Miscellaneous desk
< January 30	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	February 1 >

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 31[edit]

Russian probing bomber flight[edit]

I was always told that throughout the Cold War the USSR would routinely send a bomber towards the UK just to test our response and have it turn away just before it reached our airspace, to keep us on our toes. Assuming that was true, do the Russians still do it? Prokhorovka (talk) 09:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/8585432.stm Dalliance (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, that seems clear. Prokhorovka (talk) 09:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Muscle-flexing at its worst.--Lgriot (talk) 13:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muscle-flexing? Not particularly. The Russians send over a single bomber to see how the RAF responds, and the RAF intercepts. The Russians get to exercise their aircrew, the RAF gets to do the same. The media reports it, which looks good in the papers (and helps the RAF arguments over funding). Back in the Kremlin, much the same thing is happening. No doubt what the Russians are actually most interested in is sigint etc. They know that had the bomber actually been seen as a real threat it would have been blown out of the sky. They also know that all a single bomber (even nuclear armed) could do would be to trigger an escalating war, and if they were crazy enough to want one, this is about the least effective way to do maximum damage before the enemy retaliates. I'm sure much the same thing goes on in the other direction too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They still fly over (or close to) the Canadian arctic a few times a year. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well the fact that the other side does it too, just makes it double muscle-flexing. Whatever the reason behind it, it is a display of military capability.... I call than muscle-flexing. The funny thing is that it could be an explicit agreement to continue to do this between the 2 governments, to keep both military organisations on their toes, so that when a real alert happens, they are prepared to react to it fast. You call that exercice, indeed it is probably what is happening. --Lgriot (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the mil don't always get it right as in Korean Air Lines Flight 007, Korean Air Lines Flight 902 and Iran Air Flight 655--Aspro (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for why we should be glad for this muscle-flexing is to prevent what Aspro mentions above. The more training the Russiand and other aircrew receive, the safer they are with their weapons. This too is a factor. 88.90.16.190 (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wasnt it stopped for many years but then revived when Putin came into power? 92.28.252.115 (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it stopped for about 15 years, during the time that the Soviet Union was in economic dire straights. Russia Resumes Patrols by Nuclear Bombers --Aspro (talk) 09:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

political geography[edit]

What is the (official) estimated total weight of all the buildings on the island of Manhattan, NYC?Charlesjfrederick (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly confident there is no official estimate. Prokhorovka (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was asked here in 2008[1] but nobody had an answer (actually the question asked for total weight of buildings, cars, people, etc, but buildings will be the largest component.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this section called political geography? HiLo48 (talk) 11:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does refer to a city, or 'polis', what could be more political than that? 148.197.121.205 (talk) 10:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Homeowner Associations[edit]

Is a Homeowner Association considered a commercial business? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.131.184.18 (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are doubtless many different Homeowner Associations in many different places, and different legal structures will apply. Did you have any particular place in mind? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some may be. You will have to ask the city, or county, or state, or whichever level of government governs HOAs in your area. This page (which in turn mentions our Homeowner association article here on Wikipedia) claims that most HOAs are corporations, "that may or may not have a non-profit status". The phrasing of your question, though, makes me think you're wondering if one particular law regarding commercial businesses applies to an HOA, and for that legal interpretation you will have to talk to a lawyer, not to anonymous weirdos on the Reference Desk. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a distinction between a Homeownwers Association (an HOA) and a Homeowners Association Management Company. The HOA management company is usually a for-profit business that handles the day-to-day operation of the HOA, such as enforcement of covenants, collection of dues, calling and running meetings, managing the common property etc. Some HOAs manage their own affairs, with the HOA board handling all of those duties for themselves. My HOA is managed by such a company, while I have friends that live in neighborhoods where their HOA is completely self-sufficient. Its all about time and money. The management company works by taking a cut of the dues for itself; so either your HOA fees are higher or you get less for your money. On the other hand, it may be hard to find a half-dozen or so people who have the time and desire to handle this stuff for the entire neighborhood. --Jayron32 23:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]