific person [5] [6] and while these cause a variety of problems, they don't cause the personal trauma a person will suffer if they are false accused of rape. Finally while making a false rape accusation is a crime, one of the (number of) problems with prosecuting these is they can often be difficult to prove. In particular, people sometimes say if a jury doesn't find the accused guilty the alleged victim should be prosecuted but this usually doesn't make much sense. In general, if the police felt there was a case worth prosecuting, it's unlikely unless new evidence arose there is sufficient evidence of a false complaint. Note that if the jury finds an accuased not guilty it doesn't mean they believed the victim was lying, it simply means they weren't convinced beyond a resonable doubt th accused was guilty. Nil Einne (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

50% in MBA ??

Who do all the reputed institutions want the graduates to have a minimum of 50% marks in their admission criteria. Is there a way out for the people who are missing it by a few less , maybe compenate it with the numbers of work experience.does the extra experience helps in this regard? as i do not have 50% in my graduation. please help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.36.6 (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Not sure what the grading scale is like where you live, but in the U.S. most graduate programs require a minimum of at least a "B" in your major, and anything less than that will need some 'splainin'. Generally, you know, if its something your interested in as a career, one generally works hard enough to get decent grades in it. I mean, would you want a doctor that only got 50% of the questions right on his final exams working on you? Want a lawyer that only knows 50% of the law? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The "percentage of questions answered correctly" statistic is completely meaningless unless you know how hard the questions are. I had exams as an undergrad where the cutoff score for a grade of A was well under 50%. This was not grade inflation. The questions were just that hard.

I get a little exercised about this notion that there's some inherent meaning to "percentage of right answers" because it seems to imply a "lump of knowledge fallacy", under which many of my students seemed to labor, that the course material was just a bunch of stuff to be memorized, rather than a process by which they could create new knowledge on the spot. --Trovatore (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

A problem with most marking schemes is that they are subjective. The only ones that are objective are those with a right ot wrong answer. i.e. maths. But even there marks can be awarded (in most cases) for the working. So a mark of 50% is simply a benchmark against which to measure a notional success. That said, there has to be a way of sifting learners and the exam-grading-marking schemes are the best method that we have.86.197.45.193 (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)DT

Wow, I've never heard of marks where 50% could be considered an "A". Where I live, in late-elementary and secondary school, 80-100% is A, 70-79% is B, 60-69% is C, 50-59% is D, and anything below that is either "R" or "F". Maybe your marking system is different. ~AH1^(TCU) 15:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

In thr U.S., the process of considering question difficulty in determining a letter grade is called grading on a curve. Getting back to the original question, pleading for a "correction" in your school transcript from administrators, councellors, or teachers who are friendly to you, works more often than you would expect. Phil_burnstein (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

In most UK universities MBA grades are marked as Fail=0-24%, Refer=25-49%, Pass=50-59%, Merit=60-69%, Distinction=70-100%. If you get a refer it means you can resubmit at a later date to gain a pass, but the highest mark you can then achieve is 50%. All marks can be appealed against in most universities, however don't expect that to be a quick process. -- role^player 13:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Legal documents and vanishing ink

I was watching Jonathan Creek last night, and at the end of the show, a contract is produced which was signed in disappearing ink. My question is, would such a contract be binding? -mattbuck (Talk) 19:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The intent is the important thing in contracts. The disappearing ink would leave a trace which could be recovered, so the intent would become known. I'd say that someone who signs a contract in such ink could still be forced to live up to it, yes, and may also be found guilty of fraud for attempting to break a contract in such a way. StuRat (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as verbal agreements in many jurisdictions can carry the force of a signed contract, one signed in "dissapearing ink" would work too. Oh, and it is trivial to be able to recover the signature from the ink. It may not be visible under normal conditions, but it will leave a chemical trace behind which can easily be brought back. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course we cannot provide any legal advice as to whether such a signature in disappearing ink would be binding. Google Book search indicates the book "Attorney's Guide to Document Examination" by Katherine Koppenhaver, Published by Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002, ISBN 1567204708, 9781567204704 on page 153 and following discusses this, although the information is not included in the online sample. Her book "Forensic document examination" disdusses using chemicals to make the disappearing ink visible on page 774. The validity of a contract written in disappearing ink is discussed in an old (1905) book on p 3400 of "A Treatise on the System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law: Including the Statutes and Judicial Decisions of All Jurisdictions of the United States" By John Henry Wigmore, Published by Little, Brown, and company. Edison (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Legal issues aside - disappearing inks seem to depend on chemical reactions that leave a residue - so it seems probable that the reaction could be reversed - perhaps very easily. It's also likely that the text could still be read under UV light or in some other special conditions. A TRUE disappearing ink would have to be some kind of strongly colored chemical that would spontaneously evaporate without leaving a residue...but I can't think of anything like that. A better solution would be one of those Erasermate erasable ballpoint pens that were popular for a while in the 1980's - they used a kind of rubbery ink that could be erased with a pencil eraser. However, there was a lot of fraud associated with them when people who worked in stores would offer their customers erasable ballpoints to sign cheques with - then erase the "Pay to" information and the amount and rewrite it to themselves and for a larger amount. I would imagine it would be easy to pursuade someone to write a contract using one of those pens. However - as our invisible ink article points out - even if you write a message with pure distilled water and wait for the paper to completely dry (so there is none of the original ink present) - the fact that the pressure of writing disturbed the fibres of the paper is enough to allow the writing to be read after exposure to iodine vapor or even prolonged strong sunlight. SteveBaker (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

A few years ago scam artists in the U.S. presented checks to merchants which had been treated with some chemical. perhaps acid, which caused them to turn brown and crumble to illegible pieces in a few hours, before the bank imaged them or presented them for payment. This was more like "disappearing paper." Edison (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft carriers

1) What's the heaviest (in terms of firepower/munitions carried) aircraft that can be launched from any US aircraft carrier that's currently in use (the carriers, not the plane)?

2) Would it be possible for a Wasp class amphibious assault ship to carry and launch F/A-18s and F-35Bs like in the game BF2? I'm sure the F-35B would be possible since it's replacing the Harriers, but what about conventional takeoff/landing craft like the F/A-18? 67.169.118.40 (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the heaviest aircraft would be the Lockheed AC-130 gunship. There were successful experiments where the C-130 variant was used to resupply a carrier underway, so I expect an AC-130 could also take off from a carrier. --Carnildo (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

An F/A-18 needs a catapult to launch safely, although it might be possible to launch one if it's unarmed and lightly fueled, at flank speed (which on an LHD is 10 kts slower than a CV). It would, however, encumber the entire flight deck, and LHD/LHA's don't have jet blast deflectors. Acroterion _(talk) 00:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The usually-quoted max weight for catapult-launched aircraft from a CV is 70,000 lb, the weight of the A-3 Skywarrior. The F-111B was at 70,000 lb and climbing, resulting in its cancellation as a naval aircraft. Carnildo is right, a C-130 was flown from a CV, mainly to prove it could be done, but it isn't a matter of routine - it uses up the whole flight deck, so you can't have a deck park, and you can't fit the whole air wing below in the hangar. Acroterion _(talk) 00:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC).

(indent for separation only) 1) Our article "Aircraft catapult" lists as a reference a magnificent article on catapults. It speaks of an electric catapult in development called EMALS that will be able to "deliver 29 percent more energy than the steam system and be capable of accelerating a 100,000-pound aircraft to better than 150 mph." If we apply the 29% figure to the weight, we get a ballpark present capacity of 77,500 pounds (35,200 kg).

2) No arresting gear (and no catapult). I wouldn't be surprised to see an F-18 get airborne from Wasp with a good headwind and a fervent prayer, but it would have to land somewhere else. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You are looking at the modern equivalent of the Doolittle raid. In 1942, the US launched a one-way mission of 16 B-25 bombers from a carrier to attack Tokyo. the B-25 max weight was 33,000lb. The mission took risks that were insane by modern standards. For a modern-day equivalent, you would try to put a bunch of C-130's aboard a carrier and use JATO units for launch, with effectively no margin for error: any unsuccessful launch result in a lost plane whose crew (we hope) is recovered by the carrier's escorts. The result would be a devastating surprise raid, but you can only do this once. Cruise missles are a better choice. -Arch dude (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Still, the Doolittle raid was very satisfying. Edison (talk) 04:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)