Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2014 April 9

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.

April 9

Automotive mechanic education

If I am not mistaken, a student in secondary school in former decades was able to learn enough in automotive mechanic classes to be able to repair his or her own automobile. In 2014, is it possible for a student in secondary school to learn enough in automotive mechanic classes to be able to repair an automobile that is equipped with computer technology?
—Wavelength (talk) 02:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Usually yes, as long as they have access to a school with a comprehensive vocational education program. While not every high school has such a program, many students in urban areas have access to a vocational or "CTE" (for career and technical education) high school where they can apply to get in. Those schools frequently offer training and certification in many trades, including automotive, electrician, HVAC, etc. etc. Students who live in rural areas may not have access to schools like that. But for a sizable portion of the U.S. population, there exists a high school they could go to which offers such training. --Jayron32 02:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add that modern vehicles with lots of electronics aren't that much harder to repair. All of the basic mechanical stuff that causes the majority of issues hasn't changed. The computers produce great diagnostics for identifying faults in the electronic systems, and the instrumentation may even diagnose a problem that would have taken much longer on a car without sensors. If you're skilled at following the documented procedures for replacing/servicing the electronic parts then it doesn't require any specific knowledge of what is going on inside the boxes. Katie R (talk) 12:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Who pays for the referendum?

I have been searching the web but cannot find the answer to my question, "who pays the cost of the Scottish or any other referendum?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.225.6 (talk) 07:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The two main campaigning organisations (Better Together and Yes Scotland) are funded by donations from businesses, the public, trade unions, etc. See the respective articles for more details. The costs of the actual vote (polling stations, staff, count staff, security, printing, etc.) are borne by local councils and the Scottish Government. Dalliance (talk) 12:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I have struck out the error in this answer. Please see the relevant Section of the enabling Act, quoted below. Where local council employees are employed in the planning or execution of the referendum, their costs, together with any other locally-provided costs (provision of polling places, signage, etc.) will be met by the local "counting officer", who will recover these costs from the Scottish Ministers (i.e. the central Scottish government). Local councils do not pay for the referendum. RomanSpa (talk) 13:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The referendum is governed by the Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013. The basic cost of the referendum is addressed in Section 9 of the Act, which says:

9 Expenses of counting officers

• (1) The Chief Counting Officer is entitled to recover from the Scottish Ministers charges for, and any expenses incurred in connection with, the exercise by the Chief Counting Officer of functions under this Act.
• (2) A counting officer is entitled to recover from the Scottish Ministers charges for, and any expenses incurred in connection with, the exercise by the counting officer of functions under this Act.
• (3) The amount of charges and expenses recoverable under this section is not to exceed such maximum amount as is specified in, or determined under, an order made by the Scottish Ministers.
• (4) An order under subsection (3)

(a) may make different provision for different functions, cases or areas,

(b) may include incidental and supplementary provision.

• (5) If the Chief Counting Officer or a counting officer requests from the Scottish Ministers an advance on account of any charges or expenses recoverable by the officer from the Scottish Ministers under this section, the Scottish Ministers may make such advance on such terms as they think fit.

In addition, the Electoral Commission will incur costs in connection with the referendum. These will be met by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. That is, although the costs of the referendum are in borne by the Scottish government, which is party-political, the costs of overseeing it are borne by a non-party body, which matches standard democratic practice and UK precedent. However, all costs are ultimately borne by the Scottish people, who provide funding for these two bodies through their normal tax contributions. RomanSpa (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I take your point, and I apologise for citing personal experience, but the funding from central government did not cover all costs of the elections I have been involved in. There is a limit on these funds (as section 9, subsection 3 of your quote implies) and they do not always stretch to cover, for example, unexpected events such as problems leading to very long counts and the associated costs. There is always some cost to local councils, who provide the vast majority of staff and facilities. Dalliance (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Assuming the Scots vote for independence, and assuming they are currently on the British national health care system, what will they do about their health care? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Rather than assuming, you could look at our article National Health Service, which answers a lot of your implicit questions in the lede, and provides information and links to further information which answer you much better than anything anyone to include in a reasonable paragraph here. 86.146.28.229 (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I see that they already ostensibly have their own system. I just wonder how "independent" they will be vs. some degree of remaining intertwined with the UK. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The NHS Scotland has been a separate body since its foundation in 1947. As far as I can tell, the things that we still share and which an independent Scotland would have to make their own arrangements for are defence, diplomatic representation (embassies etc), membership of super-national bodies such as the UN, EU, NATO and the Commonwealth, overseas aid, some domestic broadcasting (BBC Scotland would need more funding to produce a full schedule) and overseas promotion of trade, although not tourism which is already separate. Alansplodge (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

"Ostensibly" isn't really a good phrase - if anything, it's the other way around. The separation between the four national bodies is (deliberately?) downplayed, and there is little practical difference in the way patients interact with them except in some policy issues such as prescription charges. NHS Scotland is a coherent and organisationally independent body, which answers to Holyrood not Westminster, and independence would probably affect it much less than many other civil service bodies.

The stated policy of the current Scottish government is to retain the NHS in Scotland in public ownership (so the model of provision is unlikely to change). Assuming funding holds up, if independence was followed by a SNP government (likely) and a Conservative-led government in the rump UK (also likely), then healthcare provision would probably change less in Scotland than in England... Andrew Gray (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Are there significant financial ties between Scotland and the UK in general, or have they been slowly severing those ties in preparation for independence? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The Scottish Government is effectively funded by a block grant from central UK funds. See Barnett formula Valiantis (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Better still - though it's only a stub albeit with references - see Scottish Consolidated Fund. Valiantis (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Will that change? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It will of course change in the event that the Scots vote to become an independent - i.e. sovereign - state as they will have to raise all their own revenues. It may also change if the Scots do not vote for independence as all the major UK parties have discussed greater autonomy for Scotland within the union. See Devo Max and Devo Plus. Valiantis (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a bit like asking "are there significant financial ties between California and the United States" - of course there are ;-). Their economies are in general very tightly integrated, and they have a more or less common tax regime etc, but historically many aspects of public spending (eg education) were managed in a separate system by Edinburgh and funded by a block grant from London. Since 1997, there has been an increasing level of financial devolution to go alongside political devolution, as more responsibilities are assumed by the local government.

You ask about change - from a public spending side, the split would be relatively easy, at least on paper - for most public service roles, the organisations already exist, and are already separated from their English counterparts. There's a firm idea of what they would cost and there would be relatively little disruption to the delivery of those services.

The basic assumption for independence is that this public spending would carry on in the same way - but the ultimate source of funds would change. The block grant from London would vanish, and would be replaced by taxation raised from within Scotland, which - in theory, at least, would equal or exceed the grant removed. One of the more hotly contested issues is thus how much tax an independent Scotland could actually get, which then comes down to quite complex debates about the exact partition of seabed and future oil revenues. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Are the Scots happy about the prospect of their taxes increasing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

If "the Scots" were all of one mind, there would hardly be a need for a referendum. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Supposing the referendum wins, is there a possibility of a mass-migration to England by those who don't want it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Or perhaps a "mass migration" to Scotland by the millions of English people who would relish the prospect of never having to live under a Conservative government? Who knows?? WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Can someone sensible hat this please? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

You're asking some pretty simplistic questions and they don't really have simple answers. I really would recommend doing some background reading - the white paper, linked above, is pretty vague on some points and a bit deceptive on others (it's best read as a campaign manifesto and not as a neutral study), but it gives a good idea of what's likely to be an issue and what the implications are.

For one thing, Scotland has existing powers to change the local rate of income tax (voted for in the 1997 referendum; see Scotland Act 1998 part IV); while these powers have never been used, they were voted for, and so it's clear that the concept of a marginally higher tax rate is not abhorrent to the Scottish electorate. In addition to this - as I alluded to - while it's reasonably clear what the spending of an independent Scotland would be, it's not amazingly clear what the income of an independent Scotland would be. The partitioning of oil revenues, the burden of debt repayments, etc, mean that it's anyone's guess whether the tax burden on an average Scot would be lower or higher post-independence - and trying to predict this is highly politicised and highly contested. So it's not a simple "union cheap, independence expensive" ide. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not calling for speculation. What I should have said is, has there been discussion of doing these things. What I'm really curious to know (without reading volumes about it) is whether the pro-separation zealots have really thought this thing through... whether they've sufficiently considered the consequences, such as the apparent inevitability of higher taxes. It reminds me a bit of the reason Quebec separatism always fails - because they want to be free of negatives about the Canadian government, but they want to retain the benefits. Real independence doesn't work that way. So would Scotland be truly independent? And would the average Scottish citizen's benefits outweigh the negatives? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I think we can safely assume that, yes, people "have really thought this thing through". Whether that relies on correct assumptions or not is entirely debatable (and rightly so), but this isn't something that some guy on the internet has just noticed. "The net benefit/deficit of independence, or what future fiscal policies may be inevitable, is very far from being an obvious issue, and is a matter of ongoing policy debate. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Bugs, of course, on a major issue affecting millions of literate people, there have been vast amounts of discussion. See this Google search for links to a number of discussions on this topic. Marco polo (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

(ec)I don't think that's a safe assumption at all. But once they do it, it will be too late to go back, right? All I'm saying is that there are different degrees of "independence", and sometimes zeal can override good sense. As another editor said above, we shall see. But if they do it, and regret, would they have any way to re-apply for full membership in the UK? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Full membership? Is there any other kind? If Scotland secedes, it will be a sovereign nation with no constitutional links to the UK. The most interesting question is: What will the remainder of the UK call itself after Scotland leaves. For starters, the "Great Britain" part of the title will no longer apply, as that includes Scotland; and the very term "United Kingdom" was created when Scotland was legally united with England and Wales in the first place, so that can hardly apply anymore either. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The United Arab Republic continued to use that term for a while after Syria seceded from it. There are so many objects in the world that say 'UK', they would probably find it easier to redefine what the term 'UK' means than to change it to something else. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The union of the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland created the Kingdom of Great Britain. The Act of Union [1] states explicitly in Article I that the country is called Great Britain and in Article III that its parliament will be "stiled the Parliament of Great Britain". It does also refer to "the United Kingdom of Great Britain", but it's debatable if that's the name of the country or merely a description as that contradicts the express wording of the law elsewhere. The current United Kingdom - at least formally - resulted from the later union of the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland in 1801. The Union with Ireland Act 1800 (passed by the Great British parliament) refers throughout to "the United Kingdom" and the "Parliament of the United Kingdom" [2]. The Act of Union (Ireland) (passed by the Irish parliament) explicitly states the new state will go by the name of "the united [sic] Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" and the parliament will be "stiled “The parliament of the united kingdom [sic] of Great Britain and Ireland [3]. There remains a Union with that part of Ireland which did not become independent in the 20th century, and the current name is "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" so whatever the correctness of the term Great Britain, the term United Kingdom remains entirely logical with or without Scotland.

It's also worth noting that the names of countries are not necessarily logical. After all the United States of America does not occupy all of the landmass of America and Papua New Guinea takes its name from two different names for the island it occupies only half of. Having said all that, I agree it will be interesting to see what name the UK takes in the event of Scotland leaving the Union. Valiantis (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no landmass of America. You are just making this up as you go along. μηδείς (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It's always nice to see such a clear, civil, well-referenced answer on here, Valiantis :) 85.255.235.17 (talk) 11:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe that a very British response to Scotland leaving the Union will be to do nothing. We won't change our name, our flag or our passport, whether it makes sense or not. That's my confident prediction, which hopefully won't be put to the test. Alansplodge (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

M2A3 Bradley and Pact RPG's

One of the things that strikes me so alarming is how poorly protected the Bradley appears to be when faced against real threats. Indeed, this begs the question of how well the protection it offers would fare against basic anti armor weaponry. For instance, how would it fare against the RPG 7. This weapon is particularly prolific and even the most basic resistance forces field them.

So let's assume the attacker scores a direct hit on a Bradley without TUSK fitted. The weapon used was the RPG7 firing and for the sake of likelihood a PG-7V warhead is fired. The projectile strikes a side panel at 50m. (Biggest silhouette) What sort of damage are we likely talking here. I would personally expect that the vehicle would be sufficiently damaged to be unable to continue, with a good chance of crew casualties or fatalities.

Based on what I know, Bradley looks like an utter death trap, especially in urban battlefields. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.96.72 (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

This article (about halfway down) talks about the M2A2's armor, but also states "Information regarding the specific mechanism of operation and threat level is classified SECRET." It also notes that "The vehicle's reliability, survivability and lethality has [sic] surpassed initial expectations. Of the 2,200 Bradleys involved in Operation Desert Storm, only three were disabled." Clarityfiend (talk) 08:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It all depends on how they are used. As a replacement for Humvees, say where only small arms fire is expected and maybe an occasional IED, it's a significant improvement. Where more serious opposition is expected, an M1 Abrams might be a better option. StuRat (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I found this preview of M2/M3 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle 1983-95 by Steven J. Zaloga, 1995, Osprey Publishing (pp. 13-14), which hopefully you can see - Google Books can be rather coy about whom it shows things to. After detailing the disadvantages of building an armoured infantry transporter that is as heavy as a tank, it says: "Due to the nature of army weapons, armour configurations are either on the light side (to defend against anti-personnel weapons) or extremely heavy and tank-like (to defend against anti-tank weapons). There is little sense in adopting an armour level in between". Alansplodge (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Tow truck problem

I see these very large, heavy-duty tow trucks meant to tow, I don't know, buses and dump trucks, and I was wondering what is used to tow these big tow trucks when necessary? And then it got me thinking whether it's an inherent design feature that any particular grade of tow truck must be able to be towed by itself (not literally, but by a tow truck of similar design but distinct identity). Thanks! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 11:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

You are correct - a tow truck would be albe to tow a copy of itself - otherwise we'd have Turtles_all_the_way_down 196.214.78.114 (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Just Google "tow truck towing a tow truck" and you'll find no shortage of examples, including a tow truck towing a tow truck towing a tow truck towing a car.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Lack of visible chains suggest Shantavira's amazing image is an artifact of Photoshop. When all else fails, it's time to call the army. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Though I can't imagine the circumstances that would require those tow trucks to carry each other and the car, the lack of chains can be explained by the lack of detail in the image (it's rather low res.) and the fact that chains would come up from the bed of the tow trucks and hook onto the undercarriage of the trucks and car. Dismas|^(talk) 06:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This is clearly just a set up photo, there is no way this lot could actually move. Look at the suspension and loading ramps at the back. I'm not sure there is any photoshopping, this would be relatively easy to set up for a one-off shoot. The lowering of the supension space on the vehicles seems authentic beyond what the average pshopper would do, and chains are absent because this lot didn't move. Great image though, thanks Shantivira. Richard Avery (talk) 07:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hiring a writer

Does anyone know of a good website for finding UK-based writers for hire, alongside a profile of their work? Many of the ghostwriting organizations I have found do not give even the titles of the books for which they are in part responsible.--Leon (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I meant portfolio, not profile. And I need writers of children's fiction.--Leon (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Virtually by definition, ghost writers keep their identities secret, and would be very unlikely to publish portfolios containing extracts from their work, because this would reveal secrets they are paid to keep. Since you are looking for a specialist in children's fiction, one strategy might be to contact the publishers or literary agents of celebrities with no previous writing experience who have suddenly become best-selling authors of children's books (whilst still managing to maintain their careers as actors, singers, philanthropists and screenwriters, and fitting in their hobbies of attending leading designers' catwalk shows and being photographed walking their adorable dogs, not to mention all those holidays), and ask for some guidance. A quick check of Amazon provided a huge list of children's books written by celebrities - by models, princesses, comedians, film directors, members of leading political dynasties, pop stars, athletes, and anchor-people. The advantage that all of these people have that you (probably) don't is that they are already famous, and their books are a form of brand extension and image management: people will buy their books on the basis of their name. This is unlikely to happen for you, so you'll have to be very sure that your story will sell. RomanSpa (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The Ghost writer article you linked to names two services that do exactly [no they don't: no profile] what the OP is asking for: Ghostwriters Ink and SEO writer, though I didn't look close enough to see if they are UK based. I doubt it would be a major roadblock to them even if it wasn't, though. Anonymity is not a requirement for ghostwriting, though. Ghostwriters are often credited on the copyright page (even though the might not hold the copyright themselves for various contract and legal reasons.) Mingmingla (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Freelancer.com is global, so there would be UK-based writers. They have the option of displaying writing samples in their portfolios. Whether it's a good website or not, well ... YMMV. At least clients are asked to provide ratings/feedback. If you need advice about the site and how it works, let me know. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)