Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

October 24

railroad conductor hats

what is the history of the railroad conductors hats? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richrascal (talk • contribs) 02:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Which railroad, which country??? This site might help.Popcorn II (talk) 07:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean this [1] sort of thing from the Santa Fe. It looks like it was copied from a military design to add some authority to the uniform and its wearer. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 09:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

MLM !!

Are the multi level marketing options really a viable thing to do and the incentives that they promise are delivered as one of my friends suggested me to do. Can this be taken as a sustained way of survival/earning..anybody associated with this ? please advise Seekhle (talk) 08:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I think most MLMs have had aspersions cast on them in some way or another. My only experience was a friend that sold knives for Vector Marketing, he made some money, but it doesn't work out as lucrative as they might lead you to believe. He also had to push knives on his friends and family, which some people might not be comfortable with. Amway has had many detractors over the years, this article gives some information about them. I'd suggest you go search google for stories and opinions on any MLM you're considering. TastyCakes (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I expect that it would not be comfortable having someone push a knife onto you either! Mitch Ames (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Many websites quote the story that in the US, the FTC requires Amway to label their products with something like: "54% of Amway recruits make nothing and the rest earn on average $65 a month.". Most Amway products are ultimately consumed by their sales recruits. SteveBaker (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As for whether it's viable or not, it very much depends on the individual. I have met some people who have become very rich through MLM schemes, never have to work again, and will have loads of money pouring in for the rest of their lives without raising a finger. And I've met many people who made basically nothing, became very disillusioned, and got out. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

While there's obviously some dependence on the invididual, I disagree that it depends 'very much'. While all business depend somewhat on, for lack of a better word 'luck'/'random chance' (or things beyond the control of an invidual that are almsot impossible to predict) with MLM takes this to more of an extreme. The truth is the only way you can be resonably sure you'll be successful with MLM is if you have the skill set, knowledge etc necessary to actually set up an MLM scheme where you can fool suckers into making you rich (i.e. as with many get rich scheme kind of things the only way it works is if you're the one who starts it). Otherwise you're very likely going to get very little for the effort you put in unless you're very 'lucky'. This is an important thing because if you present the idea it depends on the individual, you lead people to believe they just have to work harder and smarter then the average person and if they stick with it, then they have a resonable chance of success (or that the reason most people don't success is they don't apply themselve enough and/or aren't smart enough and/or give up too fast), which is not the case for most MLM schemes. Starting a business is never easy and always risky but despite what MLM proponents want people to believe, MLM is actually quite different from an average business and not in a good way and no you're not likely to make money even if you're 'better' then the other people involved (yes I appreciate this is some sort of Christian site) [2] Nil Einne (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who sets up a business on the basis of "fooling suckers into making you rich" is bound to fail, sooner or later. What goes around, and all that. There has to be something in it for the other people; at least some reasonable prospect that if you follow the instructions - all of them - for long enough, you stand a chance of being as successful as the guy ahead of you, or however you define your own success. Many people don't follow all the instructions, or don't persist, or have unrealistic expectations at the start (such as becoming millionaires after 12 months), or are just not prepared to pay the price asked of them in terms of the work required. And many MLM schemes are not set up in a way that gives people lower than the top guy much of a chance to begin with. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Multi-level marketing is a barely legal version of a pyramid scheme. Do not waste your time on it, it is a scam. You will be buying a lot of stuff (and hence making money for the people you buy it off) that you will find difficult to pass on. Think of something else - like selling things on eBay, for example. 89.242.151.212 (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The only way MLM is a viable way to make a living is to start one, and manage to convince people to join (sadly, too easy.) Seriously this is a scam - don't do it! Look, the reason why these sorts of things exist and will continue to exist is because someone decided to make a living by coning money from other people. From the early pyramid scheme, to the dirt cheap top of the line stereo scam, to Nigerian e-mail scam, to the latest "reverse funnel system" (which have a long time running ad up on facebook. I think that ad is still around last month.), they are all scams. And there is no denying the fact that yeah, some people definitely got filthy rich out of all this, but only for the guy at the top. They will take every effort to make the scam look tempting, authentic, respectable, and legitimate. Don't do it Royor (talk) 05:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well i m not sure what u are taking about but by the whole conversation i can make out something and wpuld like to suggest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.228.59.66 (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a collegue working with me who also does this work with Oriflame (cosmetics products). He is gaining a lot of profit doing this work of selling its products and as more as he gets to sell the things, he gets more and more profit and benifits from the company, he is also suppose to be a manager soon as he has served his target and i just heard his manager has got a Honda City car by the company and she is only working for them now i mean to say that this is her sole earning right now and she earns aprox 2,00,000 a month, and her manager is getting more than that and last person i know from there group who is the manager of all these people and who started everything from the very initial stage is earning 40,000,000 per annum but i would say that all these people have already achived that level and there targets where in they do not have to work on anything else for thier living, but as my collegue is working with me and is also trying to achive his targets of Oriflame as he is still on the initial stage, if somebody has to try that then i would say work something else as well for your earning and then after few months or yrs u would see the results. If the company you are working for shuts down even then it would not effect u so much if u have some job in your hand.

But the main thing is that the product you are supporting should be renowned and reliable enough, as we know about Amway and Oriflame and many others.

I personnaly have not tried my hands on it as i know that i m very week in sales and selling anything is a impossible thing for me. As its rightly said by JackofOz|JackofOz that everybody can not do it, but who can do it can become very rich. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.228.59.66 (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Except for the rider in my last sentence. The scheme itself has to be designed to actually enable newcomers to profit handsomely; a lot of them are not. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Note that there are two ways to make money off an MLM scheme:

1) By selling the product(s). If the product is actually a good one and worth what they are asking for it, then this can be a legit source of revenue.

2) By recruiting others and getting a portion of their fees for joining. This is not a net source of income for the organization, as every penny made by one person in the organization is lost by someone else, so it's a break-even proposition at best, and even worse when the effect of taxes is considered.

So, the only way for everyone to have a fair chance at making money is the first scenario. If, on the other hand, they sell an inferior, over-priced product, then only the first few people to join, at the "top" of the pyramid, will benefit, and the vast majority will lose money. StuRat (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You would be more likely to make more money by just buying some product(s) in bulk at wholesale prices, and selling them yourself at a retail price, and not wasting your time and money on MLM. The answer to the OPs questions are "No". 89.240.47.104 (talk) 00:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the aspersions cast by some contributors to this thread. I have been an Amway distributor in the past, and though I decided not to continue, I will defend the scheme. It was made clear to me at all points that there were great rewards to be had, but that building a business is hard work (which I wasn't prepared to put in). And I saw some people's self-confidence transformed by the experience and the teaching that was provided in the particular organisation I was part of. --ColinFine (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

As it says in the Amway article: "Amway was ordered to accompany any such statements with the actual averages per distributor, pointing out that more than half of the distributors do not make any money, with the average distributor making less than $100 per month." 92.29.91.83 (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

How is the information for the nutrition facts label determined?

In a US context, how is the information for the nutrition facts label determined? How is its accuracy determined? How do you figure out, for example, how many calories are in a given quantity of food? --Mr.98 (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

One way of measuring food energy is by using a calorimeter. However, this tends to overestimate the calorific value for humans (since not all the energy is extracted during digestion). Therefore adjusted values have been calculated for many constituents of foods. The makers of the labels consult charts that list these values. Rockpocket 15:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

So they are calculated by ingredients? That's what I'm interested in knowing—if they just add up known values for ingredients or whether they calculate it from scratch for the whole thing. I would assume the former but am curious. Does the FDA double-check? That is, what's to stop someone from being misleading, or just wrong? --Mr.98 (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

In the US, there are various options for calculating calorific content, but - yes - all are applied to the amount of food components (e.g., fat, carbohydrate, protein, or ingredients with specific food factors) actually present in the food. You can use the so-called "Atwater method" (Energy Value of Foods--Basis and Derivation, by A. L. Merrill and B. K. Watt, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Handbook No. 74.). You can assign the general factors of 4, 4, and 9 calories per gram for protein, total carbohydrate, and total fat, respectively. You can use tabulated data for particular ingredients approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Or you can Use bomb calorimetry data subtracting 1.25 calories per gram protein to correct for incomplete digestibility. All are permitted by the US government. Rockpocket 19:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Question

The continent of Africa is the birthplace of humanity, right? B-Machine (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

See Recent African origin of modern humans vs. Multiregional origin of modern humans. Most scientists subscribe to the former hypothesis. Rockpocket 15:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

So, Africa is the birthplace of humanity. Cool. B-Machine (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, we're reasonably certain that is so, because that matches our understanding of how genes and evolution works generally. It would be pretty impossible for two populations of the same species which were geographically isolated to simultaneously evolve into the same second species, as the second theory maintains (multiple populations of Homo erectus simultaneously and independently evolving into Homo sapiens). Still, there are a few reasonable points made in the second theory, so while we are fairly certain that humanity evolved once in Africa and then spread out, science is always open to changing its understanding of events based on new evidence, which is why the second theory is not dismissed entirely. --Jayron32 05:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

psychic detectives

I have seen the manny letters debunking this ability. My question is, how do you explain the TV programs on Sky3 of that name which purport to show many US cases where the police have been helped - often in a spectacular way. Are they fiction, as they involve apparently actual police officers? Donhin (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)donhin

That stuff is put out because people like to watch it, just like ET come home or free Willy or Toy Story or the X files or the many soaps that go on year after year. People watching means ads sold and money to Sky. That's the bottom line, not an impulse to educate and inform. Dmcq (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Even so, you never want to get a fortune cookie that reads, "A psychic will lead detectives to your grave." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest - that really depends on whether you believe in fortune cookies. People who do, probably already believe in psychic detectives. I once did lunch at a chinese restaurant with someone who believed in all that crap - she got a completely empty fortune cookie (ie, no fortune inside!) and totally freaked out that it was predicting that she had "no future". I tried to claim that I'd accidentally picked up the wrong cookie and that one was intended for me...but it didn't seem to help much. :-) SteveBaker (talk) 22:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The obvious question to ask them would be, "So how come you didn't drop dead on the spot?" That might turn the lightbulb on. Or, it might freak them out even more. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The police have to deal with lots of cranks claiming special knowledge. If their predictions are sufficiently general, then at least some of them will turn out to be correct, and these are the ones that are remembered. There are two other logical explanations: some "psychic detectives" might be people who have some connection with the criminal, but don't want to reveal their source; some might just be good detectives who can put themselves in the position of the criminals and can imagine what they would do. Evidence for some supernatural ability is not statistically significant. Dbfirs 18:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The trouble with TV shows is that they feed you exactly what they want you to see. So if you see something that sparks even the slightest bit of skepticism, it's probably a load of phooey. They just drag you along in doubt. If they ever made any serious attempt to get to the bottom of some mystery, well their show would be over in two minutes flat. Vranak (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I don't know about that particular show. But for example with Sensing Murder#Criticism and developments, as discussed there and in the references and other sites, e.g. [3] [4] [5] [6] neither the NZ version, nor the Australian version nor the Swedish version have provided information leading to cases being solved. I'm extremely sure it's the same for the Danish, Norwegian and US version too but haven't seen that specific claim made so won't say tha definitely. The dubious methods are partially discussed in the article sources and the sources I provided Nil Einne (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC) The psychics lie, the producers lie, and sometimes the odd rare cop lies. People love to lie. Psychics are also really good at pointing out the painfully obvious or the statistically likely (for instance, that a child victim was buried with stuffed toys - almost all are - or that the perpetrator was male) and making it seem that this would be absolutely impossible if they didn't have psychic powers. Remember too that if a psychic makes 1,000 predictions and one comes true, that's the only one you'll ever hear about - AND it's very likely that every prediction the psychic made had about a one in 1,000 chance of coming true. --NellieBly (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, many people with alleged psychic abilities are actually experts on reading people, and use this to scam people. For example, a police officer may take a "psychic" to a crime scene and ask them where the body might be buried. Meanwhile, the cop might furtively glance at some recently disturbed ground they had noticed earlier. The "psychic" notices this, then leads them right to the spot, where they dig up the body. This makes the "psychic" look like she performed a miracle, when in reality she just picked up on what the cop had already figured out. StuRat (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You've described the basic premise for the TV series Psych, a detective who pretends to be psychic but is actually just a really good observer. As Yogi Berra said... well, I'm sure you know that one. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the TV shows in question, but shows of this nature are often wildly fictionalized. Usually they take a real case and then wildly exaggerate it. Probably they start by getting the psychic's side of the story. (These sorts of psychics are usually very good at self-promotion.) And then they'll "punch up" any parts of the story that are a bit slow. Bring in actors to play the parts of the people involved. Dramatize the parts that no one knows about, etc. They often wind up with something that is simply not recognizable as the original event, but they can still claim it's "based on a true story". APL (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

October 25

Twin Beech Airplane

Can a Twin Beech Airplane (model 18) be flown safely with just one pilot? I know that it has controls for a crew of two, but if I were to buy a Twin Beech for myself and my family can it be safely flown with just one pilot?

Wobrien419 (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Wobrien, please do not make your decision whether to purchase and operate a light aircraft for yourself and your family based on what you learn at Wikipedia's reference desk. Wikipedia cannot give medical advice, and one might doubt whether it's qualified to give advice on such a potentially dangerous activity as flying a light aircraft. This isn't a criticism of Wikipedia. --Dpr

Yes, it can. A lot of the jobs that Twin Beeches were used for wouldn't have been economically feasible with two pilots - crop dusting, mosquito dusting, etc. As long as the pilot has a multi-engine rating, there's no problem.

There used to be a Twin Beech up in Yellowknife (edit: and it was flown solo all the time). It was a coin flip as to whether it or the Beaver (CF-WWV, aka World War Five) made more noise. When they both started up at the same time you could hear it from the other end of town. --NellieBly (talk) 00:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you flown multiengines before? Because if not, I'd recommend really doing your homework on this plane, and, of course, getting a multiengine rating. Falconus^{p t c} 02:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I just looked up what the Twin Beech model 18 actually is, and I have to say that that does look like it would be fun to fly (just wish I was qualified to fly it) :-). Falconus^{p t c} 02:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You're gonna want to have deep pockets for fuelling and maintaining those twin radials, though. Not to mention the high maintance cost/times that come with an airframe of that age and size. FiggyBee (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree - it's perfectly safe to fly with a single pilot - no less safe than flying a single-engined plane single-handed. If you haven't flown twins before, you need that twin engine rating - and if you have one but haven't flown twins in a while, you REALLY need to get an instructor to run you through the basics for an hour. Handling what happens when one engine dies, and getting a feel for RPM matching is something you need to be taught properly and to be very 'current' on. Obviously, it's a bigger, heavier plane - so more fuel is needed. Obviously, if you have two engines instead of one - with twice the number of engine instruments, etc, so it's gonna be more expensive to maintain. It's probably safer to fly overall - I'd much rather be stuck with one engine running in a twin than dead-stick with a single engine plane. You can also carry more weight in a plane like this - which might make it more comfortable for flying with your family. As with any used plane - you are taking on potentially massive maintenance bills if the thing isn't in A1 condition - so get the heck inspected out of it before you sign on the dotted line. How many hours of engine and airframe life does it have? SteveBaker (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Eddy Arnold

Back years ago, I remember hearing Eddy Arnold sing Dixie and it was the best yet. I have looked and looked and I can not find a recording anywhere of it. Does any one know where I can get a copy of this song "dixie" by Eddy Arnold?

Please send me a reply to my email [contact information removed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.236.133.184 (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. RefDesk replies are made here, not by email. Email addresses left here are removed because this page is highly visible on the internet and spammers are likely to collect and use addresses to send unwanted emails.

This page is a full LP discography of Eddy Arnold, complete with track listings, and this one lists all his singles. I can't find Dixie anywhere on either, so it looks likely that Arnold did not release a commercial recording of that song, even if it featured in his live repertoire. Even so it is conceivable that a recording does exist, perhaps a bootleg or a video of a TV appearance. I would suggest you try asking on specialist forums or fansites, where someone may be able to help you track a version down if it exists. Karenjc 16:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Skin color

I know Mexicans and Latinos' skin is dark because of interbreeding with native populations during colonization. But then how come Spaniards' skin is sort of dark too? They couldn't have interbred that much with their colonies, could theu? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.228.195.8 (talk) 02:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. Spaniards are not dark because of mixing with their Latin American Colonies. They are dark because of their proximity to Africa, and mixing with the Moors (as in Mauritania and Morocco), who were a dark skinned Berber people of northern Africa. Early in Spanish history, the Moors fought a war with the Visigoths, who were Germanic and therefore pale. The expression "blue blood" comes from this period, when a Spanish noble was said to have bared his pale white arm to show the pure "blue blood" (i.e., venous blood) which lay underneath, untainted by the dark-skinned Moors, to prove his nobility. Eventually, Spain was retaken for the Christian world (Reconquista). By that time, however, the Moors and European Spanish had all but mixed, leading to the expression "dark as a Spaniard". Though Spaniards are not as dark as Latin Americans, some of them still have some colour to their skin. Intelligentsium^review 02:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't post nonsense. Moors in Spain where a tiny population compared to the millions of mostly Celtic and Iberian (with a little Visigoth (nordic)) descent living there. Also during the Reconquista massive repopulation took place, so that the Andalusi population in conquered places was systematically sold as slaves and their cities occupied by Christians from northern Hispania. The moriscos (people of Muslim descent still living in Spain after the Reconquista) were expelled in 1609. And finally, many Berbers look almost or completely European so I doubt that one could easily tell whether someone has a Berber ancestor or not just by their looks.

In my opinion, Spaniards are "sort of dark" because the Iberians may have been somewhat swarthy; the Celts, despite common stereotypes, not that pale — just look at the French, who are almost 100% of Celtic (Gaulish) descent — and the pale Visigoths were too few. But mainly because almost all Spain is hot, so people there are tanned throughout the year (and heavily tanned in summer, especially if they go to the beach as most people there do).

Have a look at our article White people, Physical Appearance->Light skin section. --Belchman (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't accuse others of posting nonsense just because you disagree. According to our article on the Moors, one expert said "Berbers were about 900,000 and the Arabs about 90,000 in Iberia", compared to a total population of about 8 million. Thus, they were around 1/8th the total population, and stayed for centuries (and some stayed permanently). This is an ample proportion and time to effect the total gene pool, and specifically those in the South. StuRat (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you completely ignored what I said above about repopulation (which was as important as conquest during the so-called Reconquista) and the expulsion of the moriscos, but I guess that some people just can't learn. Some people think that the native Iberians may have had some link with northern African Berbers, but that's another story. --Belchman (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

And I said that he posted nonsense because he answered by guessing, and in this particular case was simply wrong. Also, in my own personal opinion, the numbers given by Aline Angoustures (whose article in the French Wikipedia was removed due to lack of notability and doesn't have an article in ours) look somewhat inflated if you take into account that the Arab rulers needed almost 800 years to completely Arabize the former kingdom of Granada despite the fact that the native Hispano-Roman-Visigoth people more or less welcomed the Islamic invasion. And finally, check this too: Limpieza de sangre. --Belchman (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, this probably was more appropriate for the Humanities section of the Reference Desk, but then again, if you had known why, you need not have asked this question! Intelligentsium^review 02:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, from a more biological POV, skin tone is strongly correlated with latitude. This is largely due to the natural selection for photo-protective, darker skin in areas the have high levels sun exposure. If you have every been to Spain, you would know that it is pretty warm there, with plenty of sunlight. Combine that with, as Intelligentsium notes, their rich history of contact with African ethnicities and you have a population with darker skin tone. Rockpocket 05:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Are Spaniards really dark-skinned? Maybe you're of northern European descent and just really pasty and so white that you're pink. Maybe that's just my Portugueseness talking. --Nricardo (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a hundred years ago there was racial prejudice (from some Northern Europeans) against Spaniards because of their dark skin. Dbfirs 17:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, we have an article somewhere that states that sometime in the United States the Irish, the Germans, the Italians, the Spanish, the Greeks and I don't know who else weren't considered "white", so I guess that often it has more to do with prejudice against massive migration rather than skin color. --Belchman (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC) --Belchman (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

"White" as in Caucasian. That includes those with the darker-skinner Mediterrean look. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Coffee filter re-usage

Is it recommended or even sanitary to re-use the day before coffee grounds and disposable coffee filter?janiceJanice alderman (talk) 04:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janice alderman (talk • contribs) 04:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Grounds that have been sitting wet in an enclosed container for a day? Uhhhggg. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 10:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Those are grounds for divorce. Bus stop (talk) 10:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Mold will grow on coffee grounds left for several days in a drip coffee maker.–RHolton≡– 12:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Not recommended. Just buy the filters in bulk! They are quite cheap when purchased that way. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Better yet, buy reusable cloth filters (sometimes branded "coffee socks" or "coffee sleeves"). They need to be washed between uses. They're much more environmentally friendly than disposable filters. I don't recommend reusing the grounds if you want decent coffee. Compost the used grounds. Marco polo (talk) 15:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about you guys, but coffee grounds that have been left for a while tend to smell pretty unpleasant. Not something that recommends re-use. Vranak (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sometimes reusing the filters to boil an egg. Just put the egg into the filter and let the machine run hot water over it. Depending on your preferences, the amount of water (and of old coffee grounds) gives you fine control over how thoroughly the egg is boiled. --95.223.207.169 (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It isn't sanitary. It may take two or three days for visible mold to be detectable, but in 24 hours there'll be enough mold and bacteria and the like to be unsafe and unpleasantly bad-smelling. Your big danger is when you go to throw it out - that's when mold spores will end up in the air and when you'll breathe them in. And all the supposed "care" in the world - throwing them out quickly, keeping your arms extended so it doesn't reach your face - won't prevent the spread of airborne molds and bacteria - as long as it's sitting there on your counter, it's releasing these things into the air.

Saving a few pennies only to make yourself sick or have your kitchen smell awful (and make you look like a slob to anyone who happens to show up) is a prime example of false economy. If you can't afford to use a brand new filter and brand new grounds every single day, don't make coffee. It's not an essential. --NellieBly (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, you're getting a solid "No" from the crew. What's not clear is why you are asking.

• Scenatio 1: You're 'thrifty' and want to stretch what you've got as far as it will go. Answer (as per everyone else): buy new suppies.
• Scenario 2: You've just awakened, r-e-a-l-l-y need your java fix, but you're out of filters. Should you re-use? Answer: No. Substitute a section of paper towel for now, then after breakfast go buy filters.
• Scenario 3: You're out of coffee, but have yesterday's used grinds left over and are considering reusing them. Should you? Answer: Unless you feel you have a personal need to experience the questionable flavor of day-old coffee, I strongly recommend zipping out and getting some new. B00P (talk) 06:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems like 3M should get into the re-usable filters business, and see if anyone gets the subliminal joke. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

pyramid

How many sides does a pyramid have?Burildav (talk) 06:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

See pyramid. If you're referring to the Egyptian pyramids, they had/have four sides. Dismas|^(talk) 06:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

No they don't, they have five sides. Four triangular sides and a square base. A pyramid with four sides is called a tetrahedron, and are generally not used for when you're actually building a pyramid. Pyramids that you build have five sides. 83.250.228.169 (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The Egyptian pyramids do have five faces, one of which is the base. The term side in geometry typically refers to an edge, and this is typically used of two-dimensional polygons. —Dromioofephesus (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ha! This reminds me of a problem in a Hell's Kitchen article that referenced an episode in season 6. Ramsey set up a craps table and the contestants were throwing dice to determine which letter they had to use to begin the name of the next ingredient they were to add to a dish. The article, as most people would, stated that "they rolled the die and picked a food starting with the letter that it landed on." In reality, though, they didn't use the letter that the die landed on, but rather, the letter opposite the letter that the die landed on. Colloquially, though, we say that dice landed on snake-eyes when double ones are shown, not when boxcars (double sixes)are shown, and the dice have landed on (i.e. are actually in contact with the playing surface with) their number-1 surfaces. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this not excessively nitpicky? You can't pick up the Giza pyramids to inspect each face. They're not like those little wooden models you get in math class. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

We can be precise and also maintain mathematical accuracy by saying the square-base pyramids have four sloping triangular faces. They also have four sloping edges. Only the four horizontal edges round the base should be described as sides. Dbfirs 17:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

So a true pyramid would have 5 faces and 8 edges or "sides" as you're calling them. The catch with the Egyptian pyramids, if I recall correctly, is that they have an underground component, so if you could magically pick one up, I don't think its bottom is an actual square. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, and also the sides are not currently flat, they are more like steps, so it is accurate to say they have thousands of faces? (Or that they are not mathematically pyramidal at all?) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

They were once covered with limestone to make them reasonbly flat. But mathematically speaking, there is no such thing as a "perfect" geometric figure in the real world anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay I'll bite. How many sides does a pyramid have? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Always with the jokes. Every damn thread. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.2 (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

At least he didn't ask how many sides a quadrilateral has. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Because that's easy. It has two, an inside and and outside. I suspect that is true of pyramids too.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

And the boy gets a cigar! :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

*facepalms* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.2 (talk) 23:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yea! Here we go again, over-complicating an otherwise simple question with semantics and nit-pickery...

Who will be the first to make a "nose-pickery" joke? Let's watch... Dismas|^(talk) 23:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you could go ask User:NoseNuggets. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article Pyramid says "The base of a pyramid can be trilateral, quadrilateral, or any polygon shape, meaning that a pyramid has at least four faces (base plus at least three triangular faces)." (my emphasis) The OP said nothing about Egypt. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The root cause of the difficulty of answering this question simply is that the word "sides" doesn't generally apply to polyhedra (3D objects) - only 2D objects like triangles, squares and so on. In 3D we generally talk about "faces", "edges" and "vertices". We can (I hope) all agree that a square pyramid (of the Egyptian variety) has 5 faces, 8 edges and 5 vertices. But you can also have pyramids with bases that have more than 4 sides - and with pyramids with N-sided bases, you get N+1 faces, 2N edges and N+1 vertices. A three sided pyramid is more properly called a "tetrahedron" - and it has 4 faces, 6 edges and 4 vertices. You can call a tetrahedron a "pyramid" if you like - but it's kinda like calling a square a "rectangle" - not strictly incorrect - but just a bit confusing! SteveBaker (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as I recall from high school geometry, "sides" is properly used only with polygons, not polyhedrons. The broader definition of "pyramid" that you're using would theoretically include the Trylon, which had four faces, three of which were long ones (as befitted the national mood of the 1930s, I suppose). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Intercaste marriage

"what is intercaste marriage?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.14.135 (talk) 09:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It is marriage between people of different castes. Dismas|^(talk) 10:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

architecture website

can anyone give me a website where i can know all the latest news about architecture? i tried to search on google, but everyone of them seems to ask me of my "company" and qualifications. man! i'm just a 16-year old student!! i dont have any company. please tell me some student-friendly site!! thank you!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.50.131.129 (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You may want to look at [[7]]. It seems to be fairly international and has sections on projects (plus pictures), books and jobs. There is also a newsletter service which allows students to log in. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I want to make sure you used Google properly. Try following these steps:

1) Go to www.google.com.

2) Pick "News" at the top.

3) Type in "architecture" and hit enter.

This method gave me some decent results: [8]. StuRat (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

How come fair trade tea has got cheaper?

Me and my wife were just enjoying a nice cup of tea, and we were wondering about this little quandry. We've always bought fair trade tea since it became available, as we've got a deep concern for the wellfare of those poor exploited tea pickers. Lord, it brings a tear to my eye when I think of those poor ol' boys not getting anything from their tea picking whilst the plump westerners grow yet fatter. But I couldn't help noticing that the price of the old fair trade has dropped over the past few years. How can they drop the price of fairtrade tea whilst still paying their workers a decent wage? Many thanks in advance, Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The start-up expenses are likely recovered. --NellieBly (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

See the Retail pricing debate section of the Fair trade debate article. Retailers are just reducing their mark-up to be more competative. I read an economics paperback a few months ago (forgotten title) that said the amount of money per Fair-Trade coffee cup sent to the producers by a well-known coffee chain was minute, and that in the past the greater price of Fair Trade coffee was nearly all pocketed by the company and not sent to the producers, although that company was now selling Fair Trade and non-Fair Trade at the same price. Your retailer may now be doing the same - not out of altruism but because consumers may be less willing to pay the premium. Update: the book I read was The Undercover Economist by Tim Harford 89.243.197.90 (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather skeptical of any company claiming to be more fair, etc., unless they list concrete claims, like that they pay twice as much per pound as the average. If they made such a claim and it was exposed as a lie, then they would be liable for false advertising claims. However, if they don't make any specific claims, then they can never be held accountable and thus have no reason to do the right thing (assuming they are completely amoral, which is what I always do when businesses are concerned). StuRat (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

If the product has Fairtrade certification, then the claims are concrete. You can dispute whether the aims are correct or whether they are sufficiently well enforced, but the main point of the scheme is to have a single recognisable and consistent standard for many different products. The scheme guarantees a minimum price to producers, and will also pay a small premium above the market price, when this approaches the guaranteed minimum. This means that the price differential between fairtrade and non-fairtrade tea may be smaller when the market price is high, as the gap between the amount fairtrade and non-fairtrade manufacturers pay to growers is smaller (although, as the anon user above says, this may well only be a very small proportion of the store price). Warofdreams talk 23:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The cost of a cup of tea / coffee is more than the cost of the raw-materials used to make it. It is that simple. That's why some places you can easily pay 50p (or your local currency) more for a coffee than another place even if they use the exact same coffee supplier. As a side point - because something is not 'fair trade certificated' does not mean it is not fairly traded (the above from Warofdreams is a good answer but cann kinda be read as if there is a 'fair trade' price and a 'non fair trade' price - reality is there are different 'grades' etc. so there will be many 'non fair trade' coffee beans available at a prices far in excess of that of Fair-trade). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

October 26

Life expectancy of Elizabeth II

What is the current most widely accepted estimate as to how much longer Queen Elizabeth II will live, and is it likely that the monarchy will continue after her death? Also, if the United Kingdom were to abolish the monarchy following her death, would it be able to continue in other Commonwealth countries, such as Canada or Australia?99.251.239.89 (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The first two questions are entirely guesswork. Elizabeth is 83 years old, so in principle she could pass away at any time — but on the other hand is generally described as being in good health, so there's no reason why we should expect her demise. Prince Charles automatically succeeds to the throne upon Elizabeth's death (the throne doesn't remain vacant under Commonwealth law), so absent a Constitional amendment the monarchy will absolutely continue after Elizabeth.

The Statute of Westminster 1931 established common rules of succession for all of the Commonwealth realms; the Statute's provisions for succession remain law in all of the realms. In principle, if any realm (including the UK itself) chose to abandon the monarchy then the sovereignty and succession of the Crown in the other realms would be unaffected. (By long convention, none of the Commonwealth realms may change their order of succession without the unanimous consent of the others — but that doesn't bar the others from eliminating the monarchy from their legal systems by constitutional amendment.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The government's life tables for people in England suggest that an average 83-year-old will live to 90. But with the best medical care, health which is apparently generally good, and a history of longevity in her family, she could well live longer. There is no reason to expect anything other than the succession of a new monarch on her death; while her eldest son is not universally popular, he remains the heir presumptive, has indicated that he wishes to succeed, and is expected to do so. It's hard to imagine any government attempting to challenge that on the death of Elizabeth, and there's no strong movement to abolish the monarchy. Of course, were there to be an unpopular monarch, that might strengthen the case for the abolition of the monarchy at a future date. Warofdreams talk 01:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Charles is heir apparent. Only females are heiresses presumptive, as Elizabeth herself was, even though her parents had only had daughters. When there are only daughters of a monarch, the assumption is that there is always the possiblity, however remote, that a son could later be born, supplanting the claims of any daughter. But Charles was the first-born of four children, so he will never be removed from the head of the line of succession unless he converts to Roman Catholicism, or marries a Catholic, or dies before his mother. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Charles hasn't been that great an heir apparent. I'm pretty sure that Elizabeth's plan is to outlive him. PhGustaf (talk) 03:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

She might have that in mind, and is just stubborn enough to pull it off. To put a spin on an antique joke, the name of Charles' second son reminds me that Charles is both an heir apparent and an 'Arry parent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

While you are right that Charles is heir apparent, men can be heir presumptive - the younger brother of a King without any children, for example. --Tango (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It's worth noting that her mum lived to be over 100. Grutness...wha? 05:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The Queen Mum was born a year before Queen Victoria went to Valhalla, and lived a couple years past the Y2K problem - literally spanning the 20th Century. Yep, she saw a lot of changes in her time. And she was agin' every one of 'em. (Or I might have her confused with Titus Moody.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course I'm against the monarchy. Just the same it's kind of fun to speculate about one aspect of it: Charles has apparently said that he will not be "King Charles", apparently because of some bad associations with that name, but IIRC his preference is "King George", which has much worse assonances for Americans.

His name is Charles Philip Arthur George. I think it's obvious which he should take. He should be King Arthur II. --Trovatore (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that would go down to well. And though the Americans had problems with one earlier George, They didn't have that much problem with the most recent one, George VI If anything, it's Brits who have had complaints about a recent American ruler called George, but I digress :) Grutness...wha? 05:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

George is an honored name among British royalty. That's an interesting idea, that he might switch names upon becoming king - just as his grandfather George VI did, as he went by Albert ("Bertie"), but probably had tired of all the "Prince Albert in the can" jokes. William is another honored name but there hasn't been a King William for quite awhile now. Prince William seems an agreeable sort, so once he finally becomes king after his old man croaks, he might become known as William the Concurrer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there's been a William more recently than there's been just about anything else. And Charlie's alright, imo. As for regnal names, "Charles" is off the table because of the Stuarts, "Albert" because Edward VII declared the name should be reserved for his father, and "Arthur" because of mythological associations (Incidentally, he would be Arthur, not Arthur II, since even if we accept Arthur as historical the numbering only counts from 1066). I'm not sure how British people would feel about a "King Philip", as that name has a long royal history in France and Spain, but not England. FiggyBee (talk) 11:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

For some reason, the idea of King William always reminds me of Weeties Mitch Ames (talk) 12:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

There was a debate here a while back about whether Queen Mary I's husband (King Phillip II of Spain), was a co-monarch (Phillip I of England) or merely her consort. If the former is true, and Charles adopts Phillip as his regnal name (which nobody has ever seriously suggested), he'd be Phillip II of the UK. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you say Charles is "off the table", FiggyBee. Surely his parents were aware of the first 2 Charleses when they named him. It's only been of recent years that anything other than Charles III has been canvassed; Charles himself added fuel to the fire by stating somewhere that he was considering calling himself George VII, but not, afaik, because of any negative historical connotations about the name Charles. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It is very common for a new monarch to choose a different regal name to their given name. His parents may have just thought Charles was a nice name and that he could choose a different one if he wasn't comfortable. --Tango (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It's quite uncommon, actually. The first 5 Georges were all Georges; William IV was a William; Victoria was Alexandrina Victoria, but she was known as Victoria from an early age and she was never going to be Queen Alexandrina; Edward VIII was Edward (although he was known as David to his family); and Elizabeth II was Elizabeth. The only 2 historically recent exceptions were Edward VII, who was christened Albert Edward and chose his 2nd name; and George VI, who was christened Albert Frederick Arthur George and chose his 4th name. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

So, Edward VII was originally Albert Edward; Edward VIII was originally Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David; and George VI was originally Albert Frederick Arthur George. Maybe ER II and her mate were just sick and tired of all the Edwards and Alberts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The reference [9] for the relevant section in Charlie's Article suggests an avoidance both of the Stuarts and of Bonnie Prince Charlie. FiggyBee (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Prince Charles talks to plants. QED. SteveBaker (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

And I would guess that those plants hold up their end of the conversation well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Liz likely has another 10 to 15 yrs (her mommy nearly made it 102). Charles has longevity as well (mom in 83, dad is 88). As for male heir-presumptives around the world? yep they're common, they even include the monarch's oldest son (just ask Prince Charles of Sweden). GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain that last comment? I've found Charles August, Crown Prince of Sweden who was adopted by a childless King - are you saying he was heir presumptive because the King could have had a natural child that would have taken precedence? I don't know how Swedish succession works, so that's entirely possible. It couldn't happen in the UK, though - adopted children aren't eligible to inherit the throne. --Tango (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I think he's talking about Prince Carl Philip, Duke of Värmland, who was the heir for a little while after his birth, but then they changed the law on him to put his elder sister ahead of him. I don't know if that really counts. They can always change the law, right? Even to make Richard Rich king, if Thomas More was right. --Trovatore (talk) 00:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's the fellow I'm speaking of. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

He was heir apparent for those few months, though. Just because you don't actually inherit doesn't mean you were heir presumptive. --Tango (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if Victoria ascends the throne 'before' having a legitimate child, then Carl Philip would become the heir-presumptive. But yeah, he was 'heir-apparent' in 1979 (Victoria replaced him, New Year's Day 1980). GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - I gave the example of a younger brother of a childless King being heir presumptive myself. The same is obviously true for a childless Queen in a country where the eldest child, regardless of sex, inherits the throne. --Tango (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It's good to see that Sweden, Belgium, Norway, the Netherlands & Denmark (the ones I remember), have changed their succession laws (to eldest child). Perhaps someday, the UK & Spain will follow. Japan? not for awhile. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? That's your idea of a stroke for equality? How about just abolishing the monarchy? --Trovatore (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Monarchs serve a purpose. They're good for tourism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

They could start working on that ball of twine. --Trovatore (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

And they take care of all that pesky Head of State stuff, freeing up your elected officials to do the decision-making and discussing and anything that you'd want to hold people accountable for. And they're a fluffy abstract for everyone to say they're working under, so that the army (for example) are never supposed to be loyal to a specific government or politician, but rather to a fluffy abstract figurehead supposedly embodying the interests of the country. And since we're unlikely to confiscate their land, abolishing the monarchy would just remove the duties to the country they are supposed to carry out with the unfair quantities of money they'll already have. Real equality would be raising every child in equal circumstances with equal opportunities: that's not going to happen any time soon. The monarchy seems inconsequential to the equality of the country, and it's not like their lives are lives I'd wish on any member of my family. 86.144.144.110 (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not particularly an egalitarian myself, except as regards formal equality; that is, equality under the law. But it seems incongruous to me to stick on one aspect of sex-based inequality, while upholding the underlying royal system deriving from feudalism.

Of course my real reason for wanting to abolish the (specifically British) monarchy is that it's the closest I ever expect to see to an admission that, in 1776, the Yanks were right and they were wrong. --Trovatore (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That could happen. But the British take their time acting on some things. I read once that the British government established an outpost on cliffs overlooking the Channel, for the purpose of watching for Napoleon. And they kept allocating funding to it every year, to keep it going. Until they finally shut it down. In the 1940s. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Will Charles ever be Duke of Normandy as his mother is Duchess?70.54.181.70 (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The Duke of Normandy article has more. It would be an interesting coincidence, if Prince William, as King William, lives to a ripe old age: "William, Duke of Normandy, 2066 edition." :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Double-spacing with typewriters?

Please don't "exploit for [humorous] purposes...[your questioner's] youth and inexperience", but I don't remember a time when typewriters were common. In the days before electric and electronic typewriters, was it possible to doublespace a typescript by any means other than hitting the [similar to "Enter" on a computer keyboard] key twice? Nyttend (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

By doublespace you mean a blank line between each line of type, yes? (It's been awhile for me also.) Yes, there was a setting on at least some typewriters that when you did the "return" (i.e. the carriage return lever on the left side of the carriage) that it would skip a line. P.S. That term lives on with the "CR" character in the ascii character set, even though there is no "carriage" on a computer keyboard as such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This article [10] while not showing it, points out that many typewriters had a "line space mechanism". It controlled how far the paper would advance upon performing the carriage return. Normally it would be 1 line. You could do 2 lines (doublespace) or 1 1/2 lines (one and a half space), and sometimes others. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, you'd better archive that web-page doublequickwise, because GeoCities ("the gorgeous palaces, the cloud-capped towers") will vanish into fairy dust ("into air, into thin air") in fewer than 24 hours, as Yahoo! shuts the whole enterprise down. User:ThaddeusB has unleashed WebCiteBot_2 to archive as many of those references in Wikipedia articles as possible, but talk page references won't be saved, and I don't know where the Ref. desk would fall (and the archiving may have been done before you gave your link, as he tries to save the references in other languages of Wikipedia). See http://www.geocities.com —— Shakescene (talk) 08:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

So I see. So all that site's content will disappear, eh? As could wikipedia at some point. That's the nature of the internet. Nothing lasts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

FLASH!!! (3 bells) In the finest traditions of minitrue, I've rectified your link to one most kindly created by Thaddeus B (see User talk:ThaddeusB, passim). Of course that link will endure only so long as it's on http://www.webcitation.org and so long as WebCitation.org endures. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I have used a several old typewriters. IIRC, there's a small lever somewhere on the carriage to adjust the paper advance from 0 to 2 lines in 1/2 line increments (see this image from a user manual). For the occasional doublespace in otherwise singlespaced text, it was easier to operate the carriage lever/carriage-return button twice. Astronaut (talk) 04:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The metal lug between the roller handle and the start of the ruler scale is the line-space setting lever.

The image on the right is the top left-hand corner of a brother 3912 Electric Correction typewriter, circa 1984. You can see a little metal lug with the settings R, 1, 1½, 2. Those are for free-rolling, one line, one and a half lines, and two lines. free-rolling is similar to inserting text in a drawing software package at any height on the page ("grid off", if you like). God but this makes me feel old :) Grutness...wha? 05:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Definitely the most useful setting was for 1-1/2 line-spaces, even though it was probably the least-used, because while double-spacing by hitting Carriage Return twice was trivial (if tiresome to repeat over and over again), adjusting for spaces that weren't exact multiples of one was tedious. Footnotes, subscripts and accents (often added by hand) were a particular chore. You could hit Carriage Release and move the paper up or down a little for such purposes, but then returning to match the original line was difficult and rarely perfect. When writing copy for publication, I often triple-spaced or quadruple-spaced so that there was enough room to show whether a particular (usually handwritten) mark, edit or adjustment referred to the line above it or the one below it. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Line space mechanism

Here's another example, from my old typewriter. It had three settings, which I've drawn arrows to: 1, 1 1/2 (represented by that little line), and 2. It also had a release-bar to free-form the positioning of the paper. You're right that that kind of manipulation was a serious pain, to be avoided if at all possible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

seems like something to be added to theh typewriter article. Gzuckier (talk) 07:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Feel free. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

An added point no-one's mentioned: When you turned the paper up by hand on a machine which didn't have a carriage return lever (e.g., using the round knob on the end of the platen in the first photo), you'd move it up two "clicks" to get a whole line space. This meant you could move it up half a line only if you wished, to add a superscript or subscript character. Grutness...wha? 13:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Automatic page advance? My those were advanced! My old one I had to move a pointer to the appropriate letter on a pad and then press another lever for each letter. You could change font by replacing a cylinder with the letters on :) To be serious though I couldn't see anything like that on wikipedia, sounds like another article waiting to be written. Dmcq (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so I just realised that there is no enter key on a typewriter...I remember playing with my parents' typewriter when I was little (insert a piece of scrap paper and type gibberish :-), but it's been long enough that I didn't remember that you had to hit the lever to go down a line. Thanks much for the input; I'd imagined that the answer to my question would be "no", and that the only way to do anything except hitting carriage return twice was to move the paper with your hands and hope that you had placed the paper in the right place. Sorry if there were any confusion at the beginning of this question: yes, I did mean "doublespace" as we think of it on a computer. Nyttend (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The "enter" key is equivalent to "return", and I have a vague recollection that some computer keyboards (or maybe keypunch machines) called that key "return". And when you're typing certain kinds of text in a computer, "enter" essentially behaves like "return". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

So there really is this type of key on a typewriter? I looked at the photos at typewriter and didn't see one, and assumed that all typewriters had something like part #13 on the (not yet gone) Geocities diagram. Nyttend (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that some older keyboards had "return" in place of "enter". Now, it's possible some of the more recent electric typewriters had a "return key" of some kind. I don't know. But in the case of my old manual typewriter, the return "key" was that lever in the upper left. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there were some electric typewriters that had this key. I'm pretty sure the IBM Selectric did. These were almost all in office or professional use, I think; they were a bit pricy to buy your kid for a book report on Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. I don't remember whether it was called Return or Enter. --Trovatore (talk) 02:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

My Brother electric typewriter (as pictured above) had a return key (not an "enter key"). Note that Mac computers tend to use "return" and "Enter" interchangeably (my iBook G4 has both words on its key, and the keyboard on my old iMac simply says "return"). Grutness...wha? 05:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen a typewriter with an "enter" key. I think most electric ones except for cheap portables had a "return" key. I'm pretty sure my mom's Olivetti had one. Some cheaper electrics had no powered return mechanism, so you'd return the carriage by hand (with a lever), just like a manual typewriter. That made the mechanism simpler and lighter. As with the OP, the era of typewriter hegemony over computers was a bit before my time, but I do remember using them, and I owned a tiny manual one (mostly as a curio) from a flea market until fairly recently. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 03:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. With mechanical typewriters the paper moves to the left with each letter you type, and the carriage return lever is how you move it back to the right and also advance the paper. Conventional electric typewriters move the paper the same way, but you press a return key. Typeball (IBM Selectric) and daisywheel typewriters move the print head left and right, not the paper, and the Return key may then be officially called "carrier return"; but it's still called Return. Incidentally, it's Return on the computer terminal keyboard I'm typing on, too.

I've used a mechanical typewriter that did not have the capability of advancing by half-lines; the settings for the paper-advance control were 1, 2, and 3 for single, double, and triple spacing. --Anonymous, 23:35 UTC, October 27, 2009.

Leroy Anderson composed a famous musical piece called "The Typewriter" (mp3) which features a mechanical typewriter as a solo instrument, if you want to hear what one sounds like. Nobody seems to have mentioned that manual typewriters were usually equipped with a bell that would ring when you were getting near the end of a line, so you would know to return the carriage if you weren't watching it. It appears prominently in the Anderson piece. For some reason electric typewriters in my memory didn't seem to have that feature. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 02:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheese and booze

On a silly TV show I saw (Spooks), they said that eating fatty cheese will help a person cope with being plied with drinks (that is, will help them stay relatively sober, compared to what they normally would be). This was not actually even evidenced by the characters in the episode (read: silly show), but I was curious whether there was any truth to this in real life? (No, not medical advice, I am not planning to eat a bunch of cheese, do shots, and go driving.) --98.217.71.237 (talk) 12:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

In general, the more you have in your stomach, the slower the alcohol will enter your system (maybe it's not necessarily the speed of absorption but someone will be along to correct me if I'm wrong). Breads are good for this as well. Dismas|^(talk) 12:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It is well known that having a full stomach stops you getting drunk as quickly (students have been known to exploit to reverse - fasting before a night out so you won't have to spend as much on drinks!). Whether fat is better than other food, I really don't know. --Tango (talk) 13:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Any volunteers to test this phenomenon? :P - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 14:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Spooks is definitely one of those shows where they should've known when to call it a day. It's gone from being a quasi-realistic "gritty" drama where the characters did vaguely-intelligence-officer-like things, to a run-of-the-mill spy show where they spend three-quarters of their time running around with guns and gadgets, saving themselves, each other and/or the world every week by some ridiculous contrivance. Ahem. Anyway. Yes, the more you have to digest, the slower the alcohol will get into your system. FiggyBee (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Please cite sources on the reference desk — your last statement is that there is a linear relationship, which sounds doubtful. If it were true, you could stuff yourself to the gills and your shots of vodka would barely get you intoxicated. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That statement doesn't say its linear, just that it is monotonic (ie. more food always means slower absorption, regardless of the amounts of food and alcohol being compared) - that is probably true. --Tango (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The focus is not on the amount of food, but the food being cheese. Fatty foods cause delayed emptying of the stomach. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Charities that build roads

I was wondering if anyone had heard of charities that focus on road building. I would think that was an effective way of reducing vulnerability to famine and spurring economic development in some regions, but I've never heard of a charity explicitly created for that. Do Engineers Without Borders do that? Or are roads so expensive and require so much planning and government involvement that they depend on World Bank or IMF funds? Thanks a lot, TastyCakes (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

There are charities concerned with transportation in the developing world, but I can't find any that focus on building roads. Transaid do general development-related transport aid[11], but don't seem to do much road building. Make Roads Safe campaigns for road safety globally[12]. Possibly it's too expensive for charities to do. The UK's Department for International Development does fund road building[13] - recently committing $100m on a project in the DRC.--Lesleyhood (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Template to cite or reference TV news

Is there a way to cite or reference TV news reports. I'm referring to this [14] source in this [15] article, but also if I was just watching TV and there was a news report on, rather than it being a video on the news channel's website. As instructed (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

See the {{cite video}} template, which is documented at Wikipedia:Citation templates. For future reference, this Reference Desk doesn't specialize in questions about Wikipedia; the best source of answers for this type of question is Wikipedia:Help desk. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

airlines adress in lagos nigeria

please i want to know the adress of royal airmaroc in lagos[nigeria] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.177.74 (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked in the Lagos telephone directory? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

According to their website, they don't have an office in Nigeria - there's one in Niger (Niamey), Cameroon (Douala), or Benin (Cotonu), or you could call their international enquiries number (which is on their website). Tevildo (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Research and Development

What is research and it's relevance to developmentAAN (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Research and development --LarryMac | Talk 17:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

4 Questions about registering to vote in the UK

I recently recieved a form requiring me to register to vote. I shall be sending it back stating that I am registered elsewhere, same as I did last year, however I am curious on a few points.

1) At the bottom of the form I am asked to sign and give the date and my phone number. What happens if I do not actually know my phone number here, having never had to call it, can I just leave this blank?

2) The address given on the encolsed envelope is almost right next-door to where I live. Suspecting that it may be closer than the nearest post box, can I deliver it in person to the City council offices?

3) The form asks, amongst other things, whether these are busines premises. I was wondering what rules there might be over whether somewhere might count as such, and what effect it might have were I to say it is.

4) It asks about people living here on October 15th, which has long since gone, and also requires me not to pass it on to the previous residents. What, then, might someone do if they had only moved into their home after that date?

148.197.114.207 (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

If there is nobody living at that residence that wants to register to vote then you can just not send it back. There is no requirement to register to vote in the UK. Given the postal strikes that are going on at the moment, delivering it by hand would probably be a good idea - I can't see that being a problem. I can't help with questions 3 and 4 - is there not a phone number on the form you can ring for advice? --Tango (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Really, you don't have to register? My mother forced me to, saying I didn't have a choice... Vimescarrot (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That may have been correct: as far as she was concerned, you didn't have a choice. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

According to the official site, "If you do not respond, or if you provide false information, then you could receive a £1,000 fine." However, it doesn't say (in so many words) that registration is _compulsory_, and I can't immediately find anything in the words of the statute itself (The Representation of the People Act) that makes it compulsory. Tevildo (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, you certainly don't have to be registered to vote, plenty of people aren't. You may have to send back the form having ticked a box saying you don't want to register or something, though. --Tango (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You should be registered to vote, but I don't believe that there is any sort of active pursuit of people who don't register. The form should have arrived before October 15th, making question 4 moot - perhaps you have received a reminder, with the previous occupants having not completed it? The form generally has the details of the people who were registered at the address last year, so if you believe that they were still there until after October 15th, presumably you should return it as having no changes, then use the facility on the Electoral Commission website to download a new form and complete it with your details (great bit of bureaucracy!) I can't find anything definitively stating if there are any consequences of marking an address as a business property, other than that they may not continue sending forms in future - but you should only complete that section if there is nobody living at the property, so it refers to a property used solely for business purposes. Warofdreams talk 20:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems pretty compulsory to me. That site says, quite clearly: "You need to be on the electoral register to vote in all UK elections and referendums. You are not automatically registered even if you pay council tax. If you receive a request for your registration information from your local electoral registration office then you are legally obliged to respond. If you do not respond, or if you provide false information, then you could receive a £1,000 fine. Not being registered may also affect your credit rating." -- JackofOz (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Vimescarrot (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

1) The telephone number is purely so the office can call you to query anything, not part of the registration.

2) The council wants your form back, they will save money if you return it by hand. Where I live, they positively encourage non-postal return by having collection boxes in council offices, libraries etc.

3) If a form arrived at a business premises, where there is no residential accommodation, the council may then remove the address from the list for the forms in future.

4) If someone move house at any time during the year, they can register at their new address by contacting the council or via the Electoral Commission web page. The annual registration forms are still used because so many people do not bother to do that.

With regard to your first statement, I shall be sending it back stating that I am registered elsewhere, you are entitled to do that but equally, you are entitled to register at more than one place that is genuinely your residence. For example, this applies to many students. (You are not however entitled to vote more than once in the same election!) The advantage of being on the register includes the fact that electoral register entries are used by credit checking companies so it is harder to get a bank or credit card account if you are not regietered.

Legally there is a requirement to register to vote, even though voting itself is not compulsory. But it is very rare for anyone to be prosecuted for failing to register. Sussexonian (talk) 08:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

¶ This is more by way of a digression, but until the Representation of the People Act 1949, there was a business vote (for example, my grandfather, who owned a business in one London constituency but lived in a different one nearby could have cast two votes; I'm not sure if he did.) While I think the questionnaire is asking about business premises in order to purge them from the address list, I suppose that the question could be an obsolete holdover from an earlier era. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

As a formerly active member of a political party, I have some experience of these matters! The phone number is nice to have, if they have any queries about the registration, but even in these days there is no requirement for everybody to have a telephone (we never had one in my home when I was a kid, until I was about 16, in the mid 1970s). The Council just wants to have the information back, they're not bothered about whether you send the form back by post or by hand, indeed, my council lets you report online that there are no changes from the previous years' registration, which is cheaper than paying the Royal Mail to carry the form back. Until 5-10 years ago, the Electoral Register was only updated once a year, with an effective date in the middle of October, with the new Register coming into effect the following February (though the actual forms were usually sent out in mid-August, and you were encouraged to return them as soon as possible); nowadays we have "Rolling Registration" which means that people can be added to the register at any time during the year, up to within 2-3 weeks of an election, so it doesn't matter if you move house later than October. I echo the advice that you should get yourself registered somewhere - I can safely say from my work that if you don't have a (preferably continuous) record of registrations then you are much less likely to be able to get things like credit cards. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

old firm games of football

has any1 ever scored an own goal in an old firm football match,if so then could could you say who the player was and when it was scored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rab-chap (talk • contribs) 23:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Tosh McKinlay scored an own goal while playing for Celtic in November 1995 - see this match report. Warofdreams talk 00:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Soccerbase lists all the Old Firm games, and you can check out the teams and scorers[16]. It's not very uncommon. Stefan Klos (Rangers) scored an OG on 09-11-2005 in the League Cup. Zurab Khizanishvili (Rangers) scored one in the Premier League on 04-10-2003. I'm sure there are many more if you go back further. --Lesleyhood (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

October 27

the pope

how do i get a message to him in this world ?from little paul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.55.142 (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As opposed to another world? Do you want to contact the Vatican? FisheatersDOTcomSLASHaddressesDOThtml (Wikipedia won't let me link you to it -- apparently, it's SPAM) DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Except on Fridays. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Since no one wants to answer this seriously, I will. this website lists email addresses for prominent vatican officials. The address for the "Cardinal-Secretary of State" would probably suffice for official state-to-state type communications at the governmental level, there are also numerous email addresses listed for "Pontifical councils" which would likely deal with various issues; depending on the reason for contacting the Vatican, a specific council may be best for dealing with your needs. As far as directly contacting the pope; besides being the head-of-state of a tiny state occupying a few city blocks in Rome; he's also the Chief Executive and spiritual leader of a religion of some 1.147 billion people people; he's probably about as easy to contact as the President of the U.S. or the Queen of the UK or any other similar world leader. --Jayron32 04:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I take offense to that, Jayron. After Googling "contact the vatican," I was directed to the fisheater website, listing contact information for both conventional as well as email -- when I tried to link to it, though, I was told it was SPAM. My post was sincere as well as serious. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the process, but I do know it's possible for an ordinary citizen to arrange for an audience with the Pope, as I know someone that did just that. Perhaps that website would explain it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say it was impossible. It's also possible to meet other world leaders in person as well. I just said it was as likely. --Jayron32 04:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that the person I knew who met the Pope, had that meeting with the previous Pope. Hard telling whether the current Pope's policy toward openness is the same as was his predecessor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Doncha just love anonymous name droppers. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 09:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking to me? It was a non-notable acquaintance. Nuff sed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal ran a front-page "human interest" article a month or two ago that said it was far easier to get such audiences if you belonged to a group that had booked through the Vatican's own travel agency. But the original enquirer just wanted to pass a message on to His Holiness, and I don't know what's the best advice. It probably depends on the kind of message. I'm sure the Pope does read a few messages from ordinary people from time to time, but of course no matter how many he reads they would be a very minute fraction of all those that are sent. U.S. President Barack Obama says he tries to read at least ten such letters (picked by his staff) every day. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm just a powerful & important as the Pope. The problem is, I don't have as many people, who believe it. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you wear a funny hat? That's a requirement for being powerful and important. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that having people believe that you are powerful and important is the main, if not only, factor in being powerful and important. Also you don't need, to put a comma, every time you stop to think, about what to write next. FiggyBee (talk) 06:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That could be a problem for God, assuming he exists and is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient and all the other omnis he's said to be (omniomnious? panomnious?). If the world became entirely atheistic, would that mean he would cease to exist or to have the powers he's currently believed by theists to possess? -- JackofOz (talk) 07:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Applying the formula "seeing is believing" to the Bible verse Joh 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time" gives the conclusion that everyone is a non-believer or atheist. Paradoxically there are many who insist on the reversed formula "believing is seeing"[17].Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Small Gods (novel) is a jolly good read which deals with that exact question, Jack. FiggyBee (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, FiggyBee. I really must get up to speed with Pratchett. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Does everyone need anti-reflective coating on his glasses?

The Wikipedia article Antireflection_coating#Ophthalmic_use suggests there is indeed an advantage to it: its "decreased reflection makes them look better, and they produce less glare, which is particularly noticeable when driving at night or working in front of a computer monitor." However, do they mean modern LCD computer monitors or just the old CRT monitors? Would clean glasses without anti-reflective coating also produce glare?--Quest09 (talk) 11:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Need? No... I think I have it, but that's a choice. Historically, plenty of people have done just fine without it. If you want it, you can get it. If not, you don't have to. Falconus^{p t c} 12:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It's basically an upgrade that can be sold for an extra charge. You don't need anti-reflective coating any more than you need power windows or a sunroof -- do they provide greater benefit? Sure, but at a greater cost. Since anti-reflective costs about $10 extra, the cost-benefit analysis might seem toot rigorous to apply (for those for whom $10 is not that big a deal, of course). DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, and if we disregard the price, since it is only $10, what disadvantages would we find in a coated lens? Through some basic research I got the impression that coated lenses could get scratches easily, and get dirtier.--Quest09 (talk) 12:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sunroofs can cause great damage to a vehicle if left open in the rain, and it could also allow for easier burglarization. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

<personal experience> I was talked into antireflective coating on the lenses I purchased previous to my current ones, and it made them nearly impossible to keep clean, far outweighing, for me, any possible reduction in glare (since it was immediately offset by having to peer through a film of grime). When I bought my current glasses, the optometrist told me that the coating created a mild static charge that attracted dust and oil. He also said he sold glasses to a few local TV news reporters, and they always bought one coated pair to wear on camera, and one uncoated pair to wear the rest of the time, because the only thing the coated lenses were any good for was looking good during the 6:00 report. </personal experience> Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The anti-glare coating gives you a weird greenish smear at the slightest provocation. When my normal lenses get dirty (=always), the smudges may appear as blurs, but basically my eyes focus past them semi-automatically. How many times have you seen a glasses-wearer remove his specs and remark with shock at the buildup of crap on the lenses? They don't notice it much because they compensate without thinking about it. However, you can't compensate so easily for a shift in the colour. On top of smudging more easily (personal experience) there's no ignoring the greenish rainbow that will end up covering a wide swath of your field of vision. Matt Deres (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

<More personal experience> I've worn glasses for around 45 years, and adopted the anti-glare coatings when they first became available. About 15 years ago the coating on my new pair (acquired due to a change of prescription) began to delaminate in patches, which persisted after the opticians replaced (or possibly recoated) the lenses, so I asked for replacement uncoated lenses. With subsequent pairs I've not had the same problem, so whatever manufacturing glitch that was around then seems to have been overcome. As to other pro and contra-indications; the coatings do reduce reflections somewhat, particularly when further glass surfaces (CRT TVs and monitors, car windscreens, camera and telescope optics) are involved; they used to show smears a little more, but my latest coated pair do not seem to do so; as to dust attraction, I suspect this is as much or more down to the particular type of plastic that lenses are often made of nowadays (instead of much heavier glass): overall I'd say that the coating is mildly advantageous but not indispensible. For an extra £10 or so on top of glasses costing £100-200 (as mine do) the saving - for something that's part of my facial appearance and essential for most everyday activites - would be trivial, but your budget may vary. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Economically, but not psychologically, £10 or so on top of glasses costing £100-200 is the same as £10 or so on top of glasses costing £50-75, by the way. But my preoccupation is less the cost than the utility. Actually, I tend to prefer clean glasses with a little glare than slightly dirty glasses without glare. Anyway, the anti-glare coating can be done as an add-on some time after buying and testing the glasses without anti-glare. So, I don't see any impediment to buying the glasses without it. No one knows I am a dog (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

buying a used semi pro digital SLR?

Iam thinking of upgrading to a digital SLR since I seem to like photography and point and shoot digital cameras seem to be restrictive. I have been doing some research on DSLRs and i found that Nikon or Canon seem to be the best choice. Im also open to less stellar brands such as olympus since the price seem to be lower. Due to the budget constraints, im forced to consider mostly "entry level" DSLRs such as canon eos 1000d. Luckily in ebay people sell body and lens in the same auction and therefore i dont have to buy lenses seperately. I have never used SLRs or DSLRs before and therefore have no idea about them. Iam scared that they, being complex machines, become less reliable with time. Could you please say what I have watch out for when buying them?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.220.46.25 (talk) 11:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want quality pictures the most important hardware part is clearly the lens. So, if you are on a budged, read some reviews about lenses and spend the highest part of your budged on a quality lens.--Quest09 (talk) 12:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where you're located, but B&H Photo in Manhattan, NYC provides excellent customer service -- few can beat their prices. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The OP's IP is based in Bonn, North-Rhine Westphalia. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I'd recommend checking out the largest retailer in your region -- the people who sell the most have the most experience in terms of customer demands and focus (no pun intended) for the product, and they would likely be the most appropriate to answer any and all questions. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the vast majority of modern DSLRs (like their film SLR predecessors) tend to be aimed at an audience with deeper pockets and higher standards – serious amateurs and semi-professionals on up – than the buyers of lightweight point-and-shoot pocket digital cameras. Consequently, these cameras tend to be solidly, carefully manufactured. Often the consumer and 'prosumer' DSLR models share parts, sensors, firmware, and other design features with their professional-grade brethren.

Just off the top of my head, here's a few things to think about when making the switch from point & shoot to (D)SLR. These cameras are bigger than the ones you've been using up until now. Bigger lenses with more glass. Bigger optical sensors. Overall larger bodies to accommodate more buttons. While all of these features will allow you to take better pictures under a wider range of conditions, they also mean that your camera is going to be heavier, and you're going to hold it differently from your point & shoot. Before you buy a DSLR online, I would strongly recommend visiting a shop and picking up a few cameras (with lenses attached). Find out if you can hold the camera steadily and comfortably. Are all the important controls (shutter!) in easy reach? Not everyone's hands are the same size, and not every camera 'fits' every person.

On a related note, is the viewfinder position comfortable, and can you see through it easily? This can be an issue for people who wear prescription eyeglasses.

Think about how you're going to use your new camera. Are you going to do a lot of low-light shooting or time exposures (night shots, astrophotography, caves)? Some cameras perform better in very low light than others -- though all will produce 'cleaner', less-grainy images than your point & shoot would. Are you going to do any rapid action or artistic shooting? Will you need the ability to take several photos automatically in rapid succession, and will you need very short shutter speeds? Will you be relying on the on-camera flash, or will you acquire a separate flash unit?

Finally, you might want to have a look at one or more reviews. I can strongly recommend Digital Photography Review as a very thorough and detailed source of information. Best of luck, and enjoy your new camera! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Before you buy a used SLR online, find some way to get a few hours or even minutes with a camera of the same model. Some DSLRs are fairly simple to operate but others aren't, and some operate in such a counter-intuitive way that it makes you want to throw them out a window (or sell them on eBay). I personally couldn't make sense of the Canon software so I went with a Nikon. (The Fuji was worse - the buttons were labelled only in Japanese and the text on the screen was so tiny I would have needed a magnifying glass to read it.) Also make sure that the model is still supported by the company with respect to firmware and software updates, and that you'd be able to download any updates without being the original buyer. --NellieBly (talk) 03:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Tracing a UK Pension provider gone astray. Not looking for Legal advice though.

Sorry for probably wasting everyone's time - but here goes. About 35 years ago I was made redundant "let go" by an English Clothing company called (United Drapery Stores aka John Collier aka Alexandres Clothiers) that I had worked for for about 11 years. I was given a compensation package and a future pension at age 65. I built a new career that involved moving around the UK quite extensively and have now retired but am not yet old enough to claim the aforementioned pension. Trouble is, the company appears to have been sold, merged, incorporated, split-up and apparently, it's pension liabilities were also shunted around, to the point that I don't seem able to trace my pension. The UK Pension Tracing service have worked really hard for me, but with no luck. I AM NOT LOOKING FOR LEGAL ADVICE HERE!!! But if anyone had any clues how I might get over or around this brick wall I should be most grateful. Many thanks. But I won't be surprised or disappointed if no such clues emerge after such a long time. 92.20.20.220 (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I do wonder if approaching the BBC might help you? They do regular features on pensions, and their personal finance journalists might actually be doing one at the moment. Radio 4 has a programme called Money Box. The BBC's website should have contact details. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)BB

Have you tried the major pension providers in the Uk? Approach the companies and ask around trying to find if they have you on their lists - it'll presumably be either a Group Personal Pension or a Corporate Pension Scheme. Failing that if you have any company-names (new or old) it might help in tracking them down, do you know who the original provider was? 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought that anything as obvious as that would have been tried by the "UK Pension Tracing service" - if there was anything that simple then they'd surely have found it. I suggest you start tracing that web of sales, mergers, incorporations and splits. There could be a couple of dozen companies still in existence at the ends of that web - it should be possible to call the HR departments of each of them. Another possibility: Can you recall the names of any of your co-workers? Perhaps you could find some of them and see whether they figured it out? Finding people is fairly do-able with the resources of the Internet these days. SteveBaker (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

steam

Do you need insurance and an MOT to drive steam powered cars in the UK? I assume you still need tax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.2 (talk) 10:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that they need tax: "All steam-powered vehicles must be taxed in the ‘steam propelled’ tax class." The Steam Car Club of Great Britain states that steam powered cars require MOTs. While I can't find a statement on insurance, it only makes sense that, if they are to be driven on the public roads, this will be required - they could be involved in an accident. Warofdreams talk 14:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The Crown Prosecution Service says here that steam-powered vehicles count as motor vehicles and that insurance is required to use a motor vehicle on a road or other public place. So, yes on insurance.

Neither This Department for Transport site nor this Direct.gov.uk site mention MOTs for steam vehicles.

"All steam-powered vehicles must be taxed in the ‘steam propelled’ tax class.", however, this DfT guide says, "All steam powered vehicles have been exempt from vehicle tax since 1.4.01.". AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This apparent anomaly might be (note might; I haven't actually checked) explained by a system similar to classic cars. They're still liable for tax in a particular class, but the rate of tax applicable to the class has been set at zero. So you'd still need to get a tax disk, but it would be free. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if you did need MOT, most steam vehicles are more than 25 years old - which exempts them from most of the tests - and for antique vehicles, they rarely require features that the vehicle didn't have when manufactured. So the test (if you have to take it) should be really simple - brakes and lights - not much else. I wonder though whether you'd fall under the same rules as steam locomotives and steam traction engines - for those, you'll need boiler pressure tests and a whole bunch of other stuff. That's only sensible though - if your boiler is corroded, it could explode and boiler explosions are NASTY accidents. SteveBaker (talk) 16:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Phone Line Activation in UK

I'm considering O2 broadband in my new flat but the phone line hasn't been used in more than 8 months so the greedy people at BT have disconnected it. That leaves me with a £120 activation charge.

Could I get another broadband provider to activate the phone line for me without signing on with them? If so, which UK company charges the least? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.27.27 (talk) 14:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I would contact BT directly and 'haggle' them to waive the connection charge. I would be amazed if there is a broadband provider willing to pay BT to activate the line without locking you into a contract for their broadband. I would definitely contact BT and push for them to waive it - though your best tool for haggling would be claiming you will only sign up to their Total-broadband (or whatever it's called) service if they waive it, otherwise you'll go with O2 (but that obviously means if you succeed it'd mean going with BT). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia in Germany

I've heard that swastikas are banned in Germany. What implications does this have for Wikipedia there? Can English Wikipedia articles containing them be accessed? Can German Wikipedia articles have them? Am I misunderstanding the ban, is it only related to non-educational or commercial material or something? TastyCakes (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

See Strafgesetzbuch § 86a ny156uk (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I looked at that, but it doesn't see to impact the de.wikipedia much. Given the restrictions on the publication of Nazi symbols, I could see much evidence of this at this page. I'm assuming they are just sensible and work within the grey area of non-supporting material. - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 16:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You need to put a colon before the "de" to link to German Wikipedia. Like so. Also see de:swastika.

I knew it, but thanks for pointing my mistake out. - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 17:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If you look at an image of the Nazi flag you'll see this template which warns about the restrictions on its use. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Aha! I've found de:Wikipedia:Gebrauch nationalsozialistischer Symbole, which seems to cover it exactly. - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 16:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should mention I don't speak German ;). The Swastika page above does include Nazi swastikas, is that part of the "gray area" mentioned? As in it's technically not allowed in Germany but they don't make a big deal out of it for Wikipedia's purposes? TastyCakes (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is no gray area. The ban does not cover all fields. The use in educational material, in news, or in art works is permitted. You certainly can see swastikas in Germany: just watch a documentary about the Second World War. Another different story is shaving your head and wearing a swastika T-shirt in a demonstration against immigration. No one knows I am a dog (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The "grey area" I meant was exceptions themselves (namely "[The law is] not be applicable if the means of propaganda or the act serves to further civil enlightenment, to avert unconstitutional aims, to promote art or science, research or teaching, reporting about current historical events or similar purposes.") as you say. I'm sorry if that weren't clear. Basically the German page has a "fair-use"-type question system (more generally for the whole WP, than individual uses) to ensure use would fall within this. (I should note there is what I call a grey area, but not WP-related, "(4) If guilt is slight, the court may refrain from imposition of punishment pursuant to this provision."). 92.20.249.149 (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC) - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 17:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I might sound too pedantic, but I wouldn't call legal exceptions "grey area". For me "grey area" are loopholes that allows breaking the "the intent of the law without technically breaking it." The intent of the law was that no association could identify with the Nazis and that no one would get the impression that Nazis are tolerated in Germany. Using the swastika for the purposes cited above is not infringing the spirit of the law, not even slightly.--No one knows I am a dog (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think point (4) is more like a true grey area (I usually use it in that sense as well, but not above). - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 17:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I also have to disagree with this interpretation. Many - perhaps almost all - laws have a legal threshold that you have to cross to be punished. Merely not punishing slight offenders doesn't mean that there is something unclear in the law. Specially regarding the use of Nazi symbols in Germany, you can rest assure that this legal threshold is very low and you can count on being persecutedprosecuted for any minor use of the swastika with the intend of defending Nazi ideas. No one knows I am a dog (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Presumably you meant to say "prosecuted", not "persecuted". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Either word makes sense in this context. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

To call "persecution", the banning of the symbols of people who support the murder of other ethnic groups, is an oxymoron to say the least. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs is right. I corrected my post above.No one knows I am a dog (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

OTOH, Banning symbols, ideas, and hats on the grounds that they represent oppression is the very definition of irony and hypocrisy. FiggyBee (talk) 03:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not what Grey area (concept) says a grey area of the law is. --82.41.11.134 (talk) 23:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a grey area in Wikipedia about the definition of "grey area." The article grey area points to loophole and the article grey area (concept) points to non liquet. No one knows I am a dog (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

October 28

what country has had the most H1N1 cases?

what country has had the most H1N1 cases? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatguy0900 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the US, with 2618 of 4780 reported cases.[18] Clarityfiend (talk) 06:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That article is dated 27 April 2009. Please reality check your answers - would it really be described as a pandemic if there had been less than 5000 reported cases worldwide? --Tango (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. They've been crying wolf so long, I hadn't been paying much attention, and the numbers seemed reasonable to me. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Given that there have been over 414945 cases [19], in other words your figures are nearly 2 orders of magnitude too low, it seems it would be more accurate to say you've been paying no attention at all, not that there's anything wrong with that but I would respectfully suggest you take more care next time before accusing people of 'crying wolf'. (The actual effect of this pandemic so far doesn't appear to have been much worse then seasonal flu but I think it's understandable there was significant concern given the early reports.) In fact as the WHO article says, the number is almost definitely significantly higher then that because countries are no longer required to report to the WHO [20] and many countries have long given up on properly tracking cases anyway. I know a family who very likely got it, but I'm not sure if they even saw a doctor (they did call up the healthline and one was affected for over 2 weeks so it's possible they did) so I'm doubtful that they would be included in any figures and expect Graeme Bartlett could confirm something similar. Many countries probably were never that effective at tracking cases anyway. BTW, in terms of a pandemic, one of the WHO's main requirements is there [21] [22] "the pandemic phase, is characterized by community level outbreaks in at least one other country in a different WHO region" (in addition to other criteria like community level outbreaks in at least two countries in one region) so I would expect it's technically possible for a pandemic with only 4k cases but it's probably rather unlikely. (There were around 30k cases when H1N1/09 flu was declared a pandemic. [23]) I know because there was some controversy/criticism of the WHO definition at the time. Nil Einne (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well Australia has had 36,991 laboratory confirmed cases, with real figures probably in hundreds of thousands, it probably struck down 10% of people I know. See 2009 flu pandemic in Australia. US actually had 58,151 cases according to 2009 flu pandemic by country, so still beats Australia. The figures reported like this actually indicate the capacity of laboratories to confirm cases rather than the actual numbers. . Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

For the reasons you give and I mentioned above, we can't really answer this question. I would note that our articles are a bit sketchy anyway, as often happens with this sort of thing, some of the figures may have been updated recently others not for a long time. Given the lack of any accurate information for most countries it's of questionable use anyway IMHO. It could be a southern hemisphere countries, they were initially significantly affected because it began to spread just before their winters. Potentially something like Argentina which has had a large number of deaths (likely for a number of reasons including the figure of 8k [24] cases is way too low). But a northern hemisphere is going to overtake the south if it hasn't already particularly given the demographics differences. The earlier site gives 300k cases for the US and we are pretty sure it was spreading in Mexico for several months before it was recognised too. And who really knows what the situation in China is like? Eventually someone will come up with estimates I suspect Nil Einne (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

My 6.5" Alpine door speakers keep getting blown

I have gone through about 4 pairs of speakers because they eventually sound staticky or no sound comes out at all. I get the system put in at a local car audio shop, which is now out of business. I have to amps, one of them is the following:

http://reviews.cnet.com/car-amplifiers/performance-teknique-icbm-775/4505-6726_7-32366737.html

I have one 10" Kicker sub in the trunk. Currently the problem is that there is quite static sounding music coming from the passenger side speaker. The driver side speaker is fine right now. What do I need to do to make less bass go to the front speakers (if that is the problem)? I am trying to learn about the different settings (HPF,LPF,Subsonic,Levels) but I am pretty confused on what I should touch. I don't know how to tell which knobs control which speakers. Here is a blurry picture of the back of the amp, thought it may help to give you an idea of what I have

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p212/adg4499/amp.jpg

I would appreciate any help because I am getting pretty tired of continually replacing my door speakers. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.5.23 (talk) 01:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I would think that if the speakers are dying completely then they are not man enough for the job. That amp has high outputs, that needs a speaker that can handle that output without destruction - you might find that it's hard to source a speaker small enough to fit in the door and still take the load. I will also point out that a couple of hundred watts of music in a car will not be good for your ears!  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

...and will frequently irritate the hell out of anyone within a mile or two.--88.110.20.147 (talk) 06:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You really have to put more money into the speakers than the amp, and if you really want high volume you are going to have to go beyond the door and put speakers in other places to share the load. In your case perhaps you can add a fast acting fuse to the speakers to protect against an overload. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Snow

Can someone produce, or does someone have access to, an exhaustive list of countries which experience cold, snowy winters (at low elevations)? Rimush (talk) 09:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you better define "cold", "snowy", and "low elevations"? Dismas|^(talk) 09:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

DO you mean snow to 0 meters above sea level at least 10 times every winter? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone from the tropics might regard even southern U.S. states as "cold and snowy" in the winter. The OP needs to define his terms. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I found this map on wikimedia commons, which may be of some use. --Lesleyhood (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett's definition sounds pretty good. Rimush (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

So is Mongolia not acceptable, since there is no point in Mongolia that is at sea level? Googlemeister (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I solved this a different way. Thanks everyone. Rimush (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Please fill us in on what you found, in case this question ever gets asked again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Is Scottish Currency Legal tender?

Until very recently, there were 3 Scottish Banks that could and did (and still do!!!!) print and issue their own currency notes - The Royal Bank of Scotland - The Bank of Scotland - and The Clydesdale Bank. Each of these banknotes bore the signatures of the respective governors with the usual, "I promise to pay the bearer on demand" guarantee. But since all of these banks have now been absorbed into other non-Scottish Banks or been largely nationalised by the UK Government, what value do those "promises" have? In other words, are Scottish banknotes legal tender? I know from personal experience that they are NOT accepted in non-UK countries (except perhaps in Scottish-owned bars in Spain and Greece), and there are large pockets of England which will not accept them. But my question stands ie., are Scottish Banknotes legal tender in Scotland given there are no Scottish Banks remaining to guarantee their face value redemption? 92.21.81.185 (talk) 11:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

All the responsibilities of those banks now lie with the banks that took them over, so the situation has not changed. Also, I believe that the "promise to pay the bearer on demand" has been an empty formula for some time. What is and isn't legal tender does not depend on it. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Whose picture is on those Scottish banknotes? I was envisioning a certain famous poet, and then Scots could say they had "money to burn". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, the current £10 note from the Clydesdale Bank (qv) has the picture you seek... AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Beautiful. Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Too bad they don't have one with a Clydesdale on it. Unless that's one on the reverse of the old 20 pound note. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Our article states: "Scottish and Northern Irish banknotes are unusual, firstly because they are issued by retail banks, not central banks, and secondly, as they are not legal tender anywhere in the UK – not even in Scotland or Northern Ireland – they are in fact promissory notes. Indeed, no banknotes (even Bank of England notes) are now legal tender in Scotland or Northern Ireland." --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What article are you referring to? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

"Legal tender" has nothing to do with redemption or guarantee or the "soundness" of the currency; Legal tender is merely something which must be accepted as settlement of a debt. FiggyBee (talk) 12:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Accepted as settlement of a debt is actually a very restrictive idea as well. It is NOT equivalent to "accepted as payment for services"; it is incorrectly assumed that currency being "legal tender" means that every business must accept cash in exchange for goods and services; that is not so; businesses are free to refuse to take cash if they choose; they can establish the method of payment before providing the service to you, so technically, you do not incur any "debt" before the service is rendered. As a practical matter, legal tender is not a very inforcable concept; it was put onto paper money during the early days of paper money because people did not believe that banks would honor such notes with "hard money", i.e. coins, so the government required people to accept such notes in "payment of debts" from banks, mainly as banks pay off debts to customers in the form of withdrawls. If you put money in the bank, you expect to get that money out, and if people put coins in the bank (which they usually did), like say $500 of gold coin, they expected the equivalent in real metal coins out. The government is basically telling you "this paper is worth the amount in real coins we say it is" when it uses a phrase like "Legal tender". Since modern currency is essentially "fiat currency" and not based on hard metal standards anymore, the concept of "Legal tender" is pretty much pointless. --Jayron32 14:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the above responses. But that all leaves me with 2 more questions viz. If paper money is NOT legal tender, how can I be arrested for copying ie "counterfeiting" it and second, are the issuing banks required to hold sufficient gold or other equivalent valuable currency so as to be able to redeem all its issued notes if required to do so? And if NO to the second question, what security are they issuing against? 92.8.203.8 (talk) 18:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The answer to your first question is fraud; its still illegal to use deception to get money and/or goods and/or services without paying actual money. Secondly, even if it is not legal tender, Scottish Banknotes are still legally recognized as valid currency; the UK government will gleefully accept them as payment for taxes, for example. Thirdly, currency is no longer "backed" by anything other than the full faith and credit of the issuing institution. With the notable exception of the Scottish and Northern Irish situations, most true currency is issued by central banks and not commercial banks. Also, currency itself represents a small portion of money. Currency is a convenience, but is itself a minor bit of the total economy. Almost all money exists solely as entries in a computer spreadsheet. In the U.S., for example, the Federal Reserve Bank controls the money supply not by printing more or less bills. It has the responsibility for printing bills, and does so largely based on demand for those bills, but printing more bills has only a minute effect on the value of the Dollar. What the Fed does is it lowers the interest rates at which it (the Fed) will loan money to other banks. When it lowers that interest rate, other banks will borrow more money from the Fed, and thus put more money into circulation. Here's the deal; the Fed just invents the money out of whole cloth. The idea is, the U.S. government is "good for it", so when a bank takes a loan from the Fed, it does so based on the agreed-upon terms, and the Fed just dumps a bunch of money in their account. The Fed doesn't have any gold in "reserve" backing these loans; they are backed by the fact that people generally trust the US Dollar. And that's it. Other central banks operate on much the same method. --Jayron32 19:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The article that Cockatoo was quoting is Banknotes of the pound sterling (see?) —Akrabbim^talk 19:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Recession survival

what are the oppurtunities that came along for some companies with the onset of this great depression are there companies which gained out of it, what and how did they do it? anyone please

Well first it's probably premature to call it a great depression. That said, there are companies that do better during hard economic times. I believe Walmart's and McDonald's revenues went up during the difficult recent quarters, and I saw on the news that dollar stores are having record years in some cases. There are many "recession proof" businesses, some of the sectors are mentioned here. In this recession in particular, there has been a lot of complaining that banks that were bailed out last October are now in (unfairly) excellent positions to make huge amounts of money as things bounce back, in part because their smaller competition has dropped out. Because of that many of the big banks reported good profits over the last few quarters. TastyCakes (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Which is part of why this is a recession and not a depression. While there many that will argue the nuances in the difference between those terms, the broad entire-economy-wide downturn that one saw in the "Great Depression" is just not happening here. There are many sectors, such as employment and housing, where the economic downturn has hit hard to a large number of people, so it is easy for people to think that "everyone and everything" has been hurt by this. But its just not so. People have not stopped spending, for example, they are just shifting their spending from higher-priced to lower-priced versions of the same items; which is why Wal-Mart and McDonalds are doing very well, since people are still shopping, they are just shopping on the cheap. Likewise, I heard several analysts say that places like Home Depot and Pep Boys tend to do well in a recession, since people tend to a) stay in their current homes and cars and not buy newer ones, so they need to fix them more often, and thus need materials to fix them and b) tend to do more work on their own rather than find contractors and/or mechanics to do it for them. So not everyone is suffering in this economic situation, some people and business are actually doing better. --Jayron32 14:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Waht abou the BPO sectors ? they are paying less for the same amount ow work? how to survive this??

Do you mean Business process outsourcing? If so, it would seem to depend entirely on the companies involved. If they're doing back office accounting for Chrysler, say, the future is a lot gloomier than if they're doing it for Walmart, say. There is a lot of talk of developing countries (particularly China) increasing their domestic consumption to make up for the drop in international business (the US trade deficit significantly narrowed for the first time in a long time because of the recession). India and China are still managing significant economic growth, while the US and some of Europe remains stalled (or worse). Consequently, I would expect outsourcing from the West to India (I'm assuming that's where you're talking about) to slow overall, but it is quite possible that domestic business could take up the slack. I think India's general economic growth would prevent wages from falling overall, but I have no data to support that. TastyCakes (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't offer a reliable source for this opinion but when I was a student, I had a part-time job with a "Bookmaker" aka Bookie aka Turf Accountant and during the great recession of Maggie Thatcher's Government in the UK, my boss would come to work gleefully smoking a big cigar and hoping for another big day ahead. When I asked how he could be so gleeful and confident during what was a period of great hardship and unemployment, he told me that a person with a single £ in his pocket was more likely to gamble it on a 10-1 loser than to spend it on something else like a pound of potatoes or a turnip. And we were always VERY busy in that period - but only on the incoming side of the counter - rarely so on the pay-out side of it. 92.8.203.8 (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

If you had access to a Bloomberg Terminal or equivalent machine, you could look up what percentage of companies in a given universe, such as the Dow Jones Industrial Average, have had increases in share price, revenue or profits since the beginning of the recession, whenever you define that to be. As an example, Palm Inc. and Amazon.com shares are higher than they were when the recession supposedly began in December 2007. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Strange chess variant

Hello there, everyone:

Has anyone heard of this chess variant?

• Pawns move and capture in the same way as in standard chess, with the sole difference being that when they take a piece, they jump to the square diagonally after the one taken. For instance, white e4 capturing black f6 would result in white jumping to g6.
• as a consequence, pawns on rows A and H cannot be taken.
• no stalemate. A king that cannot legally move equals the end of the game.
• Every other piece on the board moves around in the same way, except the queen, which has the added ability to jump like a knight.

Or even just a variant with the first rule? I ask because, before I learnt the standard rules of chess, I was taught a version with these rules, as though it were the standard itself. This was the standard used in my school's chess club and with which I played with teachers. It was only upon leaving said school many years ago that I learnt that this was an offshoot. I have always found it curious why they taught these rules over the regular ones.

Also, has anyone else heard of a variant where the game is won by points?

All the best --81.202.142.42 (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The article Chess variant, which is pretty long, may mention this game? Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading the article but, unfortunately, couldn't find the variant I mentioned. Thanks for suggesting it though.

All the best

--81.202.142.42 (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

At first blush, your first variant seemed in line with en passant -- though it's possible I didn't construct my mental chessboard properly. Hmm...seems like a checker move! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• I agree, DRosenbach, the first rule is like a strange addition of a checker move to chess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.202.142.42 (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

COPC !! ??

Is COPC only about Transaction Monitoring (clause 2.4 COPC), as i am working under a COPC certified person in a BPO process and have found that we only talks about calls ,caliberation,GAGE RNR,Fatal,Non Fatal errors etc etc,. But there are various other clauses like (1.0. leadership and planning),(2.2 process control) so on and forth, which we never hear happening.So, if i were to implement a COPC plan as aleader in another organisation,"how am i suppose to start with" anyone?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.140.188 (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

There may be people reading this who know what COPC is, but I am not one of them. I guess it might be "Community Oriented Primary Care". If you would care to give us a hint of what on earth you are talking about, you might get more response. --ColinFine (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

How much would these items cost to buy individually?

• Northface jacket
• Casdigan sweater
• Polo
• Rugby shirt

Accdude92 (talk to me!) (sign) 19:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest Google. --Jayron32 19:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Or your local high street. --Tango (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Or any number of other ways that you could have easily found this information on your own... Dismas|^(talk) 23:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't be too much of a smarty, or they'll drag you to the talk page too. :) The basic problem with the question is that the prices of any of those things could vary widely depending on quality and/or where you shop. Probably more expensive at Macy's than at Wal*Mart, for example, and possibly of different quality. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

$30 used, at a thrift shop, $2 used, at a garage sale, 50 cents, used, at a flea market, 50 cents, used, at a closeout special. Bus stop (talk) 01:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

As opposed to $35 at Wal*Mart, $40 at Penneys or Sears, or $199.99 at Macy's? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Somebody is dressing up as a frat boy for halloween —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.134.7 (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If so, they'll be plenty warm from the waste up! Dismas|^(talk) 03:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Some might argue that a frat boy's waste is between his ears; his waist, on the other hand... FiggyBee (talk)

Touche'. I must have been tired when I typed that... Dismas|^(talk) 18:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Correlation between seniority and hours worked

In modern organizations, what is the relationship between one's position in the hierarchy and how hard one works? The stuff of myth is that bosses (like the pointy-haired boss in Dilbert) don't work very hard at all. Their desktops are virtually empty of paper and they seem to spend most of their time schmoozing contacts and playing golf. Meanwhile, the drudges below them work insane hours for comparatively little reward. How close to the reality is this picture?

I might hypothesize that the hardest working people in any organization are the middle managers, who work more hours than both the bosses above them and the junior staff (e.g. graduate trainees) beneath them. Or maybe it's the juniors that work hardest? Perhaps the higher up in an organization you go, the less work you have to do? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 20:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Think: Strategic: Tactical: and Operational. ie. Strategy - I have some capital, I know that field over there has coal beneath it, I want to buy it and profit from the coal being sold for more than it cost to extract it - make it happen - job done - just monitor and react accordingly. Tactical - I have been given terms of reference including buying the field, getting planning approval, satisfying environmental concerns, acquiring the equipment, arranging safety provisions, arrange transport and marketing requirements, recruit and manage the personnel, monitor sales and maximise profits, minimise labour disputes and accidents, manage budgetary considerations and report to management and shareholders etc., etc. Operational - dig that coal and bring it safely to the surface - obey all safety procedures - meet targets - report for work as per employment contract - work only the hours paid for and not a minute more - be happy but accept lowest pay on the scale. I would hypothesise from the foregoing analysis that the definition of HARD work (physical labour) may return the lowest pay - but the most ARDUOUS work is that of the middle-manager who usually earns less cash per hour of attendance than those doing the manual work. 92.8.203.8 (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that excellent analysis. I should have stated, though, that I'm mostly interested in purely white collar organizations (e.g. banks and other financial institutions, IT companies, governmental organizations, etc) for the purpose of this question. And by "hardest working", I really mean "working the highest number of hours". Thanks again, --Richardrj ^{talk email} 20:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Here are the results of a 2003 UK government survey on work hours: [25]. You can see that the workers with the most hours worked were managers, followed by shop-floor workers and "professional occupations." "Administrative & secretarial" workers labored the least, at least in terms of hours. No doubt the Office for National Statistics and its equivalents in other countries have lots more data on this type of subject. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sort of related to your question: Fenton-O'Creevy, MP, Nicholson, N, Soane, E, and Willman, P (2003) 'Trading on illusions: unrealistic perceptions of control and trading performance', Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 53-68. found that job level (statistically) significantly correlated with total pay, profit contribution and people skills (though not manager's ratings of risk management or analytical ability). So from that, I'd expect senior employees to be contributing in a different sort of way than less senior employees (this jives with intuition, but it's nice to have empirical support). Now the question becomes which type of work is more time intensive, the people skills oriented work of more senior employees or the labor/mental oriented work of junior employees. I'd bet on the junior employees working more time and quite probably harder, though the skills the more senior members provide are also valuable to a well-functioning business.--droptone (talk) 12:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Contributing to the content/accuracy of WP by BUs

Is there any evidence that any banned user has, after (s)he was banned, contributed significantly (under another name or anonymously) to either the content or the accuracy of WP?--79.75.47.209 (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This is totally the wrong place to ask such a question, but still. There was a big hoo-ha earlier this month about a banned user called The Undertow who created a new account called Law. Under the Law name he apparently did a lot of good work, so much so that he was nominated for adminship. The shit hit the fan when it emerged that some of the people who were supporting him in his RfA as Law knew that it was a sockpuppet of a banned user, but chose not to mention that fact. The whole story is a bit tedious and bureaucratic for me (I mean, don't these people have real lives, families, jobs and stuff?), but if you care to read more about it, you can do so here. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 22:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It probably happens more often than you think. The usual pattern is that someone does something terrible - we warn them - they do it again, and again - and they get short blocks - then longer blocks then an indefinite blocks. At this point, they often start making sock-puppet accounts and go right on offending, thinking that we won't spot that it's the same person - but 99% of the time, we can tell from the editing pattern, the kinds of ways they phrase things - the article types that they frequent, etc - it's usually a dead giveaway! You find what is supposedly a brand new user - suddenly knowing all of the Wikipedia guidelines - or using the system in sophisticated ways that newbies don't generally know. You'd be amazed at how obvious it is in almost every case. That's enough evidence to get a check-user run on the various accounts to find the ones that share the same internet address (IP) ranges. At that point, we'll block the IP address - or possibly a range of IP addresses and physically lock the person out.

However, if the person were to sneak back - mend their evil ways, keep their noses clean and do good work - the odds are extremely good that nobody would notice. We have no idea how many reformed vandals, trolls, etc there are - but in a sense, we don't care. If they don't misbehave, we really don't care that they came back. We aren't in the business of punishing people - we're in the business of preventing them from doing damage to the encyclopedia. However, in the case that Richardr refers to - the former miscreant tried for adminship. The idea of someone with that kind of history having admin powers is deeply worrying - the damage that could be done with admin tools would be fairly terrifying.

We can check admins carefully - but for regular users, we really have no clue how many banned people are shocked into becoming good Wikipedians after a ban.

SteveBaker (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it really that terrifying? OK, they delete something important, edit a protected page, ban someone innocuously... and it is probably noticed in about a minute and reverted and the admin is banned. I was under the impression that the ability of even an admin to do anything more than irritating damage was low. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that Law/Undertow never actually did anything wrong with his admin tools. He tended to ruffle a few feathers because he was known, from time to time, to unblock someone as a show of good faith, often without going through proper bureaucratic channels, and yes, those of us involved in the fiasco have come clean and admited that it was a major error in judgement to keep quiet about the connection; however the person behind those accounts never misused his admin tools. However, such events DO happen from time to time; you can read about this user in back issues of The Signpost. this ANI post and This Signpost article cover the issue in some detail. It has happened that a disruptive user has come back, kept his nose clean long enough to get one of his accounts named an admin, and then started immediately misusing the tools. It's pretty rare; I only know of 3 cases where an admin has been discovered to be a returning blocked or banned user as a sockpuppet, and only ONE of those cases where there was ever a misuse of the admin tools. --Jayron32 01:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to turn this into a long debate (so won't respond further) nor an attack Law/The undertow thread but I feel your claim that Law/The undertow never did anything wrong with his admin tools is misleading. In fact, the thing which resulted in his sockpuppetry being publicly revealed was poor behaviour with admin tools by Law, in particular unblocking someone who should have not be unblocked without proper discussion (i.e. WP:Wheelwarring). You don't have to take my word for it thought. It's easy to say the way arbcom was leaning before the shit hit the roof [26]. This wasn't a major offense by any means, not in itself worth of desysopping just a simple warning "don't do this again" and hopefully minimal drama and it's clear the arbcom was also leaning that way. And just to be clear, arbcom was also going to acknowledge that the initial ban that Law/Undertow was too long (but not improper) although my reading of the situation based on what people including arbcom said and my understanding of policy is that Law's offense was worse (wheelwarring nearly always is of course) if you want to quantify things in that way. Again this doesn't mean it was a major offence nor have I seen any suggestion it wasn't a good faith mistake, and we all make mistakes from time to time. But good faith mistakes are still mistakes and particularly when they occur with admin tools they need to be avoided. If a user keeps making such mistakes ultimately the community may have no choice but to remove their admin tools. While I don't know if Law had much if a history in that regard it's clear Undertow did [27] Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive417#the undertow [28] and it was part of the conduct which lead to his (voluntary?) desysopping. This specific example is far worse then the Law example since the user was indefinitely blocked, with some belief it amount to a community ban (with the arbcom seeing no reason to review it before and after undertow got involved). While there was seemingly some dispute about this and it may not have been properly handled, it's clear and should have been obvious that Undertow's actions didn't help the situation and in any case it later became clear the user in question was subject to a community ban and hasn't had much hope of having this lifted from what I've seen, in fact the behaviour suggests it's unlikely. Note that while policy suggested an uninvolved admin could unblock a community banned user it definitely didn't suggest it should be done without discussion [29]. In other words, a rather bad error of judgement. It definitely should not be seen as simply failing to follow bureaucracy (IMHO that's an overused sentiment particularly when applied to established editors). In terms of the sockpuppetry issue my understanding is that Undertow had some history with the user he unblocked as Law and the fact that this was effectively hidden was always going to cause controversy. Undertow was also involved in Wikipediareview where the user he unblocked (as the Undertow) is also active and if my understanding is correct he was discussing the unblock in a highly positive fashion suggesting again failure to consider COI and perception issues. Considering what I understood of the reasons behind the initial block of Undertow, his incivility leading up to the de-admining and block, as well as the behaviour I saw after the Law incident (including some off-wiki) make me question the suitablity of Law/Undertow for adminship. Sure Law/Underto

While not banned, User:Sam Blacketer an arbitrator resigned after it was revealed he had previously been different users which was not revealed at the time of his election Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-05-25/Arbitration report Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 3. He was desysopped and was blocked a few times albeit was not at the time the account was started although there was some overlap of the accounts and one brief block happened after the Sam Blacketer account was active. AFAIK there was no question of his good work for the arbcom although strictly speaking that doesn't directly contribute to content or accuracy much (although I'm pretty sure Sam had some quite good contribs otherwise he would never have gotten to arbcom) Nil Einne (talk) 11:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There was User:Michael, who was allowed to come back as "Mike Garcia" with Jimbo's special approval and mentorship...that was a long, long time ago, and apparently it didn't turn out very well... Adam Bishop (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup. I was banned in December 2006 for trolling and general unpleasantness. Chalk it up to being an economically-frustrated 27-year-old male. I was never officially re-instated although my identity did come out later. I now edit in earnest. Vranak (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking generally, I imagine it will be a common pattern as Wikipedia continues that plenty of young folks will be banned for youthful misbehavior and then some of them will come back after gaining some maturity and make good contributions. I did some amount of mindless real-world vandalism as a tween, so probably would have vandalized WP as well if it had been around at the time. People grow up. --Sean 15:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

What proportion of funds for cancer research come from charities?

There are many charities and drives for medical research, particularly cancer research. Does anyone know approximately what proportion of the research field's funding comes from charity? I can't help but think that it must be tiny, what with billion-dollar drug companies hoping to find a drug that will make them rich, and funding from the NIH and whatever.

Also, if cures were discovered using (some) money from charities, would this make them any cheaper to the patients?

Thanks, — Sam 76.24.222.22 (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

According to [this article, in the US, in 1996/1997, "the three major contributors were (1) federal funding, US$3.060 billion (almost entirely from National Cancer Institute); (2) industry funding, US$1.6 billion; and (3) funding by nonprofit organisations (e.g., Howard Hughes Medical Institute, American Cancer Society, Komen Foundation), US$305 million." That sounds about right to me, in terms of proportions, though the figures have probably changed a bit over time.

As for whether charities would make it cheaper, it depends entirely on the licensing agreements regarding the individual charities and the discoveries, I imagine. Who owns any resultant patents, and do they have any requirements on licensing them? I doubt there is a uniform policy. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

October 29

How do I see the Micro Lettering in a Rs.500 note?

After seeing this [30] I got enlightened to recognise a fake note. I happen to see that there is micro-lettering between the potrait and vertical band on the right hand side and it says that it can be viewed through a magnifying glass but I fail to see it. Is there a way in which we can see it clearly? Srinivas 08:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you have a fake note on your hands. Or perhaps your magnifying glass is not magnifying enough.--Quest09 (talk) 10:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I also fail to find "RBI 500" in mucro-lettering on the image. It looks like "500" might be obscured under the end of the blue leader line. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The area between the portrait and vertical band on the right hand side has a design that appears like little doted lines filling up entire area. The dots are actually the words "RBI" and "500" written in very small font size. First look for a pattern of three dots and space repeated. With some effort, in bright light, I can read out RBI and 500 without using any lens. - manya (talk) 04:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

What is "coke rush"?

Hi, I am a Chinese. I would very much appreciate if someone could tell me the meaning of "coke rush". 210.66.171.178 (talk) 09:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Ann

It refers to the artificial "high" that some users might experience immediately after taking the drug cocaine. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"Coke" is a short name for Coca-Cola.

"Coke" is also a short name for cocaine.

A "rush" is when a person experiences a rapid quickening of the senses, perhaps rapid heart beat, or suddenly feeling good or feeling active. So a "coke rush" is such a feeling as a result of taking "Coke" or "Coke". Sussexonian (talk) 10:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

A "rush" can also mean a stampede or mass movement of people so that a "coke rush" could conceivably mean an extraordinarily popular move to buy Coca-Cola drink or company shares. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

As a trivial note, Coca-Cola derives part of its name from "cocaine". The drug was once an active ingredient in Coke, and spent coca leaves are still used in its formula. There is no "kick from cocaine" in Coca-Cola, though. The "kick" comes from the caffeine, from the kola nut which inspired the other part of its name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

One thing that annoys me is when I Get a Kick out of You is bowdlerized to remove the coke reference. Some versions also change the line Flyin' too high with some guy in the sky is my idea of nothin' to do to ...some gal in the sky..., I guess because they thought it sounded gay or something when sung by a man, but there is no indication that anything romantic was going on with the pilot, so that's pretty silly, and also destroys the internal rhyming of the line. Admittedly, Cole Porter was in fact gay, so he could have had a subtext. --Trovatore (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I just had to throw that in, it being the "opening number" of Blazing Saddles, a movie for which "bowdlerized" does not apply. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Best thread of the week, because I thought the "cocaine" version was just Blazing Saddles having its fun. Back to the OP, though, who may not be totally fluent in English: Richardrj is correct above, and the other responses above are basically jokes. Tempshill (talk) 03:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The part about the origins of Coca-Cola is not a joke, and is discussed in greater depth in its article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Very clear, very helpful, thank you all210.66.171.178 (talk) 05:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Ann

Meaning of "mast"

Context:

The Marine Corps Recruit Training Regulation lists the following "recruit rights:" 
(...)
(f) Request mast via the chain-of-command. 

What is he requesting here?--Quest09 (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably this: Mast (naval), a non-judicial disciplinary hearing. Rmhermen (talk) 13:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It makes sense, at least.--Quest09 (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Feces

On the programme diet doctors on channel 5 in the UK, did one woman have to excrete out of her mouth because her intestines were full of feces? Im asking because a friend told me about it and i dont believe him.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.36.105 (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There is such a thing as Fecal vomiting. Sounds disgusting. APL (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a South Park episode. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a distressing condition resulting from intestinal intussception, which is where the bowel twists in on itself and blocks anything from progressing through the intestine. It can result in death if not treated quickly enough. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

With respect Tammy can I just correct your statement. Intussuception is when the bowel slides inside itself, also called invagination. Torsion is when the bowel twists on itself. Both conditions can cause complete intestinal blockage and can eventually lead to faecal vomiting. I have witnessed this, many years ago, and it was extremely unpleasant because it was to some extent projectile as well. I suspect that it is pretty rare these days as diagnostics can pinpoint the problem before these extreme signs show themselves. Richard Avery (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. My nephew had intussuception aged just 13 months, which is how I know about the condition. As you can appreciate it was quite a traumatic time so no wonder I couldn't quite remember the details! --TammyMoet (talk) 11:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

1970's incident

During the 1973-74 oil crisis, and shortly after the speed limit on highways was uniformly set to 55 mph by federal law, three drivers in Michigan decided to drive side-by-side at that exact speed one day. They ended up causing a traffic backup that stretched for many miles, since no one could pass them on the three lane road. I've been looking for an article on this story, without luck. Can anyone assist me? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.29.109 (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like similar protest have happened more than once: a Google search —Akrabbim^talk 18:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The alleged original anecdote and the alleged protests in that link all look like wishful thinking to me. I don't see any reliable citations. Tempshill (talk) 03:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe there were some instances of such "rolling roadblocks," and not just "wishful thinking." I have personally seen slow drivers in multiple lanes preventing people from speeding (perhaps by spontaneous conspiracy), but can't say how long such a phenomenon endured or how far the backup extended. Edison (talk) 05:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I know that professional truck drivers do this before construction zones. It's OR from when I used to drive a truck. I don't remember the reason why they do it though... Dismas|^(talk) 05:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

In the UK during the early 'noughties' (Fuel protests in the United Kingdom#2000) there were reports of rolling road block being (definitely threatened if not acted out) by truck drivers as they tried to influence the government into reducing Fuel duty. Seems with a scan of the article linked that in Scotland in 2007 they may have done something like this in protest. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

need to find location on a 1966 lincoln continental

can someone please tell me where i can find the vin on a 1966 lincoln continental?Vls59dpt (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Moved from Talk Page by 86.139.237.128 (talk)

Did you check the inside of the driver's door? (e.g., on the outer edge?) --Mr.98 (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This photo [31] of a '66 Continental's engine bay has a couple of tags on the firewall - I'm pretty sure the one on the right has the VIN. SteveBaker (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This photo shows the door tag which has the VIN on it. That tag should not be missing. -- kainaw™ 17:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

October 30

Completing a 5-min Run in 4-min

Suppose your coach tells you to go running for 5 minutes. Is it possible to complete the run in 4 minutes? At first glance, by definition, the run is determined by time, 5 mins, so no matter how fast you run, you still have to do 5 minutes of running. But what if we were to apply some of Einstein's relativity theory to it? If I was to go faster than the speed of light or something, will it be possible then to complete a 5 minute run in 4 minutes? Acceptable (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If you were able to run faster than the speed of light, you probably wouldn't need a coach. And you would probably finish the run before you started. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Please regard this as a hypothetical question of theory. Acceptable (talk) 02:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you can. If you run at 0.6c (ignoring acceleration/deceleration times) 4 minutes in your frame of reference will correspond to 5 minutes in the coach's frame (assuming he is not running alongside you, in which case you are out of loopholes). See Twin paradox for more deatils of the phenomenon. Abecedare (talk) 02:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

But if the runner's own clock only reads 4 minutes, has he really lived up to the coach's order? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

A spinoff question would be, at that speed, how many laps would that be around a typical quarter-mile track? Assuming he's got really high-quality track shoes (Nike's finest) which enable him to go around each semi-circle at roughly 112,000 miles per second, that would be about 450,000 times around the track in one second; 27,000,000 times in one minute; and 135,000,000 times in 5 minutes - or 4 minutes. Either way, he still has to go around the track 135,000,000 times. Right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not what the OP asked for. It was a simple mathematical question: at what speed v is the Lorentz factor equal to 5/4? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The runner would be in an accelerated frame going round the circuit so fast, wouldn't that slow them down a bit more again? Dmcq (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

His body structure would fly apart as he tried to turn in such a short radius at 0.6c He would literally have to withstand millions or even billions of g's in acceleration. Googlemeister (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that's why he would need the special shoes. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

What luggage should we buy? (to use it as check in luggage)

If you are open to flying with any air company, but do always want to check in with your trolley, what measure should your trolley have? I have researcher online and found the following extreme values: from 43 cm x 28 cm x 20 cm to 56 cm x 45 cm x 25 cm. Of course, I won't buy anything bigger than the highest allowance. I was thinking to buy something near 50 cm x 40 x 20 and try to fly with it even if the company has a lower allowance. The question is how tolerant are companies of minor deviances of a couple of centimeters? --Quest09 (talk) 11:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Company tolerances vary considerably. Then again some institute a 'blitz' for a short time. The only way to be sure is to visit the sites of the airlines you most use and check individually. Also remember that the luggage regulations vary with the class of ticket you pay for. Travel First and almost anything goes. Travel cattle and you'll be cramped. Finally, you can often get by with flexible luggage. Sports bags, etc. These squeeze down and often fit where a hard case would not. Finally, finally, check out the carry-on allowance. The maximise what you are allowed. i.e. a large handbag (purse) for a lady... good luck.Froggie34 (talk) 12:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hand baggage regulations are also imposed by the airports. As well as checking with the company you're flying with, you should check with the airport(s) you're checking in at. Don't forget that many places forbid the carriage of large volumes of fluids. --Phil Holmes (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the regulation regarding fluids in the European Union is still in force. I wonder why liquids have to be carried in single containers with a capacity not greater than 100 ml, being a half-full 200 ml container not permitted, and all of these single containers must be packed in one transparent, re-sealable plastic bag with a capacity not greater than 1 liter. Quest09 (talk) 16:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The article on this is 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot security reaction, and it was caused by the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

And why is the regulation the way it is? Why is half-full 200ml not acceptable? Why should the bag be re-sealable? Why do you have to divide everything in small bottles? --Quest09 (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Because the people who make rules like this are not grounded in reality. Or at least the version of reality that applies outside their government building. Googlemeister (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

See Security theater. Having rules makes people think that action is being taken which is likely to keep them safer. You are not actually safer; but it makes you think that you are. See my response to a similar question below. --Jayron32 19:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You're going overboard with theatrics about security theater. You are asserting that increased analysis of passengers' carry-on liquids makes airline travel actually 0% safer, which I disagree with. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It depends totally on the airline, and the cost of the ticket is often related to the amount of leeway you are given in terms of hand bag size. I have witnessed a furious row between a passenger and a check-in girl who refused to allow an item of hand baggage even though it fitted into the size checker, because she said the bag's little plastic feet protruded above the top rail of the checker (they did, by about 4mm tops) and because the bag had been pushed down into the size checker instead of dropping in with no resistance. This was with a no-frills airline. The bag was eventually checked in at extra cost, and the passenger loudly announced his determination never to travel with that company again. The only safe answer is to check the individual airline's rules and ensure you more than abide by them. Karenjc 20:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Question about school policy

Why don't schools allow us to go on social networking sites when in a study hall? it seams like if you don't have many schoolwork to do, and the site doesn't contain any malicious software it should be allowed.Accdude92 (talk to me!) (sign) 15:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Every school will have its own rules and ideas about these things. Their logic is likely to be that social-networking sites are a distraction from school-work. They don't know if you are or are not busy in your studies, but they expect that the site will reduce likelihood of doing the work. There's plenty of debate on this subject across businesses too - my office allows Facebook but plenty don't, it's partially a question of trust I guess. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

A further consideration is how many computers with internet access the school has and how they are charged for access. If there aren't enough for everyone to access the internet at the same time, the school won't want to waste a terminal on someone visiting a networking site in case someone else wants to use it for work. And if the school is paying for internet access in any way other than unlimited broadband at a set cost and very high speed, they won't want people using the connection for things other than work, particularly if the sites they visit show a lot of pictures and videos. 86.139.237.128 (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, you always have schoolwork to do. You have tests to study for, papers to write which are due in a week or two, textbooks which contain review problems which, while not assigned for a grade, still exist and you could still do them to give you more practice. The deal is, there is school work that you do not want to do during study hall. It doesn't mean that you don't have anything school-related you could be working on. --Jayron32 16:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it all depends - if there's so much H1N1 around that teachs dont' assign much schoolwork, or the person is just really fast, they could still do work ahead, but near the end of the year, there might not be. But, that's when you can work on something you like for the future. I know a guy who tried to write a book during part of study hall, so writing is one avenue you can explore. Or, anything you're interested in going into in college, should you choose to go.4.68.248.130 (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) A sentence that starts with "it seams like if you don't have many schoolwork to do," seems to imply exactly the opposite. Aside from that, Facebook and MySpace have historically been quite efficient avenues for distributing malware. --LarryMac | Talk 16:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

To clarify LarryMacs comment - if you don't have any other school work to do, you should work on your spelling and grammar. --Tango (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's be honest -- no one here learned spelling and grammar by studying it intensively -- you just pick it up over the years. Vranak (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

And you learn it largely by reading and writing; hence, if one has no school work to do, get a library book and try reading a bit... --Jayron32 19:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Reading is the best way to learn good English. --Tango (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The point remains: one does not 'work on one's spelling or grammar' per se, past junior high. Vranak (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Just because you did not have to doesn't mean other people do not have to, and do not do it. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

no liquids can be brought on commercial flights

Does the rule in the US that all liquids brought into the cabin of a commercial airliner be in tiny bottles and sealed in a plastic bag include the crew? For example, if the pilot wants to bring a thermos of coffee with him for the flight, will it get taken from him by the security drones? Googlemeister (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Pilots do have to pass through the security checkpoints, so I would assume that this rule applies to them. Marco polo (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, once you pass through the security checkpoint, you can purchase a coffee or a bottle of water and safely bring it on the plane. Most moderate-to-large sized airports have plenty of vendors on the "safe" side of security; no one checks you once you have passed through that point, so pilots should be able to buy a cup of coffee like anyone else and get on the plane. Pilots and other airline workers have "break rooms" and pilots lounges where they can get coffee; they could presumably get coffee there and bring it aboard. Most planes I know also have a pot brewing on the plane itself, so the fact that pilots cannot bring an actual cup through the checkpoint should provide little impediment to getting coffee to fly with. Security is generally only handled at the checkpoint; furthermore there is still very little security at the "back doors" of airports. Workers that do not enter through the traveller checkpoints aren't subjected to the same level of scrutiny that travellers are; that gives way to the criticism that the whole system is Security theater; designed to make passengers feel like the industry is doing something to keep them safe; but a determined terrorist would still have little to no trouble getting a bomb on board a plane. Have a nice trip! --Jayron32 19:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

As a passenger in both in Australia and Britain, I have taken an empty plastic bottle with me and filled it up on the "safe" side from a drinking fountain. The security people didn't question it. Saves a heap of money too!--80.176.225.249 (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

What is this rule for? I can't think of any purpose, though I'm sure there is one. —Akrabbim^talk 21:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

See 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot security reaction and 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot. Bad guys were going to sneak explosives onto the planes in bottles. By reducing the amount of carry-on liquids that can be brought aboard — and having an emphasis on security personnel analyzing passengers' liquids in the first place — the theory is that the risk of a repeat of this plot is reduced. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

RETAIL MARKET

There was a company named AMNES retail store which was the biggest competitor of WAL-MART some 10 years ago. But I dindn't find that company. Can you please provide me the details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunjal88 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you mean Ames Stores? They went bankrupt in 2002, according to the article. Bielle (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

New Listing for Scottsdale Arabian Horse Show

This event is the world's largest Arabian horse event. It attracts thousands of Arabian horses from all over the world and around 250,000 human spectators each year. How would I go about putting together a listing for it? It is a non-profit event benefiting childrens charities. I am not very tech savvy but would love to do something to get this event the listing as they really deserve to be part of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owensharkey (talk • contribs) 22:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Having Trouble Staying Logged In Wikipedia

Dear Wikipedia, I use your website all the time but lately every time I come here I have to log in when it Remember up to 30 days it hasn't been 30 days its like the day when I have to log in again, please help me I really love website I wanted stay logged in for a while that is up to the 30 days not the day where I need sign in again.

Love, Angela :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dancingteen (talk • contribs) 23:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you have your web browsing software (i.e. Internet Explorer, Firefox etc) set up to accept cookies? If not then you will keep getting asked for your password. Change your setup to accept cookies and that might solve the problem. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 23:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

October 31