Humanities desk
< January 27	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 29 >

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.

January 28

Unemployment benefits

Is former president Obama now eligible for federal unemployment benefits? What about any state benefits, and which state would it be? That last is of course irrelevant to Obama, but might matter to other DC residents.

I am not seeking legal advice. But this question cannot go unasked, and google didn't help. Thanks.

50.0.136.56 (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno about "cannot go unasked", but here's the FAQ for people in DC seeking unemployment: [1] --Golbez (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. From the actively seeking work requirement, it sounds like he has to run for two new offices every week. Not bad I guess. I've been hearing that Secretary Clinton might run for NYC mayor after not getting the White House job she was interested in, so maybe she's in the same situation as Obama. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Former presidents currently receive a pension that is equal to pay for the head of an executive department" per this source. Also, unemployment benefits generally aren't worth collecting unless that the only thing that's going to keep you off the street. (Also, were Obama to try and seek unemployment benefits for some reason, he would just have to look for two new jobs of any kind, not necessarily political office. I'm teaching university now, but when I go back to the states, I'd be disqualified from unemployment if I turned down a job pushing shopping carts.) Ian.thomson (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is apparently legal to collect both a pension and unemployment in the United States [2], though the details vary by jurisdiction. I suspect Obama would be disqualified by his assets and the size of his pension. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In all Jurisdictions I am familiar with, to get unemployment benefits you must prove that you are actively looking for a job and that you are not refusing valid job offers. I doubt a former president could qualify. -Arch dude (talk) 05:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The general requirement is you must be seeking a job fitting your qualifications or some such, e.g. a replacement for the old job, not pushing shopping carts. Thus my joke that Obama would have to run for another office. But they really do want you to get a job comparable to your old one, partly because if the system required people to drop to lower rungs in the ladder to stay off the street, everyone below them would also get pushed downward, til the folks at the bottom get creamed. At least that's the way someone told it to me once. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 07:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The rule as to refusing jobs is controversial at times. An actual case was an unemployed woman in Germany who signed up with an employment agency saying she was seeking waitressing work, only to receive a call from a brothel (prostitution is legal in Germany) offering her a job as a "sex worker". She was very upset, but the brothel had done nothing illegal. The hypothetical question was asked as to losing unemployment benefits for refusing a job has any limits in a case like this. [3] is a later case, although refusing a job merely serving drinks in a brothel, not actual sex work, is perhaps more difficult to defend in the face of unemployment benefits. Eliyohub (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'd have really much preferred not to have got offers to help set up porn or betting services. Thankfully has stopped now. Dmcq (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asia

Why is the band called Asia?

I've heard a couple unsupported stories;

They were formed back when vinyl records and record stores were still popular. They wanted a name beginning with 'A' so consumers would see them first when browsing alphabetically sorted bins.

The original members came from huge bands; Yes & ELP. They wanted something that conveyed immensity, and Asia is the biggest continent on Earth.

Are there any sources on this?

Benjamin (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This book contains founder John Wetton's own words on the subject. It's not very coherant (IMHO), but it is from "the horse's mouth" as it were, so probably as reliable as anything else. --Jayron 32 05:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are there border markers on the Great Lakes at the US-Canada border?

In situ, like floating buoys or something so that if one swims there, he/she would know where to swim. Thanks.--93.174.25.12 (talk) 12:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, but I doubt the border guards are too fussed if you happen to swim into the "wrong side" of the lake, as long as they don't have reason to fear you getting out on the "wrong shore". More concerning, if you swum in the wrong shots of the lakes, I suspect, would be getting hit by a ship or boat. So if you intrude on a shipping channel, they will likely promptly respond - but this has nothing to do with "border protection", per se. Determining who "they" should be (U.S. water police, or Canadian), I think with established shipping channels, jurisdiction over the particular channel would have long been determined. But I accept that this answer is unsourced. Can anyone track down a case of someone arrested for border violations for "swimming in the wrong spot", without crossing onto terra firma of the opposite country? Eliyohub (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except in the rivers (which I hope our swimmer could recognize), I don't see any locations less than a mile wide along the border in the lakes. Hardly casual swimming. However border patrol and coast guard are present throughout the area. The rules are complex (for example, the boat of a U.S. citizen can cross from briefly into Canadian waters and not need to report to Canada border control if it goes from one U.S. city to another but they do have to report if they briefly cross into Canada and then sail back to the same U.S. city. And they wouldn't need to report to U.S. border control unless they met a foreign boat in mid-water.) Fishing regulations, tax regulations, people smuggling - all have been issues along the lakes. Every inch of the border is clearly known on paper and jurisdictions are not muddy. Cooperation, especially for rescue operations, is high. Joint law enforcement boat patrols occurs in some areas.[4] Rmhermen (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Border Markers Will Be Placed Along Lake Erie: American-Canadian Border To Be Defined For Fishing Purposes from the Toledo Blade April 7, 1949. However, according the map at Great Lakes Nearshore Buoy Network, there don't appear to be any buoys along the border today (or maybe border markers aren't included in their data - it does specify "nearshore"). I did find a Bicentenniel Marker Buoy to designate the Battle of Lake Erie which we lost apparently (well, everybody has a bad day now and again). Alansplodge (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like what is needed is a great wall, it will be a great great Wall, and Canada will pay for it ;-) Dmcq (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless they build one first. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are no border markers but the distance across each lake is measured in dozens of miles. [5] There is little chance of anyone "accidentally" swimming over the border. Buoys mark navigation channels and hazards. A Canadian did get into a small amount of bother for swimming across the mile-wide Detroit River and back.[6] U.S. and Canadians boating across the Great Lakes borders have a set of strange and complex rules to follow for reporting to each others border control agencies.[7] Rmhermen (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not swimming but boating across the boarder has caused problems for US fishermen. On the other hand 1,500 drunk Americans just get sent back. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rmhermen, your reference to the case of the idiot swimming across the Detroit river emphasises my initial reply as to the dangers of intruding on shipping channels. The guy was very nearly struck by a ship. That's a serious crime pretty much anywhere, to intrude on a shipping channel, even if it's not an "international" one. Note it seems the man was not questioned or charged over the "border violation" element. Eliyohub (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, the water border is (or maybe was, not sure if they still exist) marked by reference markers placed on the shore to indicate where the border would change direction. --Jayron 32 15:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actual airspace defence in the U.S., and other western countries

I was reading [8] where a purported U.S. border patrol agent claimed the prolific use of ultralight aircraft in smuggling operations was a very real and very serious threat along the U.S.- Mexican border. He says anything could hypothetically be in the plane. The border agents have radar, but no actual way of intercepting the planes.To quote him:

"We had no real way of tracking/engaging these ultralights. Occasionally we'd have a Blackhawk helicopter who could catch them. One National Guard F-16 accidentally forced one to crash when checking it out. These little tiny ultralight aircraft would fly into the U.S. as far as Phoenix. One actually flew through the Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport's airspace --- causing them to place all commercial aircraft in a holding pattern."

In describing how to deal with them, I will quote again:

"Now, from a defensive perspective we could simply shoot them down - unannounced foreign aircraft crossing into U.S. airspace, etc. but the kinder/gentler modern U.S.A. would likely not abide such actions and would cry foul."

I TOTALLY disagree, personally, I would not hesitate to authorize a shoot-down if I believed it was a deliberate, criminal airspace intrusion. (A lost pilot is another story, but he will usually respond to radio contact). I can't imagine any outcry, any I wrong? And neither would many countries.

I am quite shocked at the near total lack of airspace defence. Similarly, when the pentagon was told of the hijacking of airliners on September 11 after the first two struck the World Trade Centre, there was apparently not a single armed fighter jet available to get in the air. For all they knew, more planes had been hijacked, and more targets were liable to be hit. Yet not a single air-to-air combat aircraft was there to get off the runway fast and respond. All the budget of North American Aerospace Defense Command doesn't deliver this???

A similar incident once occurred in Germany, where a nutter in a light plane went a little haywire. It took half an hour to get a fighter jet in the air. So they negotiated with the haywire light aircraft pilot, and I think it all ended peacefully, as the fighter jet escorted him back to the airport. I can't seem to track down the story. My point is that there was no system in place to immediately scramble fighter planes to confront an airborne threat.

In Israel, on the other hand, when a light plane pilot tried the same thing, flying over the border from Lebanon in some crazy joyride, fighter jets were there to confront him in minutes. After repeated non-response to attempts to make radio contact with the intruder and demands he turn around, the fighter planes fired warning shots. When these failed to achieve the desired result, they shot the plane down. See the story at [9].

(For the record, the pilot's intentions remain obscure, he had no authorisation for take off, he was a student pilot flying without his instructor in breach of Lebanese aviation law, no permission from the plane's owner for the flight, the owner remains baffled, and why did he fly into Israel? No idea, would love if someone could post some link explaining the possible motivations for this idiotic joyflighting. But this is totally a "side" question).

Can someone explain airspace intrusion response procedures and capabilities (or, perhaps, lack of capabilities) in the current day United States? I can't help but be stunned that the most militarily powerful nation on earth seems to lack the capability to promptly respond to airspace intrusion on the home front, be they by smugglers in ultralight planes, or hijacked airliners by terrorists, even after they have been identified as such. Can anyone clarify? Excuse the TL:DR nature of this question, I don't know how to condense it. Eliyohub (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, this function is carried out (in part) by the RAF's Quick Reaction Alert in which at least two Typhoon fighters are ready at all times. They respond to both civilian issues and military incursions. See [10][11], [12]. QRA formations exist in other European countries also.[13][14]. Nanonic (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On a purely formal level, both a drug smuggler and a hijacked airliner are purely civilian criminal activities, not military threats. There has certainly been a softening of boundaries, but the basic principle remains. In modern democracies, one legal principle is that of proportionality. You don't shoot a pick-pocket with a bazooka. And in the case of an ultralight coming over the border, you don't know what it's up to. It may be someone who has lost both GPS and radio, and is confused. It may be Felix Leiter returning from a top-secret mission. Or it might be a teenager on a peace mission. The situation is quite different in Israel, a very small country surrounded by several nominally and/or factually hostile neighbours, than in the US, where any actual threat to the substance of the country is remote. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what do we do when suicidal terrorists hijack an airliner and are going to use it as a missile against a skyscraper? Proportionality, you shoot down the airliner, only those on board will die. You do nothing, both those on board and many more will die. So I don't think shooting it down is "disproportionate" at all.

As to the ultralights, you need some sort of way of dealing with them - my question what about the lack of a ready system of air defence to deal with "hostile intrusions" (or, if that's too harsh, "unauthorised intrusions"), be they "military" or "civilian", and the lack of ability on the part of most powerful nation on earth to respond to serious illegal activity (with potentially deadly consequences) and intrusions of its own airspace. What are the systems that are supposed to deal with such intrusions? Whether a hijacked airliner is "military" or not, it's still a threat which needs to be forcefully dealt with. I can't help but feel for Trump's view that "we've defended other nations' borders whilst neglecting to defend our own". But anyways, no politics, back to airspace defence systems. What's the purported U.S. equivalent of the U.K. "quick reaction alert" referred to by Nanonic? Is there one? And if yes, why was it unavailable to be dispatched immediately on the fateful September 11? Likewise, why no air-to-air assets to confront the ultralights, even if only black hawk helicopters? Eliyohub (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Whether a hijacked airliner is "military" or not, it's still a threat which needs to be forcefully dealt with." Until 9/11, no it wasn't. You simply negotiate with the hijackers, get them to land somewhere, then sort it out. Worked for hundreds of hijackings in the 1960s and 70s.[15]. Rmhermen (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. In practice, it's usually much more complicated than in classroom trolley problems. First, just because you lose contact with an airplane, does not mean that it's controlled by hijackers. Most aren't. And even if it's controlled by hijackers, it does not necessarily mean that they are suicidal terrorists - most aren't. And even if they are suicidal terrorists, it does not mean that they will succeed. They may have a change of heart. Or the passengers may manage to overcome the hijackers and regain control. If I remember correctly, 9/11 was the only successful terrorist attack with hijacked airliners ever. It's not a normal case. To borrow from an only slightly different domain, hard cases make bad law. I want the state to be very very reluctant to kill anybody, and in particular to kill anybody who is innocent. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephan Schulz: Only successful terrorist attack using a hijacked airliner? Dunno, perhaps, though certainly not the only attempted one, there was an earlier attempt, I think, somewhere. But not the only deliberate air crash attack. See 2010 Austin suicide attack.

Also from our List of aircraft hijackings September 29, 1988: a man hijacked a VASP Boeing 737-300 registration PP-SNT operating flight 375 en route from Belo Horizonte-Pampulha to Rio de Janeiro. He wanted to force a crash on the Palácio do Planalto, the official presidential workplace in Brasília. The pilot convinced the hijacker to divert to Goiânia where an emergency landing was made. The hijack ended with 1 victim.

See also Samuel Byck - same attempt, intended to crash the plane into the white house, in 1974.

Also from our list, Nikola Kavaja may have been attempting the same thing, only his target was the Yugoslav Communist Party headquarters.

Further, January 11, 1987: A Continental Airlines DC-9 was hijacked in flight by Norwood Emanuel, a Muslim hijacker that wanted to crash into the White House on Jan. 11, 1987. The crew diverted a possible disaster 14 years before the 9-11 attack. Captain Mark Meyer was credited with thwarting the hijacking by quickly landing at Dulles International outside of Washington D.C.. Capt. Meyer then confronted and distracted Emanuel in the rear of the cabin allowing all 49 passengers and crew to successfully evacuate onto the ramp. Capt. Meyer escaped 2 hours later. The FBI eventually talked Emanuel off of the aircraft. No deaths/ No injuries.

Point is, such attempts, and the concept of such an attack, were by no means new, and Air defence should have been available. Eliyohub (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So: Not an airliner, not successful, not successful, unclear if there even was an attempt, and misinterpretation of an unreliable source (fixed now). The possibility is understood, but so is the possibility of lightening strikes, of common street murder, and asteroid impacts. And yet we don't cover the Earth in lightening rods, lock everybody up preventatively, and neither Bruce Willis nor Jean Luc Picard are under permanent NASA contracts. You have to balance the size of the risk and the size of countermeasures. And the risk of a successful terrorist airliner attack is very remote, while the cost of keeping interceptor aircraft on duty for a country the size of the US is very high. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, if you shoot down an airliner full of people and it turns out that there was no terrorist threat, then you've killed potentially hundreds of innocent people for no reason at all. It is a very last resort not to be undertaken lightly. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to condense it? "I support the summary execution without trial of suspected criminals. Especially Mexicans." You've certainly caught the contemporary zeitgeist. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With an aerial intrusion, you attempt an intercept. See how the Israelis handled the situation they encountered - they did NOT immediately shoot, they certainly tried everything else first. But when all else failed, they opened fire, fair enough. Note that in most countries, trying to cross a border illegally WILL likely get you shot, particularly if the border guard believes the alternative is you escaping into the country whose border he's guarding. If he can apprehend you alive, he might (morally, it is his absolute duty to do so, I have no doubt), but otherwise... yes, in most parts of the world, you WILL get shot. Fleeing felon rule is the sort of rule usually applied to an aerial intruder, if alternatives don't work. This is pretty much standard policy. I support deadly force as a last resort to stopping a threat of this sort. But anyways, this has nothing to do with my question, which was not about policy, but capabilities in dealing with home front airspace defence. Nanonic said how it's done in the UK, my question, I repeat, is, what is the American equivalent capability, if any? Eliyohub (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about what the question is. The Israelis are much less exposed, individualy and at corps level, to the risk of the nation or the press coverage 'crying foul' in the case of an incident. Their critical area is shorter. Their purely civilian space is nil. But technology is evolving fast. There are some chances the CBP will be benefiting of new material, see for example the VA01 UAS.--Askedonty (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide evidence that in most of the developed world it's normal practice for border guards to shoot someone who is entering without going through border controls if they can't stop them via other means? From the tone of this discussion I assume you mean shoot to kill, especially since most policies suggest randomly shooting someone is generally a bad idea. (If you want to shoot with real ammo you're generally supposed to use lethal force.) I appreciate this is complicated by the limited border controls in the EU which is a big chunk of the developed world, but you're the one making the claim here. I'm limiting this to the developed world since views on human rights etc can be fairly different outside the developed world. And I'm not intending to criticise any specific policy, since I don't think it's necessary or helpful to the discussion, and in any case the circumstances in each countries e.g. Israel would need to be considered.

BTW, you do understand the the fleeing felon rule tends to be greatly limited in many developed common law countries right? For example, the only jurisdiction the article you linked to mentions is the US and it says since Tennessee v. Garner in 1985 it's been required that "the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or other". So despite what TV often depicts, the police aren't supposed to aim their guns at everyone running away. This source [16] suggests it was greatly limited in most of Australia except NSW by 1993. I can't find any source which explicitly discusses current NSW policy, but [17] makes me think it's been eliminating. In any case, the policy mentioned in this source from 1996 said to be in effect since 1975 [18] has this requirement "the person fleeing to avoid arrest actually committed the felony or is the person named or described in the warrant". (All this is relating to police policy and it's not completely clear whether the law still allows killing fleeing felons.) I came across [19] which suggests the situation is unclear in Jamaica but it definitely seems like the police probably can't just kill any fleeing felon just because they have no other way to arrest them. It also mentions Criminal Law Act 1967 in England and Wales which states "A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large." I couldn't find a source explicitly stating it, but it seems unlikely lethal force will be considered "reasonable in the circumstances" in all cases of "lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large".

I mention all this because of your connection to border control as if there border guards aren't stopping Joaquin 'El Chapo' Guzman or someone with a weapon, the modern interpretation of the fleeing felon rule would seem to prevent border guards shooting someone solely because they are entering without going through border controls. (Note in particular that while it's possible the guards have a resonable belief the person is not allowed in the country, they can't be certain of it.) Of course the situation for border guards may be different so I'm not intending to suggest this means border guards can't use lethal force, I just want evidence either way.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I should clarify that the US is also one place where it's sometimes a matter of policy. As our article does mention, the case was about a civil rights violation. And although it was found to be unconstitutional, this doesn't mean states are required to criminalise such violations and some still do not. However as far as I can tell, most police forces in states which still sue the older standard have changed their policies to prevent such violations. There's some decent discussion in this source [20] linked in our article. It's also true that regardless of whether it's arguably a violation of policy or the law, in some cases (not just in the US) police are given wide latitude to make decisions and there's a relucance to "second guess". So there may be limited penalty to someone who does something many see as against policy or the law. However, my wider point namely as far as I can tell, many developed common law countries seem to have abandoned the traditional fleeing felon concept where it's acceptable to kill any felon fleeing if you can't stop them another way, instead requiring that the pose more harm then simply being a fleeing felon. Nil Einne (talk) 12:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See e.g. [21] [22] [23] where it's suggested it isn't acceptable to use intentionally use lethal force just to stop people entering in Hungary and Slovakia. And we're referring to countries which have generally been criticised within the EU for their policies. Nil Einne (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also fairly confused about your mention of aerial intruder. Are you claiming that aerial intruders are generally shot down in developed countries simply because they appeared to have entered the country without permission or won't communicate? If so, can you provide some evidence for this? You mentioned the UK, but I find it doubtful this applies in the UK. Perhaps you've misunderstood the above comments. Things like the Quick Reaction Alert system deals with threats yes, but there needs to be sufficient evidence of a genuine threat and I'm fairly sure that threat doesn't just mean "entering without permission and/or not communicating" but "feel there is a genuine risk to other people". For example, if a passenger jet is flying towards a big city and it appears to have been hijacked with no communication, then perhaps shooting it down will be considered. If someone is simply flying their small plane to try and get into the UK without going through border controls and lands well before they get to any areas with significant population, I find it fairly doubtful this would be considered sufficient threat to shoot it down. I didn't find anything explicitly mentioning this but see e.g. [24]. Evidentally the CIA does or did stuff in Peru [25] but as with my earlier question, I'm limiting this to the developed world. Nil Einne (talk) 10:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the Rules of engagement for the UK quick reaction alert fighters, just that it does seem like they would be immediately dispatched in such a situation, to confront the wayward plane. Actual judgements on opening fire would be presumably based on risk assessment, though I don't know the exact rules. My question was, what is the American equivalent, in the case of a future September 11? (Actual September 11, armed fighters able to be immediately dispatched did not exist, even once President Bush gave the go-ahead for them to launch and respond). And, separately, how do you effectively deal with the ultralights? See below for my mention of the use of the Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk, but what should the helicopter do when it confronts? Eliyohub (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States and Canada, aerospace defense is a mutual responsibility coordinated by NORAD, or the North American Aerospace Defense Command.

First, some historical perspective. During the Cold War, there was an entire USAF MAJCOM called the Aerospace Defense Command which provided fighter alert squadrons at air force bases nationwide (but principally near America's land and sea frontiers) to defend against the projected threat of Soviet nuclear-equipped strategic bombers. There was a highly-coordinated system of radar stations and alert squadrons, the Semi-Automatic Ground Environment — originally, it also included Army-operated Nike surface-to-air missile batteries, but they were phased out by the early 1970s. With the introduction of ICBMs, both SAMs and alert fighters were seen as largely obsoleted, so the ADC was disestablished in 1980 and the alert fighter mission greatly reduced. However, after 9/11, it was somewhat re-prioritized.

These fighters would be dispatched by NORAD in response to radar contacts from the Joint Surveillance System, which is the USAF and FAA national airspace monitoring and tracking radar system. However, if you're talking about ultralights, those would be extremely difficult or impossible to pick up on radar — their radar cross-section is very small. Nor would a modern Mach 2-capable jet fighter be able to make an interception — the stall speed of an F-15 or F-16 is far, far faster than any ultralight can fly. There is very little, bordering on none at all, threat to the United States' airspace from any conventional adversary at this point, short of another fleet of Soviet bombers coming over the poles. No other nation in the Americas has an air force capable of even threatening to project power into our borders, let alone overcome our air defenses. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mathias Rust is kind of relevant (though not Western)... AnonMoos (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks NorthBySouthBaranof, finally an answer with addresses my question. Could the National Air Guard respond based on a report from a border control agent, as opposed to the Joint Surveillance System? ? The former border guard claims that an Air National Guard F-16 DID once confront an ultralight, somehow resulting in the ultralight crashing. Possibly the ultralight pilot freaked when confronted with the terrifying spectacle of a fighter jet. Given that, as stated, the F-16 must fly far faster than the ultralight, I assume it circled its quarry. He also mentioned the occasional use of some variant of the Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk to confront an ultralight, which doesn't have the "must fly too fast" problem referred to. Would this work? Could it be done? Why isn't it done? The Border Guard said usually, this doesn't happen, the ultralights enter totally unchallenged. Practically, how does one respond to this sort of threat? Would a Black Hawk work, and if yes, how should it be used? If not, what other options are potentially available? As a matter of totally freaking out the pilot of the ultralight, the F-16 option seems very effective, and, in the case (see my original post) seemed to work. But that only works until the ultralight pilots learn that the F-16 shadowing them has zero authority to actually fire. Eliyohub (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cadences

Is there any research on what kinds of cadences/accents/etc. keep people's attention the best? Or leave them with the most comprehension or retention?

Can't find a link but years ago I saw an article suggesting that any accent the listener's don't have is better, because it forces them to pay more attention to understand the speaker.

Benjamin (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There has been some research on which accents people prefer to hear when using a call centre - this is one example http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-britain-branding-accents-idUKTRE5AN37C20091124 but a bit of research should throw up others from different countries. Wymspen (talk) 11:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article by market research company YouGov UK, (again about British accents) has the southern Irish accent as the most appealing, closely followed by Received Pronunciation (RP) and Welsh. At the bottom of the heap with negative scores are the main urban accents (with the exception of Geordie); (in descending order) Glaswegian, Cockney, Mancunian, Scouse and Brummie. This 1997 British newspaper article says: "According to a recent survey of 30 recruitment consultants by the Institute of Personnel and Development, RP still opens most doors, while a strong regional or working-class dialect is more likely to get them slammed in your face". Alansplodge (talk) 12:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 January 28

Contents