July 3

What is/are the name(s) for these gown-like articles of clothing?

--69.165.131.155 (talk) 01:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stola. --Jayron32 01:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Peplos might actually be more correct, if you mean this . 76.22.140.195 (talk) 09:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are two parts to this post:

1. Why is Significant Tornadoes 1680-1991 by Thomas P. Grazulis so expensive? I would think if the demand for the book was so high as to make the price that expensive, they would print more copies of the book...but that doesn't seem to have happened? Why would they choose not to reprint the book or somehow else make the price more affordable for those looking to buy it? In essence, what are the economics at work that make this book so expensive/high demand, but still not be reprinted?
2. Is there anywhere (in my searches I couldn't find anywhere) that I could find this book for under 100$?

Thanks in advance, Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 02:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could be explained by there being a small number of people than really really really want the book. Remember, when we talk about "supply" and "demand" they aren't numbers, they are functions of price. A book that is out-of-print will have a pretty flat supply curve - people tend to decide to sell a book based on whether they still want it or not rather than what they can get for it. If the demand curve is also pretty flat (the same number of people want it regardless of how much you charge) then the two curves will meet at a very high price. A new print run will need to have a certain size in order to get the unit price below a certain point and there may not be enough people wanting the book for that to work. --Tango (talk) 02:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sellers of used copies of the book anticipate that demand for the book is high enough for an individual to pay the asking price. To reprint the book there would have to exist a suitably equipped publisher, an estimate by that publisher of the number of copies that can be sold, willingness to invest in the costs of printing and distribution and no unsettled copyright issues. The OP has already located a used copy of the book at a seller in California who asks just under $200. The OP can offer $100 and see what happens. The Ref. Desk will not survey used book sellers nor negotiate with them. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

=P Talk about assuming the above and beyond...I wasn't asking for the ref desk to survey/negotiate used book sellers, just to research online if there was anywhere I couldn't find that had the book for cheaper...don't worry, I don't need someone to do more than find it. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Academic books are generally absurdly expensive, it's the Great Academic Publishing Scam. Publishers know research libraries need to keep current with the latest research, hence the high price of monographs and especially journals. They also have small print runs and are rarely remaindered, so you often find piss-taking valuations like those in the second hand market (the top price copy on amazon is always delusionally priced by optimistic booksellers). You could look on bookfinder.com or set up an rss feed from the appropriate ebay search, good luck. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 15:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a worldwide phenomenon as the wiki article goes. You hear a lot about it in Indian folklore, as I can vouch for. How is it really in west ? Has anyone any real firsthand experience ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 05:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here [1] you can find some information about it. That site has also a large collection of true stories of every kind (some of them very disturbing) sent by readers and listed by month: [2]. Also, if you want a more folkloristic/quaint western ghost similar to it, we have:

White Lady (ghost). And what about Indian Vanishing Hitchhikers? Do you have any information about them? --151.51.61.119 (talk) 08:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Originally the phrases Hic sunt leones or Here be dragons were used, which might mean "No maps for these territories" is relatively recent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is instructive. 86.45.145.165 (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a movie. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the one I linked to in my question? I am fucking amazed. 86.45.145.165 (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Gibson himself says here in his blog, on 2 Feb 2003, that the phrase comes from his own text for Memory Palace, the surreal 1992 Barcelona performance show to which he contributed the text. He also says in the same place: "though I didn’t recognize it when the maker of the film first suggested it as a title". That suggests to me that it's an original coinage by him for Memory Palace (and not anything very significant to him) rather than an earlier stock phrase with which he was already familiar and which he would have recognised when it was suggested as the film title. Karenjc 20:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic, that is just what I was looking for, Karen. Thank you very much. 86.45.145.165 (talk) 05:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would any person mind exemplifying me as to the determination of the degree and line of the relationship by blood and by marriage in accordance with the following provisions of the

203.131.212.36 (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section 1589 refers to family. My children, my grandchildren, my father, mother, gandparents, greatgrandparents are my linear relatives. There is a direct linear relationship (a direct bloodline).

My uncles, aunts, cousins (and their descendants) are my colateral relatives (an indirect bloodline). I share some ancestors with my coleteral relatives but we don't share all our ancestors. Example: my maternal grandparents are the ancestors of me and my aunt (my mother's sister). But I also have ancestors which she doesn't have. My father and his parents, etc (my parental ancestors).

The degree of relationship between myself and my coleteral relatives is determined by the births. The son of my aunt is my cousin. The son of the son of my grandfather's brother is also my cousin. But the first (son of my aunt) has a closer degree of relationship than the second (there are fewer "births/steps" between myself and the first than the second). This degree of relationship is important in marriages (I'm not allowed to marry my closest relatives) or inheritances (my closest relatives get more than my distant relatives if I die). Flamarande (talk) 09:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC) PS: I just hope you can follow my text. All of this is just my understanding of the matter and I'm not a lawyer.[reply]

Section 1590 obviously refers to the relatives of one's wife/husband (the spouse = "the intermidiate relationship by blood"). Example: Her brothers become my brothers-by-marriage, her nephews become my nephews-by-marriage, etc.

Interresting is the second law. The relation continues even if the marriage is dissolved. I'm speculating here but "dissolved" can mean divorce and/or death. Example: My wife has a under-age brother. He obviously becomes my brother-by-marriage. Their parents are dead and they don't have any other relatives. Some time later my wife dies (or divorces me first and then dies). I can (if I wish) become the legal guardian of her under-age brother because he is my relative-by-marriage (even if she divorced me before dying). Or another case: my wife and her brother have a lot of money. She dies (or she divorces me and then dies) and a few years later he also dies. I, as his nearest relative-by-marriage, am his heir and get all the money. Notice that I'm not a lawyer and my examples are just educated guesses. In particular, inheritances have their specific rules and laws. Flamarande (talk) 08:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A man weds my daughter and becomes my Son-in-Law. What does the man who weds my granddaughter become? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.8.250 (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing here, but probably grandson-in-law (or "that lazy guy which I don't like at all"). Read this meager article:

In-law. Flamarande (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Grandson-in-law, of course. Surtsicna (talk) 11:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, grandson-in-law. It's not even ambiguous, since the son of your son-in-law (which, at first glance, you might call your grandson-in-law) is also the son of your daughter (you hope!) so is just your grandson. --Tango (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if the son of your son-in-law's not the son of your daughter, you'd probably call him a "step-grandson" rather than a "grandson-in-law". Buddy431 (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what would a degree in the English Language or in Creative Writing actually involve? And how many points would a distinction in a BTEC introductory diploma be worth?

80.47.187.29 (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean UCAS points? The BTEC Introductory Diploma doesn't give you any UCAS points. It's a Level 1 qualification on the

National Qualifications Framework (it's roughly equivalent to 4 GCSEs at D-F grades). UCAS points are usually for Level 3 qualifications (equivalent to A levels). --Tango (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

To the first question, looking around Wikipedia for a moment, it's unfortunate we don't have articles on different types of Bachelor of Arts degrees. Anyway, an "English degree" means a degree in "English literature", which means you read a lot of the Western canon and write about it. A degree in creative writing still involves a lot of reading, but as you'd expect there are a lot of fiction writing courses. Comet Tuttle (talk) 04:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are there seperate 'English Language' and 'English Literature' degrees available? 80.47.181.74 (talk) 10:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed degrees in English Language, which is a separate subject from English Literature (although many courses are available that combine elements of both). English Language degrees may include the study of linguistics, sociolinguistics, philology and lexicology, among other subjects. Here is the course structure of the English Language degree course at the University of Kent, for example. As for creative writing, this is certainly offered at degree level, although usually in conjunction with a literature element. The University of East Anglia has a well-known and prestigious creative writing department - the MA in Creative Writing was established there by Angus Wilson and Malcolm Bradbury - and at undergraduate level offers a BA in English Literature with Creative Writing which is probably a good example of its type - the course details are here. Karenjc 14:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I own some freehold land in the UK, then how far does that ownership extend upwards and downwards? Downwards to the centre of the earth - or more? Upwards to the edge of space, or to infinity and beyond? Can I charge aircraft and spacecraft a toll for flying through my airspace? Do I temporarily own all the planets, stars and galaxies above my land? Thanks 92.24.179.245 (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those are difficult questions to answer. Countries on the equator have tried to claim ownership of space at geostationary orbit (which very valuable), but haven't been able to enforce that claim so it didn't go very far. The Civil Aviation Act 1982 Section 76 says a aircraft flying over your property at a "reasonable height" doesn't count as trespass (so you can't charge for it). I can't find any clear explanation of who owns the region under your property, but mineral rights can certainly be owned by someone different from the owner of the surface rights. --Tango (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the United States: "Common law provided that the owners of real property owned that property from the center of the earth to the heavens. This rule has been eroded by modern legal restrictions such as land use regulation laws, environmental protection laws, and air navigation requirements. Even today, however, the owners of land may sell or lease air space parcels above their land." This is taken from Business Law by Henry Cheeseman; copyright 2010; page 755. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

See air rights. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the Maximilien Robespierre article, it states: "Only Robespierre was guillotined face-up". What is the significance of this statement? In the historical context, were there certain reasons why a condemned might be executed facing up or facing down? What was the thinking at the time? I have no idea, although I can surmise. I am just wondering if there is any historical information about this type of scenario. My presumption is that facing up allows the condemned to watch the guillotine blade fall ... and, thus, heightens his anxiety or fear or "torture", if you will. But, that is only a supposition on my part. Would there be any reasons or protocol for which the authorities would force a "face up" execution? The "face down", I imagine, was the standard ... is that correct? For what reasons would authorities deviate from that standard? Thank you! (64.252.65.146 (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Any engineer would find face up more interesting, to watch the mechanism in action. Edison (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Engineer? I don't understand what you are saying. Please clarify. Thanks. I can't imagine that the person in charge of the execution (the King, or Queen, or whoever) was particularly concerned with the condemned person having an "interesting" experience. 64.252.65.146 (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

He was making a joke. Engineers and technical people love to see how things work. --mboverload@ 22:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When Robespierre was executed, there was a distinct absence of Kings and Queens in the vicinity, in no small part due to his own efforts. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might be more painful, since the blade might not sever the spinal column right away, as it would do the other way (or at least as it was supposed to do...). He could have been laying there for awhile with a blade stuck in his neck. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, maybe it was just because Robespierre had already shot himself in the face, and if they put him face-down, his jaw might not have remained attached... Adam Bishop (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being executed face-up would be considered more frightening for the still-alive victim. Being able to see the blade waiting to come down is much more real than facing away from it. Steewi (talk) 03:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of a particular rule that might force it, other than the people's desire to punish someone they *really* didn't like. Steewi (talk) 03:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all ... much appreciated! (64.252.65.146 (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Last week I saw two men near the Bank Of England ambling along in a relaxed manner with machine guns held close to their chests. While I guessed that they must be policemen, only when they walked past me could I see "Police" in quite small letters on their backs.

Is this routine nowadays? What might they have been doing? There were no bullion wagons to be seen. I feel outraged that the boys-in-black should be freely showing guns on the streets for no obvious reason. That is something, like identity cards and state CCTV, that we don't want in this isle. 92.15.0.171 (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's only routine for the police guarding certain buildings (Parliament, airports, nuclear facilities, etc.). I wasn't aware that the Bank of England was such a building, but it's possible. --Tango (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...we don't want..."? Interesting that you can speak for the entire isle. Dismas|^(talk) 00:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've regularly seen police in England carrying MP5s. In the U.S., most states permit citizens to get permits to carry guns, in some cases this isn't even necessary (you must check local laws). But in every U.S. states, even those with strict gun control, the police regularly carry handguns. I find it very strange that you find gun carrying so disruptive, and especially strange that you find it problematic by the police. Even in places with extreme gun control, like Chicago, the police carry guns without any suggestion of dissent. Shadowjams (talk) 06:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because we rarely see armed officers in the UK, the sight of a policeman with a gun instantly makes us think there's a serious problem. Police here rarely flaunt their weapons, and not long ago you could tell armed officers because they would be wearing a huge coat on a hot day to conceal their holster. It's a cultural thing. I understand that when there is a need for firearms, then something more accurate than a handgun is usually deployed -

MP5s seem to be in favour. If they were in more-or-less plain clothes, it tends to suggest that they were on a non-routine operation. Alansplodge (talk) 06:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

There is probably a smaller ratio of gun-carrying people in the UK. I suppose that on average the UK criminals are not so quick to shoot upon the police (unlike their US counterparts). Notice also that nobody mentioned the United Kingdom National DNA Database suggesting that only a few have problems with that database (the largest of the world). But hey "we don't want any identidy cards". Flamarande (talk) 07:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similar things could be said about identity cards and CCTV and (symbol of oppression X). The fact that people somewhere else got used to it is not really an argument. Just as well, since this isn't really the place to have an argument. 81.131.29.26 (talk) 07:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear! 92.15.12.165 (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're all of a same mind here--this isn't the place for a gun debate. I find those notes interesting though. When I've been in England I've often noticed armed police, usually openly. Perhaps I have an eye for concealed weapons, of which I've seen some in London, but openly armed police are pretty common in Heathrow and around major attractions.

There's a certain irony, in the U.S. fully automatic weapons and sub-machine guns are extremely rare, even among police. I've never seen an MP5 in the civilian U.S., but I've seen it in England. Shadowjams (talk) 07:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They started marching around airports with machine guns some years ago. I think its horrible - as if Britain were some Latin junta. 92.15.12.165 (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The civilian US? What's that?Flamarande (talk) 07:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The non military non police citizens. Shadowjams (talk) 07:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you saw the MP5 but the article Right to keep and bear arms states that MP's are not allowed to UK civilians. I guess that the MP5 belonged to an English police officer. On the other hand I vaguely remember that the US Supreme court recently judged that according the Constitution the Right to keep and bear arms can't be suppressed or diminished by US cities and states. That speaks ill for the future but let's drop the matter. Flamarande (talk) 07:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the US will be a bloodbath quite soon since nothing has effectively changed (sarcasm?)... but yeah, let's drop that issue. I think you misunderstood my earlier comment. The people carrying sub machine guns (not really machine pistols) were clearly police, but they were quite frequent around certain places in downtown London, and in the airports. The point was about the frequency of firearm exposure. Even in extremely restricted areas of the U.S. police carry guns, and so regular people see them regularly. In most states of the U.S. people can carry guns under most instances, and a large proportion of Americans are at the least familiar with them. That was my point, as I stated above. Shadowjams (talk) 09:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Central London is the city where I'd expect to see armed police walking the streets, to be honest. When I lived in Barnsley, Yorkshire, I regularly saw them walking a particular street, which I found alarming (it was 20 years ago!). Then I found out they were guarding the home of Roy Mason, the Barnsley MP who became Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at the height of the troubles. It became a little more comforting then. --TammyMoet (talk) 07:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What happens in the US, or what Americans think about it, is not really relevant to the questions asked: Is this routine nowadays? What might they have been doing? 92.15.12.165 (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my last post, I would say "yes" to the first question, and "anything from personal protection to anti-terrorism" to the second one. Not US: UK born, bred, resident. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends where one is. The main places that you'd expect to see armed patrols are within, and just outside, the Government Secure Zone, and around certain areas of what are terms Critical National Infrastructure in London. So it's a matter of routine on and around Whitehall, around certain key transport hubs, of which Heathrow is the most obvious and already noted and certain other buildings, including the Bank of England.

As to the point of whether we want it or not, we live in a democratic state and however flawed the electoral system might be it oes provide some form of legitimacy to any government that implements these policies and approaches. It is a matter of policy that no government can bind a future government so it is entirely reasonable for the current or future governments to rescind the decisions of a previous government. This is not really the place for a debate on government policy and direction.

If you wish to challenge the various acts that provide a legal basis for armed police then feel free to raise a suggestion at Yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk

ALR (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a vague and strange question: I heard that Disney can claim anything with its name on it to be an "artifact" and take it, even if I've purchased it. Does anything like this actually exist? ?EVAUNIT^{神になった人間}

Can you give us a link to these claims? On the surface this seems preposterous. --mboverload@ 22:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would be ridiculous. --Tango (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly sure that would violate the first-sale doctrine. (For which there are some exceptions, but not this sort of one.) --Mr.98 (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's to do with copyright. If this is about the Disney name, as the OP says, then it would come under trademark law rather than copyright law, I expect. That doesn't make it any less ridiculous, though. --Tango (talk) 00:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's an IP question in general, though, and the concept applies just the same. They lose their rights to dictate what you do with their stuff once you buy it—just because it is their IP doesn't mean they own it anymore (and the fact that it is their IP specifically is relevant here, since that's the only thing that would plausibly extend to the whole brand). There are some exceptions to this with EULAs and etc. but as a general rule it is how commerce works in just about everything except the software domain. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual property, right? Just checking... 90.193.232.32 (talk) 09:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That's the conclusion that I came to as well. Dismas|^(talk) 10:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I that was true, my sister would have to hide her cat (named Disney). Astronaut (talk) 12:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like it came from the same folks that cooked up the "cryogenically frozen" story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it stems from a recent episode of Antiques Roadshow, which featured a large aerial photo of the park in Florida, during the 60s when it was still half way in the development phase. An ex Imagineer brought it in, said it had hung in their office for years, and when they were gonna throw it out he asked for and received it. The expert said they(Disney) could take it back if they wished and also put a price on it, but said it would be alot more if he had the repro rights on it, but disney still had those. 76.22.140.195 (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's very odd. If it is actually Disney property and they are "loaning" it to him, that's one thing. But if they've given it to him, it's his. Note that the physical ownership is entirely different from the question of who owns the reproduction rights (which is a copyright question distinctly). Obviously if you owned the reproduction rights it would be worth more than if you didn't—it's the difference between owning one photo and owning the ability to license more of the same photo out. But entirely separate from its worth as an antique in and of itself, and entirely separate from the issue of whether Disney could revoke his ownership rights. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disney is neurotically aggressive about protecting the image of its icons (a function of being a business that makes extremely large profits off of peddling entertainment to innocents). If, for instance, you were to purchase dolls of disney figures and place them in erotic poses in some bizarre art display, you would quickly have half a million disney lawyers crawling all over you, and they would most likely come armed with an assortment of legal pretext like the one you mentioned above to remove the figures from your possession and destroy the offensive material. It's unlikely they would come after anyone for non-offensive, non-copyright-violating uses, but they will deal harshly with anything that sullies their characters' reputations (and threatens their bottom line). --Ludwigs2 18:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why have high heels not gone out of fashion in the same way that the bustle or the corset have? 92.28.245.229 (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People's tastes change. Also corsets and high heels hurt, are bad for you, and can cause serious injury. --mboverload@ 22:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A culture continuously changes, and the clothes that a particular person wears usually are related to the person's cultural norms. For example, I would not be at all surprised if baseball hats are no longer worn in 150 years in America for the same reasons that we no longer wear tophats or bonnets in America. The American culture has changed. (I'm using the US as an example; it changes everywhere, though not always at the same rate). Falconus^{p t c} 23:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not as a general-public fashion statement, but ballplayers themselves probably will. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

High heels are going out of fashion- I see far fewer of them than I once did, and they are more and more reserved for formal occasions. I was just remarking the other day how nice it was that women didn't seem obligated to wear heels to work any more. Like bow ties, tailcoats, and, yes, corsets, I imagine that they'll stick around for a long time in formalwear. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I felt like sticking in gratings to stop women wearing stilettos into a hall and destroying the floor but was told it's against health and safety. Thankfully that seems very uncommon now.

Dmcq (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

High heels add a few inches to a woman's height, and that might be the reason they are still around. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As

the article itself says, "Reasons for wearing high-heels, which are almost exclusively aesthetic, include: they change the angle of the foot with respect to the lower leg, which accentuates the appearance of calves; they change the wearer's posture, requiring a more upright carriage and altering the gait in what is considered a seductive fashion; they make the wearer appear taller; they make the legs appear longer; they make the foot appear smaller..." etc. So long as those criteria are thought important (by women, or by men in assessing women's attractiveness), high heels will probably continue to be worn. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Fisherqueen -- Ten or fifteen years ago at the university near where I live, it seemed like women almost never wore thin or spike heels around campus during the daytime (though they did wear kind of broad platforms), but they appear to have made a comeback in recent years... AnonMoos (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similar reasons could be put forward about bustles and corsets. They also change dimensions. 92.29.124.254 (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, bustles and corsets are not really compatible with the requirements of modern lifestyles, or the idea that a woman should quickly and seamlessly transition from wearing workout gear to wearing eveningwear. A Victorian woman in a corset and bustle had servants to do most of the housework, and never had to try to get into a car seat with corset and bustle on... AnonMoos (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could say the same thing about high heels, and the servants wore corsets too at least. Perhaps high heels came into fashion later than the other two, so are still around. 92.24.188.89 (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some lady's-maids wore corsets, but the ones whose jobs involved strenuous physical labor couldn't and didn't. During most of the 19th century, just doing the laundry was a very tedious and fatiguing task of "women's work" which was technically not too far removed from pounding clothes with rocks by the riverbank; and in a typical middle-class household, it was often an all-day job that had to be done once a week. In any case, high heels are a very temporary disability -- wearing high heels at 9 PM isn't incompatible with running a mile the next morning. And have you noticed how often modern women remove their uncomfortable shoes for a few minutes when it's convenient? By contrast, it's logistically impossible to remove one's corset for five minutes while temporarily relaxing in a public place (for that matter corsets can be difficult to get into or take off at all unless you have a servant standing by, another thing that's not very compatible with modern lifestyles). AnonMoos (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does say, an Arleigh Burke destroyer or Ticonderoga cruiser usually carry marine corps personnel? If not, are there people aboard trained for boarding actions and other similar tasks?--178.167.197.71 (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I served on a

Little Creek for two weeks of training run by Marines. At no point were boarding techniques taught, but we were trained to repel boarders. -- 58.147.53.253 (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Ships sent out on anti-pirate patrol might have a different complement though. Rmhermen (talk) 02:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Once when we sailed in the Caribbean we embarked a Coast Guard detachment for boarding and inspecting boats. Ostensibly these were safety inspections, but the main motivation was drug interdiction. -- 58.147.52.160 (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]