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.
I'm sure you can order them from the interwebz and have them mailed to anywhere in Vancouver... --Jayron32 00:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest a stamp dealer, many of them also deal in postcards. --Bejnar (talk) 03:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it the British Army and not the Royal Army?[edit]
Simple question really. There is the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines, and the Royal Air Force. Why is the army of Britain called the "British Army" and not the "Royal Army"? Thanks everyone! 59.167.253.199 (talk) 08:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From British Army: "In contrast to the Royal Navy, Royal Marines and Royal Air Force, the British Army does not include Royal in its title because, after a historic struggle between Parliament and monarchy, the British Army has always been answerable to Parliament and the British people rather than the Monarch." --Viennese Waltz 08:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, the obvious question is why - long after the "historic struggle" - are the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines, and the Royal Air Force still so named? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) That really doesn't answer the question, though. The RAF, Royal Navy and Royal Marines are not answerable to the Monarch either, are they? -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 08:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cromwell's New Model Army may have something to do with it, but I'm not sure of the details. Before the civil war regiments were raised and maintained by various nobility - there was no centrally controlled integrated army. That's the reason why there still are regiments named after sundry Dukes, Princes, etc. The Royal Navy on the other hand was a single integrated force - answerable to the crown. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Bill of Rights prohibits a standing army, the Army must be regularly authorised by Parliament. Armies are seen as a tool for oppression of the people, whereas the Navy is for defence from foreign powers and the protection of trade. We did not have an air force in the 17th Century. DuncanHill (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The British Army as a whole is not royal, but most of its constituent parts are. Many of the infantry and armoured regiments are so designated (e.g. Royal Green Jackets, Royal Welsh Fusiliers, Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, Royal Tank Regiment), along with almost all the supporting corps (e.g. Royal Engineers, Royal Artillery, Royal Army Medical Corps). All of these were independent formations that received their royal designations separately. It didn't make sense to refer to the collected assemblage of them, under the banner of the British Army, as also "royal".
The other services were more monolithic entities. Multiple independent formations did not assemble to form the Navy when called upon; there was just the one Royal Navy. The Royal Air Force was originally created as a single unit within the Royal Engineers called the Air Battalion. It was later established as a separate army corps, the Royal Flying Corps. When it merged with the Royal Naval Air Service to become an independent service it kept its royal title.
So the reason is, that's the way it has always been. As a wise man once said, "Of course it's daft; it's traditional." - EronTalk 17:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so. Equally daft is the fact that "On enlistment, the Army and Air Force Acts require members of the Army, Royal Air Force and Royal Marines to take an oath of allegiance to the Monarchy as Head of the Armed Forces. Members of the Royal Navy have never been required to swear an oath – the service was formed hundreds of years ago and its existence stems from the Sovereign’s prerogative". [1] But that's the way it is and always shall be, unless a good reason to change presents itself. Alansplodge (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it reasonable to assume that the penalty for an act of treason is the same, regardless of whether the traitor took an oath or not? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But something may be a breach of the oath but not high treason. DuncanHill (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Treason has quite a narrow definition. --John (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be more specific, then, what could a soldier do that would violate the oath but would not be considered treason? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Army oath is I... swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the generals and officers set over me, so, failing to obey an order would be a breach of the Oath, but it would not be treason. DuncanHill (talk) 09:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that failing to obey an order would be a breach of Queen's Regulations in the first instance. I'm fairly certain that the oath is more of a formality, which is how the Navy gets away without one. But I'm not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice. Alansplodge (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Banknotes that can't be scanned or photocopied[edit]
A friend told me that some countries' banknotes have "special dots" that prevent scanners and photocopiers from working if one tries to copy them. Is this true? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - according to the list in the article there are EURion dots on South African notes but I can't find them. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This page suggests there are old versions of South African notes that do not have them. 88.112.50.121 (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Watermarks are an effective anti-copying technique. While they may copy, they don't look at all the same as the original. StuRat (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Copiers aren't perfect - so the trick is to find their flaws and exploit them. So, for example, they have limited resolution - so if you produce an effect on your banknote that has a bunch of curving, thin lines - then you'll produce a Moiré pattern that looks nothing like the original note. Similarly, you can put shiney metallic patches on your banknote - which look dark from every angle except exactly square-on to the light...which is how the scanner will see them as bright white dots. Another trick is to use the fact that copiers use cyan/magenta/yellow and black inks and cannot produce all of the colors that a specific color of ink can be. I'm not sure I know what these "special dots" are - but you can be sure that any reasonably popular currency will have a bunch of anti-copier technologies in them. SteveBaker (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the EURion dots are obfuscated in many applications. There are many ways to prevent copying, but the EURion dots mentioned by ...121 are the only ones I know of that use a special arrangement of dots. As for OP (or anyone) finding them on a specific bill, they can themselves be "hidden" amongst other dots. See e.g. the US$20. On the SA Rand 50 note, they are arrayed quite conspicuously, next to an image of Orion! This page shows pics, of various SA bank notes, but refers to the EURion dots as "Omron rings" [2]SemanticMantis (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Void pantographs can use "special dots" (little ones and even littler ones). ---Sluzzelintalk 20:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, indeed! Still, our article says it is a "copy-evident" system, wherein the copy will show some pattern not visible on the original. Contrariwise, EURion prevents compliant hardware from even making a copy! SemanticMantis (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I want to get the Yamaha R25 details with its photo (market version) please anyone google it and paste it on the comment box below. I dont want the link of google or any other websites ..[edit]
This question has already been answered - see your previous topic above. Nobody will paste copyrighted images here so you will just have to follow the link already given. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
new performance and optimization model technology developed[edit]
Hi, our research institute has developed a certain model for performance optimization and re engineering of business processes. it is based on EFQM and six sigma technologies. I have a written a small write up on the same and am trying to put it on wikipedia.
i would like to know how i can do this without disclosing too much information with just some basic outlines about it as we still have not got it patented. i have received a comment form "Hasteur" saying it needs significant work.. how much??? in what aspect??? i lack the knowledge!
Please help as this is my first time posting on wikipedia!
H1_visa is the name for a visa used to let a USA company employ a foreign worker. I would think that a similar thing in Dubai has a different name. Here is the website for immigration info in Dubai [3]. They probably have information on work visas for non-Dubai citizens. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would be non-Emirate citizens, I think. Dubai is to the UAE as New Hampshire is to the USA, or Queensland is to Australia. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 21:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would depend on what the rules for internal migration are within the UAE. I don't know one way or the other, but there's no reason to presume that freedom of movement between the constituent emirates is the same as it is between the constituent states of other Federal Republics like the USA or Australia. It may be. I've looked around Wikipedia, and can't find any answer, but that doesn't mean that someone from another Emirate wouldn't need some sort of visa to travel to Dubai. --Jayron32 22:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that there are restrictions on travel among the emirates, but there may be restrictions on legal residence and employment such that an individual may have permission to live and work in one emirate but not another. Marco polo (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
