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.
I have recently acquired ARMA 2: Operation Arrowhead, and there is a scenario editor with it. I set up a game, with my forces consisting of a T-55, a Mi-8, a IFV of some sort, and some infantry. The enemy forces had some infantry and two Bradley Fighting Vehicles. After a very short time, my T-55 had destroyed one of the Bradleys, but then itself got destroyed, and i have no idea by what. Does a Bradley have the firepower to destroy a T-55 in real life? The enemy infantry were too far away to use anti-tank grenades, and had no anti-tank weaponry at all. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks. I should have looked at that. This probably explains it, then - in fact that article mentions that Bradleys took out T-55 tanks in Desert Storm. It was about 1,000 metres away, with the other one (which was destroyed) a bit further out, with infantry between them. Thanks! KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This site says that the weapon in question is the TOW missile. This is a big beast, which can penetrate 900mm of armour at a range of 3.75km. The T-55 has hull armour of 99mm. Its main drawback is that it isn't a fire and forget system and has to be guided all the way to the target by an operator. See Wire-guided missile. Alansplodge (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing was destroyed. You were playing a game on a computer. Edison (talk) 04:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ArmA 2 doesn't have fantastically realistic tank damage modeling either. Any explosive weapon except an AP grenade will damage armor slightly. Repeated hits from the Bradleys autocannon will wear down a section of the tank to the point of its destruction, which will cause an automatic crew bail and eventual destruction of the tank, depending on where it's hit. This would happen in real life too but only after a long long time. Most likely though it was the TOW missiles the vehicle packs. 192.84.79.2 (talk) 10:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Out of total 55 nations, which African nations have Islam as their major religion? Please no arguments. Just clear answers. Thank you. 70.29.35.64 (talk) 03:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Don Musty the African lover.70.29.35.64 (talk) 03:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, you ask for no arguments, just clear answers. Maybe the reason for the more complicated answers than you want (not arguments) to other similar recent questions is that in this area there ARE no simple answers. Asking for something doesn't make it so. Many of the worlds problems are caused by politicians, or the uninformed masses who voted for them, hoping or thinking or acting as if the world is a simple place. This was particularly so in the western world's responses to Islam 10 years ago. Sorry, the world isn't simple. Nor is religion. I'm glad you're trying to learn about it, but do be willing to accept the more complex answers. HiLo48 (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to be a grandstanding windbag. The OP is obviously asking a simple question with a plain, factual answer. LANTZYTALK 21:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a really stupid response. My post was explicitly about the fact that there are often no plain factual answers, even to what seem like simple questions, so you attack me for not giving a plain factual answer. Dumb. HiLo48 (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Map of religions in africaThis map, from Religion in Africa, should answer your question. gnfnrf (talk) 03:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The question must be clarified. Do you mean: In which African nations is Islam the single, government supported religion? Do you mean: In which African nations is Islam recognized as one of several official religions? Do you mean: In which African nations is Islam the religion of the majority of the population? You will get a different answer to each of these questions. Blueboar (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or could you even mean which African nations have Islam as the religion of a plurality of their population? In which case, how do you seperate religions? Do you count all Christians together? Nil Einne (talk) 00:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That image seems odd -- how can the south west corner of Ethiopia be officially Islamic? Llamabr (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear friends,
I went through article on FII and FDI in wikepedia.But i have few queries.Can anybody help me out please:
1.What is basic diff between FII and FDI?
2.What advantages/disadvantages a developing country(like India) has in allowing FDI instead of FII?
3.I heard that FDI is more stable than FII?can anybody please explain me on this query?
4.For which sectors FII is preferred than FDI and why so?
Friends,please dont feel I am asking very basic things...Actually i am facing problems in understanding these issues.
Both activities bring in money from other countries. If an American investment company buys shares in Indian companies, that is an example of foreign institutional investment. If an American company sets up a factory in India, that is an example of foreign direct investment. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. I don't know answers to your other questions, except that in your question 3 you can see that in FII the American company could sell its shares in Indian companies very quickly but in FDI the American company couldn't sell its factory so quickly. Perhaps this will get you started on your own reading. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot "Itsmejudith"...really it helped me in clearing my doubts..thank u:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navneeth tn (talk • contribs) 14:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you found it helpful. Ask further more specific questions if you need to. There are quite a few people here who are well informed about business and economics. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As of now, is the Nobel committee saying still that Ralph Steinman is a recipientedit
Current rules say the prize can't be given if the person dies before the announcement is made. Ralph Steinman did die days before the announcement was made that he was a winner, but apparently the Nobel committee hadn't heard. But the fact remains that he did die before the announcement was made. Have they rescinded the award since by their own rules he's ineligible, or are they still at this moment saying he's a recipient (thus making an exception)? 20.137.18.53 (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found [1] which says 'A decision will be made in the next 24 hours about whether Ralph Steinman can be posthumously awarded the Nobel' Nil Einne (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They decided to award it to Steinman anyways [2]. The loophole/excuse is that the committee is not allowed to consider giving the award posthumously, but since they were not aware of his death, they awarded the price in good faith. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Daylight Saving Time, Germany, Coal and the Waredit
The article on daylight saving time states that:
Starting on 30 April 1916, Germany and its World War I allies were the first to use DST (German: Sommerzeit) as a way to conserve coal during wartime.
Two questions about this:
1) I presume -- but the article does not say -- that the Germans thought this would help save on lighting. Is this true?
We hold these truths to be self-evident. In London today, (1 degree of latitude south of Berlin) sunset is at 18:35. Without DST, that would be 17:35 so anyone wishing to work past 5:30pm would have to turn the lights on. On the other hand, sunrise today without DST would be at 06:05 when must sensible people are still tucked-up in bed and wasting daylight. The proof is that just about every other industrial country did the same thing. BTW most lighting in 1916 would come from coal gas, which I imagine is less efficient. Alansplodge (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What if people have a flexible working day? Would it still matter whether you have DST or not? 88.8.79.204 (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that if you want everybody in your country to get up an hour earlier and finish work an hour earlier, the easiest way is to put everybody's clocks forward an hour. I'm not sure that flexi-time existed in 1916. Obviously, workers like miners who worked shifts and farmers who worked whenever it was daylight, wouldn't have been affected much. Alansplodge (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
re:flexible hours... if you are flexible enough, you don't even need a watch... get up at "dawn", have lunch at "noon", go home at "dusk". Blueboar (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As an interesting "aside": The Norwegian expression for someone who wakes up late is "syvsover", lit. someone who sleeps until seven. Sadly, I don't think it'd be easy to get everyone to wake up earlier: There are all those interesting shows on TV that only air late... Or, Wikipedia articles that just have to be written. :-P V85 (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re part 2 of your question, there are some academic studies of the subject of whether daylight saving time saves money and/or energy (which I guess are the two reasons why you would want to "save lighting"). Jørgen (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I don't think it's logically possible for such a thing to exist, you want both "high-quality" and to be missing large numbers of facts, aka, low-quality, at the same time. If you don't mind low quality, I'm sure there are many far-right wing blogs and forums out there that you can find through google. Public awareness (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The World Bank website has a news section which is frequently updated. However, even globalization advocates often have occasion to discuss poor people, restless natives, and other losers. Indeed, they devote attention to these groups precisely to avoid the appearance of callous indifference. So even in the most pro-globalization corners of the web, you may have to wade through a lot of stuff that you find annoying and irrelevant. LANTZYTALK 21:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Economist magazine has a good website with lots of articles on global economics, business and finance, and takes a strongly free-market approach. But it too will occasionally consider human suffering, inequality, human rights, etc. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dang hippies at the The Economist. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's impossible to talk about globalization without talking about corporation and the sometimes destructive outcome of their business. Wikiweek (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I have a question about the Mayan archeology. In the mid 90's. I watched an interesting TV show. In it a group of people studied karst systems in the Yucatan. In the most profound and far from the surface of the cave they found a small, stuffy stones input (such as having the right kind of masonry), supposedly leading to the lower world (or sanctuary) Maya. This entry is supposed walled Mayan priests to keep out a sacred space aliens (such as Spanish) when they invaded their land. Log razmurovyvat did not. On this TV show has ended. Information about this entry, I never found it. If you know something, please tell us: what was this cave and to actually lead this entry? Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Странник27 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Google Translate? Looie496 (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hush Spiderman, I think it's legitimate. :P Googling for "Underground Mayan Ruins", led me to this National Geographic article. The name attached to the ruins thus far, seems to be the Tahtzibichen Labyrinth. Of which we don't have an article about. If anyone is archeologically inclined, feel free. :P There are also other such labyrinths elsewhere, like those under the Tzat Tun Tzat (or Satunsat) building in Oxkintok.
They kind of remind me of Jeff Long's awesome book The Descent (not to be confused with that godawful movie). -- Obsidi♠nSoul 06:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sam left entrance walled up. On other forums I've been told about Balankanchu. But it does not quite fit.89.249.130.150 (talk) 09:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am interested in looking at prior versions of Vermont laws, to see when certain provisions were introduced. I am concentrating on notary laws. Does anyone know of a free on-line source? Jc3s5h (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but that turns out to be a pointer to the same databases one would find at the Vermont legislature site, plus a few things from 1993/1994. I was looking for mid- to early-20th century. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or even better, you could ask a real expert - [3] gives contact information for the Vermont State Archives; I bet they'll know if what you're looking for exists, and if not, what your alternatives are. Sometimes if stuff isn't available online you can nevertheless submit a research request and get your info that way without having to travel to the archive in person. 184.147.120.196 (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It appears if I want to be thorough I will have to go to the state capital. At least this way, I'll know which buildings house which records, so I can select a strategic parking spot. I'll try some less thorough approaches at the local libraries first. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LLMC Digital Law Library has most historical US state legislation available. That's what I usually use for research. It's log-in only, but your local library or university will probably have access, or there's the Wikipedia resource-exchange. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 15:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
