April 7

Some time not too long ago, I heard my pastor tell a story of someone in China several decades ago who was called into her boss' office and was told to either renounce her Christian faith or stop working there. I've never heard about anything of this kind happening here in the United States, but do such things actually happen here? 173.52.236.173 (talk) 05:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, employers are forbidden to discriminate people on account of religion. Though, there are always sneaky ways to bypass the law, such as examining the name for foreignness or judging an applicant based on dress (i.e. a head scarf). 50.4.236.254 (talk) 05:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If China was officially atheistic, that could explain it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

China largely sees no conflict between:

-The national government being officially atheistic yet (mostly) supportive of "harmless" religious freedoms (unless there's good organs involved)

-Provincial governments only bothering to enforce negative laws on particular religious minorities and not on anyone else who breaks those laws

Before Nixon visited China ("several decades ago"), things were even worse -- though there also wasn't as much business then. If the story happened after Nixon visited China, then it's likely the story was relayed by a missionary who snuck in on a work visa. A lot of Americans get jobs in China, thinking they can use that as a chance to sneak in and do missionary work. Their Chinese employers are aware of this and usually have something in their contract saying "don't do missionary work on the job or you'll get all of us in trouble." Believe whatever you want, just don't proselytize it outside one of the state-approved (not state-run) churches, basically.

In the United States, a business is not allowed to do that (or the opposite, tell people they have to be Christian) without getting into serious legal trouble. Even if a business told me to hold the beliefs I already hold, or to reject beliefs I already reject, I'd be inclined to sue them into the stone age as a matter of principle (and I'm not the only American who would do that). Despite their reputation for "secularism", the

ACLU actually takes a lot of cases where people feel their employers threatened the employee's Christian beliefs. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Do economists expect particular countries to emerge as manufacturing centres in the future? Ha! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to here,http://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/our-insights/east-africa-the-next-hub-for-apparel-sourcing Ethiopia and Kenya have the potential to become garment manufacturing centres.Uncle dan is home (talk) 07:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting, Uncle dan is home. Thank you. I might have guessed Kenya because they have all that British infrastructure and such. But Ethiopia, eh? Well, I guess they're smart and need the loot. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anna if you don't me asking, are you Canadian? Because you said 'eh' and you spelled 'centre' instead of 'center'.Uncle dan is home (talk) 08:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle dan, I am! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So am I!Uncle dan is home (talk) 08:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopia style if you will, is not really disconnected of Italian styling [1]. --Askedonty (talk) 07:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Askedonty. Wow. I never knew. There's quite a community in Addis Ababa. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. See Obelisk of Axum, a stone anchor of the love-hate and feuilletonesque relationship which has been carried between the two countries which ultimately led to an upgrade of the runway at the Axum airport. --Askedonty (talk) 08:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting indeed. (I had to look up feuilletonesque.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• " looks to make things in the cheapest place. "

So if Africa can become cheapest, then maybe.

Can Africa do that? Rather more doubtful. Some primary manufacturing, such as minerals and bulk materials (iron, aluminium and concrete) could happen there. It reduces shipping costs from the mines. Yet even there, this hasn't happened yet. Aluminium (as bauxite) is mined, but largely not smelted, owing to the lack of an electrical power infrastructure. That could yet happen, and probably will. Concrete, in particular, is in huge demand in Africa yet is a big import. Gold is refined and smelted in Africa because the ores have a low metal content (so very expensive to move) and the metal product is high value and easy to move.

Secondary manufacturing becomes less dependent on transport costs, more so on capital investment, support infrastructure, labour force and closeness to market. So garment manufacture is a possible, semiconductors aren't (yet semiconductor and hard drive plants have gone into jungle-field sites in SE Asia, because they're not too far from an infrastructure). South Africa will do some things, Zim won't, Botswana and Kenya might.

As for everything in Africa, the answer is now "What does China think?" - and China is investing heavily, increasing primary manufacturing and infrastructure immensely, but less clear on secondary manufacture. Will China want to build a competitor to itself? I think not. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, thank you. You are awesome! I've been wondering lately about the next several decadeas of a possibly still-capitalist-non-nuked planet Earth and what it would look like. Cheers to you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a lot of apparel manufacturing taking place in Ethiopia (particularly shoes [2]), and there's no reason why similar projects couldn't develop in other parts of Africa provided the following conditions are met: they offer plenty of low-cost workers; there is adequate infrastructure (i.e. a reliable power supply and connections to a port or airport); and there is a stable government that does not adopt predatory policies against foreign investors. Whether this type of industry is all that beneficial to the host country long-term is another question. --Xuxl (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Xuxl. Yes, I imagine a person who wanted to make cheap stuff would certainly be satisfied with a country that had all those things. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the PRINCE2 framework, would engineering assurance fit under project business assurance? In many engineering projects, the client organisation would have engineers sitting within the project who sign off the engineering designs which their contractor has produced for the project. So within prince 2, would this fit under business assurance for the project executive? My personal opinion is that engineering would be another project board member on large projects sitting alongside the senior user, senior supplier and executive and their would be an engineering assurance function sitting below them who's role it is to ensure that the client are happy with the design, and they conform to company and wider standards. I think engineering doesn't fit under user, executive or supplier due to its unique status in that the client has a responsibility to accept some of the liability and also it's highly specialised nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.173.171 (talk) 10:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it Iver Norman Lawson or Norman Larsen? --тнояsтеn ⇔ 16:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The company website says its founder was Norm Larsen - https://wd40.com/cool-stuff/history. It also says the stuff was developed by a team of three, but doesn't name the others as far as I can see. Wymspen (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's very odd. But the San Diego History Center's article seems to be the only source for Iver Lawson, while the Norman Larsen information has been around for a while and appears in books that were published before the internet took off as well [3] [4]. For what it's worth, the New York Times, which is supposed to be good at fact checking, goes with Larsen: [5]. With Wymspen's link, the weight of the evidence is leaning Larsen for sure. I can't find an obituary for either of them - if someone else can, that might help clear things up.

Also, Wikipedia has a Reliable Sources Noticeboard - perhaps it would be worth asking the people there how to evaluate these competing claims? 174.88.10.107 (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to help you Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#WD-40_-_evaluate_conflicting_sources, and put all these sources in the article for now. 174.88.10.107 (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --тнояsтеn ⇔ 12:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Dominion of Newfoundland page says "Newfoundland rejected confederation with Canada in the 1869 general election." Why was confederation rejected? 208.95.51.38 (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a detailed but accessible discussion of the arguments on both sides. 174.88.10.107 (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How could the US react that fast?

Where they in a base near it? And 60 tomahawk is standard equipment?

They launched the missiles from really fast away? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.148.165 (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They were launched from two US destroyers, the USS Ross (DDG-71) and the USS Porter (DDG-78), that were already in the area to support anti-terrorism operations. Each destroyer is capable of carrying up to 90 tomahawks, though the actual number of tomahawks will vary depending on the armaments the navy chose to load them with before setting out. Dragons flight (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline with Wikilinks:

The Khan Shaykhun chemical attack 4 April

was followed by

US President Trump signs executive order 6 April

was followed by

2017 Shayrat missile strike with 59 Tomahawk missiles fired from two U.S. Navy warships, USS Ross and USS Porter in the Mediterranean Sea. BBC report. Blooteuth (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also United States Sixth Fleet which is the umbrella organisation for the two destroyers. They are both Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and Tomahawk missiles are part of their regular armament. Alansplodge (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The ships were already in place and equipped with the Tomahawks: see above. In addition, the military has a duty to be prepared for any reasonable (and many unreasonable) scenarios, so they already have contingency plans in place. Trump asked "what are my options?" and the joint chiefs explained the most militarily reasonable of these plans, and Trump picked from the list. The military can of course develop a new plan on short notice, but everyone likes to avoid this because its quite easy to mess it up. -Arch dude (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If such a situation arose where the US didn't have ships deployed or a nearby land base, it might take weeks to respond. StuRat (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt it -- most places in the world are within range of B-52s refueled mid-flight, and the U.S. has strategically-located air and naval bases on Guam and Diego Garcia. AnonMoos (talk) 03:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are manned, so they can be shot down or crash on their own, and their pilots captured. Not a good choice in a situation like this. See

Muath Al-Kasasbeh to see how bad this can get. StuRat (talk) 04:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I think that the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit would be a more likely choice, since it is much more difficult to detect and can operate from smaller friendly air bases, Bahrain for example. It has a range of 6,000 nautical miles on a single air-air refuelling. See 1986 United States bombing of Libya for a similar punitive raid by US aircraft, in that case mounted from the UK. Alansplodge (talk) 08:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B-52s can carry air-launched cruise missiles and do not need to approach within a dangerous zone any more than the Navy destroyers did. Rmhermen (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While the B-2 carries the AGM-158 JASSM cruise missile with a range of 370 km. Alansplodge (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who exactly is the woman next to Mitch McConnell in this photo? : http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/AP-mcconnell-01-as-170406_12x5_1600.jpg

Dunno, but the picture was apparently taken by J. Scott Applewhite with AP. He's apparently on Twitter; you could try asking him. Matt Deres (talk) 01:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article in November 2013..."The economist Friedrich von Hayek used the term "obscurantism" differently, to denote and describe the denial of the truth of scientific theory because of disagreeable moral consequences. In the essay "Why I Am Not a Conservative" (1960), he disparages conservatism for its inability to adapt to changing human realities, or to offer a positive political program."

Article now..."In the essay "Why I Am Not a Conservative" (1960), the economist Friedrich von Hayek said that political liberalism is ideologically unrealistic, because of the liberal person’s inability to adapt to changing human realities and refusal to offer a positive political program that benefits everyone in a society. In that context, Hayek used the term obscurantism differently, to denote and describe the denial of the empirical truth of scientific theory, because of the disagreeable moral consequences that might arise from acceptance of fact."

Which one should I trust?144.35.114.172 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dmcq (talk) 00:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

144.35.114.172 -- Both the title of Hayek's essay and the principle of

Talk:Friedrich von Hayek would know for sure... AnonMoos (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

The article was vandalized on 31 March 2017. I've now reverted the vandalism. Loraof (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]