Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 April 20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellaneous desk
< April 19 << Mar | April | May >> April 21 >
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.


Contents


[edit] April 20

[edit] Marketing

what does it mean by MARKETING IMPLICATIONS

Who or what is "it"? --YbborTalkSurvey! 01:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
No need to be snide, fellow volunteer -- this phrasing has the fairly common structure of a non-native speaker's attempt to say "What does the phraseMarketing Implications mean?" Jfarber 01:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't attempting to do so (such is the limitations of our medium). "It" could have been a reference to a specific Wikipedia article, or something someone else said on this page. In any event, thanks for the tip, and I'll keep a heads up for this kind of language in the future :). --YbborTalkSurvey! 02:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Marketing implications: A Google search of the term (in quotes) reveals no definition, but the phrase seems to be used to mean "ways in which thing X reframes the underlying market for goods and services". For example, the marketing implications of modern feminism might include a higher demand for pink cordless drills, an increased cultural demand for pre-made and quick-to-prepare foods, and a need to start portraying women as strong, partnered breadwinners when showing familiy units and promoting products for families. (Oh, and if you use my example for your homework, I expect you to attribute it to the Wikipedia Reference desks, as per our license.) Jfarber 01:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Marketing implications must refer to some specific <product or service> in the widest sense. It refers specifically to the implications for the marketer of satisfying the prospective customer's (and/or consumer's) need or want. Thus the marketing implications refer to the use or value as perceived by the customer. i.e. MIs for a motor car may be safety, reliability for an older person, yet - for the same car - speed and pull value for the young male customers. Thus the marketing plan is set with the implications of each market segment in mind. (I'd let you cite me but we must remain anonymous!)90.9.87.148 14:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)petitmichel

so for a phone company.. picture messaging might HAVE A marketing implication? and free picture messaging for a month? is that an example then?

Picture messaging would only be an issue if sufficient customers wanted it. Otherwise you'd be "product centred" i.e. pushing what you want on to the market. Free usage is a promotional tool designed to persuade wider or greater use. Often used as an intoductory offer.90.27.174.30 11:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)petitmichel

[edit] Is Matrixism Cho Seung-Hui's Religion?

I heard that Cho Seung-Hui followed a religion based on the movie The Matrix. Is that true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.124.144.3 (talk • contribs)

There are quite literally dozens of rumours going around right now, far too many for any one to be verifiable or not. Anyone could say anything about him and someone would take it seriously. --Charlene 02:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The Matrix is now a religion? Wow. I really need to get out more. - Eron Talk 03:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

See Hyperreality. Nebraska Bob 17:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
If you want to learn more about Matrixism, after numerous deletions due to poor citation and a lack of notability, a number of legit sources have been published; we're drafting an article here that cites a good half dozen or so.
Some killers, include Lee Boyd Malvo, the Beltway sniper, [1] do appear to have believed to some extent that the movie was real; often this is used as an attempted insanity plea by the defence. Laïka 10:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you thinking of marxism? --h2g2bob 18:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 56k of spamrant removed (n/t)

Thanks Jfarber, for the memory. ;-) ~ hydnjo talk 06:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Apologies -- meant to provide history link as above, but got distracted by several small RL beings needing a bedtime tuck-in. Hope our regulars enjoy the spam. Jfarber 22:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marketing

Kindly give me a name of well known company's portfolio, the product length, the product width and the product line of that same company.

thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brebylina (talk • contribs)

See this or this or even this. ~ hydnjo talk 08:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Weyerhaeuser. 8 feet. 3.5 inches. Lumber.
Atlant 13:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Locked doors in voting lobby

Hello All, Whilst watching the BBC Parliament channel the other day, I do this rather too much so that I can confirm my belief that democrcacy doesn't work, the Madam Deputy Speaker made a statement that she would investigate the incident of some MP's not being able to vote (Pensions Bill. I think) because they couldn't unlock a door. I can't find anywhere that reports what happened and how many votes went uncast. DOes anybody know? many thanks Scraggy4 09:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There was a tiny bit in the Times. First section on this page mentions it. Skittle 21:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Just on the general question of locking the doors: In Westminster parliaments (UK, Australia, NZ, Canada etc), when it comes time to take a vote, bells are rung (typically for 3 minutes) alerting members of the relevant chamber who might be elsewhere in the building to come down and participate in the vote. They might up on their offices preparing a speech; talking to constituents; having a coffee break; taking a crap; or whatever. They're given sufficient time in which to get there; after that, they're locked out during the vote. It's analogous to a public election being held on a specific day, where the ballot stations are open between specific hours. It's the voter's responsibility to get there before the cut-off time; same in the parliament. Otherwise, they'd be waiting forever and nothing would ever get decided. It's a simple practical measure, which imo has nothing to do with demonstrating either that democracy works or doesn't work. JackofOz 00:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
In this case it appears that the door broke. Hardly a scathing denunciation of Westminster-style democracy, I know, but those nasty facts....--Charlene 03:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attorney-client privilege

Under what conditions, if any, may the IDENTITY of the client be held privelaged? I.e. if a client would like an attorney to represent him/her on a transaction, but remain annonymous through that transaction, to what extent can that annonymity be legally upheld?

I'm afraid what you're asking is pretty clearly legal advice, which we do not and cannot offer. This is especially problematic here, as Wikipedia is an international tool, and even if it what you ask were generally true/false, the exact conditions under which a lawyer may or may not be able to hold client identity a secret may vary depending on your location. My suggestion: ask a local lawyer this question, or contact your local Bar association. Jfarber 18:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
This doesn't just differ from country to country, state to state, or province to province: this differs based on the specifics of each case. As Jfarber says, to get this information you need to talk to a local (in your state, province, or other specific jurisdictions) lawyer. Most North American and British jurisdictions have free telephone legal advice services - in Canada they're often called "law lines". Check in your yellow pages under Lawyer or call the local law society or bar association - they'll be able to direct you. --Charlene 23:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You could also check Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Attorney_Client_Privilege, which, due to some astounding coincidence, has a question very similar to this one. (See also "How to ask a question" at the top of all these help pages.) dr.ef.tymac 00:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Benefits of a pure-flat CRT, and the quality levels of cheap CRT screens.

I currently use a pure-flat 58cm CRT television, an LG Flatron series that I got a few years ago for around AU$380. I was looking around today and spotted an 80cm budget CRT -- curved, and only AU$150 (USD$125). What are the benefits of using a pure-flat CRT? Why is the latter TV so much cheaper (they are both 576i/480i only), and what can make cheap CRTs crappier? Pesapluvo 17:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, flat-screens help reduce glare. But since the price of CRT TV's are decreasing, it could just be because the first TV you bought was during an era where CRT TV's were more expensive. Jamesino 22:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
14.7 pounds/square inch (10,335 KG/M²) is a lot of force. That's how much pressure is bearing down on the faceplate of your CRT, trying to smash the faceplate into the vacuum inside the tube. It's a heck of a lot easier to make a spherical faceplate resist that pressure than a flat piece of glass. The spherical glass can be quite a bit thinner and, therefore, cheaper. The cylindrically-faced Trinitron tubes were in between the two cases.
Atlant 00:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
It would reduce the amount of distortion to the image, and a lot harder to engineer a flat surface on a sphere, but otherwise I don't see much difference. CRT TV's are considered obsolete now so everyone would be lowering their prices and selling them cheap. --antilivedT | C | G 09:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DJ Sharpnel song "Gate of Dreams" sample source?

Does anyone know the source for the sample used in the DJ Sharpnel song "Gate of Dreams" from the Album, Mad Breaks? It is a Japanese source, most probably from an anime.

[edit] Programming in non-english places like japan

I'm not a programmer, but I know enough java to realize that almost everything you type is based on an english word. Are there versions of programming languages for other languages, or do they learn the commands even though they don't make any sense to them to look at them.

The vast majority of programming languages are based on English vocabulary, but a few are not. See Categorical list of programming languages#Non-English-based languages. Marco polo 18:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
So do programmers just learn what looks like random shit? Or do they already know english usually.
Actually, we have a whole article on these, with a more extensive list than my first reference: Non-English-based programming languages. I suppose the experience varies. However, people studying computer programming are likely to have studied some English, either formally or informally. Computer-programming is typically a university-level course, and in most countries, secondary schools leading to university offer English. In the case of Japan, for example, English is mandatory in secondary schools. A person interested in computers would be likely to try to learn English, because it is the predominant language of both programming and the internet. Marco polo 18:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I ran into a Frenchman several years ago who said that he programmed in COBOL in French. I imagine it was just some sort of translated interface, like using "allez a" instead of "go to". Corvus cornix 19:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

BangaBhasha appears to be just such a translated interface for Bengali. It would not be surprising if similar interfaces exist for other languages with many millions of speakers. Marco polo 21:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
There are a few programming languages that people have translated - but generally most people don't bother. There are actually surprisingly few 'key words' in modern languages and many of them are pretty meaningless in English - so they don't suffer much in other languages. For example, we have 'int' and 'char' - which are short for 'integer' and 'character' - but could really be anything. There are other words that don't carry their English meanings too precisely ('static_cast' in C++ for example). In the end, they are arbitary tokens even in English - most of those tell you anything much about what is being talked about - they are almost as arbitary in English as in any other language. In C++ you could write yourself a really short 'include' file that would translate reserved words from whatever language you prefer to the standard C++ words pretty easily. (eg "#define entier int" if you were French) - this is so simple that it's not even worth considering writing a special compiler for non-English C++. What you do' see in non-english programs are class, variable and function names that are in the native language - and native language comments. In Japan, you can usually use native character sets so an English reader who knows no Japanese sees a bunch of utter gibberish with the occasional recognisable Java (or whatever) reserved word. SteveBaker 22:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SASUKE competition

I've done quite a bit of research, read a lot of the material available in English, but I still have no idea how one would actually go about entering this competition. Does anyone have any idea how to do this, where to find an English FAQ page about it, or have the ability to read Japanese and the desire to search for this? 208.140.9.250 18:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Sunlizard

What, if you don't mind explaining, is the "SASUKE competition"? Do you have a link? Can you describe it? Leebo T/C 20:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
It would have been courteous of the inquiring editor to wikilink sasuke. But if s/he'd known about the article(s) (sasuke (television series) looks promising), s/he would have had a starting point for her/his inquiry. Anchoress 23:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plans for space stations and other things of this kind

Why do countries plan things for more than ten years from now? Like a plan to do something by 2020 or 2030 or whatever. Shouldn't they be able to get things done in a couple of years? I mean people make worthless shit all the time, it's not like it would involve too much work. Is it just that they don't have enough funding or not enough people with adequate training or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.137.146 (talk • contribs)

Designing and building the station, launch system, ground control infrastructure, training facilities, etc., and actually training the people takes time. It also takes a lot of money, and a limited budget will increase the time needed even further. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. While it is true that "people make worthless shit all the time," worthless shit won't cut it if you are working on the Apollo Program. (Well, not usually.) Big projects take time, money, resources, and expertise. You might as well ask why most people take out mortgages rather than just buying their homes outright. After all, people buy useless shit all the time. - Eron Talk 19:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I see how the money could delay it, but what I meant in saying that people make worthless shit all the time is that there are so many people who can do manual labor so that building anything can be done very, very quickly, so I can't see the actual act of "building" taking more than one or two years, and, although I know nothing about designing that kind of stuff, I can't imagine that it couldn't be done in one or two years. Is money the major delay, is it lack of trained people to make ideas and design stuff and that kind of thing, or is it something I'm not thinking of.
Space stations do not require a huge amount of manual labor, which is certainly in abundant and inexpensive supply. Instead, they require a huge amount of highly skilled and specialized labor, which is in short supply and very expensive, and a huge amount of highly specialized capital equipment, which is highly expensive. The design of the station as a whole is incredibly complex and time consuming, involving the coordination of numerous highly trained scientists and engineers. Then, most of the components of a space station, down to the most minute pressure controls, have to be specially designed and engineered for a single use. Then, often, manufacturing equipment to make each of these components has to be specially designed and tooled. Only then can the component be made. Finally, the components need to be assembled according to the design, often in stages for final assembly in space. Meanwhile, the rockets and other transport infrastructure for bringing the stages into space have to be designed and constructed, using similar complex and highly expensive processes and drawing on the same limited pool of highly trained workers. While all this is being put together, the missions for assembling station stages or components have to be planned, and astronauts need to be trained. Now you can see why this takes years and many billions of dollars. Marco polo 19:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Plus, there is a great, great deal of testing that must be done on every component that is manufactured and assembled. Taking the F-35 as an example, the prototype aircraft was completed in February 2006, but it diodn't have its maiden flight until September due to the number of ground tests taht had to be performed first. - Akamad 01:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
You said, "although I know nothing about designing that kind of stuff, I can't imagine that it couldn't be done in one or two years". You have no idea how long it can take! As systems get larger and more complex, the amount of time and effort (not to mention money) it takes to plan and design them goes up exponentially. The Saturn V rocket contained hundreds of thousands of components; it took about ten years and vast quantities of money (billions of 1960's dollars) to complete. The Microsoft Windows operating system contains millions of lines of source code and Microsoft still hasn't gotten it right. The schedule for the Airbus A380 project was pushed back a year or so simply because two separate groups of designers had failed to maintain compatibility of the computer systems they used to keep track of the lengths of all the wires and cables in the aircraft. Managing complexity is probably the biggest and hardest problem in building large systems. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact, one thing that governments are often criticized for is that they don't do enough work on things that will take many years to be completed. They want to get reelected and they don't think the public will be interested in things that they've started but which haven't yet produced concrete results, so they're afraid to spend money on them. This issue comes up in all sorts of areas: environmental issues, transportation and other infrastructure issues, support for scientific research (in space and elsehwere), and so on. --Anonymous, April 20, 2007, 21:40 (UTC).

One issue that can greatly improve inception-to-production time is concurrent engineering, where different parts are designed and built at the same time as others. Unfortunately, this doesn't work well for space vehicles as each design feature tends to be dependent on many other features. Thus, if you need to change one feature, many of the rest need to be changed, as well. For example, suppose during the design of the Space Shuttles, they had decided they needed to add another person to the crew, say a "navigator". On a large airplane that would just mean a seat and a few other things. On a Space Shuttle, however, they would also need to add food and water, sleeping quarters, possibly a space suit for EVAs, etc. Even worse, all this extra equipment would add to the weight, meaning they would need to carry more fuel to lift it into orbit, and then more fuel to lift that fuel into orbit, etc. So, they might need to increase the size of the fuel tanks, as well, and possibly increase the size of the entire Space Shuttle to accommodate them. StuRat 13:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] boat - new york

Is this boat actually underwater? Or just an illusion, seems kind of strange how the other boat look above the water but the one on the right looks underwater.

The link is [2] because i cant figure out how to put the image on here. Google maps co-ordinates are 40 41 51 N 74 02 21 W i think - Its right at ellis island anyways. Rickystrapp 20:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[Here is a direct link to the Google Maps ghost image. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)]
It might just be a ghost image of the same boat from images at different times being spliced together. Cyraan 20:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd go with the ghost image reasoning. If you look on Google Earth there is a very similar looking boat just south of the "sunken" one that looks similar in both style of boat and "sunken-ness". I think that they're boat loads of tourists going to the island. And the sunken one seems to have people standing around on it so it's obviously not actually under water. Dismas|(talk) 21:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If it is a 'ghost' image, it is of the boat to the south, because their are subtle difference between the 'ghost' boat and the boat slightly north west. But then again going by the wake coming from the 'ghost' boat it looks like its come from the north rather than the south. Rickystrapp 21:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The photos that make up Google Maps are a montage of pictures taken in different ways (from low flying aircraft, from high altitude or from satellites) - on different days and different times of day - with different kinds of camera/film/lens, etc. Also, it's not always possible to get a perfectly overhead photo. Hence there is a lot of sophisticated software that corrects for all of these things and blends and merges all of the photos together to make something that seems pretty seamless. However, that does lead to issues like this. I would guess that we are close to the boundary between two original passes of a low flying recconnaisance aircraft. The passes would have overlapped somewhat and we can assume that the boat (or boats) had moved around between the two passes - so when the computer tried to come up with a viable blend between the two photos of that area, it probably mixed 50% of one photo with 50% of the other in the region around the boat. The effect of that is a 50% transparent boat - which would look a lot like either a ghost or a ship sunk in shallow water. These kinds of anomalies are very common in satellite and aerial photography. SteveBaker 22:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Animal Rights

What percent of people support this.

Our article on animal testing contains a section on sampling support and opposition to animal experiments. What you find is that the results differ, depending on who commissioned the poll. In the UK, where animal rights is perhaps most prominant, newspaper commissioned polls tend to show 50/50 to 60/40 in support of medical related experimentation, but much less support of non-medical experimentation, or that providing the most distress to animals. When animal rights groups commission a report, the results show much less support. Make of that what you will. Of course, there is more to animal rights than just opposing experimentation, but I don't believe there has been a much sampling into those who support the entire philosophy of giving animals inherent rights. Rockpocket 22:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The wording of a poll question, or even different intonations used in reading the same question, can yield very different results. For example, if you ask "Do you support scientific testing of animals to determine whether a drug can save human lives?", you will get much more support than if you ask "Do you support scientific experimentation on animals that may cause them pain, illness, or death?". Or, depending on how you read the following statement, you may get very different results: "Do you support scientific research on animals to find medical cures for people even when animals may experience pain, illness, or death?" If the latter clause is read with emotional intonation, support will be much lower. Marco polo 22:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware of the reason for the difference in the results of similar polls, the difficulty is in interpreting these differences to get an idea of what the population actually believe with any accuracy. Thats what I meant by "Make of that what you will." Rockpocket 23:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
And then you have to detangle the entire "animal welfare/animal rights" knot. Many people believe that all actions on behalf of animals can be called "animal rights" actions, while others see promoting humane treatment of farm and companion animals, running no-kill shelters, paying for spaying and neutering, etc. as "animal welfare", not "animal rights". Many people who support animal welfare are in favour of using animals in necessary medical experiments (to discover a new cancer drug, for instance), but don't support the use of animal testing in food or (especially) cosmetics production. One major stumbling block to unraveling this knot is that the best-known animal rights organization, PETA, claims to be in favour of animal welfare as well - but many believe it doesn't live up to its words in that regard and is actually anti-animal welfare. --Charlene 23:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
These three useful responses taken together, then, suggest that it may not be necessary to buy into the "entire philosophy" of giving animals inherent rights in order to feel that animals deserve SOME rights of some sort...but that until we define what we mean by "rights", the question is unanswerable. Even THEN (says Mp) even if we have a sense of what "counts" or "does not count" for "supports animal rights", we may not be able to get a clear sense of those numbers. Still, until we know what YOU consider "supporting animal rights", we can't really answer your question even to the extent that Marco Polo defines the parameters of questioning. Could you refine your question? Are there certain rights you are interested in? How do you wish to count the rights/welfare issue Charlene brings up? Jfarber 23:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Almost everyone would agree that animals have some rights (like kittens have the right not to be set on fire as a form of "entertainment"), while not the same rights as humans (like the right of chickens not to be "murdered" and eaten). Also, there is almost universal agreement that larger, more intelligent animals, like whales, deserve more "rights" than simple, tiny animals, like ants. StuRat 12:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The comment above demonstrates some of the common confusions between animal rights and animal welfare. It may be that "almost everyone would agree that animals have some rights," but I very much doubt it and there is no evidence supporting it. Indeed the only animals with any real support for affording rights to, are the Great Apes (see Declaration on Great Apes). What is likely true - and I suspect what StuRat means - is that almost everyone would agree that animals deserve some level of legal protection (perhaps more than they currently have). Society tends to agree that mammals' welfare deserves greater legal protection than non-mammals, but they are generally not afforded any more rights. The reason for this distinction is because once you give animals inherent rights, they can no longer be considered property and obtain a type of legal personhood. Generally animals, themselves, have few legal entitlements. That said, some states have afforded animals limited rights, these include Germany and Switzerland. The situation is best described in our article on the subject:

[Current law] categorizes animals as property; not as legal persons with rights, but as things that other legal persons exercise their rights in relation to. Current animal law therefore addresses the rights of the people who own animals, not the rights of the animals themselves. There are criminal laws against cruelty to animals; laws that regulate the keeping of animals in cities and on farms; laws regulating the transit of animals internationally, and governing quarantine and inspection provisions. These are designed to offer animals some protection from unnecessary physical harm and to regulate the use of animals as food, but they offer no civil rights to animals, who have a status similar to that of human slaves before abolition. American legal scholar Steven Wise writes in the Encyclopaedia Britannica that the failure to recognize individual rights makes animals "invisible to civil law."

Rockpocket 19:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This is where the interesting part gets in...You may notice that cute animals = more likely to have 'rights' than uncute animals. Pest-control that looks after killing unwanted cockroaches and other bugs are much more likely to receive general support than say the annual seal (cubs?) cull that occurs in Canada. The 'humanity' issue surrounding method-of-death does come into it also, but the definition of a 'cruel' death is very subjective. Also there are many questions about the pain-feeling ability of differing animal types. Suffice to say that in general insects/bugs get much less support than mammals. ny156uk 14:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any more legal protection for "cute" insects, like butterflies and ladybugs, than for the rest, although I would bet that a zoo planning to add a "butterfly habitat" would get more donations than one adding a "cockroach habitat". StuRat 20:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Legal protection is not passed on the basis of cuteness, though protests on behalf of animals are. The UK is generally considered to have the tighest controls in the world. The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 differentiates between vertebrates and invertebrates with one exception (a 1993 amendment to the Act included a single invertebrate species, Octopus vulgaris, as a protected animal). In addition, the protection only occurs from half-way through their gestation period, or until they are free-feeding.
Animal rights activists (as opposed to animal welfare activists) make the argument against speciesism - that all species deserve to have inherent rights - yet oddly it is only the cute animals that are given any serious attention. For example, our animal testing article lists the number of animals of each species used each year. They are listed in order of number of individual animals used and killed. If you take the top six (Drosophila melanogaster, Caenorhabditis elegans, mice, rats, fish and frogs) you have accounted for well over 99% of all animals used. Yet, how often do you see animal rights activists appealing for support to help these animals? Instead we see images of kittens (in UK in 2005, just 308 cats were used) and great apes (not one has been used for research in the UK since 1998). Something to think about during World Laboratory Animal Liberation Week, which starts tomorrow. Rockpocket 21:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi I asked the question even though I might have a different IP now. What I meant by animal rights is the belief that people's rights should be curbed to some extent--small or large--for a purpose of which the primary beneficiaries are animals, not people.--71.185.132.150 00:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters anymore what I meant though because people say the polls vary widely and nothing is specific anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.185.132.150 (talk) 00:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC).