November 26

OK, let's say I have a friend coming in to an airport (say Heathrow). I know where he is coming from (e.g. Accra, Ghana) and what time he is due to arrive (for the sake of argument, 06:30 GMT Friday morning). How can I find out what flights are arriving at that (approximate) time from that (general) place? NB I am not asking whether I can find out if he is on the flight (passenger manifest). I want to know three things: the flight number of planes going to Heathrow; a service that allows me to check whether they are on time; and a step more meta. How can one find out such info, without knowing the names of all the companies that fly between A and B, or in these days of cheap carriers, airports somewhat near A and B? Wikipedia is magic -- I'll close my eyes for a few hours and hope to wake up to the answer. (Then, GLAMWIKI at British Museum - rock on!) BrainyBabe (talk) 01:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most flight status websites allow you to do this, for example FlightStats.com. Continuing your scenario, the page lists two flights from Accra to Heathrow tomorrow, VIR658 and BAW68 (AAL6414 is a codeshare), scheduled to arrive at 17:20 and 06:25 respectively. Are you sure your situation is so hypothetical?! (kidding) From that page you can find out (approximately) where the plane is and whether it will be on time. Xenon54 (talk) 01:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brill! I haven't even brushed my hypothetical teeth yet. Thanks, Xenon. BrainyBabe (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you know the airport, then you can just use Heathrow Airport's live flight status tool: [1]

Following up on Xenon54's response, there are indeed many websites that track flight status. My personal preference, however, is FlightAware, because it not only gives you scheduled, estimated and actual departure/arrival times, but includes a graphical representation of where the flight is at any given moment. — Michael J 19:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What type of plant is this? 24.189.87.160 (talk) 02:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File Not Found. You'll have to upload the picture somewhere. We can't see attachments to your webmail. Dismas|^(talk) 03:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I've uploaded it here. 24.189.87.160 (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks kinda like a lilypad. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say so, lilypads go all floppy out of water... What about one of the Elephant ear plants?--Worm 10:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks a bit like a giant rhubarb Gunnera manicata, although I don't think they have the crenellated leaf-margin. It also looks like this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/gardening/plants/plant_finder/plant_pages/4267.shtml 92.29.115.8 (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

greetings

i saw a picture...there is a young man, suronded by 5 women...they look like they are punishing him about something...in a revenge.two of them are holdihg him...one is about to throw a stone...whole thing looks like one of those roman wall paintings from Pompei...Been wandering about story behind it.Looks like I know the story...or just think I know

If you can find it ...thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganada (talk • contribs) 13:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to link to the picture? DuncanHill (talk) 13:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it this picture? They're maenads. Matt Deres (talk) 14:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC) p.s. - The picture isn't used on the English Wikipedia, but the description says that it is "Pentheus being torn by maenads. Roman fresco from the northern wall of the triclinium in the Casa dei Vettii (VI 15,1) in Pompeii." Matt Deres (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My name is pradeep roy ,i am an Indian my father is from west Bengal his name is Kamalash Chandra Roy and my mother's name is Nirmala nair. she is from kerala {India } but now it has changed to Nirmala roy.Our family has settled down in Karnataka [India].I just want to know where does our caste stand when compared with karnataken caste hierarchy.eg: rai,shetty,poojary etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.96.126.62 (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article about the Caste system in India. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2010 (UTc)

If your mother is from the Nair caste of Kerala, you may have a Theravad part of your name to clarify that. Probably you are of a forward caste at least matrilineally , though I'm not sure we have an article that ranks or compares castes as finely as you are asking about. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not possible to say from your surname alone what your caste standing is. The surname Roy is held by members of several castes in Bengal. In fact, the name Roy is a title of honor rather than a caste label. See our article Rai (Indian). The names Roy and Rai are variants of the same title. In Karnataka, the names Rai and Shetty are both held by members of the Bunt community or caste. The Bunt people are closely related to and roughly equivalent in status to your mother's group, the Nair of Kerala. Both groups are Kshatriya. The surname Roy in Bengal is most often held by people of Kshatriya or Brahmin varna. Your parents' marriage suggests that your father, too, is Kshatriya, although it is possible that your parents married across varna lines. You might ask them about this. Pujaris are usually of Brahmin varna, which is usually considered higher in the caste hierarchy than Kshatriya, though both varnas are "high caste". So, if it is correct that your father comes from a Kshatriya caste, then you are roughly at the same level in the caste hierarchy as the Rais and Shettys of Karnataka. Marco polo (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm a citizen of the US, and I've lived here, in various southern and western states, for most of my life. I do, however, often use the BBC as my news source, because I like them. There's a pattern I've noticed, in comparing reports of crimes on either side of the pond, and I wonder if there's something behind it.

Just now, I read the following: "Mark Simpson guilty of 'wicked' murder of Aberdeen baby". This is common: The courts in the UK, at least as they're quoted by the BBC, often describe the crimes of convicts as "wicked" or "evil". Courts in the US don't do this, at least, not that I've seen. My own instincts are American in this sense, i.e., I think it's best to avoid such descriptions of crimes.

My questions are these: Is this difference real, or of my own invention? If it's real, what is behind it? Is there any scientific analysis of this issue (how crimes and convictions are described and reported), and what does it have to say?

It seems like American judges are sometimes given to making pointed comments when issuing a sentence, but in general they probably have to be careful not to do anything which might catch the attention of the appellate courts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think there's any connection with our history of a very conscious separation of church and state stateside? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ECx2) How would that affect the way newspapers report the case? I think we need to pin down whether the labelling is being done by the court in any way or if it's just a style thing by the Beeb. As a Canadian, I would find those kinds of subjective labels out of place in a top-flight paper, though they'd be right at home with the invective the lower level papers like the Toronto Sun see fit to print. Matt Deres (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The use of quotation marks in the headline means that the text within them was said by someone other than the BBC. In this case the word "wicked" was taken directly from the sentencing statement of the judge, Lord Uist. The relevant sentence read: "How you were able to act in such a wicked and abhorrent manner towards a helpless infant is beyond the understanding of all right-thinking people." Marnanel (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's precisely what I find strange. All of that morality language seems out-of-place to my post-modern American sensibilities. I'm not sure just what underlies the dissonance I'm experiencing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Judges in the U.S. often will address the defendant, after conviction by the jury, and may give opinions as to the particular heinousness of the crime in question. If the judge is given jurisdiction over the sentencing (in some places, the Jury may have this say, or there may be some coordination between the judge and jury over sentencing) then the judge is expected to use any number of factors, including the nature of the crimes, the demeanor of the defendents, extenuating circumstances etc. etc. There isn't a menu of crimes with specific sentences; in a few cases there are, but mandatory sentencing laws are often controversial. I am not aware of successful appeals based on the fact that the judge thought that, for example, a rapists actions were heinous or wicked or evil; especially if such statements are withheld until after the conviction. Judges usually wouldn't make such statements before the conviction, to maintain impartiality. --Jayron32 21:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I understand your perplexity. I am British and worked in the Scottish High Court (which closely mirrors the English Judicial system - though not exactly) for many years and think I can answer your question. You see, both jurisdictions have only one disposal for murder, and that is a life sentence. But to keep this response relatively straightforward for other readers, a life sentence here does not actually mean whole of life, it actually means that the convicted party becomes the property of the state - for life, until discretionally released, if ever, on a life-term licence. In recent years, it was made obligatory on the sentencing judge after the jury returned a guilty verdict, to declare a life sentence as being appropriate, but also to state a "punishment part of the sentence" no part of which may be commuted to any other form of punishment such as parole or probation. In other words, when the judge says he is sentencing you to a term of life imprisonment, with a punishment part of 15 years, you must serve every day of those 15 years, but may then only be released on the recommendation of a parole board. Many of these sentences are challenged at appeal by the convict and so it has become the norm for the sentencing judge to justify his/her "minimum punishment part", and the way they do this is to describe a particular crime, as obnoxious, serious, horrendous, the worst in their judicial experience etc., and this becomes the lynchpin when and if they are called to account by the Appeal Court to justify their sentencing decision. Remember, nowhere in the UK does there exist a Murder 1, 2, or 3 verdict. It is either Murder or Manslaughter (England) or Culpable Homicide (Manslaughter) in Scotland)). Hope that helps. 92.30.1.106 (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is helpful. It seems that the judge enters such statements in the record for the benefit of someone looking at the case in the future and wanting to judge the severity of the offense. Nevertheless, it would seem possible - and fitting - to do this with more dispassionate language. I dunno. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) The OP uses the term "either side of the pond". He/she may already be aware of this, but for the record, both the US and the UK uses Common law, while the rest of Europe uses civil law. So when it comes to legal systems, there are more similarities between the UK and US systems than between these two systems and the rest of Europe. Just wanted to clarify regarding the "across the pond" issue. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I'm using "across the pond" to refer specifically and exclusively to the difference between the US and the UK, which is how I've most often seen that phrase used. I have no knowledge of continental European legal systems, and this question was not in regard to those. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected as much. I just wanted to clarify, since I have often seen the term "across the pond" used for either a generalisation of the US or Europe as a whole. Please carry on. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of completeness, it should be noted that in the United States the state of Louisiana has evolved a hybrid system combining elements of both common and civil law; this reflects the state's origin as a French colony, with a French-style civil law system. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the commenter above that I think this is a journalistic difference rather than a legal one. An American newspaper editor might not allow the adjective "wicked" to go into a headline attributing it to someone, because otherwise it looks like it's the newspaper's opinion (even if the word "wicked" is in quotation marks). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you think that US judges use words such as "wicked" and "evil" in their statements? Is this backed up by evidence? -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This Maryland judge did: [2]. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I just can't think that's a good idea. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Isn't the point of the courts to act as a way to keep heinous things form happening? Killing infants, for example, is deplorable. Why not be able to say that it's deplorable?128.111.130.159 (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Deplorable" is one thing. "Evil" carries different connotations. We want to deter crimes because society finds them heinous and unacceptable. Importing moral baggage muddies the water, mixes church with state, and implies that we're somehow playing God - punishing "bad" people for their "wickedness". I don't think that's a good idea. Once you tell someone they're "wicked", how can you then turn around and say we want to rehabilitate them into someone who can be a part of society?

I realize that what I'm saying here is a faith-based claim, as opposed to a scientific one. Naturally, you may disagree, but I'd be very surprised to see a rational argument supporting the use of morally-colored language by any branch of civil government. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]