Humanities desk | ||
---|---|---|
< March 31 | << Mar | April | May >> | April 2 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities 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. |
Hi are the Jewish names Hersh and Kurosh derived from the name Cyrus, as in Cyrus the Great? Thanks.107.77.229.107 (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
'Cyrus the Great (Kuruš) figures in the Hebrew Bible as the patron and deliverer of the Jews.' See here and here. Connection is obvious. Omidinist (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Are there any verses in the New Testament that can be interpreted as referring to reincarnation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.36.82.188 (talk) 07:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
In what article can I get information about the history of using, it says in what places this culture began (Europe, Arab countries etc.). As far a I know in the past all over the world it was customary to use hands directly (without cutlery) while eating. I'm looking for an organized information about this topic. Thank you. 93.126.116.89 (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
London to Amsterdam via the Channel Tunnel will start on April 4. I would like to know how many trains a day the Chunnel can manage. This says "Up to 400 trains pass through the tunnel each day, carrying an average of 50,000 passengers, 6,000 cars, 180 coaches and 54,000 tonnes of freight." Assuming that's 200 trains (a suspiciously round number) in each direction it means one train every 7.2 minutes, which impresses me, as they must have to get to the portals at the right time and all go through the tunnel at about the same speed (which would also impress me). I once read a document related to Deutsche Bahn's ambition to run Germany to London, and I think it mentioned the Chunnel capacity, but I can't find it now. So, is the Chunnel full? Hayttom (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
You may be right, but I'm fairly sure it can also get more complicated than that. This discussion, while fairly speculative or based on hazy 'memories' in many cases [3] has some discussion on the complexities including flighting trains to help with differing speeds of freight and passenger trains (although it's unclear whether this still happens in practice). If you're not aware of the term, this source on page 345 (13 of the PDF) [4] has an explanation, it basically means putting trains of similar speeds in groups to improve capacity. That source, although old, gives you some idea of the complexity of managing capacity. This source is from a real world example [5]. Of course part of this complexity arises from trains on different railway lines intersecting at some stage.
This source [6] suggests a capacity of "30 train movements per hour in each direction", although that was from around the opening so things may have changed since then. Notably a comment in the non RS suggests the signalling headway may be 3 minutes now suggesting up to 20 trains per hour, not 30. BTW, that discussion and the other link and this [7] gives some idea of the additional complexities face by the channel tunnel not common with general rail capacity management.
The European Commission has in the past been concerned that the tunnel was being used to capacity for reasons they considered problematic. This ref [8], suggests at the time in 2013, 43% of the capacity was unused. It also includes info on the total number of freight trains at the time, although doesn't really include info on passenger trains. And the number of freight trains is so low that it doesn't seem that significant. (Well the info it has is on passenger numbers not on trains.)
Probably the biggest omission are the Eurotunnel Shuttle service (I presume because they're not covered by EU rules), as it sounds to me like those may represent the biggest current usage of the capacity by far, up to 6 an hour or more. [9] [10] [11] BTW, the commission's concerns seem to have been at least partly address by this move [12], meaning the number of trains may have gone up.
The phrase to search on is "paths per hour". The 1994 book Channel Tunnel Trains published by Eurotunnel (ISBN 1-872009-33-6), by Peter Semmens and Yves Machefert-Tassin, states on page 128 that "The Treaty of Canterbury... requires Eurotunnel to install signalling equipment that will permit twenty paths per hour in each direction". This 2001 article by John Noulton from Japan Railway & Transport Review states that "The presently available number of standard paths in each direction is 20 per hour, and about two-thirds of this capacity is already being used. Improved operating techniques will stretch the available capacity to about 24 standard paths per hour. The ultimate capacity, which would require moving block signalling, is 30 standard paths per hour. Under a usage contract signed by Britain and France, up to 50% of tunnel capacity is available for international passenger and freight trains." Similarly Channel Tunnel Transport System conference proceedings from 1996 (I think; this was a Google Books hit and I see different dates in different places), P.M. Robins writes that the initial 20 paths per hour "can be expanded to 24 paths per hour with the current system but the ultimate target of 30 paths per hour will probably only be achieved by a new system".
It must be noted that the paths per hour are calculated based on all trains going the same speed. If the speed varies, one train can occupy multiple paths. In the early days of the tunnel it was expected that the shuttles would go 140 km/h (and the last two books I cited both say that the paths were intended for that speed) while the Eurostars would go at 160, so that slowing the Eurostars to 140 would save paths. I don't know what speeds the different trains go at now. --69.159.62.113 (talk) 07:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
This is motivated by the question further up about social media disclosure requests/requirements at border crossings. What is social media anyway? Facebook is a well known example, so it's definitely social media. I don't use Facebook but I do sometimes post to a few web forums related to niche technical subjects. Are those social media? If not, what about Reddit, which is basically a collection of similar specialty forums? Not looking for legal advice but just wondering if there is any established classification scheme for this stuff.
The whole concept seems horrible, since there are many forums for discussing things like health issues, where the info is unremarkable when anonymous (some unknown forum poster is discussing their medical treatment) but very private when tied to specific people. Are the usual organizations like the ACLU raising a stink? Maybe they are but I haven't noticed anything. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Youtube also allows liking videos, adding them to public watch lists etc. (There is also the history component if you don't clear it and give password access although since we're talking about US visa requirements, that isn't one.) And of course Youtube is also part of the web 2.0. Remember while most people are simply looking at other people's videos it is a user video sharing site. Some people do have their own public videos, e.g. of them speaking, sometimes of events etc; more rarely holiday videos etc may be there. (Mostly of course of their cats.) Considering one of the reasons that the US is interested in this info is the typical 'terrorism' concerns, it's quite likely the US would be interested in someone's Youtube profile. And this source [14] claims Youtube is one of the one's they specifically list as an option. A quick search for images finds [15] which seems to confirm Youtube. Interesting enough GitHub and JustPaste.it are also there. (The later, our article provides good hints why if you don't already know.)
Skype and other messaging services like WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger (which our article also lists as an example of social media) are different part of social media. They can and particularly for the later frequently are used for sharing stuff including with groups. (I've seen it suggested that in some places a lot of non personal news info is obtained at least in part from such services.) While the structure is different and there's no real 'public' option, there's no real reason to say it's distinct from Facebook or Twitter which I assume you are accepting as social media.
It's true that as messaging apps, these are also used in ways that isn't perhaps typically considered social media e.g. regular chatting and which probably few people will do on Facebook or Twitter but the lines are always going to blurry between these activities at times. E.g. if someone posts to Facebook 'any good movies to see?' is it somehow more social media than if they post to some group they're part of on WhatsApp or Facebook Messenger the same thing? Maybe if you just ask one or two people individually it's not really 'social media'. In any case unless you put the border so far as to exclude anything happening on these services, the fact that both happen means these no reason to exclude them.
I know also that for a time at least, Microsoft was trying to make Windows Live Messenger very social media -esque. This wasn't particularly successful, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of it made it over to Skype even if it also probably didn't have much success but it may be that Skype also has a number of distinctly social media like features that are rarely used.
BTW, I excluded Snapchat; although it has some similarities with other messaging apps, it also has stuff like the Snapchat stories which I guess make it even clearer as social media. When it comes to the question, although Skype, Facebook Messenger, Whatsapp etc may be social media; the fact that it's all private and the US isn't demanding passwords means it's probably of little interest hence why none of these are on the earlier list. Well Facebook Messenger account is not distinct from Facebook, and Whatsapp is tied to some phone number so to some extent they could easily have these without specifically asking. I doubt that's the main reason though and you'd note they also don't ask for Snapchat. (Although it doesn't have to be just what is public. I would image the US also has a list of 'profiles' which are concerning. So if you joined a 'killing Obama' group chat at some stage, this may be known even if it isn't public. OTOH, the fleeting nature of most Snapchat content means even with your password, there's no guarantee they'll find the stuff of interest. Perhaps you once had a story which included photos of you in Syria or with some preacher of concern. But even without effort on your part, it may be long gone.)
There are of course limits. While news stories on traditional sites may be frequently shared on social media, and some of these sites even have social media aspects like commenting on the story etc, these probably often aren't going to be called social media.
Re opposition: There is [16] from before it was proposed to expand it to all visitors. I suspect you'll find similar for the recent proposals either already or soon.
In terms of privacy, it's worth remembering that if you are not a US citizen the US can, and does sometimes, demand access to all your devices including any encryption passwords [17] [18]. They obviously generally can't force you to do so, but failure to comply can mean you're turned away. If you think that is bad, remember that while the UK may do it less often, they actually can do it [19] [20] and Key disclosure laws mean that there even citizens may not be protected (and apparently they may arrest you for not complying). NZ has or had policies and laws which likewise allowed them to demand passwords and also I think not just of visitors [21].
It was claimed this may also apply to Canada and Australia (in addition to UK and US) although since this was from NZ customs maybe not the best source especially since it wasn't a definite claim [22]. But if you look at the comments there is mention of this case [23] [24]. A quick search suggest nothing much came from it since the person pled guilty [25]. I didn't find any discussion of Australia although this is good for a sad laugh. [26] Considering this is the same country which is locking up migrants including a number of refugees traveling to Australia by boat in atrocious conditions in various places, and also the country who've started deporting many people who've lived most or in some cases all of their lives in Australia back after all sorts of crimes; well, does would anyone really be surprised if they were like Canada, NZ, UK and the US and could demand your keys at the border for non citizens (particularly visitors)?
My impression from all I've read that many other countries also have this possibility. While citizens and perhaps some other long term residents (and of course within the EU, any EU citizen in any EU country) may be protected (at least requiring probable cause), the idea is often that visitors either have the choice to comply or leave. Entry is generally held at complete will of the government so if government decides the border protection agency should have the power, they may not even need a law change. I'd note that both the UK and Canadian controversial cases seem to be long term residents or citizens. While this is likely in part because visitors who refuse to comply are simply sent back and have no interest in challenging their case even if they could, it's probably also at least in part reflective of the fact they have little opportunity to challenge their case if they wanted to. (A number of the sources I provided also mention the catch-22. If you encrypt stuff and refuse to hand over passwords, this may be taken as probable cause of the need to search you!)
I disagree it's simple. See my comments above regarding the suggesting to make fake profiles by Basemetal. Even most people who provide advice like the EFF agree that doing a lot of that runs a strong risk of getting a lot of scrutiny or simply being turned away. (One of them, the Conversation suggests you make a big deal about trade secrets etc beforehand. That may work okay if you're job where this makes sense. If you're simply a checkout operator at Pak'n'Save, well good luck with that....)
Of course as I think all of them including the Conversation touch on a big issue is 'lying' to border agents. You don't bring a a phone and the border agents seemingly innocuously asks you why you don't have one. Sure you could answer you didn't think it was compatible or something. Most of the time that isn't going to be picked up. However assuming the main reason is actually because you didn't want them to search it, you've effectively lied to a border agent so if this is ever found out, it could create significant hassle for you. The alternative is to say 'because I didn't want border agents to search it' and raise a big red flag. Even if you are also traveling to some country run by a despot, you could still easily expect a lot of added scrutiny or to be simply turned away for that answer.
BTW in case there is any confusion, as many of those emphasise since handing over passwords is part of the issue, you cannot simply rely on putting the data in cloud storage. You need to ensure you don't know the password and the person who knows it will not provide it to the border agent or to you when you are with the border agent; yet somehow develop a strategy where they will let you in despite that. The only thing you've likely achieved if you put all the data in cloud storage but you know the password is ensured more wasted time while they access it from cloud storage provider. Of course if your device is very slow, it could be faster, but then again they're also probably going to scrutinise it more carefully so still a lose-lose situation.
Nil Einne (talk) 06:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
"any other websites or applications you have used within the last five years to create or share content (photos, videos, status updates, etc.), please list the platform and associated unique social media identifier (username or handle) below."Personally I would say wikipedia does fall within that definition, although I wouldn't say Nil Einne is a unique social media identifier under normal circumstances. Of course, so does Google Docs if you've ever used it to 'create and share content'. BTW, to be clear, it is optional both ways. If you answer yes, you still get to choose what you want to list, aren't then required to fill out every site. Although one thing which is unclear to me is whether you have to fill out all handles if you do list a platform. To me this part is ambiguous. Nil Einne (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)