May 22

You often see many companies claiming to plant 10,000 trees etc, despite all this why is that forest cover is still going down?How do you verify such claims? sumal (talk) 03:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you go and physically count the trees they claim to have planted, or you have some evidence to suggest they could not possibly have planted as many trees as they claim, I don't think you can verify it. You have to take it on trust, I guess. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well trees are still being cut down in their billions for our use so 100 companies planting 10,000 trees does not a sustainable forest make. Usually you will find that in these circumstances the company will make donations to a firm that agree to do the work. For example often you'll see a "1p from every X will got to Y", my understanding is that the firms do not track sales (since it would be difficult to know as they will mostly sell to retailers rather than consumers directly) but rather that based on their estimates they make an appropriate donation to cover the usage. Will try find some sources to verify but certainly i've heard that policy being mentioned before. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever seen trees of this type being planted? Each little tree is about four inches high. Boy scout troops sometimes plant them as a project. to plant one, you make a slit in the ground with a small mattock, insert the root, and then close the slit by stamping your foot next to the slit. With practice, one boy scout can plant more than ten trees per minute. Ten thousand trees is a trivial effort and almost a meaningless number. It's better to count then number of acres. -Arch dude (talk) 09:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Americans use 2 billion trees per year for wood, paper, board, etc.[1] I can't find figures for the world, but it's maybe 10 times that. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Planting A tree every six seconds per person? Impossible in any quantity. After the first row just walking back to your source of seedlings will take more than six seconds.

In any case, All you've asserted here is that planting trees is easy if you already have a truck full of seedlings. APL (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the number of trees planted were equal to the number of trees chopped down, you would still have the problem that the trees you're chopping down are mature and the ones you're planting are seedlings. Forest ecosystems are destroyed when all the big trees are chopped down, and planting some tiny ones (whether in the same place or elsewhere) doesn't really fix that. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some tree farms are clear-cut, and others are thinned; the latter doesn't destroy the ecosystem. Unfortunately our tree farm article is basically a stub and the difference is not discussed. I assume most tree farms are clear-cut, replanted, and the company puts up signs saying "This area will be harvested again in 2015", as Weyerhauser does for their tree farms that are visible from highways. Tempshill (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10,000 trees sounds like a lot - but it's not. There are about 1000 trees per acre in forested land - 640,000 trees per square mile. A block of terrain a couple of miles on a side contains two or three million trees. So you can plant several million trees and only cover a tiny dot on a map. Over the last 50 years, we've cut down about 6 million square miles of forest...that's 3,800,000,000,000 trees. When you hear that a company is planning to replant a trillion trees - then THAT would be making a difference. The recent (and belated) release of the movie "Earth" by Disneynature was accompanied by a promise to plant a tree for everyone who comes to see the movie...so far, they may have covered two of those six million square miles! SteveBaker (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to utilitarianism, are standards of morality and ethics absolute or relative, objective or subjective? What do utilitarians think about moral relativism and moral subjectivism? What do moral relativists and moral subjectivists think about utilitarianism?

Bowei Huang (talk) 03:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. SteveBaker (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What if I change the first question slightly? Is utilitarianism a form of moral relativism or a form of moral absolutism?

What if I forget the first question and just ask what they think about each other? Is that a homework question too? Can you answer that?

Bowei Huang (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the subject, but I have linked your question to some articles that may be useful to your research.

utilitarianism , moral relativism , moral absolutism --Lgriot (talk) 07:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bowei Huang isn't doing homework, but does like to start discussions. Steewi (talk) 02:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why survival knives usually have holes in their blades?

I think it is just to make them lighter. --Tango (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For fishing.

Is it so you can hang them on a pegboard? Tempshill (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This one has one so that it can be opened while wearing gloves. Recury (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the holes depend on their size, location and possible markings near the hole. Some of the reasons make good sense and some are downright silly. Some of the common reasons for the holes include thumb-opening (as in the one linked by Recury), creating an inclinometer, sighting hole (using the side of the knife as a signalling mirror), wire stripper, bolting on attachments (silliness), or even to include a small magnifying glass for firestarting (true silliness in a knife). 152.16.16.75 (talk) 00:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only holes I've seen are to be combined with a lug on the scabbard to form a wire-cutter. If a cheap knife has this hole but not the matching lug and hardened edge on the scabbard, then it's probably just mindlessly copied from a more expensive knife that did. I believe that M16 bayonets do or did have this device, which is probably the source for a lot of copies. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maps often have loads of detailed information and sometimes that isn't always needed. Is there a special term for streamlined maps that contain only the most basic information needed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needed for what? --Tango (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. If you want a topographic map, it's likely not to show where churches are. If you want a map for driving, then it is likely to show churches since they're major landmarks and thus aid navigation. So, what are you looking to do with these maps? Dismas|^(talk) 18:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in particular, I was just wondering if there was a generic name for very basic maps, rather than saying "very basic map" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, the question remains... A map of what? Dismas|^(talk) 19:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are different names for maps intended for different purposes. --Tango (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP is looking for a term that can be used to describe *any* map that has been pared to the bare essentials of its purpose, regardless of what that purpose is. (Not really describing the map itself, but rather the process of minimization, if you will.) I, for one, am not aware of any such term. The best example of the concept, though, is likely the London Underground Map, where the actual geography of London is simplified to emphasise the connectivity of the stations. - The original poster may have better luck asking at the Language Desk -- 128.104.112.117 (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the London Underground "map" is deliberately drawn schematically and not to scale, it may be argued that it is best not called a map at all, but a diagram. The compromise term "diagrammatic map" is sometimes used for this sort of thing.

As a general answer to the original question, I would simply suggest "simplified map". --Anonymous, 21:33 UTC, May 22, 2009.

In my Army career, we used "strip maps"— simplified maps that showed only the route. We used these in conjunction with regular maps. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or "special purpose map"? --Tango (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe those "stick figure" (my term) maps that you often see in advertisements with three of four streets connected together at right angles that lack any proportionality or real world references, showing only that you should follow street A, turn left on street B, and then right on street C. -- Tcncv (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting)

"Strip map" doesn't necessarily imply simplification: it just means a map that's long and narrow. It could be a piece cut from a conventional map. --Anonymous, 07:30 UTC, May 24, 2009.

What is so controversial about the possibility of moving terrorist suspects from Guantanamo to US prisons? The guys are prisoners. It’s not like they’re being released to their own devises on American soul. Why is there a controversy over this? --S.dedalus (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the controversy is that some of them may be released on US soil. They can only be transferred to a US prison if they are convicted (or at least charged) with some offence, which may not happen with all of them due to lack of evidence (or just lack of guilt, but that case isn't likely to worry anyone). Ideally such people would be returned to their country of origin or the country they last legally entered, but some of those countries aren't willing to accept them. As such, they would be a stateless person (that article actually mentions Guantanamo) and the US is obliged to keep them. --Tango (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The irony is that, even though the naval base is on Cuban territory leased to the U.S. government, the detention facility inside is, in every sense of the term, "a U.S. prison". -- JackofOz (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except it doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of the US prison services. It is a military detention centre, that is quite different legally (or so said the Bush administration). --Tango (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Careful saying that — it's disputed that it's "in every sense of the term". Three Supreme Court Justices disagreed with you in Rasul v. Bush. (However, the other six agreed with you enough to establish that U.S. courts do have jurisdiction.) Tempshill (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"...some of them may be released on US soil". Surely if that was to happen and they were not US citizens they would be deported back to whereever they were first captured. Astronaut (talk) 23:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From interviews of concerned US citizens heard on BBC radio news, there seems to be a belief that if some (alleged) terrorist is held in a given US mainland prison, all the shopping malls, schools etc anywhere near that prison will become prime targets for the terrorist organisation he (allegedly) belongs to. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The US can't deport someone to a country where they would be in significant danger of persecution. They also can't deport someone to a country where they will not be accepted (they would just be put on a plane straight back to the US). --Tango (talk) 10:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think 87.81.230.195 has hit upon the real issue - voter ignorance. No one in the government wants terrorists to be jailed in their home district because the voters will think their elected representative has unleashed global terrorism upon their shopping malls, and he or she will lose the next election. I don't think this question has a common-sense answer. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that there are two issues of concern here - both unfounded.

1. That the presence of a terrorist in your local jail might cause other terrorists to come to your city and to cause mayhem in order to try to get them released. That's possible - but as federal prisoners, the 'protest' or terrorist activities could happen anywhere in the US and achieve the same effect - why wouldn't these hypothetical situations already be happening over the prisoners in Guantanamo? It doesn't really matter where the person is imprisoned - a terrorist threat or protest in order to get them released could still happen anywhere. Efforts to free prisoners of this sort has happened innumerable times in the past - and it's often taken the form of airplane hijackings, etc - but I can't think of a case where the action was taken near to the actual place the person was imprisoned.
2. That the terrorist might be released into the community - either immediately, or after some number of years - and that this person would then be the cause of major trouble. Well, the likelyhood is that such a person would be deported immediately (there are plenty of legal grounds for doing that) - and that the country to which they were sent would refuse entry. When that happens, because they have no right to stay in the US, the INS keeps the person in detention until a suitable destination country can be found. People have died waiting for that to happen. This would be equivalent to life imprisonment - see (1) above. But even if (by some quirk of law) one of these people were to be walking free on the streets of downtown USA - don't you imagine that there would be a black SUV full of guys in dark suits and talking into their sleeves following this guy for the rest of his life? Any effort whatever to contact like-minded people - or to acquire explosives or whatever would immediately lead to re-arrest and possibly useful leads on other terrorist cells.

SteveBaker (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure people are indefinitely detained if no country will accept them? There are international conventions regarding stateless persons. There are cases like that of Mehran Karimi Nasseri where people have stayed in immigration limbo for prolonged periods, but in that case he was given permission to enter Belgium (albeit after 7 years), but refused it. --Tango (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder which bit of the law would treat people that are taken by the US forces to a prison under American control as illegal aliens. lets see, would that be entering without authorization or inspection, staying beyond the authorized period after legal entry, or by violating the terms of legal entry? Dmcq (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They wouldn't be illegal aliens. Either they would be allowed into the country or they wouldn't, there is no way they could get into the country without permission since they are in US military custody. --Tango (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So as far as I can see it then they are not subject to anything by the INS and unless they are convicted of a crime they have a perfect right to stroll the streets of America unhindered. Dmcq (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No - the US deports them. For a foreign national who has no visa or green-card, the law certainly allows them to do that on the flimsiest grounds. At that point, these people have no right to be in the US. If their country of citizenship refuses to take them (as is currently the case with every one of these people) - or if they are 'stateless' - then they have to appeal for asylum. Asylum is certainly not an automatic right. While they wait for their asylum request to be heard - the stay in detention...and stay...and stay...and stay. They may also apply for asylum in a foreign country - and if that's accepted, then they are put on a plane and gone. Since the US is certainly not obliged to offer them asylum after they've been formally deported - they'll stay in detention until some other country offers to take them...probably in some INS detention facility. There is no mechanism for them to be walking the streets in the US - they have no US citizenship, visa or greencard. So they'll be detained indefinitely...albeit on US soil...albeit in more comfortable circumstances than you perhaps feel they deserve. SteveBaker (talk) 00:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So foreign people can be deported even though they are not illegal aliens and have not violated any of the terms of their stay? Is there some law saying something like an FBI man stands up in court and says I don't like the person and that's good enough? Or does it not even have to go so far? Dmcq (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve said "who has no visa". If you don't have a valid visa then you must have either entered illegally or violated the terms of your stay (by not leaving soon enough). --Tango (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see not having a valid visa is not grounds for deporting someone. The grounds are that they entered without authorization or inspection, they stayed beyond the authorized period after legal entry, or they violated the terms of legal entry. If a person is taken to the US by the army I don't quite see which of these grounds is violated. Dmcq (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I recommend "Americans in waiting: the lost story". There is an appropriate excerpt here. Deportation is essentially a political act - and it's not deemed to be a punishment. Hence it can be applied to non-citizens/non-resident aliens for pretty much any reason. If you are here on a non-permanent basis then the government may simply revoke your permission to stay. Even if you have a perfectly valid visa - you don't have a right to be in the USA. So the government can just say "get outta here" and if they don't go, it's deportation time. There are a bunch of guidelines as to when they will and won't deport - but some of them are as vague as "moral terpitude" or "subversive activities" - and they are only guidelines. The law specifically says that even if you entered the US legally - you may still be deported. But don't take my word for it - read the book excerpt. SteveBaker (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It seems vague grounds don't count, it has to be pretty certain, but I wouldn't bet on anything given good lawyers on either side! Dmcq (talk) 10:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the thin end of the wedge! Next thing you know, they’ll want to be treated like human beings, granted access to legal advice, charged with actual crimes, presented with evidence that stands up in court, given a chance to cross-examine witnesses, be protected by due process and all the other protections of the Constitution. The day when we can’t simply pick anybody up in some foreign country, hide them in another country outside of US jurisdiction, hold them indefinitely, torture them anyway we like well, that’s the day this stops being a great country! Ah, sorry. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to buy desert boots, but don't know where. I found Bates desert boots, but only in the US. Where can I find similar ones? Or perhaps something equivalent? I walk for long, long journeys, so they have to be good military style desert boots.--88.6.117.202 (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your IP address seems to be from Barcelona, Spain. Is that were you wish the buy the boots? --Tango (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It can be from an internet shop that delivers to Spain. --88.6.117.202 (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Google - type "Buy desert boots international shipping"...or even "Buy Bates desert boots international shipping" - you get hundreds of hits from online stores that'll ship internationally. SteveBaker (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OR My hubby bought two pairs of boots online (US). One pair from Australia - arrived next week. One pair from Sears (also US)- took 3 weeks. 71.236.24.129 (talk) 11:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I recently lost photocopies of my Canadian passport and drivers license. Should I be worried about identity theft? Is there anything I should do to minimize potential risks? 71.102.30.155 (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you think you lost them? That could matter a great deal. Dismas|^(talk) 19:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot them on a plane in the back pocket of the seat in front of me. I talked to the airline and they looked but didn't find them after. 71.102.30.155 (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've reported the lost items to the authorities, right? By which I mean the police, the passport office, and the driver's license office in your province. If not, do it right now! They may have information for you in relation to your questions, as well. --Anonymous, 21:36 UTC, May 22, 2009.

Sorry, like Tango below, I missed the words "photocopies of" in the original posting. --Anon, 17:57 UTC, May 23.

If you have lost your passport it is vital that you report it to the police immeadiately. --Tango (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

photocopies of -- Nricardo (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an ID document, photocopies are pretty much worthless. However, the photocopies would contain other information that might be of use. For example, perhaps your address is on the drivers license, and the thief knows you are not at home. However, the most likely scenario is that the airline's cleaners put it in their garbage sack when they were cleaning the plane in preparation for its next flight. Astronaut (talk) 08:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, I misread that as "copies off" and assumed they were official copies. Yeah, losing photocopies isn't a big deal, that's why you are advised to carry photocopies rather than the real thing where possible. It's not a good idea to leave that information lying around, but it isn't the end of the world. --Tango (talk) 10:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Where possible" would not, of course, include the primary context in which passports are used, viz. travel to foreign countries, where only the original would be acceptable. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, when you go through passport control you're going to need your passport. When people want to see your passport just to get the information off it, though, you can use a photocopy. A photocopy is also useful to have in case you lose your passport and need the information. (I helped someone fill out a form for a lost passport once and I think there was a box for the passport number. Fortunately they knew theirs, I have no idea what mine is.)--Tango (talk) 01:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For your own private use, a simple photocopy would suffice, but only a certified true copy would be acceptable for most banks, authorities etc, and maybe not even that in some cases. They could quite reasonably ask the question "What prevents you from producing the original, if you are indeed the person you claim to be?". -- JackofOz (talk) 01:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read the expression "National Diet Library" in a question on the Language ref desk. It was a reference to the Japanese Parliament, nothing to do with obesity and dieting. But my immediate mental image was of a vast repository in some national capital of magazines, books, videos, DVDs and self-help literature of every conceivable description, about how to lose weight (usually "quickly and permanently"), most of which advice contradicts every other bit of advice. It caused me to wonder: Is there any other subject about which there is so much information, but with such a high degree of inconsistency?

A lot of these wizz-bang new diets come with so-called scientific backing, yet for every one of such "scientific" diets, there's another with equally good claimed scientific credentials that says something quite different. So, who to believe? It's common for magazines and TV current affairs programs to have features that make the point that dieting simply does not work, but worse than that, typically people who go on such diets end up being more obese than before they started out. They've gone backwards. But next issue, the same magazine's printing yet another fantastic new diet that "everyone's on". It's all just so unbelievable. Most countries have laws that protect consumers from misleading and untruthful advertising, yet when it comes to this particular issue of obesity and what to do about it, an issue that most governments claim to be deeply concerned about - which they should be because it's getting worse, not better - they seem to allow all and sundry to publish any diet claims they like, in a completely unregulated manner. Maybe if science spoke with one voice on the solution to obesity, governments could use that to regulate the self-help market. But as it is, the strong impression I have is that there is no such thing as a "one size fits all" solution, so a diet that may not work for most people might actually work for a few people. And vice-versa. If it's true that diets simply cannot come with a guarantee of effectiveness for any particular person, why do governments not advise their citizens to at least treat all diet claims with caution; or to go further, by checking with the health authorities as to whether such a diet is supported or not. Does any country have a system where it's illegal to publish diets without some official certificate/imprimatur that says it's been approved by the government health authorities? Or that it's illegal to suggest that a diet, any diet, by itself is the solution; any claimed solution that does not incorporate an exercise regime is intrinsically at best only a part of the solution? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a slight flaw in your premise that "science could speak with one voice". Science is not a single entity that only serves one purpose. The vast majority of scientists is either employed by companies or the government. In those positions their research gets a certain direction. Even researchers who got tenure at a university have certain agendas like getting published and a book deal. Add to all that the fact that our understanding of the human body is far from complete. Many concepts that used to be generally accepted have recently been found to be utterly wrong. Just look at the "food pyramid" that used to have a large component of grains. Conspiracy theorists think it was an attempt by the government to help the grain producing agriculture. For people who consume whole grain and engage in heavy physical activity it is actually not that bad, though. For the office workers with the unused gym membership, it isn't. Many things that look good if you consider individual components or theoretical studies, don't pan out in real life. I second your opinion that "one size fits all" solutions don't work. In every system there is a certain statistical distribution. The trick is to find something that covers a wide area of that. (Example. When the US imported grain to feed starving people in the Philippines it was later found that due to the different diet people were accustomed to there it actually caused an increase in liver disease.) If we had perfect information you could imagine that your doctor could give you a couple of tests and then prescribe "the perfect diet" for you. Since humans and their environment are subject to lots of chaotic influences, perfect information is impossible. If you looked at study results from 10 years ago you'd probably have a hard time finding some that haven't been revised or rebuked. Most governments try to keep their populations from engaging in the most obvious follies. They also tend to keep companies from harming or killing too many people in the interest of making profit. But if they regulated everything you'd end up with a place that would be most unpleasant. (Mandatory morning exercise. Food police. No driving cars. etc.) Since the human body has an Autonomic nervous system that reacts to things like stress their best efforts might go to waste and their discontent population might gain weight anyway. Although there are probably vastly more people at risk from obesity, these ads also affect people at the other end of the spectrum. Particularly among girls and young women anorexia is a possibility. Just as with telemarketing, some regulation might be useful, but it would be difficult to realize.71.236.24.129 (talk) 11:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's the example of the Diet of Worms. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, 71.236. I wasn't talking about governments regulating the daily lives of their citizens, but about regulating what information can be published about dieting and weight loss. For example, I cannot publish a claim that consuming a kilo of pure heroin every morning for breakfast will make you a smarter and healthier person. Similarly, I cannot advertise myself as a doctor, lawyer, veterinarian, dentist, pharmacist or other professions if I don't actually have training and a recognised qualification. I cannot publish a claim that the Australian Government is a private company owned by Mrs Gertrude Smith of Paris, Germany. All these sorts of things are regulated by governments, for very good reasons, and if I make one of these claims, I'm in big trouble with the law. Some types of professions are not regulated (at least not in Australia) - hypnotherapists, homeopaths, massage therapists, aromatherapists, and various others. But they're frequented by relatively few people, whereas most everyone has a legitimate interest in eating healthier food, keeping their weight to an optimum level, being generally healthier, and living longer lives. I'd have thought this type of information would be an obvious candidate for regulation. But I hear what you say about the chaotic factors, and it would be hard to find a consensus among the medical fraternity that any one diet is better than any other. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]