Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.
"White people like Wayne Brady because he makes Bryant Gumbel look like Malcolm X" ... I don't get it. What's the connection between the three? --frotht 01:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Malcolm X is thought of as an angry, radical black nationalist, while Bryant Gumbel is thought of as a completely inoffensive, soft-spoken guy who puts white Americans at ease. The person you quoted above evidently things Wayne Brady is even less scary to white Americans than Bryant Gumbel is. -- Mwalcoff 01:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not American, the amount of fear that existed in the mid-60's and 70's surrounding Malcolm X and the black power movement might not make a lot of sense. --Haemo 05:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like Wayne Brady because he's funny, thinks fast on his feet, and is a really good singer. Corvus cornix 16:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But don't cross him, or else he's going to have to choke a bitch! Adam Bishop 17:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please i am so confused by the word vintage (not refering to cheese or wine). in many cases i have seen people look at things and say oh how VINTAGE and im like yeaaahhhhhh. please help my uneducated soul.
the definition left was not a valid page please help me again
Main Entry: vintage
Function: adjective
1 of wine : of, relating to, or produced in a particular vintage
2 : of old, recognized, and enduring interest, importance, or quality : CLASSIC
3 a : dating from the past : OLD b : OUTMODED , OLD-FASHIONED
4 : of the best and most characteristic -- used with a proper noun <vintage Shaw: a wise and winning comedy -- Time>
You probably mean definition # 2 or # 3 above. (JosephASpadaro 19:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Piece of Music From Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure[edit]
Recently, while viewing the movie, I was struck by a piece of music that the character "Beethoven" first hears once he enters the music store in the mall. Once the salesman comes up to him and ask him, "Are you a musician? Here try this." And pushes the Synchro button on the synthesizer. What is the melodic part of the piece of music? Is it something from Beethoven's own writings that I can't place or something else entirely?
4.90.34.169 06:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Exen[reply]
Er, wouldn't using binary be the better approach there? I don't really see why you'd want to use unicode, it's probably quicker for a human being to type out "INSERT THISTHATANDTHING SYMBOL HERE" than it is them to type out "Sentence with nifty symbol at the end of all of it.", given the fact that you'd have to extend pretty much the entire thing. --Laugh! 07:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Morse code had Unicode, you could, for example, use it with Chinese. Reinistalk 07:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was just an example of what you could do if Morse code had Unicode. You could also use it with Thai, Japanese and so on. Reinistalk 07:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like Wabun code? I'm really not seeing your point. Morse code already has (generally superior, I'm sure, given the insane level of rote memorization that would be required to remember the patterns for unicode) alternate versions for any language that would need them --Laugh! 07:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is to have one umbrella standard that would work with all the languages. Reinistalk 08:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody understands my joke. :'( Reinistalk 08:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-.. . ... ..- / -.. . ... ..- / -.. . ... ..- ; in the mean time, maybe occupy yourself with international languages like Ido and Esperanto? --Laugh! 08:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm doing, SSSS. Reinistalk 09:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Morse Code is an encoding scheme that intentionally doesn't include unicode characters. This is the same as asking "Is there an English Alphabet that supports Unicode?" It is possible to use the quantizing scheme (a dot, a dash, and a pause) to encode the scheme of your choice, but there isn't currently one defined. You'd have more luck with AX25. At its simplest, it uses two different tones to encode binary zeros and ones. Although it normally operates in ASCII, it could also transmit unicode the same way it would transfer binary. --Mdwyer 17:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe using Uuencode to encode the Unicode string and transmit it through Morse code...--antilivedT | C | G 22:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be more efficient to just ignore the Morse code encoding system, and just send the unicode characters in binary, using a dot for 0 and dash for 1 ..-..--...---.-. MrRedact 16:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
are top models today with lighter eyes (gray, blue etc), more successful than ones with darker eyes (brown, dark hazel etc)? because the modelling industry today gives me the opinion that theres better demand and work for models with light eyes; true, false? thoughts, opinions please thx :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.5.226 (talk • contribs)
Do not start debates or post diatribes. The reference desk is not a soapbox. Also how do you measure success? Appearances? Revenue? Label? Success based on eye colour seems an unusual idea, however if you can provide some basis for this or some evidence, I would be interested to read it. Lanfear's Bane
Sounds like a good idea for a research study; unless you can find one that someone did. If you do find one or conduct one, let me know, now I'm interested. I imagine you'd want to compare the number of light-eyed models with the number of dark-eyed ones in each market bracket (define segments- how much annual income counts as extremely successful, how much moderatly successful, how much failing) Kuronue 13:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it sounds very "discussiony". Struckthrough for great justice. Lanfear's Bane
I'd agree, based on "thoughts, opinions please thx". I like the AYB reference. --LarryMac | Talk 15:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
aye i didn't know my question was debate sounding (ooops! :P :D), i thought of this question when i was talking to my friend not long ago and she was saying she'd like to become a model but she'd have a better chance if she had lighter coloured eyes, at first i was stunned because she is perfect to become a model! but i decided to ponder on the thought for a while :) oh and i'll be happy to find information to support this
Although it shows more light than dark eyed models could this be in proportion to the numbers of light vs. dark eyed people in the general populus? There is also geographic variation in eye colour, are the models representative of the countries they model in? Are there correlations in perceived "beauty" and eye colour? I am not sure how this could be accurately measured. Lanfear's Bane
No, they don't. Since their pay (in the US) is set by Congress, they would need to appeal to Congress for pay rate increases. However, the reality is that Congress will increase pay only when necessary to retain soldiers. That means they won't increase pay so long as they have enough soldiers, either on a volunteer basis, or by other means, such as reactivating soldiers who have left the military or instituting a general draft. StuRat 14:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm...I seem to recall the army having some trouble with Union busters a while back. Clarityfiend 16:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
StuRat's comment is necessarily true. Military pay does get increased when Congress wants to make political points. Corvus cornix 16:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Union Army finished its work in the 1860's. Edison 19:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that Congress highly trumpets yearly pay hikes for the military in every defense appropriations bill. In reality, they are typically to keep up with inflation, although sometimes Congress and/or the White House will tacl on a bit extra beyond that. --Penta 14:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
looking for differences in skull formation in wild lions and captive bred lions in Africa
Interesting. As an ignorant layman, I'm not sure why there should be any difference, unless evolution has kicked in for reasons I can't fathom. However, perhaps if you posted to the Science reference desk, you might get a more informed response. Also, please sign your posts with four "tildes" (~~~~) --Dweller 07:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Runways and airline traffic capacity of airports[edit]
Introduction In the Netherlands environmental activists, people living around the place, the government and airline lobbyists have been annoying each other for years with the expansion of Amsterdam Schiphol Airport. First the topic was the fifth runway (now built), and nowadays it is the sixth. Schiphol had 46,088,221 passengers travelling through it in 2006, and new runways are supposed to be instrumental to the growth of the airport. However, London Heathrow Airport had 67,530,223 in the same year, some twenty million more. The strange part: Heathrow has two runways, of about the same length as the type Schiphol has five of.
Question Why does Schiphol airport need more runways to expand, while Heathrow's runway capacity is apparently enough to build a fifth terminal?
I don't know all of the facts, but the case of Heathrow does seem to suggest that Schiphol has enough runways. However, it is worth pointing out that Heathrow is subject to hideous delays, particularly for landing. It is not unusual for planes to circle for an hour or more waiting for a landing slot at Heathrow. This suggests that Heathrow's passenger volume is pushing against the limits of its runway capacity. Marco polo 16:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A few other things should also be taken into account:
First of all you should be looking at the numberof flight operations, which for Heathrow is 480 000 per year and for Schiphol 420 000. Still 14% more, but the difference is a lot smaller than the 47% for passenger numbers.
Secondly, the two runways at Heathrow are parallel and can thus be used at the same time. At Schiphol three runways are situated parallel, the two others are roughly perpendicular to the other three. The fact that the two runways are required could suggest a need for them incase of changed wind directions, which could partially explain for the lower number.
Third, the Dutch government poses very strict limitations on Schiphol for the use of some of the runways.
All these factors contribute to the lower number for Schiphol. - Dammit 17:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, Heathrow used to have six runways -- three pairs of two parallel runways each, in a Star-of-David pattern. You can see them in the movie Dr. Strangelove, where the aerial photo of the base behind Ripper's desk is actually a photo of Heathrow. According to the Heathrow article, the other runways were closed because they could not be extended to be long enough for jet planes. Parts of the old runways are still in use as taxiways; you can still see the pattern in a modern photo of the airport.
True - I read in a newspaper last week about the proposed new third runway at Heathrow that the airport is running at 98.5% of capacity, which is far too high, hence the hideous delays and crowds of passengers held in tents whenever something disrupts the normal throughput of airport (terrorist threats, fog, etc). This is claimed to be the reason why they want a third runway, but this will be shorter than the other two, so it may not be effective as planned. Personally, I avoid using Heathrow like the plague, and usually fly from Manchester, which is a much more relaxed airport (with 3 terminals, 2 runways, and 1 railway station). -- Arwel (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shall appreciate guidance on where to find a list of all Michelin starred restaurants in France. I have tried Michelin, and Googled, of course.90.0.2.13 16:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)DT[reply]
Buy the book?... Zidel333 16:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Michelin Red Guide for France will tell you, it is available from any good bookshop, or there is a list here which may be helpful [1]DuncanHill 16:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does food that tastes like rubber get a 5 star rating ? :-) StuRat 06:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. & thanks for the 3 star list. But the Michelin Guides do not list all the restaurants. They indicate, by town/city which restaurants have stars. Their web site does not list either, and Michelin has not responded to my email asking for help. I need a complete list similar to that published by the UK's Caterer & Hotelkeeper magazine... but I can't find one.90.0.6.122 14:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)DT[reply]
Don't Michelin sell their Guide? If so, they may be reluctant to give away the information in a convenient form for $0.00. SteveBaker 03:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they're asking for it to be free, just for the information to be available. This is information which is not in the Guides, or is not in the form they want. Skittle 15:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
their was a cartoon strip with the punch lone off to crawleys barn. (email removed)
....what is the question? PolarWolf 19:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does the U.S have a law forbidding incitement to murder?[edit]
For example, if i stood in the street with a sign saying, "Please someone kill Anne Coulter", would i be breaking a law? Willy turner 17:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the statement at the top of the page that Wikipedia is not permitted to offer any legal advice. Edison 19:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(This seems to be a legal themed question. Not a request for legal advice.) I believe it is illegal to incite murder against the President. Not sure about other cases. --S.dedalus 19:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that would be treason or somesuch --frotht 19:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Treason is the only crime specifically defined in the US Constitution. See Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_3:_Treason. Although I suppose one could claim that advocating killing the President during wartime would qualify, but that would probably be a stretch. That section of the article goes on to say that "encompassing (or imagining) the death of the king" was treason under British law, but was not specified in the Constitution as an act of treason. Corvus cornix 22:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Willy turner, there are many statutes (state and federal) that could potentially apply, depending on the nature, frequency, and character of the incitement, the relationships of the parties in question, as well as the proximity to the potential victim(s) and the likelihood that your statements would cause a reasonable fear of immanent death or serious bodily injury; plus many other factors as well. Just a handful of examples: Terroristic threat, menacing, affray, assault, extortion, stalking, disorderly conduct ... (on and on) (you can check if WP has articles on these yourself). dr.ef.tymac 19:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See imminent lawless action. Here, for instance, is the Ohio law against "inciting to violence":
2917.01 Inciting to violence.
(A) No person shall knowingly engage in conduct designed to urge or incite another to commit any offense of violence, when either of the following apply:
(1) The conduct takes place under circumstances that create a clear and present danger that any offense of violence will be committed;
(2) The conduct proximately results in the commission of any offense of violence.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of inciting to violence. If the offense of violence that the other person is being urged or incited to commit is a misdemeanor, inciting to violence is a misdemeanor of the first degree. If the offense of violence that the other person is being urged or incited to commit is a felony, inciting to violence is a felony of the third degree.
Effective Date: 07-01-1996
Mwalcoff 23:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do military personnel wear camoflage all the time, even when it's ludicrous to expect that it would disguise them at all? A guard outside a military installation is not going to blend in with the road in woodland camoflage, and if there's any actual fighting chances are he'd be safer in his civvies and blending in somewhat with pedestrians. Also this guy, apparently in the depths of some army lab amidst billions of dollars of electronics equipment.. is he expecting to jump behind a tree or hide in some leaves? Also why do they make so much more green camo than "urban" grey-black camo, which I'd certainly rather be wearing in an actual violent scenario.. --frotht 19:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well sometimes camoflage helps and sometimes it doesn't, but why have two uniforms when you can have one? Wearing it when not needed doesn't do any harm. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certain institutions and organizations require a very high degree of uniformity in order to function and influence people the way they do. Not surprisingly, Uniforms help promote that; very simple principle. dr.ef.tymac 20:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the reasons given above, soldiers are required by the laws of war to wear recognizable uniforms & insignia to identify themselves as combatants. Cyraan 20:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that green forest camouflage predominates among the U.S. military. While traveling through several U.S. airports in southern states this past April, I saw many military personnel waiting for flights. Nearly all of them were wearing beige desert camouflage. This is not surprising considering where they were probably deploying. Marco polo 20:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised you saw brown as that camo is being replaced by the new computer-generated Army Combat Uniform. The tan pattern seen here is also much different than the more solid tan of the Gulf War. (See Image:Bush saudi arabia.jpg) Rmhermen 20:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My work puts me in regular contact with enlisted personnel. Virtually to a person, they wear computer-generated camo green uniforms. Raul654 22:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's also worth noting that camoflage isn't all about matching the colour of the environment - the shapes of the colour splotches break up your outline and make you harder to see - even if the colours don't match all that well. Think about a Zebra - black and white in a brownish world? SteveBaker 22:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wearing camouflage is apparently also cool. I remember a most hilarious US documentary on hunting. All these hunters were wearing camo outfits, but were required by law to wear bright orange vests on top of it so they would not blend in with the environment (and be accidentially shot by fellow hunters).
on a related notes, why do SWAT teams always wear face masks even if they are doing nothing to be ashamed of? dab(𒁳) 22:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To make it harder to fight against the power, man. --Laugh! 10:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They wear the masks to protect their identities. Neil╦ 14:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder whether Bruce Wayne ever broke into the wrong house and killed someone. —Tamfang 07:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The camouflage uniform is an official uniform of certain branches of the US military, and as such is a required uniform for certain activities, whether in a combat zone or not. It's not the individual's choice as to which uniform to wear. Corvus cornix 22:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine a guard wearing situationally perfect camo while standing by the gate at an installation: His lower body looks like the pavement, and his upper body looks like the chain link fence, complete with chain link face makeup. Visitors can't see him so they drive on in while he yells at them to stop and shoots at their car. Now a crew of bad guys attack the base. He jumps into the bushes to hide while he return fire, but first he has to put on his woodland uniform. Why not just wear woodland camo in the first place. It makes him look official and people can see him, but if he wore a dress uniform he would look even more official, like the Marines at the White House [2]. Nixon bought special "Imperial Guard" style dress uniforms [3] in 1970 for the White House guards, which were ridiculed as looking like they belonged in a 1920's musical, so they were only used once and then supposedly donated to a high school marching band. Edison 17:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What does it take for a foreigner to be allowed to work in the United States? —Bromskloss 20:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of paths to this. There is limited allowance for students to work (usually as degree-related work experience). There is also an H1B route in which an employer, upon demonstrating that they were unable to find an American worker to fill a job, can hire a foreign worker. For married couples or to-be-married couples there are spousal and fiancée visas. And there are a limited number of green cards available on a quota/lottery basis. The USCIS web site has some information, but ultimately, you will need to consult an immigration lawyer. It's easy to do something incorrectly in the process, and this can lead to serious delays in the immigration process. Donald Hosek 20:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer. The H1B, does it expire when I quit that particular job? —Bromskloss 20:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to our article H1B visa, the visa is job-specific and is not portable. So if you quit the job for which you were granted the visa, you lose the right to work in the United States unless another employer has been able to obtain another H1B for you. Marco polo 21:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so how can something permanent be obtained without getting married or winning the lottery? —Bromskloss 21:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, once you have an H1B, you can apply for 'Permanent Resident Alien' ("Green Card") status (which is what I have). It took me almost 7 years on H1B and it would have cost me a small fortune in lawyer's fees if the company I was working for hadn't paid it. As with H1B, your employer has to demonstrate that no US citizen is both qualified and willing to do your job. If you change jobs or get a promotion or something, it puts the process back to square one again - so you are essentially unable to change jobs. Since your employer knows you can't go elsewhere if you get a better offer, it's really unlikely that you'll see a pay rise or any other additional benefits. Once I got my green cars, I got an instant pay rise because they knew I could finally switch jobs! In my case, I have specialised skills relating to flight simulation graphics software that are very rare - so all of the paperwork was pretty much guaranteed to go through - it was just a matter of time and money. My wife and son were entitled to Green Cards as my dependants. Once you have a green card, you can travel into and out of the US without messing around with visa's and such, change jobs and pretty much do anything a US citizen can do except vote and stand for government office - you also don't do jury duty. Truthfully - unless you have really unique and in-demand skills and are prepared to do the job on-the-cheap - you shouldn't bother. SteveBaker 22:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You need a lawyer to immigrate?! Anyway, with the H1B, it has to be demonstrated that you are the the only one who will do a particular work, but when it comes to permanent recidency, there is no such particular work, since you can take any work, right? What did I miss here? —Bromskloss 10:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Technically - probably you can do it yourself without a lawyer - however, my experience was that the process was complicated and confusing even WITH a lawyer. Expect long waits in line at the INS offices too - on some occasions I was advised to arrive to stand in line an hour before the offices open - I would do that and still not actually get to see anyone until 2pm or so that same day! The whole INS system is in a state of near collapse! SteveBaker 20:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are other visa types, of course, that permit one to work in the US, but they are also limited to individuals with special skills, those who can demonstrate "extraordinary ability or achievements" or are restricted by time and/or reciprocal agreements with other countries. See United States visas for more details. Rockpocket 06:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard somewhere that it takes a willingness to do the jobs that we don't want to do... 38.112.225.84 12:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's true in a sense. I was invited to come to work in the USA (I didn't particularly intend to do that - but the offer was a good one) - I had very specialised skills that are really rare (Just how many experienced flight simulator graphics designers are there in the world? Probably a few hundred at most.) - so it wasn't so much a job that no American was willing to do - as a job that very few were able to do - and those that were able to do it were not willing at the salary that was being offered. My arriving here enabled the company I worked for to build up a good business in the computer graphics side of their speciality - which in turn caused them to grow the team from me plus one other guy to a group of 10 to 15 people. So by bringing one person in on an H1B, it made ten times that number of well paid jobs for Americans - which I think was a barguin for all concerned.
Clearly there is an entirely different situation at the other end of the scale where there are jobs that no American is willing to do at minimum wage - but I doubt that there are many people getting in on H1B's to do fruit picking - which is why the USA is overrun with illegal immigrants. If there were a simple, legal way for people to come here, do those jobs legally and with dignity and then go home again at the end of the season - life would be easier for all concerned.
There is no doubt that H1B's are sometimes abused though - there are undoubtedly companies who pitch the salary for an IT job way lower than a qualified white-collar American worker can afford to take it at - then brings in H1B folks to do the work - pays them low wages in the sure and certain knowledge that they can't change jobs without losing their H1B - and their green card won't show up for 5 years after it's applied for. That's not a great thing - but at least the money that's paid to these people comes back into the economy as retail sales, housing, taxes, etc. If the alternative is to outsource the jobs overseas then that's an even worse outcome because US money is spent on paying workers overseas who then spend their earnings and pay their taxes in their local economies and that revenue is lost to the US market. What would fix that H1B abuse would be to process those H1B's into permenant green-cards super-fast. Once an immigrant has a green-card, he can apply for any job - so competitive pay scales would become necessary in order to keep H1B staff from leaving - that would raise the salary to the point where an American worker would take the job. But all the time it takes 5 years plus to transfer a completely non-controversial, uncontested H1B into a Green-card, this particular abuse will contine...to the detriment of US citizens. The actual paperwork and background checks can't possible take more than a month to do - if you could go from H1B to Green-card in a month, the abuse would end overnight.
The problem I see (and some don't see it as a problem, of course) is making sure that those going to the US to do a particular job actually go back home at the end of the season. I'm currently living in Mexico, and I've seen more than one sob story on TV about how "unjust" it is to force someone (who entered the US illegally and knows it) to go back to their country of origin. A government must have the right to control who enters and leaves its boundaries for a whole host of reasons (national security, job market, etc., etc.). If you want to enter a country, you must do it legally. If you are not permitted legally, don't go. And if you ignore all this and go to the country illegally, please do not cry about being deported later. It is not unjust, it is perfectly just, and everyone knows it. If Mother's only support is her illegal-immigrant son who is now being deported, why doesn't Mother just go back to the home country with him!? Sorry for this rant. I just get so fed up with hearing about illegal immigrants who seem to think the country they are invading owes them something, when in fact they are knowingly breaking the law. It isn't a question of racism or prejudice. I have a great love and respect for a wide variety of cultures and countries, definitely including Mexico. Bottom line: Don't cross borders without an invitation unless you expect to be treated like a trespasser. Any comments (pro or con) are welcome here or on my talk page. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 20:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that anyone who violates the local laws knowingly takes on a risk, but that's orthogonal to justice. Or do you hold that all legislation is just?
There is no justification for abridging any citizen's freedom to hire whom they like, native or foreign. —Tamfang 05:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![[2]](http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20070518/capt.b4ceff84eed94d0fac8f68338232c965.bush_dcev103.jpg){kind=link}