Miscellaneous desk
< November 25	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 27 >

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.

November 26[edit]

National Guard vs Army Reserve[edit]

I have read both respective articles, but I still do not understand. What is the difference between the US Army National Guard and the US Army Reserves? Why would someone choose to join one over the other? Acceptable (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In theory the National Guard is under the control of the several states, and would be called up by a governor rather than by the president, usually in response to natural disaster or civil unrest in the state to which the unit belongs. The reserves, on the other hand, are intended for foreign wars. It's true that the distinction sometimes gets muddied. --Trovatore (talk) 02:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trovatore has the right idea. The National Guard is first and foremost the collective terms for the "state militia"s which are organized and controlled at the state level, but may be "nationalized" into the regular army at times of need. The reserves are a branch of the U.S. Army, generally consisting of semi-retired soldiers who have completed their tours of duty, but still owe committment to the government, or who still wish to draw a paycheck and remain on the rolls, but who hold down other full-time jobs. Reserves may also be "activated" back into the regular army if needed.

The dual-nature of the National Guard is best exemplified in the history of the Little Rock Nine. During desegregation, the Supreme Court ordered Little Rock, Arkansas to integrate Little Rock Central High School. At first, the governor of Arkansas called in the Arkansas National Guard to forceably prevent the students from going to class; President Eisenhower then later nationalized the entire Arkansas National Guard into the regular U.S. Army, explicitly to remove them from the Governor's control; he then deployed the 101st Airborne of the regular army to provide security detail to the 9 students. Welcome to the fun that comes from living in a federal system... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, in case anyone was confused, several in the phrase the several states does not have its usual sense of "at least four, but not so many as 'many' ". It means something more like "the states, considered separately". It's a phrase that occurs in the Constitution, and somehow it pops to mind in discussions like this. --Trovatore (talk) 08:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of training and readiness, which one has the advantage? Acceptable (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Training and readiness for what? For cleaning up after a natural disaster, the National Guard is better-prepared; when it comes to shooting hordes of marauding invaders, the Army is better. --Carnildo (talk) 00:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't confuse terms: you've answered with a contrast between the National Guard and the Army, when the question was about the National Guard vs. the Army Reserve. The active duty Army, the National Guard, and the Army Reserve are three components of the "Army". Unless something has changed recently, the National Guard and the Army Reserve receive their basic training side-by-side with the regular Army. They're all mixed in together. I was a Guardsman in the 1980s, and received no special "natural disaster" training. I was trained to shoot my M16, blow up stuff, and follow orders. —Kevin Myers 15:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

During your time in the Guard, how often were you called on to deal with natural disasters? How often were you called on to shoot people and blow things up? Formal training isn't the only way to learn how to do something. --Carnildo (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

During my time in the Guard, we were never called upon to do any natural disaster work—it was all combat training, with a tiny bit of riot control training—except for one or two guys who were called up to do some plowing in a snowstorm. Obviously in regions where natural disasters are more common, guardsmen see more natural disaster duty, but I would guess that this is still a fraction of their actual experience, and that most of their time is spent in Army training. —Kevin Myers 21:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St.Germain[edit]

Has any one recently claimed to be St.Germain? for those not familiar, he claimed to be the wondering jew, or something, basically hes been alive for 2000 years and was still going strong as st.germain in the 1700's but where is he now? much like the movie millenium man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.145.61 (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For background, see Count of St. Germain. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He makes an appearance in Carlos Ruíz Zafón's novel The Angel's Game (which AFAIK still has not been translated to English) , under the name "Andreas Corelli". --NorwegianBlue^talk 22:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bush compared to Hitler?[edit]

I really think Bush and Hitler are not really alike due to the fact that Hitler was a lot more dictatorship than Bush i'am not saying that Bush is a dictator i know i might afend some people but Bush does have some stuff wrong with america. Anyway I have heard some people refer Bush and Hitler alike so really my question is what do you guys/gals think? Thank You --HeroesOfTheDeep (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't answer opinion questions here. If you have any factual questions about Bush or Hitler we'll be happy to help. Algebraist 03:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay good to know thank you Algebraist. --HeroesOfTheDeep (talk) 03:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll have an apple - thanks for asking. SteveBaker (talk) 03:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean have an apple Steve? and what does a banana have to do with this? --HeroesOfTheDeep (talk) 03:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Munching on a nice piece of fruit* Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve may be alluding to the proverb: You have to believe in something, and I believe I'll have another beer. I prefer cider to beer, so I'll have an apple too. —Tamfang (talk) 08:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you're interested in looking up what people have said in comparing the two erm, leaders, there's this google search result: [1]. @ Steve, do you mean six of one, half a dozen of the other, so to speak? or is it as Tamfang puts it. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A simpler exegesis: Steve was conscientious enough to respond only to the OP's "real" question (note the last line). —Tamfang (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I get it now. Steve must be drawing a subtle association between the cyanide found in the seeds of apples (thus representing Hitler’s chosen method of suicide) and the World Trade Center attacks which of course took place in New York City—the Big Apple. Very clever indeed. Thus a poison becomes a metaphor for the 9/11 attacks. Steve must be pointing out that the attack could also been seen as a poison eating the country from within. Even Steve’s statement “thanks for asking” is a clever postmodern reference to the New York hip-hop group Apsci’s album Thanks for Asking of which Allmusic says “the vocal manifestation of the Big Brother who is watching your every move.” [2] A very clever way to point out that the Bush administration is indeed watching our every move, just like Hitler or Big Brother. You see there are layers and layers of meaning! Brilliant, simply brilliant. --S.dedalus (talk) 10:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ahem... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They both spoke German, except Bush. And they're both alive, except Hitler. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know Bush doesn't speak German? If there's no evidence that he does, that merely shows how effective his agents have been in covering it up. Be seeing you! —Tamfang (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because "Dutch" comes from the German word for "German", doesn't mean that the world's most prominent fluent double Dutch speaker counts as a German speaker. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve's snack lacks salt: Pretzels .. anyone?

They both like dogs! Adam Bishop (talk) 14:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S.dedalus, wow, that was good! 216.239.234.196 (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler killed a hell of a lot more people. But by the time they left office, their popularity rating was about the same. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any basis for comparing Bush to Hitler. After all, Hitler was an excellent public speaker and of at least average intelligence. StuRat (talk) 01:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Granny Smith. Steve's G. Bush apple metaphor is an allusion to the fact that apples grow on trees, which in turn alludes to the fact that trees grow on the ground, which alludes to the fact that George Bush was on the ground when he delivered 100% of his Presidential speeches (scary, I know!), which alludes to the fact that there was a President named Richard Nixon, which alludes to the fact that Nixon will has gray hair, which is a homophone for hare, which is related to the rabbit. A rabbit attacked Jimmy Carter, and a killer rabbit almost killed Sir Lancelot. And therefore, by the transitive property of allusions, George W. Bush is really Freddie Mercury! (because Freddie Mercury died of AIDS and Bush has aides) flaming lawyer^cnever for get 09:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sticky rice[edit]

Give explanation for the sticky rice in terms of chemistry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.88.234 (talk) 10:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read our article on Glutinous rice which has a discussion of the chemistry of its stickiness. Cheers! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

point of view[edit]

I have seen people living their lives being very logical,somewhere ignoring the sensitivity or attachment .They are not interested,as for them life is to enjoy confined to themselves and their friends...

how do you all express this as???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.17.143.13 (talk) 11:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stoicism? Chemical Weathering (talk) 12:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suffering from an autism spectrum disorder?--droptone (talk) 13:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's really 2 separate positions here: firstly that of approaching life rationally, and secondly that of seeking pleasure for yourself and family. There's no necessary link between rationalism and pleasure, and most moral philosophers seek to live rationally though they differ widely as to what that means (e.g. you may decide that since the purpose of life is to reproduce, the most rational thing is to reproduce as widely as possible, without any thought of happiness). Many philosophers have decided that the most rational way of living is to enjoy a modest amount of pleasure (since too much pleasure now leads to misery later): Aristotelian ethics and Epicureanism are ancient systems; some versions of moderate Hedonism and of utilitarianism are modern equivalents. I'm not sure if this is the belief referred to, or if the question means something more extreme.

Living in a very logical fashion, believing that reason is more important than emotion, is sometimes called hyper-rationality or hyper-rationalism (and is usually intended as an insult). It is a common view of human nature in economics: see Rational choice theory, Homo economicus. Ayn Rand is the moral philosopher most closely associated with this view (or most usually subject to this insult): see rational egoism, Objectivism (Ayn Rand) - but note that Rand uses the word objectivism in a non-standard way. For other manifestations, see Scientism (a word of varying meanings, but often used as a similar insult), as well as Stoicism and its early Christian equivalent, Boethius's Consolation of Philosophy. Probably a reference to Mr Spock is the most usual way of describing the attitude. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 13:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would respond, but this question is illogical and does not compute. StuRat (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that i know, rationality is not the absence of sensitivity.rather a part of it, or one is paying too high a price for itVikram79 (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People Bank of China 27 basis point rates changes.[edit]

People Bank of China adjusts the interest rate for the Chinese economy in 27 basis point (0.27%)increments. All the other nations central banks adjust rate in 25 basis point(0.25%) increments. Why is 27 basis points the incremental change in China?

See for example from today China Daily: "China's cut in banks' benchmark lending and deposit rates by 108 basis points." "我國央行下調存貸款利率1.08個百分點 ."

All the Best Glenn Brewster —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.51.7 (talk) 13:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite interesting. Take a look here. Fribbler (talk) 13:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Joseph Yam article referred to in the Bloomberg story.F (talk) 12:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Service Sector[edit]

Why one should choose Service Sector as his career? or Why one should choose a MBA(Service Sector) cource especially in India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taiyabsaifi (talk • contribs)

The service sector is very diverse, including virtually every kind of economic activity other than manufacturing, construction, agriculture, mining, fishing, and forestry. It is something of a catch-all category that includes anything from a street vendor to a management consultancy. As such, it is almost impossible to generalize about it. One generalization that can be made is that, as economies develop and grow richer, their service sector almost always grows faster than the rest of the economy. Of course, that may not be true for individual industries within the service sector. However, employment in the service sector should have good prospects in an emerging economy such as India. On the other hand, The Economist has argued that India's best prospect for growth in the medium term (the next decade or two) is through the expansion of its manufacturing (non-service) sector, since one of India's chief comparative advantages is cheap labor, and manufacturing is very labor intensive. So an MBA in manufacturing might just be a better choice in India. Marco polo (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant Ear Plants[edit]

Why do the leaves of Elephant Plants seem to cry? Several times I've noticed that my plants shed tears from the tips of the leaves and I'm just wondering if I might be over watering or under watering them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.133.130 (talk) 14:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guttation is nothing to worry about.--Eriastrum (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I was about to suggest that it's ear wax. :-) StuRat (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Economics[edit]

Firms that make losses are dead ducks that should be shut down at once? true or false? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.239.79 (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of this question sounds like it is trying to open a debate. Such debates are not appropriate at the Reference Desk. If you have a more specific or appropriate question about the current financial crisis please ask it, but this is not the place to start a debate over things that "should" or "should not" happen. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some economists do believe that firms that make losses are inefficient and are therefore a waste of labour and capital which can be put to better use in a more efficient firm if the weaker firm gets "shut down". Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False. If you study your economics textbooks, you'll find that in the short-run, the firm still have to pay fixed cost whether it closes down or not. If these fixed costs is bigger than the losses the firm is presently making,then the firm should not close down. This is so because closing down mean the new losses (which is equivalent to the fixed costs since revenue will fall to zero) that the firm will be making will be bigger than the present loss. The only equation you should be concerned is whether Marginal cost = Marginal revenue, whether the firm is making losses or profits. This concept is often known as loss-minimizing strategy. In the long-run, of course, competition will kill the firm or management will close it down as it is often assumed that they are only concerned with making profits, not losses.

PS: This is rather a homework question than a debate question but I'm just helping a bit. --132.216.105.26 (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If by "shut down" you mean declare bankruptcy and liquidate the company, then, no, not just because they are currently taking losses. Just about every company will incur losses at some time. The more important factor is if the company has the potential to be profitable in the future. StuRat (talk) 01:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "shutdown decision" is a section in many second-year micro textbooks (from which, I'm sure this question originates...). It refers to what 132. mentioned above: the production decision, and the correct answer is in fact, the loss-minimization strategy.NByz (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS, you can't just write down 'the loss minimization strategy' and expect full marks. You'll have to describe under what situation you would shut down production, and under what situation you wouldn't.NByz (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]