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

September 29

unknown flowering vine

I have a vine that I bought a while ago, well actually they were beans. They were about an inch long and pink. I planted the "beans' this year and it grew into a vine with leaves about the size of a dogwood tree leaf, then they started blooming. The flowers have no smell and they look like wild sweet pea flowers but they are bigger.It is not a wild sweet pea. But no one knows anything about it and no one has found it in any kind of book or on the net. Can anyone tell me anything I`d greatly appreciate it. I`m dumbfuzzeled about it. They are really pretty. The color of the flower islight purple. or lilac colored Thank you Brenda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.29.82 (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It would help a lot if you could put up a picture of the flowers and the leaves. --Lgriot (talk) 02:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

How do I survive in prison?

Let's just say that I've done things that I'm.....ashamed of. Im not sure if they're gonna segregate me or not. Regardless, the guards wont be too happy with me. Im lookin at 5-20. Help.I'm Scared (talk) 02:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Go to WikiHow, input "prison". Most of what I've seen is that you keep to yourself, you do NOT get into ANY debts at all, you show NO emotions at all, do NOT do anything that will show as being "weak", such as crying, and you do NOT become what is called a "Prison Bitch". What that means is that you mind your own business, you don't indebt yourself to anyone, and I mean anyone at all. Hide all emotional weaknesses, since your emotions will betray you. A "Prison Bitch" is someone who is raped while he/she is in prison by another inmate, a guard. You see/witness something going on, you do not tell the guards, anyone at all about it. Walk off and if questioned, say that you have not seen anything at all, and you'll be telling the truth. Keep your mouth SHUT. If I seem harsh, I do apologise. I have, while dealing with paranormal matters, had to deal with law enforcement. (Example:"Police Officer sees UFO", and the cops discuss criminal cases as well, while I deal with the cop who allegedly saw a UFO.)You'll also have to watch out for gangs of all kinds and inmates who will mess you up by making things up that could get you sent to "the Hole". More can be found online. One other thing, another inmate who offers to "show you the ropes" may trick you into becomming his/her "bitch", and may even sell you out to be raped over and over for a pack of smokes, drugs, other favors. One good tip: Get a Bible and get really religious, pending what your situation is while in prison. WikiHow says that other inmates respect those who are religious, and religion will help turn your life around. Also follow all rules in prison, i.e. become a well behaved prisoner, so that you will get out sooner on parole, and don't (polite)foul up your parole either. If your crime is a felony, you will NOT be allowed any:

• Weapons of any type
• Alcoholic beverages
• Drugs (The illegal kind.)

and you will not be allowed to vote either. There are other restrictions as well. Observe them.

IF you are a child molester, a sex offender, you will have to be segregated from "the general population" and when you get out, you'll have to register AS a sex offender in each and every state, town, etc. Be advised that certain occupations/ jobs will also be barred to you as well, such as banking.

Have you been convicted yet? Powerzilla (talk) 03:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

One other thing, do NOT do ANY drugs while in prison either. Not only will the drugs be the problem, they can also cause other problems. and you don't need them, those other problems as well. Messing with dope there will also get you raped, even killed in prison. Powerzilla (talk) 03:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason I said that IF you are a sex offender, you will need to stay out of the "general population" is that the convicts have a set of rules all their own, and , usually, cop killers, convicted terrorists (Eco-terrorists and other terrorists), sex offenders, child molesters are at the bottom of the totem pole and subject to abuse by the other convicts and even by staff, which includes the guards. Also watch some "prison movies" such as Brubaker, Papillon and some prison documentaries, such as those featured on the History Channel, Discovery Channel, such as The Big House. Also, on here, you may read about really famous prisons on Wikipedia, which got that way by being really famous "hell holes", especially Attica, Angola, "Sing-Sing" prison, Folsom Prison. Also, as earlier stated, watch out for the Prison gangs as well. These are set up based on race. You do not want any part of that at all if you can help it. Also, when you are using the phone in prison, make sure no one sees you dialing your friends, family, your lawyer on the phone. Some prisoners love to hassle other people, and you thought telemarketers are bad. Also watch what you say in prison, on the phone or not, the place is Bugged, so that the staff can fight crimes that take place in prison by monitoring ex-crime bosses, that sort of thing. Powerzilla (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't believe everything you see in movies - they are intended to be entertaining, not informative. --Tango (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The intent of a prison movie in this context is to show the audience what prison looks like and to deter people from committing crimes. Powerzilla (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You should see the HBO series Oz. It depicts life in what looks like a Supermax prison. That is the place in which the most dangerous of convicts are found, such as Noriega , former dictator and drug boss of Panama and the Unabomber, and that is where Tony Alamo may be heading as well. Powerzilla (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind: almost all of the previous advice relates to U.S. prisons. Other countries' penal systems are better or worse depending on where you're talking about but much of the advice here wouldn't apply. —D. Monack ^talk 02:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah?! How much? As stated, I had to deal with law enforcement. Powerzilla (talk) 05:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to disparage Powerzilla but I think "I have, while dealing with paranormal matters, had to deal with law enforcement" is not exactly the best testimony for reliability. That and all of his knowledge of prison activities seems to be based primarily on movies. I'm not claiming to know too much to the contrary other than I think the advice from Office Space that you have to beat someone up on the first day is probably an exaggeration.

Instead, you might be interested to know that there are a number of prisoner and prisoner-family web forums out there (like http://www.prisontalk.com/) that can give you advice from people who have actually been in prison for non-paranormal-related reasons. Needless to say, it isn't terribly positive news, but better to get it from them than from us. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose Powerzilla meant 'paralegal reasons', he was working as a paralegal. Anyway, within the US there are many types of prisons - boot camps, high-security, low-security and many levels of risk, depending on the state, on how the prison is managed and the types of criminals you find there. 80.58.205.37 (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I always wondered, are prisoners allowed to edit Wikipedia? GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Haha. Powerzilla, "dealing with police" doesn't teach you what prison will be like at all. They aren't in and treat those they send there with a lot of contempt. You might get a sense of what it looks like from the guy on the other side of the bars. However at least half of what you said is dead on. Don't back down. Ever. Don't put yourself in a situation where you'll have to. Keep your mouth shut. Always give your dessert to the biggest guy in your unit but never offer it up unsolicited. It's better to get your ass kicked once than have it ****ed a dozen times. Good luck, and don't be ashamed. You made the choices, deal with it. and if you have hope you will survive to live on the outs again.

Derren Brown Question

I've recently become fascinated by Derren Brown and have watched a lot of videos about him on YouTube. I usually can tell, to some extent, how he does his-for the lack of a better word-tricks, but there's one video in particular that leaves me puzzled; this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_oUDev1rME Does anybody know how that one is done? Tuesday42 (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Answer: Derren & assistants using subvocalization microphones & directional ultrasound speakers (sound from ultrasound).

When someone says something in their head their mouth will move slightly as if mouthing the words, with a lot of practise you can recognise enough letters to work it out. (At least, that's how I believe it's done, I certainly can't do it myself!) --Tango (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't remember whether this particular trick is addressed in Brown's book Tricks of the Mind without going back and rereading it, but it certainly has a chapter on "Unconscious Communication", discussing how we give nonverbal or subvocal clues that can be read by an experienced person. It's a fascinating (and rather spooky) read. Karenjc 19:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There are a million ways to do this - firstly, you could just guess. One time in a hundred maybe you'd get it right - so you erase the other 99 videos and put this one on YouTube. Next, you could simply offer the girls $1,000 each to tell you in advance. Third, you could just hire people to say what you want them to. Fourth you could find a friend who knows them. Magicians are NOT required to play fair! SteveBaker (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It is well worth reading this (http://www.simonsingh.net/Derren_Brown_Article.html) for starters. Derren is first and foremost a magician. He lies and tells half-truths to create a show that is extremely entertaining but - like all magic - would be dull as dishwater if you knew just how mundane the actual 'magic' part is. http://www.simonsingh.net/Derren_FAQ.html is also useful. I agree with the article in that what Derren does is damaging because most people accept that magic is trickery and a con, but people believe he is doing something more because of the scientific basis of psychological study he claims to be utilising. ny156uk (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Real ID Act: Status?

What is it and has it been made into law yet? Been hearing rumors about it, none any good. Powerzilla (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you see REAL ID Act? Plasticup ^T/C 03:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is yellow the most intense color?

The color yellow is the easiest to see, enhances concentration, and even makes people angry(?!), according to [this]. What is inherent in this slice of the electromagnetic spectrum that has such striking effects on our nervous systems?Sunburned Baby (talk) 03:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

My speculation is because that's the most intense color coming from the sun. The sun's peak radiation in the visible range is between 500-600 nm wavelength. See this picture: [1]. This falls in the green-yellow color range (see the diagram and accompanying chart in Visible spectrum article), which is probably why that chartrusy green-yellow color seems so bright in the sunlight, it is reflecting most efficiently the sun's brightest radiation. Likewise, and probably related, is that our eye's particular biochemistry is "tuned" to this color range (it is most sensitive to it) since THAT is the color that is strongest in sunlight. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The easiest to see part I guessed the sun also. Even the concentration part (daytime you're awake). But, anger? Who ever said "Ah crap, here comes the goddamn sun again!"?... Well, maybe someone with a hangover.--Sunburned Baby (talk) 03:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because? Some people like that answer. I always thought that red was the most striking color, the evolutionary reason being that it is the color of blood. Plasticup ^T/C 04:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yould think it should be green wouldnt you? [2]--GreenSpigot (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That is just the physical sensitivity though. There is a psychological response too. Plasticup ^T/C 15:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

We have three color sensors in our eyes, red, green and blue. Of these, the green sensor is by far the most sensitive, followed by red - with blue being kinda pathetic. The brightest color of all is white because it stimulates all three sensors. Second is yellow because it stimulates the two most sensitive sensors (red & green), followed by cyan (green and blue), then green (green alone), then magenta (red and blue), red (red alone) and finally blue - which is the darkest color other than black (which stimulates no sensors at all). Obviously, this is an oversimplification - but it gets the ordering of brightnesses right. SteveBaker (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested :-)

Back in 2007 I asked saw someone asking about the legality and requirements and possibility of registering a business name etc.

I didn't really take much of it in [and I don't think he did either] because it [sounded like it] was a bit of a half-hearted idea. Now, I'm back also interested in to it. So can somebody please clarify for me: I can register the business and get an ABN under age, but to actually run the company, I'm gonna need someone over age? This is hypothetical of course, and I am not asking for specific legal advice, just information on what the regulations are. Deon555 (talk) 04:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

We can't give legal advice. --Random832 (contribs) 04:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow you're helpful! I didn't ask for legal advice. I've rephrased the question to suit people like you. Deon555 (talk) 05:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should ask people like those who answer the phone at 1300 55 81 81. That's going by the thread you've listed above, and links therein. Franamax (talk) 06:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

And in case that seems like another unhelpful answer, it's actually intended to be helpful. When you find a government page listing a direct contact phone number - call it and ask your questions. It may seem easier to post to Internet forums, but sooner or later you will have to find out for sure. You might also want to talk to a bank, 'cause you'll need an account. Again, use the phone book and ask someone who can give you a specific answer. Franamax (talk) 06:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You may want to bear in mind that in many cases, simply registering a business name is not going to be enough to allow you to access something restricted to businesses. And it'll be even worse with your age. For example, if you're thinking of dealing with a supplier, bear in mind many suppliers have minimum purchase requirements. And in many countries including I suspect Australia, companies are probably entitled to reject you out of hand if they don't feel you are a serious business or worth their time even if they don't explicitly specify what conditions you have to meet (provided they aren't discriminating against you illegally of course). In any case, anything which requires a business is likely to also need you (or the director) to sign a contract, which you can't do since your underage. Also bear in mind that different laws will govern anything done under the business (whatever the Australian equivalent of the consumer guarantees act may not cover any goods or services that are delivered or sold to a business) and there will likely be a whole bunch of legal requirements (like tax) to deal with. All in all, I think you'll find opening up a business isn't as simply as it may sound and is probably not worth it unless you want to do something rather significant with the business Nil Einne (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't track any down, but I have read about school-age Australian entrepreneurs who've become astoundingly rich. It probably happens more than most people are ever aware of, because it might tend to be based on "invisible" services such as software design etc. But as for the legalities and technicalities, it'd really be best to consult a business adviser. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Like many areas, it seems that Victoria has the usual network of free/low-cost advice centres for small business: [3]. That might be a good start. Franamax (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Also note that per Victorian Consolidated Legislation, Business Names Act 1962, s. 7 (Registration of business names) (2): "If any applicant is a minor he shall be so described in the application."[4] Franamax (talk) 23:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Stamps with odd denominations

Whilst sorting through my stamp collection,I noticed some US stamps with rather odd denominations- 6.3c or 7.2c. How practically can you have a stamp for .3 of a cent when the cent is the smallest coin available and what would be the point of having stamps for such an unusual amount? Lemon martini (talk) 10:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the answer but I've always found it rather odd that the US has stamps worth 41 cents. Most countries don't bother with such small difference. You might have a 40 cent stamp or perhaps a 45 or 5 cent stamp but 1 cent, not so much, at least in everyday use. Some US states did have coins for under 1 cent according to Mill (currency) but the obvious other possibility is that when you buy them in bulk e.g. lots of 10 you pay 63 cents or 72 cents. Or that you only pay 6 cents or 7 cents for one depending on the rounding policies of the post shop Nil Einne (talk) 11:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You are probably thinking of the Transportation coils and the unusual prices are because of special postage rates/discounts for bulk mailers. Also lots of countries have a large collection of definitive stamps of strange values see for instance list of Machin stamps for the British set, although few have the strange fractional values of this US set. meltBanana 12:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason the US has 41 cent stamps (no longer - now there are 42 cent stamps of course) is because mailing a letter under one ounce first class cost exactly 41 cents between May 2007 and May 2008. Does your country not have stamps for the exact price of common rates? --Random832 (contribs) 13:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, many countries set their definitive rates using a simpler system. Why 41/42 cents? Just set it at something simpler like 40 cents or 45 cents Nil Einne (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

For an example of what I'm talking about, take a look at the definative series of NZ [5] or Malaysia [6] [7], Switzerland [8], [9], Australia [10] [11] [12] [13] [14], Germany [15]. Even Australia which seems to have a lot of values doesn't get as complicated as the US 1/2 cent or 41/42 cent systems. The only ones I came across that seem to come close are France [16] and perhaps the UK which you mentioned (although IIRC whenever I've received mail from the UK it doesn't tend to have such complicated values, perhaps the 1 p stamps are there for historic reasons rather then serving any real purpose in everyday life?). I mean if it were 11 cents perhaps I would understand but when it reaches the level of 41 cents, it's starting to make things unnecessarily complicated IMHO. Even Hong Kong [17] ([18]) while given the low value of the HK dollar the 10 cent stamp (the smallest) may seem a rather tiny value) they don't seem to be as complicated as the US and given the very low price of postage in HK I would say them having a 10 cent stamp isn't as strange as the US 1/2 cent or 41/42 cent system. Nil Einne (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

As to the question of why have a 41¢ postage rate, the answer is a preference that, as inflation raises the rate, there should be relatively frequent smaller increases rather than less frequent increases from one round number to the next. Beside, most things sold in North America are not priced in round numbers, both because of psychological pricing and because most things have sales tax added to the quoted price and most merchants don't set their prices so that the result of this will be a round number. (Let's not debate why these things are true; but they are.) So there's no pressure for stamp prices to be round numbers when nothing else is anyway. --Anonymous, 17:20 UTC, September 29, 2008.

The alternative (which I have also started seeing in the US) is to label stamps with what they do - not what they cost. Hence a 1st class letter stamp in the UK has "1st class" written on it without a price. You buy those stamps for whatever the postage rate is - and the stamp is still good even if the price goes up. It would make sense to do that with parcel postage stamps. eg have a 10ounce stamp instead of a 90 cent stamp (or whatever it is)...but I don't know of countries that have gone that far. In times of rapidly increasing prices, saving the cost of redesigning and recirculating new stamps whenever the postal rates go up ought to be well worth the effort.SteveBaker (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea in theory, but there's also the pressure on the philatelic authorities for all sorts of commemorative stamps these days, and they have to schedule such releases well in advance, and cannot possibly accommodate all the suggestions, requests etc that they receive. This is a matter of great interest to a lot of people, as evidenced by many of our biographical articles having such sentences as "José Antonio Gonzalez was the first Paraguayan xylophone player to be commemorated on a postage stamp". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the fractional denominations are for a specific type of bulk mail, where no one ever buys a single stamp. —Tamfang (talk) 05:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Most stamps are probably not purchased as single stamps, but as sets of stamps, e.g. in a roll of 100 stamps. So in all likelihood a postal customer would never have purchased a single 6.3c stamp, but rather purchased a roll of them for $6.30, or perhaps a package of ten for $0.63. If a customer needed to purchase a single stamp by itself, they would either have paid 7c for the privilege (even today, the post office is fine with you overpaying), or added 6.3c to their tab, for payment later when the fractional cents add up to an integer. Modern bulk-rate fractional cent rates are usually metered rather than stamped, so the fractional cents are simply deducted from your credit - you may be left with an odd 0.7c in the machine, but you'll simply apply that toward your next mailing. -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding sales taxes in Europe

Considering that Europe is the home of so many low-cost airlines, where can you fly to buy a tax free laptop? Gibraltar? Melilla? Dubai? Tanger?Mr.K. (talk) 11:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you not have to declare your purchase and pay the relevant tax on your return?--Artjo (talk) 11:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes you almost definitely will. There may be some duty free allowance, but it's unlikely to be enough to cover a laptop and you will likely have to be away for a certain period before you're even given an allowance Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The duty-free allowance is 180 euro (145 GBP) for "miscellaneous gifts". That's not going to be a very good laptop. Anyway, the cheapest non-EU destinations to fly to are probably Croatia and Turkey. Fribbler (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but Gibraltar and Melilla are tax-free aren't them? And no, I don't have to declare a used laptop. I am not planning to bring it over in the box.Mr.K. (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You may have a conundrum. Keep the documentation and you have a warranty but also the possibility of being caught (which could cost a lot more than the tax). Dispose of the documentation and you will probably be safe but have no warranty! -- Q Chris (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup, no VAT there. But that doesn't mean things are cheaper. The savings are generally absorbed by the shops. You don't pay VAT on privately traded second hand items anyway, so why add a costly trip into it? Fribbler (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I won't buy a used laptop. If I buy a new one and use it before I come back, I am coming back with a used one, right? The documentation can be send by mail. You all just want to spoil my fun. It would cost me only 50 pound to Gibraltar and back. Mr.K. (talk) 12:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a lot of hassle that will more than likely save you nothing or cost you. To quote from this travel tips thread : So, if you go to Gibraltar expecting to get a bargain and if what your buying isn't Tobacco or Spirits, you will probably discover that you are not getting a bargain at all. Fribbler (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, if you're going to somewhere like the US or Hong Kong, you'll probably find the item is cheaper to buy there. If you're going to Gibraltar, not so much... Note also that while laptops are one of the few items with decent international warranties, the warranty terms might still vary and you're also likely not entitled to any protection under UK (or whever you live) law if they screw you around beyond perhaps normal contract law (although even that is in doubt if you smuggled the laptop in). Nil Einne (talk) 12:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so sure. Customs officials are not necessarily as dumb as you seem to think. If you have a brand spanking new laptop, without any scratches or signs of use, that was manufactured a 1 month ago, they may start to wonder where it came from and may ask you questions about where your purchased it from. Sure you could lie to them but then not only have you filed a false declaration, you've lied to a customs official. Not a good idea IMHO considering the risks involved. Note that an item usually has to have been in your possession for quite a long period before it is considered used and tax-exempt. Nil Einne (talk) 12:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

From a quick look through[19] it appears that for the UK you need to have held/used the items for 6 months and you have had to be living outside the EC for 12 months before there is any chance for an exemption on tax Nil Einne (talk) 12:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I recall purchasing a rather nice Graf Von Faber Castell (spelling) pen as a gift and found it cheaper online at an international site. I think it was about £20 cheaper than in the uk. It arrive all well and fine but then about 3 months later so did an 'importation tax' bill from the government for about the same as my saving. Oh well. I would suggest that your best bet is to source this either A) second hand in the UK or B) sign-up for one of those mobile-phone contracts that offer one free. Get the phone and sell it on e-bay and between the money you get from that phone and the cost of the contract over the contract-term you will probably end up with a lap-top for cheaper than a brand-new laptop (though the effort involved is obviously quite a bit). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Most countries will compensate for the VAT when you leave (e.g. at the airport). You're still stuck with a laptop with a foreign keyboard, though... Asav (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Be careful with the warranty. Most PC manufacturers are well aware of the existance of grey imports and therefore DO NOT offer a full worldwide warranty. The usual expectation is that it will be returned for service under warranty to the country where it was purchased. It is for this reason that I abandoned the idea of flying to New York for a couple of "meetings" and few days "sightseeing", and coming back with a new laptop ($2 = £1 made it a worthwhile consideration). If I had gone ahead, I would have said my employer issued me a new laptop only last week. Astronaut (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Also remember that if you are challenged, the burden of proof will be on you to show that you had the laptop in the UK before you left, not on the customs official to show otherwise. If you can't produce a UK receipt, they'll tax you - and their estimate of the tax due may be greater than you would have paid if you'd declared it honestly. I'm aware of our legal disclaimer but this is more of an anecdote: an acquaintance tried this one a couple of years ago on a top-of-the-range camera from a non-EU country. When the "I've lost the receipt" bit failed he was presented with a large tax bill; when he claimed to have no money they confiscated the camera until he came up with the cash. All that hassle, plus an air fare, just to (fail to) save a measly few quid. Karenjc 20:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

And a sharp customs officer might ask you to show him a file you created that's more than 4 days old, or check the warranty/support/help information on the laptop, or the country setting. If the savings are that great, other people will have already tried it. Franamax (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

In Ireland in recent years a weekend shopping trip to New York was a common way of stocking up on clothes, iPods, etc, especially in the run-up to Christmas. Recent economic events may have scuppered this tradition. Savings were due to Euro-dollar exchange rates, and lower prices generally in certain sectors, not just lower tax rates. News reports suggested customs officers were not active in enforcing the relevant tax-free limits. jnestorius^(talk) 22:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

What is a ralser (listed as occupation)?

Occupation: Ralser

This was an occupation listed on a marriage license in 1912 in Wisconsin.

Can anyone help. Haven't found it in dictionaries or genealogy sites that address occupations.

98.141.96.111 (talk) 11:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Could it be a typo of "raiser", a farmer of crops: [20]? Fribbler (talk) 12:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Or "wrestler"? Hopefully not rustler. Corvus cornix_talk 18:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Or "rouster". This has been a surreal Google-search. "Rouster" got me pictures of roosters. "Ralsing" got me cattle-ralsing, dam-ralsing, fund-ralsing, awareness-ralsing. It seems as if your ancestor was at the forefront of internet misspelling. :) Franamax (talk) 23:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Never heard of it, but keep in mind it may not be English. Especially pre-WWI, there was a large foreign-speaking population in the US (e.g. Germans, Norwegians, and Poles in Wisconsin), and in certain regions the day-to-day language was German, Norwegian, Polish, etc. rather than English. If your Ralser didn't speak English day-to-day, he might have put the foreign word down when asked his job, and the clerk didn't care/couldn't be bothered to translate to English. I'd suggest asking at the Language Desk to see if anyone has a thought. -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

explanation

I know frustrations are on the rise with my edits but please note that my intent upon login is always to keep the flow of information fluid. It is NEVER my intent do harm, I am trying to follow procedure. Most recently, i clicked to ensure accuracy on some issue and a response came back telling me that the data or article was not part of wikipedia and asked for deletion. Right then I realized that everything is part of wikipedia, it's just not owned by it. I just wish that that BIG RED lock wasn't just staring at me. I do not work for Wikipedia and i am starting to realize that only those who work for W..... should update files Please advise from this point on as to when I am asked to help, should I? --Ptw007 (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you clarify your comment? The only article edits I see by you are signing your name and similar test edits, which are inappropriate. However, the number of active editors who are employees of Wikipedia is vanishingly small. Virtually all edits are made by volunteers. — Lomn 13:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed the vast majority of employees of the WMF aren't active editors from my experience Nil Einne (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"Vast majority"? What is the number we can use to quantify the "vast majority" of WMF employees? Three? Corvus cornix_talk 19:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia says... 15! Franamax (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

mouth

what is the name of the piece of skin/flesh that runs from your lip through to the middle of your two front teeth. There is another on the bottom in the same place, in front of your teeth, behind your lip. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 13:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Frenulum. Fribbler (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

fire drill

Why are we quiet during a fire drill???????

Nick (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)nicholassayshi

Because if people start yelling it induces panic, which is not what you want during a fire or a fire drill. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, it would make it harder for people the hear instructions. It's important that people do what they're told during an emergency. --Tango (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but if you have a bunch of seniors (i.e. 12th graders NOT Silver Seniors), then people dont yell. We are half asleep. obviously —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholassayshi (talk • contribs) 16:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a funny thing, but a bunch of half-asleep twelfth-graders in a classroom suddenly become very wide awake when the fire bell sounds. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Richard Ballerand

Does anybody have any information about this person? Or (his association with) Dorrington Associates? Is his biography verifiable? It seems kind of... Well, have a look at the talk page. Asav (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Not one source is anything other than bollocks. Looks like a good Hoax catch, Asav Actually some of the sources mention him. I will investigate further. Fribbler (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well colour me surprised! After looking at the sources (some of which were broken/outdated, throwing me off at first) t seems that pretty much all the claims that are backed up by in-line citations check out. Fribbler (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

We've probably done mostly the same checks on the net, but I still feel this bio looks unreliable. Given the specifics mentioned there, I am astounded that he's not mentioned in any sources you'd expect. I don't have the Who's Who editions mentioned. Have you had a chance to look at them (or anything more substantial than websites)? The proxy homepage issue really made me suspicious. Asav (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ref. Desk vs. Real Ref. Desks

Shouldn't our ref. desk be more strict regarding the acceptance of some kind of questions? As I understand, it should only be a virtual ref. desk, comparable to the ref. desk of a library. However, we find any kind of question here, like: "My girlfriend don't let me perform anal sex on her, what should I do?" or "Who is going to win a fight between a bear and a bull?" or "If someone forces a prostitute into sex, is that rape or shoplifting?" 80.58.205.37 (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This question would be more appropriate in the talk page, Wikipedia talk:Reference desk Nil Einne (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate questions are routinely removed from the reference desk, or ignored with a note that they don't fall within the scope of the reference desk. This question, in fact, does not fall within the scope of the reference desk, which answers factual questions. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't, but it is a valid question regarding policy. Where should it be posted ?86.219.34.25 (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)DT

Where Nil said. Algebraist 16:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the Ref Desk's main purpose is to help people find the answers to factual questions in the manner of a library ref desk, however it is also a place where a group of people with varied wide and varied knowledge and a lot of experience finding and working things out gather and many of us are more than happy to answer the stranger questions when we have a spare five minutes, so what harm does it do? Anyway, that last question sounds like a valid ref desk question to me (although one with an obvious answer - if you change it slightly and throw in the extra detail that the person has handed over the cash and had it accepted and then the prostitute changes their mind then it's a more interesting question and touches on the definition of consent, contracts, offer and acceptance, etc.). --Tango (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

We'll soon find out!

"An Aachen man who failed to reach orgasm during his €30 ($44) session with a prostitute has accused her of unfairly taking his money ..."

Source --Sean 19:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, by the way, the answers to these questions are: (1)Offer to let her perform anal sex on you first. (2) The bear. (3) Rape. You're welcome. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw something recently and thought of this question. Actually maybe it was a different question that go deleted. Either way [21] [22] [23] mention a case which touched on this raping a prostitute thing Nil Einne (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Most people who've worked on a reference desk have had equally odd questions from people person-to-person. The anonymity given by the internet expands it into sexual possibilities a bit more, but that's about it. Steewi (talk) 03:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It's amusing for someone with the ID of 80.58.205.37 to have such strong opinions about "our" reference desk and how "we" should respond to questions. Is there a pay raise in the works? An improved retirement plan? Reserved parking for best-response-to-a-former-hall-monitor? --- OtherDave (talk) 10:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Cruise Ship Prepaid Gratuities

I feel certain this question will have been asked before but I cannot recall having seen it. We are thinking of cruising the Panama Canal next year and are considering various quotes from Travel Agents and on the Web. All of them bar none include the element of prepaid gratuities amounting to about 10% of the total cost of the cruise for 2 persons. I am not a skinflint and do tip regularly for good service that has been delivered and received, but if I had to pay a 10% tip on ENTERING a restaurant without having sampled the food or judged the service, I should be disinclined to enter at all. Questions - are these prepaid gratuities obligatory and can I choose not to pay them in advance but pay them on board as I see fit, and how assured can I be that these "tips" are not used by the operators to make up otherwise low wages? I appreciate from earlier cruises that most waiters, barstaff and room staff are from low paid countries in Indonesia and it might be said that the "low wages" aboard a cruise ship would exceed what would be available in the employees' countries of origin, but I will not be paying a cruise charge concomitant with that reasoning. Anyway, any info. forthcoming would be appreciated. Thanks. BTW, we are British and consider 10% of a restaurant bill a fair tip for good service. 92.21.54.128 (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If you are known to be the "non-advance tipper" it could work to your advantage, as the servers give you great service in hope of getting a tip doled out to them from time to time Or you could become invisible, with no server noticing that you want a drink refill, since they might figure you to be a tightwad. 10 % is a lousy tip in a restaurant, by the way. Edison (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

10% is low in the USA. This side of the water 10% is ten percent more than we're used to. Fribbler (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

So what you're used to, roughly, is 9.1% ? Just checking. --Trovatore (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Prepaid gratuities? Specified by the service provider? What's the world coming to? That removes any and all meaning from the word "gratuity" and is a contradiction in terms. What guarantee do you have that the "gratuity" will be going to the employee/s who actually serve you, rather than the owners? I'm with you, questioner, I'd be very disinclined to use the service to begin with. I'm from Australia, which is much more like the UK in terms of not having socially mandatory tipping, although it's still a very common practice - but it's done on an entirely voluntary basis, normally in recognition of service that is actually above-average, or if the diner happens to be in a really good mood that night, or they get a wink from the cute waiter/tress, or on special occasions like a group celebrating a birthday etc. There are some people here who feel it's rude not to tip no matter what, but they're in the minority. The US seems to have institutionalised tipping to the point that it's considered very poor form to tip even less than about 15%, let alone not at all - even if the service happens to be lousy and the food rotten. I understand that it's become less about quality of service and more about supplementing the poor wages of staff, who actually need this extra money to survive, because the owners have abrogated their responsiblity to pay their staff a reasonable living wage and have transferred the responsibility to the customers. Although most customers see this for what it is, and know they're playing into the owners' hands, they still come to the party because it's also become a social imperative and there are severe social punishments if one does not tip, or does not tip enough - including the friends you're dining with removing you from their Christmas card lists and never talking to you again; and/or getting nasty looks and/or nasty language from the service providers, or even being told never to come back there because you're an arsehole and you won't be welcome. Which, as I say, removes all notions of free, individual, and voluntary from the word "gratuity". But on the other hand, if you're committed to going on the cruise, and this is going to be the way it is no matter whom you go with, then I'd say just reframe it as a tax and pay it as you would any other unavoidable rip-off tax in a third- or fourth-world country. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding a service charge to a bill (which I guess is what this is, just with the added feature of the bill being paid in advance which makes it all the more outrageous) is fairly common in some parts of the word (it's universal in Singapore and mandated by law apparently - if you complain about service you may be able to get them to discount your meal so that the end result is that you haven't paid the charge, but they can't actually remove the charge - it's crazy!). It's becoming more and more common in the UK too - my system for dealing with it is that if I don't think the service was worth a tip of that size I ask for it to be removed and they get nothing, had they not added it to the bill they would have got a tip, just a small one. Their loss! --Tango (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The service personnel on the ship might have been burned in the past by people who "forget" to tip, or who think the workers should live on their wages, or who manage to find the service in some way inadequate, or who come from countries where tips are around 10% even in a restaurant. Edison (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "even in a restaurant"? Do you consider 10% high or low? Would you expect it to be more or less in places other than a restaurant? I come from a country where tips are for exceptional service, 10% would be considered high, people DO live on their wages, and any automatic addition of a tip to any bill puts peoples backs up so much that, like Tango, they are more likely to strike it off (or refuse to come back). ("Why should I reward anyone for doing their job properly: it's what they get paid to do, after all. Next you'll be expecting me to tip the bus driver or my doctor. What cheek!" etc.) Gwinva (talk) 02:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

But, getting back to the OP's question, what is the point of adding 10% to the cost of the cruise? If it's to supplement poor wages, then why not pay the staff properly, and set the cruise fare 10% higher? It seems a bit bizarre to me. If tips are to reward service, then impersonal payment at source seems pointless, for it's not a reward, or a gesture of thanks. If tips are to bribe staff to attend to your needs above anyone else's, then it's even more pointless, since the staff aren't tipped directly. There is the possibility that the company circulates the names of those who have crossed out the gratuity charge, of course, so are the guests then going to be treated to bad service as punishment? If that's the case, its blackmail. Unless, of course, the expectation is that you'll tip individuals once on board, in which case this is a simple 10% surcharge, which makes the cruise look cheaper than it is. Gwinva (talk) 02:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope that doesn't read like a rant: I just don't understand it. Why should some people's wages need to be supplemented by tips? I can see the attraction of cash tips: that can go in the back pocket, and never get declared for tax purposes; but pre-paid "service charges" and those built automatically into the bill go through official accounting measures, and can hardly be hidden from the taxman. Although, if they're not official "wages", then perhaps the employer can escape some employer contributions and levies? (And thus it's just a tax fiddle?) Gwinva (talk) 03:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

In the U.S. servers get starvation wages, and a 15% tip is average. 10% is quite insulting. I give 20% for good service. In other countries, the base wage may be higher, so there a 10% tip might be appropriate. I only know that I try to not stiff the waitstaff. In the U.S, waiters barkeeps etc are assessed taxes on the assumed tips. Do not assume they are adequately paid without tips and that tips go "in the back pocket" without taxation for a riotous luxury lifestyle. Edison (talk) 05:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I wasn't assuming that; I was just wondering why staff were paid starvation wages, and need to subsist on tips, when the restaurant could charge 15% more for the meals, and pay their staff properly. Same money going round, same taxes being paid, but there's not the "food bill/service bill" and "wages/tip" components. Gwinva (talk) 07:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Why does it become the customer's responsibility to pay the waiters' wages or any part thereof? That's the employer's responsibility. The customer's financial relationship is with the restaurant, not with any individual staff member. If they wish to tip someone, fine. If not, also fine. Are there not "fair labour" laws in the US? -- JackofOz (talk) 07:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Some points: it is always the customer's responsibility to pay wages - that's how wages get paid; to Gwinva and why couldn't the restaurant charge 15% more for the meals - well, that's exactly what the OP is asking about, the cruise line is building in an explicit 10% charge, so what's the diff, total cost is total cost; and as far as discretionary tipping, I use a standard (in Canada) of 15% before taxes then toss in the extra buck or two to be a 20% hero however, if the service is bad, that's a discount to me through lower tip, if the food is bad, I either tell the server to ask the cook for their tip ('cause I'm leaving zero) or I ask why they're charging me anything for the crappy food I just got, and if both service and food are bad, I ask for the manager. Don't be afraid to speak up when things are sub-par (and don't be a dick, don't expect your drinks in 30 seconds when the place is packed, don't expect gourmet quality at Bert's Beanery) - but if you've been dealt a low hand, say so, you will discover the magic words of hospitality: "comp it". Franamax (talk) 09:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, obviously if there are no customers, or if the customers don't pay for the services/goods they buy, the staff won't get paid and the business will fold. So there's an indirect relationship between the money the customers pay the business and the money the business pays its staff. But the whole societally-driven mandatory tipping thing makes it a direct relationship between customers and staff. But only in certain situations. Do customers at McDonalds, for example, feel the need to add 15% to the bill? Americans are pretty smart, generally speaking, but I just don't understand how they ever let themselves get drawn into this system that seems to apply only in restaurants. And once a business starts demanding gratuities up-front, as I said above, who knows where the money goes? Do the staff ever get any of it, or does the employer pocket the lot? Tipping is in essence a cash transaction that in most cases is never recorded anywhere and no tax is ever paid (I know there are some exceptions to this). Once it becomes hard coded into the system, the whole spirit of the exercise is lost. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The nice thing about discretionary tipping is that it adds an element of variable payment and an incentive for the server to perform. Tightwads can take a 15% discount, they can trade the $ for lousy service next time they come in. Nice customers and good servers get appropriate rewards. If people think the tip is mandatory regardless of service quality - well Americans needed the firm hand of George W to steer them safely through the last 8 years, right - if they'll buy that line, what harm is there paying the extra 15%?

I agree that built-in gratuities don't usually work. Try a restaurant near the Rialto where there is an automatic 10%, versus one a little farther off the path where the Venetians go - no contest. In the case of a cruise ship though, that guy down in the laundry room busting his hump all night deserves a tip just as much as the nice lady putting the sheets on the bed. How does that get resolved? And the built-in charge relieves customers of the worry of "geez, should I have tipped her? Did I tip him enough?" and they can just enjoy the cruise.

As I've said below, best to just think of it as part of the total price and a gain-sharing arrangement. If someone goes extra-above-and-beyond, tip 'em anyway. Franamax (talk) 04:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you've hit the nail on the head, Franamax. "That guy down in the laundry room busting his hump all night deserves a tip just as much as the nice lady putting the sheets on the bed". OK, you're face to face with the sheet lady but you never see the laundry guy. That aside, why is there an assumption that the laundry guy isn't paid well enough for the work he does, and it's therefore up to the travellers to see that he doesn't starve? I ask the same question about waiters in restaurants. If there's a structural problem in people being paid too low by their employers, there are things that can be done to at least try to correct it. This is an issue between the staff, the employers, the unions, and the government regulatory authorities or whoever determines minimum wages and what's a far day's pay for a fair day's work. Without wanting to seem callous, it's not the customers' responsibility to fix it in any particular case; and they certainly shouldn't be perpetuating the problem by doing it on a nation-wide scale, thus becoming part of the problem itself. I know none of this will change anything; but the essence of my position is that if you wish to tip someone, whether it's for excellent service or whatever personal reasons, that's fine. But if you're doing it because you feel you "should", or "if we don't all help these poor underpaid guys out, there'll be no chicken in the pot for them and their families tonight", that's not fine. That is no solution to such a problem, if problem there is perceived to be. It just entrenches the problem. Americans apparently write to their congressmen every day of the week about issues of concern to them. Why don't they write in their millions about this issue, rather than trying to fix it themselves and becoming drawn into a massive web of manipulation, blackmail and deceit, in which the only winners are the owners? -- JackofOz (talk) 05:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

In the US, tips form a part of the salary of certain types of service people, including waiters. You can argue about whether this is a good system, but it is the system. When you tip a waiter you're not "correcting for underpayment," you're paying part of the waiter's salary directly to the waiter, and part indirectly via the cost of the food. When visiting the US, please tip 15-20% in restaurants unless you intend to punish your waiter for bad service. -- BenRG (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That's one of the best reframes I've seen in a long time. Should I tip 15-20% at McDonalds? If not, why not? If this is a salary, it's the only form of salary I've ever heard of that's not legally enforceable, is paid by someone other than the employer, and can vary or be entirely withheld on the whim of the payer without the payee having any recourse. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think "salary" was the wrong word—I probably meant "income"—and I think "tip"/"gratuity" is probably a bad way of referring to money left on the table in the U.S. system, since it implies it's an optional extra and really it isn't. Word choice aside, the reality of the matter is that money left on the table for waiters by their customers is a significant percentage of the money they take home at the end of the day, in the United States. You don't tip at McDonalds, where there are no waiters and you bus your own tray. This system doesn't apply to the people behind the counter or to people who wipe down the tables. Why? It just doesn't. You have to memorize it the way you memorize American English vocabulary. Culture is based on tradition, not on logic, and this has been a part of American culture for a long time (though I gather you're just now learning about it). That's not a defense of it—and honestly I think we'd be better off without it—but your horror at the very idea is irrational and inappropriate. There are parallels here to the recent thread where you corrected a supposed misuse of the word "hopefully" (which in fact was perfectly okay, at least in my dialect). Some people, once they realize that the "ungrammatical" and "illogical" arguments aren't going to work in that debate, try to argue that it's confusing to use the word "hopefully" in two different ways. Whether or not that's true (I don't think it is), it's not the reason they want to drop "hopefully" as a sentence modifier. It simply irritates them, at a pre-logical level, and the logical arguments are just desperate attempts to convince other people who unaccountably refuse to be irritated by it. You need to first of all stop being irritated by this aspect of American culture before you can even think rationally about its economic ramifications. At any rate I didn't respond to defend American tipping, I responded out of a fear that foreigners might think it's okay to not tip when they visit the US. Probably the system should be changed, but until it is, for heaven's sake give these poor people their money. Your bold act of rebellion against the oppressive system will not be understood, and the people you want to help will appreciate it least of all. -- BenRG (talk) 11:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Time to take this offline, I think. See you over at your talk page. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The excuse, in some UK restaurant chains at least, appears to be that the taxman assumes waiting staff receive a certain level of gratuity income anyway, so it's simpler for tax purposes to formalise the arrangement and account for all gratuities on paper. What they don't tell you is that this then allows them to record the tips as a regular component of staff income, thus permitting them to pay staff below the legal minimum wage and top up to the minimum with these formal, taxable gratuities. There's only one way to deal with this kind of cynical penny-pinching - don't eat there again, and explain politely as you leave why you won't be back. Since these exploitative policies ensure you'll be served by a tired, sour-faced individual with no financial incentive to make your eating experience pleasant, and who will probably have been replaced next time you visit, chances are you won't want to anyway. Karenjc 09:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't their something in the news about a month ago about them not being able to do that any more? Tips now don't (or soon won't) count towards minimum wage. --Tango (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

As the OP here, I am truly grateful for all the above responses and can see there appears to be a difference of opinion on the amount (if any) tip between here in the UK and on the other side of the pond. As to Edison's and Franamax's responses, without appearing to be rude to them, I fear they have missed the point here, which was why I should have to pay any gratuities in advance. The questions of how much and if any simply do not arise. I am not happy to be being charged up front. Do I go to a football match and throw 10% of the admission price on to the pitch for the players to divi. up before they play an abyssmal game? Do I go to the theatre and throw 10% of the (usually extortionate) ticket price on to the stage before the curtain goes up? Clearly no. When I worked as a senior administrator in the supreme courts, did any criminal just convicted, or any judge grateful for his papers and books being delivered to him timeously during the trial, or any overpaid lawyer grateful for being directed to the correct court or judge's chambers, or any policeman grateful for a quiet place to sit and have a smoke and a cuppa, ever come to me afterwards and say, "Thanks, and there's a tip of 10% of your salary for your assistance", Clearly no, and I would never have accepted one. If I ever thought my lifestyle could not have been supported without the input of tips, I would have sought a better paying job elsewhere. And if everyone else in that unfortunate position did likewise, the ship owners, restauranters, and other employers would raise wages to decent levels. And tipping, as in Japan, would become an insulting gesture. But back to the other half of my question, not yet answered. Can I refuse to pay the advance gratuities charge and pay any real and deserved tips on board instead? Thanks 92.21.71.121 (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, and they can refuse to let you travel on their ship. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You can call the cruise line and ask for that arrangement. They will explain to you how many unseen hands are involved in making your cruise experience a great one. If they want your business, they'll give you a 10% discount and distribute tips as usual. (Though they might make you wear an orange vest that says "Hasn't tipped anyone yet") One possible reason they would have this 10% arrangement is that when the ship is full, the crew's pay goes up, if it's not, crew and line share the pain.

You're best to think of it as just part of the cost of the cruise, like taxes and fuel surcharges. Nothing is stopping you from handing out additional tips if you get especially good service. Franamax (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

September 30

North Pole

What is the time on the North Pole? 82.32.51.147 (talk) 05:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The same as on the south pole. Edison (talk) 05:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

In some reference frames, at least. —Tamfang (talk) 04:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This is obviously question of the week. See here for some more answers. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 07:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It's crunch time! There's less than 90 days until Christmas and those toys aren't going to make themselves!! --LarryMac | Talk 12:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

@Edison: I don't believe that the time in both poles is the same. I would rather say they have 12 hours difference. Mr.K. (talk) 09:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If you don't like the time when you are standing next to either pole, just walk around the pole and select any time of day you want within a 24 hour range. The time next to the pole can be any time, depending on the longitude you select. The time directly on top of the pole is undefined. "Undefined" at the North Pole is like "Undefined" at the South Pole, not 12 hours different. Two points 180 degrees apart in longitude and at any latitude from pole to equator would be 12 hours apart. Edison (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

See North Pole#Time and South Pole#Time. jnestorius^(talk) 21:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Another job interview question

Thanks for all the helpful replies to my question on job interviews. I had the interview yesterday, they didn't ask me that question in the end but they did ask me another one which knocked me sideways a bit: "Describe a situation in your working life where you have had to overcome your stereotyped views of women" (I'm male). Now I'm not going to tell you what I said, but in general (allowing of course for the fact that everyone's experiences are different) what would you say was the correct approach to take with that question? --Bluegrouper (talk) 07:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That would have thrown me too. It sounds like they're working on the assumption that every male automatically has stereotyped views of women. I'd have been very tempted to say "I don't believe I've ever had such stereotypes", but I guess I would have bitten my tongue first. There's no one correct answer to this, but I probably would have explained how I've always treated women with dignity, respect and equality, and helped others overcome their stereotypes by giving them an example to follow. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a wild question, for sure. I guess I personally would describe how I was able to overcome the fact that my sisters are architect, doctor, and doctor, and realize that all the rest of the women are dirty sluts. Or possibly comment that if you've already decided that I have stereotyped views, maybe I'm not the best candidate for the position, since I obviously don't fit your expectations. A long time ago, I got the question "what makes you better than all the other candidates?" and I just wanted to say "Isn't it your job to figure that out? I haven't talked to the other candidates, maybe one of them is perfect".

Do tell what your response was (and eventually whether you got the job). I would take great offense to that question. Small wonder I'm self-employed. :) Franamax (talk) 09:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you were subject to the dreaded behavioral interview technique. I say "dreaded" for personal historical reasons, but actually I think if I were in a position to hire somebody I'd prefer to use something like that than the stereotypical "where do you see yourself in five years?" The important thing to know about that type of question is that it should give the candidate some idea of what situations might come up in the job. And remember that you're interviewing them, too! I might have tried to come up with something like "I think that my parents raised me to recognize that gender makes no difference in a person's abilities. Is such stereotyping something that I'd likely run into at this company?" --LarryMac | Talk 12:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd certainly be pretty offended by that question. That's like "When did you stop beating your wife?" - merely answering the question is an admission that you are a terrible person. Many interviewers forget that an interview is a two-way street. It's just as easy for them to screw up and put off an otherwise promising candidate as it is for the candidate to screw up and not get the job. My response would probably have been "I'm sorry - I think I must have misheard the question"! I guess an honest answer is the only way forwards - so either describe such a thing if it ever happened to you - or tell them that you don't have a stereotypical view. SteveBaker (talk) 13:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess it depends on how much you need the job. Unless I was truly desperate for work (and that's with the assumption that this won't be a good job since you'll be working with the kind of people that ask questions like that), I would make very clear that I was offended by the implication and would refuse to answer the question. --Tango (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I was trained to do "structured interviews" with job applicants. If a job involved, say, dealing with angry customers, the applicant might be asked if he has had job experience dealing with angry customers, what methods he used to handle it, and how successful the result was. This could be numerically scored to allow comparison of different applicants. Other issues might be supervising union personnel, disciplinary issues, working with people of other ethnicity, responding to unethical or dishonest behavior by coworkers, or working alongside grumpy coworkers. If the applicant claimed such a situation never came up, they got a low score for the interview. Saying that the situation in question had come up (with details) that they came up with a strategy to deal with it (again with details) and that their efforts were successful (based on their account at least) got them a high score and indicated a good fir fot he particular job. Again, the question set differed depending on the analysis of the particular job. Edison (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the week I first started working for a computer game company. My desk was right next to the entrance to a conference room - where job interviews were sometimes carried out. One day that week, I was told that interviews were going on in there that day and that we were not to discuss confidential company business within earshot of the door. So I'm sitting quietly, working hard - a guy in a suit & tie (must be an interviewee) and one of our management types (shorts, T-shirt and sandals) disappear into the room - I can distantly hear some of the usual interview questions and answers - and I kinda zone out and concentrate on my work. After maybe half an hour - I hear the interviewee start shouting: "YOU BASTARD - HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY THINK I'D DO THIS...THIS IS F**KING WRONG! SO F**KING WRONG!!" and all sorts of other rants and obscenities. He's AMAZINGLY angry...I mean, he's totally lost it. A few minutes later - the interview is over and the candidate and the manager leave the conference room and disappear towards the front door. I think little more of it until later in the day, pretty much the exact same thing happens with a different candidate. I'm wondering just how hard this interviewer is on these poor guys to push them that far over the edge! My interview a few weeks earlier had gone fairly normally - but I had a different guy interviewing me. Was this some kind of bizarre "stress test" to make the candidates "snap" and see what happened? It was only on the third occasion that I realised they were interviewing people to do recordings for the in-game audio and they were in fact rehearsing from a script that was given to them in the interview! <sigh> SteveBaker (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Notable people with accounts on wikipedia

Are there any famous people who have an account here on Wikipedia? I know one - Arthur Rubin - but are there any others? February 15, 2009 (talk) 09:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by famous but the answer is probably a lot. See Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles which is very likely incomplete Nil Einne (talk) 09:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd think most famous people would probably not want to tell the world who they are online to avoid stalkers and such. JessicaThunderbolt 11:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite a few I've run across have accounts but aren't active. Their talk pages fill with fancruft fairly quickly. SteveBaker (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There is also Category:Notable Wikipedians, although if you're anything like me you may struggle with that definition of "notable" as it applies to most of the people in that category. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 18:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Since notability is the criteria for having and article about the person, those two lists ought to be basically identical. SteveBaker (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Last time someone asked this, the only person I recognised was User talk:RichardDawkins. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

He's pretty typical though - you look at his Talk: page and there are lots of fans there saying how nice his books are - and a couple of people asking reasonable questions and being answered by other people who are NOT Richard Dawkins. Not one post from the man himself. If we examine his "User contributions" tag we see:

• Five edits in October'07 to the article about himself (It's dubious to change the article about yourself - WP:COI, etc.)
• One edit to List of human evolution fossils to change a single word 'España' to 'Spain'.
• One edit (just a few days ago) to Mermaid where (unsurprisingly) he deleted the sentence "Although considered to be fictional there have been several sightings proved to be accurate which has led many to believe that mermaids are in fact real."

That's IT - seven edits over two years with an account. Not exactly an active Wikipedian! SteveBaker (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I guess I missed the bit where the OP asked for an "active wikipedian" - sincere apologies. Btw, he did edit his talk page (to defend the edits to the article on him). Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Back in June I wrote an article on the conductor Myer Fredman, and I noticed there was a user of that name so I checked and it was the same person. As a courtesy, I left him a message on his talk page to let him know he now existed. He's never responded to me. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

And we have a user named GOD, although he goes to the trouble of explaining he's not actually the omniponent deity of the same name. His talk page seems exclusively devoted to fruitless attempts to have him change his username. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

And he only edited for less than a month over three years ago. I think these days he might well be blocked as an offensive username... --Tango (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Really? Because I recognise quite a few. E.g. John Romero, Phil Zimmermann, Joi Ito, Diana Zuckerman, Nigel Short, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, III (okay maybe I don't recognise him specifically but he does have a famous grandfather), Jeff V. Merkey, Mitch Kapor, Xeni Jardin, Charles Ingram, Patrick M. Byrne... And more I probably missed. Admitedly some of these I probably know largely from wikipedia and most of them are probably not active, some may not even be real but as Zaid pointed out, the OP just asked for famous people with an account, not famous active wikipedians Nil Einne (talk) 09:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Adrian Lamo = User:Adrian Lamo -- assuming the User is telling the truth about his identity. Youth in Asia (talk) 02:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Kittybrewster is a baronet; does that count as famous? —Tamfang (talk) 05:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Does Loren Coleman count? He is a Bigfoot researcher. See his Talk page. It shows a account that he has on here. Powerzilla (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the best example of active notable Wikipedian is: Jimbo Wales, userpage: Jimmy.Mr.K. (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

We should never "out" the real life identities of Wikipedia editors who seek anonymity. If they select a username stating their real and notable name and "out" themselves intentionally, it seems fair to note the fact. Per the talk page Talk:Rachel Marsden Rachel Marsden , political columnist and television commentator, has edited Wikipedia as User:RachelMarsden. Bev Harris is well known for publicizing the security weaknesses of Black Box Voting, and we have User:Bev Harris who may be that person per her statement at User talk:64.202.138.2. Michael Klonsky was national secretary of the Students for a Democratic Society in the 1960s and is now a Professor of education, and reportedly edits Wikipedia as User:Granpamike per an OTRS posting discussed at Talk:Michael Klonsky. Many users are not really the famous persons their usernames might suggest. Edison (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I ran across a user page for Derek Charke a while ago. At least I assume so since his username contains the name, and he edited the page. . . . Not exactly a household name, but he’s somewhat notable in academic modern music circles. :) --S.dedalus (talk) 03:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Company

Remember that company Gametraders that I talked about a while back? [24] Well, their description on the Nintendo 64 ([25]) is poorly written, which is most apparent from the last sentence of the main description. It looks like it was written by someone whose favourite games are those games. None of those five games are even in the true top 5 most popular N64 games! Do you think I should ask them to change that? February 15, 2009 (talk) 12:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No - you shouldn't ask them to change it. You should just change it yourself (see WP:SOFIXIT)...UNLESS: (a) You have a conflict of interest (see WP:COI) or (b) you can't back up your claims with proper references (see WP:REF). But this question really belongs on the Wikipedia Help Desk. SteveBaker (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think they mean should they ask Gametraders to change the Nintendo description on their own site. In which case, sure, drop them an email and tell them what you would like to see changed (maybe even write a description yourself) and why. I don't know whether they will respond, but you can always try. Fribbler (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Coffee at work in the US

Living in Sweden, Europe, I watch numerous american movies and TV series. Every now and again, employees go to some coffeehouse and return with paper mugs with coffee. I just wonder, is it uncommon in the US to have a pentry at work, with a coffee machine, a fridge and a microwave oven, so people can make their own coffee exactly to their taste? --Lova Falk (talk) 11:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It's very common in the U.S. to have coffee available in offices, almost always for free for employees. It tends to be of low quality, or at least perceived to be of low quality. Darkspots (talk) 11:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You might find this article about the standard of living in Norway compared with the U.S. to be interesting, in terms of American takeout coffee habits. Darkspots (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well - firstly, beware of movies & TV. Product placement is a very big deal these days - so behavior on-screen does not have to represent what real people do. If your favorite TV star goes out for coffee at Starbucks - then that's better than a 30 second advert for Starbucks. Even if it's not specifically Starbucks, (perhaps because they need to set a scene in the coffee shop or something) they may still be paying the TV company to push the concept of leaving work to grab a coffee.

Meanwhile, here in the real world, it's very variable. In the last two places I've worked, we have had a fully equipped kitchen. Where I am now, we have an Italian coffee maker that looks like something you'd find under the hood of a Lamborghini...and is nearly as scary to 'drive' - and probably more expensive to service! We also have microwaves (2), a toaster oven, a dish washer, and a large commercial refigerator/freezer. There are usually three or four flavors of coffee to choose between and they switch those around periodically for variety. There are also lots of tall jars filled with snacks and candy. There is a coke machine too. Some people would be surprised to find that they stock the fridge with beer - and we have "Happy Hour" a couple of times a week. Sometimes we order Pizza for lunch. It's all 100% free. This is not that unusual in my line of business (I make video game software) where employees are occasionally expected to work long hours without overtime pay. Also, we're not "on the clock" and if we were to go out for coffee for half an hour - that would cost the company a lot more than the cost of stocking the kitchen.

However, in the place before last, we had a break room with sink and microwave. There was a minimally functional filter coffee machine and really nasty coffee to go into it. The coke machine charged 70 cents for a 16oz can...which is a total ripoff. Several people did indeed get together to take it in turns to make a run to Starbucks twice a day.

What I've never seen in the US is a coffee vending machine - that was fairly common in the UK. When I last worked there, most of my co-workers brought their own filter-coffee machines to work and set them up in their offices. That would probably violate fire safety laws here in Texas.

So "it depends" is about the most that can be said.

SteveBaker (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The coke machine charged 70 cents for a 16oz can... Is it really true that everything's bigger in Texas? You can only get coke in a 12oz can in my part of the world. 16oz aluminum cans are for Bud and maybe Coors Lite beer, but never soda. Darkspots (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I was surprised at the 16 oz. can as well. But back to the original question. A couple jobs ago, the place I worked had a sort of common area amongst the cubicles where one of the engineers had set up a coffee maker. The company supplied the coffee (name brand, Folger's I think) and this engineer would make it every morning. It was free. In the little kitchenette that we had, there was a microwave, sink, and a refrigerator. There were also two vending machines for soda and snacks. The break room out on the factory floor had a coffee vending machine along with your usual assortment of snack and soda machines. Dismas|^(talk) 13:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers! Good to know you can get coffee at work. Very interesting article also even though I would also like to see a comparison between those who have the lowest incomes in US and in Norway, or Sweden. My guess is that poor people in the US live in much worse conditions than poor people over here. And then there is the wise but impossible remark: "beware of movies & TV". My estimate is that in average one hour every single day I watch a US movie or TV. How could my perception of the US not be influenced?? --Lova Falk (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Back to the OP -- my friends here in the U.S. tire of hearing me talk about my week in Paris, and one of the things that struck me: I was not in a particularly touristy area, and wandered a lot around the neighborhood. In the entire week, I never saw a person with a take-out cup of coffee (like the ubiquitous Starbuck's cup, or the Greek-key-bordered cup that seems mandatory in New York cop shows). How you get coffee in this country varies widely. There are any number of coffee services that supply no-name packs of coffee (along with sugar and usually that crumbled wallboard compound labeled "creamer") meant for use in an office's commercial drip coffee maker. It's a running gag in many offices whether there's enough coffee (or sludge) left in the bottom of the pot so you don't have to make a fresh one. I have seen the machines that dispense one cardboard cup of coffee, with various buttons for powdered "cream," sugar, and so on -- more often in factories than in offices, but in either case generally undrinkable. --- OtherDave (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC), whose coffee is getting cold.

I have never ever in my life walked on the street with a take-out cup of coffee. --Lova Falk (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a difference, not a virtue -- much like the amusement I felt when reading that Mercedes-Benz engineers couldn't believe that some Americans considered the number of cupholders in a car. I've gotten coffee to go many times; I was interested to see first-hand that nobody did, at least in the 5th arrondissement. --- OtherDave (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You haven't lived, Lova Falk.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(I don't drink coffee.) I read "the Greek-key-bordered [coffee] cup that seems mandatory in New York cop shows" as something they brought from the station and filled from a Thermos bottle. —Tamfang (talk) 05:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not just cop shows. Agent Gibbs (Mark Harmon) on NCIS seems to drink about 5 super-size coffees every episode (OK, he's a sort of cop). It might explain his super-demanding nature. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The Greek-key cup is a fixture at the hundreds of little delis in Manhattan. I'm sure that in real life, lots of people have their own ceramic cup that they fill from the office coffee maker (Brun, Mr. Coffee, whatever), but these iconic paper cups are as ubiquitous as loud people on cell phones. (The link, the first hit I found for "new york deli coffee," is for a ceramic replica of the cup that the blogger claims has more than 180 million paper replicas per year... kind of like the ceramic Starbuck's grande mug I have myself.) As for consumption, my S.O. used to work with a guy who began his day with two Starbuck's ventes -- in other words, 40 ounces of coffee. --- OtherDave (talk) 10:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hm, the Greek-key paper cup in my mental image is mostly brown. —Tamfang (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Credit Crunch/Toxic Debt/Financial Black Holes - Solution?

This may sound naive coming from one who knows nothing about high-finance (hey, does that qualify me to become a master-of-the universe?). But, seriously, I seem to recall that whenever some 3rd World country is unable to service (pay back) it's international loans, and begins to default on the interest accruing on them, the International Monetary Fund or The World Bank always come running to the rescue and always manage to eradicate the original debt in order to allow the defaulting country to continue to exist in the international trading environment without slipping into the control of some gun totin' despot. So that being the case for a 3rd world economy, why can't the same rules apply for the rest of the world (USA, UK, France, Germany, Iceland etc., etc.) when times get tough - like now ???92.21.71.121 (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand, becuase the United States funded most of it, and is now such a large debtor nation it would be impractical for others to forgive the debt without the whole global economic system crashing down. Although, if one takes the extreme view of some who posit a totally cashless society, that could be the final solution - just wipe out everyone's debt and start over with a totally global system. Although that could lead to what Christians term the Mark of the Beast, wherein allegiance must be made to a global ruler (which is really [[ruled by satan, with nobody allowed to buy or sel without it. (Edit - can't believe there's no article on cashless society - I'd start one, but the idea has been out there for so longthere must be a reason - vandalism or something - that there must be a reason why there isn't.) 209.244.30.221 (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, from what I can tell that article name has no history attached to it at all. Nothing has ever been there. Probably you should do some searching around with alternate names to make sure there's isn't indeed an article that's just called something else--but otherwise, as long as you've got some good sources to put together, you should feel free to start one. --Masamage ♫ 20:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There will be plenty of child articles of cashless society, but I too would encourage you to put a start together, if you're so inclined. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried, nbut when i submitted, the screen went blank - it was so little I think I'll just let someone else - though I had a couple decent cites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.30.221 (talk) 12:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that's when the government can't pay its debts - at the moment I don't believe any government is in serious financial difficulties, it's private banks with the problems. If the government of a major economy starts defaulting on its debts then a) we're all in big trouble (a lot of the maths that governs the financial world is based on the assumption that US Treasury Bonds and similar from other major nations are "risk free" - if that assumption proves incorrect, everything would break down and we could well end up with a barter economy) and b) the WMF or World Bank may well step in if they can afford to do so - the numbers involved may well be out of their reach, though. --Tango (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Reasons to Dislike the USA

What are some of the popular European (or nations) reasons why they do not like the USA? I am looking anything specific or broad or blatantly prejudiced.... thanks! --Anilmanohar (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

RefDesk is not a forum, please stop adding to this thread

We all have guns and are eager to use them. --Masamage ♫ 20:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Years of ugly ugly ugly US foreign policy - Chile, Vietnam, Iraq & many many other countries. Given your foreign policy, the degree of arrogance on the part of your leaders & ignorance on the part of your population. Stuff like that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Additionally all of the high values of the USA that Europeans might actually agree with or value go out the window when it's not in US interest. Democracy? Not if you are interested in being Communist. Self-determination? Not if it is in our interest that you are ruled by another. Free trade? Not if it hurts our farmers. International law? Not if the US feels threatened. And so on. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do not use the reference desk to post diatribes or start arguments. --Trovatore (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you secifically mean the USA, it's people, or both? 92.21.71.121 (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Both. --Anilmanohar (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

When abroad and working with European-looking colleagues, the incessant ranting about Baseball/American Football/US Politics/US TV shows, as if we knew anything about them. How would you lot like it if we went on incessantly about Football/Rugby/Gordon Brown/Eastenders?!? It doesn't happen, does it? We Brits have the common decency to try to find some common ground when we work together with you lot abroad.--ChokinBako (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Lack of geographic knowledge. It's partly a stereotype and partly true. Earlier this year I had the great privilege of meeting a large number of Americans, and while most of them weren't nearly as dim or arrogant as the media often makes Americans out to be--in fact, most of them were very smart, polite, and culturally aware (then again, it was a high-end academic university event, so I don't know how representative of the general American population it was), in many cases, their knowledge of basic Canadian geography was woeful--and the event took place IN Canada, and had to do with international politics. And I do mean BASIC geography--one girl not only didn't know where Alberta was, she'd never even heard of it. You'd be hard-pressed to find a Canadian who doesn't know what you're talking about if you say, for instance, "Ohio."

Again, I think this perception of Americans may be more of a stereotype than truth, propagated largely by the media (such as Rick Mercer's Talking to Americans) and the fact that nobody ever comes back from the US saying "I met this normal, intelligent American," but we always bring back the stories about the hilariously clueless ones, but you asked why the US is disliked, not why they're dislikeable. And that's a big one, at least in Canada. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As an ugly American, I find this "Lack of geographic knowledge" embarrassingly true sometimes, but also a distortion of the truth due to others' fascination with the U.S. Here's a test for Canadians: can you locate the state of Guerrero on a map? Do you even know what country it is in? So, the fact you can locate Ohio may reflect your fascination with the U.S., whereas some (most?) Americans' inability to locate Alberta may be an egalitarian inability to memorize the states of all the countries in N. America, much less the world. --Scray (talk) 02:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well said. I'd say that off the top of my head I could locate about half a third of the Mexican states. I wonder how many Canadians could do as well? Very randomly, once, as a tourist in British Columbia, I helped an immigrant answer geography questions for a Canadian-citizenship review test. I knew the three Maritime Provinces, IIRC. I can't imagine she had any idea I was an American. Darkspots (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC) correction added after I glanced at a map of Mexico.

Keep in mind, the US border Mexico, Canada doesn't. A person would generally be expected to know more about countries that border theirs than countries that don't. --Tango (talk) 03:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I can't name any of the states in Greenland. :-D --Scray (talk) 03:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

To add to that, I (American) can only name one or two Mexican states but would not be able to point them out on a map. Although, I know a bit more about Canadian geography. This comes, I feel, from the fact that I live so close to Canada. So by saying that as an American I should know just as much about Canada as I do about Mexico, just because the U.S. borders both countries, is not a good rule of thumb. It also depends on where within the States that the particular American lives. Dismas|^(talk) 06:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not buying it, Tango. There are only three countries on the continent! Canada and Mexico are important trading partners, and because of NAFTA, goods can ship between the two countries by rail or truck without transshipment. I'd hazard a guess that the average Canadian knows as much about Mexican geography as the average resident of a U.S. state that doesn't border Mexico, that is to say basically zero. Canadians know a lot about the geography of the U.S. because America is extremely culturally and economically important to them. What Canadians are angry about is that Americans have the same order of magnitude of knowledge about Canada that Canadians do about Mexico, and that's because Canada is roughly as important to America as Mexico is to Canada, if you follow me. The anger is understandable but not rational. Darkspots (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I never said that. I said an an American should, on average, know more about Mexico than a Canadian knows about Mexico. I never said anything about knowing the same amount about different bordering countries. --Tango (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It's this "should" business that I don't buy. What I'm saying is, borrowing Scray's argument, is that Canadians should know a fair amount about Mexico, quite a bit more than they do, in general. And Americans should know more about Canada than they do. I hazard a guess that there are also people who think British people should know more about France, as much as, say, the Belgians do. What all this ignores is that most people don't seek out knowledge about things that aren't in their direct interest to learn. Belgians need to know more about France than British people do, let's just say; I bet they watch a lot of French TV, whereas British people produce a lot of really watchable TV on their own. This "should" about what Americans know ignores reality, and I argue that the anger that comes from it kinda ignores reality, too. Darkspots (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, speaking as a Brit, I have my own theories as to why America can be disliked. Now, in general, I'd say that we like America, but there are certain things we dislike. First off, I think we see in you what we really don't want to become - a nation built on corruption and lies. Your politicians are almost without exception crooked, and there is so much sleaze it's unbelievable. You appear obsessed with inconsequential details about your politicians that you neglect to mention their policies. You are overly-patriotic - do you really need a flag every 100 yards to remind you what country you're in? - and also very blinkered in the view that america is number one which means that the bad things about america will never change.

But still, we do like America in a way, and maybe it's not that we don't like america or americans, it's just that we see what's bad while you don't. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, a few reasons - some valid, some not so; a coupla main ones i can think of are...
- dodgy foreign policy (as mentioned previously and pretty self-explanatary)
- jealousy - we like to do it to our own in New Zealand a bit - its called Tall poppy syndrome - knock-down whomever is on top
- barbara streisand
Boomshanka (talk) 02:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Might be hatred based on guilt for the imbalance of large number of Americans killed fighting for the liberation of France and Europe and defense of UK in WW1 and WW2, versus small number of European deaths fighting to liberate America from some foreign occupation (By the way thanks, France for assistance in the American Revolution). Edison (talk) 04:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Geographical ignorance is often cited. But I wonder if one slip necessarily means utter ignorance of all things. The US did get to the Moon, after all, and no other country has, so they're hardly a race of dumb-arses. We Australians are amused when we're confused with Austria, complimented on how well we speak English for a non-English speaking people, or asked about kangaroos hopping down the main streets of our capital cities (Canberra excepted; it's true, I've seen them, although it's not an every-day occurrence). The tendency is to think "Yeah, well he's an American, what would he know". But ask an Australian where their own territories Christmas Island or the Cocos Islands are, and they'll probably point northish, whereas they're north-west of most places in Australia, and due west from Darwin. I myself am constantly surprised to find the Philippines to the north of Western Australia on maps. I got it into my head at a young age that they're to the north-east of Queensland, and seemingly nothing will shake that core belief. We criticise American speech patterns, but ask most Australians to pronounce a word of more than 2 syllables and they just go to pieces, and also take an inordinate pride in such incapacity. A lot of Aussies say how much they hate American TV shows, products, cultural influences and manners, while chomping on their KFC or McDonalds, watching Ugly Beddy, and talking on their "cell" - yes, all at the same time. I think a part of the syndrome is Americans' openness about the things they don't know, which makes them appear to be more ignorant than other people. Other people will often pretend to have knowledge they don't have or obfuscate to avoid or change the question - but they still don't know. And you've only got to watch "Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader?" to see how profoundly, embarrassingly, shockingly ignorant some Australians are (but, shamefully, they get handsomely rewarded for this). Watch "The Einstein Factor" and you'll got the completely opposite picture, but the people who criticise American ignorance have probably never even heard of this program because they refuse to watch the ABC on principle; the principle that "it's boring". -- JackofOz (talk) 04:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah... Edison has reminded me of what it is that annoys me about Americans... their belief that they single handedly defeated Germany and Japan in WWII at great cost to themselves, when in fact the number of american casualties was a small proportion of the total allied casualities. Astronaut (talk) 05:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Try to actually read what I wrote, and not what you expected. I noted the imbalance between Americans who died to liberate Europe when the Germans twice marched in and took over in the 20th century, and the small number of Europeans who died liberating America when some foreign power occupied our cities and abused our citizens. Maybe we have just been lucky not to need much help in that way. Or maybe it was the ineptitude of European politicians and armed forces. (And by the way , thanks to Pulaski, Von Steuben, deGrasse , Lafayette, and Kosciusko for their assistance in the American Revolution. Many persons, institutions, streets and towns were named after them). Edison (talk) 06:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

We named our highest mountain after Kosciuszko, but misspelled it for over 150 years. Ask an average Aussie who this Kosciuszko guy was, and you'll get a blank stare. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The world wars are ancient history to most people now and I don't suppose many people know or care how many died from whatever country. Personally I'd give the Russians most of the credit for defeating Hitler - I'm not too keen on the Russian state but I really don't think that is due to any guilt trip. I'm not too keen on the US as a government either but at least it's better than Russia or China. And from all three as from anywhere else there are jerks and rednecks and there are people who are fun and there are people who are very nice. Dmcq (talk) 09:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

While Astronaut may have misinterpreted what Edison wrote I think Astronaut and Dmcq make good points. I think a lot of Europeans don't agree with the idea that seems common in America that the US saved Europe in one or both world wars nor that they should be forever grateful for it and not criticise America or it's foreign policy when they disagree with it. I think many would agree that the US was a big help, but many would also feel that, for example in WW2, Germany screwed itself when it decided to fight the war on two fronts and couldn't take the UK and that it's definitely not certain Europe would have fallen were it not for the US as seems to be common in the US. And regardless of how important the US's contribution was, many would feel that it doesn't mean Europe should be a good little boy and just go along with everything and anything America says. While I'm sure many Americans don't have this view, definitely you hear it a lot whenever anyone criticised the US someone comes along and talks about the US saving Europe and/or the world and you really hear an American challeging this view so it overides whatever anyone else in America believes. Plus there is the little stuff like the stupid Freedom Fries nonsense. This is the sort of stuff people expect from Asian, African and Islamic countries who are still growing up in the world and establishing their place and have a population and politicians that can be somewhat immature at times not from a vibrant developed democracy which is the only superpower in the world. Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Who would have won if X had been different is a game played mainly by alternate-history SF types. Yes, U.S. casualties were proportionately lower than some other combatants -- as a percentage of population, more Canadians died in World War II. (Many Americans have no idea Canade entered the war two years before the U.S.) On the other hand, as a vast nation virtually unscathed by direct attack, other than the sucker punch of Pearl Harbor, the U.S. truly was, as Roosevelt said, the arsenal of democracy. At one point, even though the tonnage of ships sunk by Germany was still on the rise, the tonnage of ships launched was rising even faster -- meaning the Kriegsmarine couldn't keep up. One joke in Britain was that the only thing keeping the island from sinking under the weight of all the materiel were the barrage balloons.

Wars don't get won only by arsenals, though -- and Americans in particular forget the impact that the Soviet Union had on the war (or the impact that hundreds of thousands of Dodge trucks had on the Red Army).

The isolationist strain in U.S. history makes it easy for Americans to think of the World Wars as other people's problems -- those outmoded Europeans and their nationalism, so different from America's being the shining city on the hill. Occasionally, we in the States realize that we're not the only people around, and not even the smartest. Usually, though, we get over that. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I live in the US (I'm British) - and I like almost every individual American I meet - you are truly nice, friendly people living in an amazing chunk of the planet. But in large quantities, somehow it all falls apart. Between religion and politics, Americans make some of the worst decisions I've seen anywhere in the world. From the perspective of someone living here in Texas, meeting well intentioned individuals, it's easy to see the good side - but from the perspective of people who only see the actions of an entire nation - there is precious little good to say.

The argument that X defeated Y in support of Z and therefore there should be undying, eternal gratitude to X on behalf of Z and lingering animosity for Y on behalf of both X and Z is anachronistic. After a couple of generations - it's history. My parents were pretty grateful to the Americans for helping out against Germany - but it's not an important point to me anymore, I'm 54 years old and I have a default position of tending to give America the benefit of the doubt and a lingering concern about the rise of Germany and Japan - I don't hate Japanese and Germans at all - but I feel like I have to be somehow careful about discussing the war with them ("Don't mention the war! I mentioned it once - but I think I got away with it!"). My son finds that whole thing somewhere between puzzling and laughable. Sooner or later this ancient stuff has to be forgotten. Black people in America have to stop fretting about slavery because the evil bastards who did that to their ancestors are LONG dead. The Brits have pretty much forgiven the French for that whole Napoleon thing - and the Zulu tribesmen of Africa have pretty much forgiven the Brits for their rampant imperialism. But it cuts both ways just as evil in the past must be forgotten - good things that happened also fade from memory. Americans have to stop relying on the exploits of previous generations to maintain respect in the world and they must make new reasons for the world to like them.

If you are an American between (say) 20 and 40 years old - ask yourself what YOUR generation has done to make Europeans like you? Things like the land-mine treaty and the Kyoto accord, not paying your dues to the United Nations, torturing people in Guantanmo, imprisoning such an insanely large proportion of your population, maintaining the barbarous death penalty, attempting to build a new "Berlin wall" between Mexico and the US rather than solving the illegal immigration problem at it's heart, allowing christian religious fundamentalists to rise up and dominate in so many areas of American culture, breaking the ABM treaty with Russia, failing to take a stand in Georgia, attacking Iraq, failing to work with Pakistan effectively, failing to deal with N.Korea's nuclear weapons research before it was too late and probably doing the same for Iran - failing to do anything about Global Warming (except to disbelieve it) - and now screwing up the financial markets and failing to pass a bill to fix it because someone insulted someone else in a speech at the last moment! (Oh - and making a really terrible knock-off of "The Office" - that's probably the most serious thing...except maybe rap music...oh - and the two sequels to "The Matrix" and the odd numbered "StarTrek" movies.)

It's really quite hard to come up with things that ARE worthy of respect that the US has done within the living memory of most people around the world. There is precious little for the modern world to thank America for - I assure you.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You have a point - I mean, most scifi comes from Canada now. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Europe is populous and prosperous, with modern industries. It should be able to defend itself against forseeable threats as well as the US could defend it. They doubtless learned from the events in the summer of 1940 that either good diplomacy or good military preparedness are needed. In WW2 British soldiers complained that US soldiers in the UK were "overpaid, oversexed, and worst of all over here""The Strand, 1944]. But List of United States military bases shows the US forces are still stationed, presumably paid for by U.S. taxpayers, at four bases in the UK, and numerous bases in other European countries. If they are there to defend Europe, perhaps they should come home and let Europe defend itself. If they are there to support US operations in the Middle East, perhaps that should be handled by the European former colonial rulers of those countries, or European countries who are at least several thousand miles closer to the problem. But then Europeans might hate Americans for being isolationist. Edison (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Large swathes of the populations of the countries which allow the US to set up military bases in them would agree with you, but who wants to piss the US (collective, not individuals) off militarily? 130.88.52.36 (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Typical US thing going on about how everyone else should also spend insane amounts of money on the means to kill people. I guess its 'When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail'. Dmcq (talk)

My comment was actually directed toward the U.S spending less to defend Europe.Europe should make its own decisions about military preparedness. Lower defense spending in Europe as a percentage of GDP allows money for health care, education, rail transportation, and industrial modernization that the U.S. lags behind in. In the 1920's and 1930's the UK, France, Belgium, Holland, Norway and other European countries not allied with the Germans similarly deferred military expenditures, with predictable results. The failing U.S. economy and domestic needs may result in cuts in the U.S. military budget, depending on the results of the fall election. Base closings in the U.S. are unpopular in the states affected. Closing of U.S. bases in Europe and other countries would be quite popular with the U.S. taxpayers, apart from the geopolitical wisdom of such retrenchment from the "Project for the New American Century." Edison (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Steve Baker has really hit the nail on the head. Generally the individuals are fine generous people, but en-masse a pain in the butt.--Artjo (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Overall this "slam fest" [26] is worthy of any catty U.S. junior high school clique. Edison (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You have already made manifest your opinion that America is far superior to the rest of the world. It is an opinion to which I take great exception.

Such statements as "If they are there to support US operations in the Middle East, perhaps that should be handled by the European former colonial rulers of those countries, or European countries who are at least several thousand miles closer to the problem" pretty much answer the OP's question in a nutshell.

Furthermore, talking about "some foreign power [that] occupied [y]our cities and abused [y]our citizens" is disingenuous in the extreme, if you are referring to the American War of Independence. Unless you are Cherokee, Sioux etc, you, as an American citizen, are descended from colonists and/or immigrants. The United States has, to the best of my knowledge, never been "occupied" by "a foreign power". It is a former colony that seceded - a quite different state of affairs. Malcolm XIV (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

A couple of points: I have freely criticized many misguided U.S. policies at the Ref Desk. Nowhere did I claim the U.S. "is far superior to the rest of the world." Straw man, much? I agree that the U.S. has only been occupied in limited areas for short periods since the Revolution. Quite a bit of U.S. territory was occupied by British forces during the War of 1812. Large parts of Maine were occupied from September 1814 to April 1815. Fort Mackinac, in Michigan, captured by the British in 1812, was held for three years [27] , and Fort Bowyer captured by the British in 1815 at Mobile, Alabama and held for 1 day. I agree that my Native American ancestors were badly treated. I believe that the European powers should provide for their own defense, and should be wary of extending NATO membership, as some European politicians want, to former Soviet block nations so remote that no effective opposition could be presented to Russian incursions in those countries short of threats of nuclear strikes. Edison (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This is one helluva conversation, and I'd like to throw another facet into the discussion. (I'm in Minnesota, where "many are cold but few are frozen", btw.) Let's focus just on the ignorance question, and narrow it to geography.

I'd bet that most high-school kids in California couldn't put the east-coast states (or the original 13 colonies, for that matter) into the correct north-to-south order if their lives depended on it. Why? It's a damn big country, Los Angeles to New York is a five-hour-plus flight, and lots of stuff happens.

On the other hand, Germany for instance is about the size of one of our medium-sized states -- Oregon, when I was learning it, probably larger now. Britian is even smaller. I'm sure tracking what's going on in all of England isn't much more difficult than tracking what's going on in Iowa.

There's darn few places in Europe from which you can travel in a (hypothetical) straight line for, say 500mi/800km, and still be in the same country. Alternatively, if you're interested in everything that's happening within a 400-mile radius of yourself, that going to cover parts of multiple countries on the continent, and an equivalent number of states here, depending on where you are east-west. Board a plane in Paris and fly five hours in a straight line, where are you? Nowhere near France, that's for sure.

Both my and my wife's companies have international offices, and when "they" visit "here" for the first time, one of the first reactions is always "Wow, it's so big." Same reaction from our European branches of the family: we took a one-week driving trip with our Danish cousins a couple of years back. Showed them the route on a map when we got back: "is that -all- we saw?"

Now, all of this doesn't justify any of our behaviours, but it might explain part of why some of them exist, and give us another branch for the discussion! --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

While the UK may have a very small land area, it's population is over 20 times that of Iowa. The US is very big, but large swaths of it are pretty empty. --Tango (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

While I understand your point, DaHorsesMouth, how does it gel with the fact that Canadians and Australians, whose countries are comparable in size to the US, know far more about both their own countries and about the rest of the world, than Americans seem to on both scores? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a deplorable ignorance history and geography in many countries,[28] , [29] [30] , not just the U.S.[31]. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." (Santayana, 1905). Edison (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

@Jack: My hypothesis is just that, a thought that crossed my mind about three hours ago. I think it's a factor, that when added to others exacerbates the situation. I still think that the general concept of an "interest horizon" probably has some underlying truth to it; but do I have refdesk-quality facts to back it up? Uhh, no... --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The wreckless mouths of the Democrat Party would likely make anybody hate us. Indeed, they're always creating disaster. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The RefDesks are not a discussion forum. I've collapsed this thread. Please don't add more to it. Franamax (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Index update for Category:Lists of neighborhoods in U.S. cities

Friends,

This is more in the way of a suggestion/request. The Wikipedia index page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_neighborhoods_in_U.S._cities is very useful, so far as it goes. However, along with it needing to be cleaned up itself ("Neighborhoods in San Francisco," for example, is alphabetized under "N"), literally dozens of cities with Wikipedia pages listing neighborhoods in their cities are not cited in this overall index page - including some fairly major ones (Atlanta and Pittsburgh come to mind).

If anyone could take the time to make this page more comprehensive - or even suggest how I could do it (though someone who knows what they're doing would be a lot faster), I'd be most grateful. There's no interpretation or factual research or adjucation needed here - it's a simple, mechanical index with links.

Geov Parrish, Seattle (email address removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.167.191.122 (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, firstly, this is the reference desk - we answer difficult questions about life, the universe and everything - we don't deal with requests or comments about Wikipedia articles. May I suggest the Talk: page for that article - or perhaps the "Village Pump" discussion area. Secondly, this is Wikipedia - and almost all requests for changes are answered with WP:SOFIXIT - in other words, if you don't like it, change it! That's how this place works - you can just dive in and make the changes yourself! Thirdly: Category's are *NOT* intended to be anything other than an alphabetized list of article titles. If all of the other articles are things like "New York Neighborhoods" - but this one is "Neighborhoods of San Francisco" - then you should probably rename the article itself to match all of the others...you do that by going to the page in question and clicking on the "move" tab - although I vaguely recall that you might have to be logged in with a proper account name to do that. If, on the other hand, the article is named appropriately - but just happens to alphabetize unfortunately - then you can add something to the [[Category:XXXXX]] text (which is probably at the top or bottom of that article) to make it read [[Category:XXXX|YYYY]] that causes the article to appear in category XXXX with it's normal name - but alphabetized as if it was named YYYY. Hence, you could change [[Category:Lists_of_neighborhoods_in_U.S._cities]] to read: [[Category:Lists_of_neighborhoods_in_U.S._cities|San Francisco]] - so it'll appear under 'S' instead of 'N'. SteveBaker (talk) 23:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(after e/c) Hey, that anyone could be you - feel free to take a shot at it! You can see here how I fixed the sorting for San Francisco, and that line shows you exactly how to add an article into a category. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here, or maybe a better place would be on my talk page (so we don't clutter up this page). Franamax (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

And here's an example where I did it for Atlanta. The rest are up to you buddy... :) Franamax (talk) 23:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You can give a man a fish...or...

SteveBaker (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

give a fish a bike? just asking --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

hide the fish inside the upholstery of his car? Or inside a wall of his house? Among the nastier of tricks to play... Franamax (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Nastia was a trick. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

October 1

Cheque encashment

How does cheque encashment work with crossed cheques? How does the cashing service get the money? (I'm particularly interested in the UK system if it varies.) --Tango (talk) 02:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If you mean how do cheque payments work in general in the UK, then APACS is what you need to read (then follow the external links because that article is not as informative as I had hoped). Crossing a cheque is supposed to ensure that it is only paid into the recipient's bank account rather than being turned into cash.

If you mean a "cashing service", as in a non-bank company that pays out cash - minus a hefty fee - against a customer's cheque, I believe the cashing service is "selling" the customer some cash, and the cheque payment is handled like any other cheque payment for a product or service. Of course, the customer needs to provide a cheque guarantee card or sufficient ID to satisfy whatever rules the cashing service sets. The hefty fee the cashing service charges, goes to profit and probably fills in for any outstanding money owing if the cheque bounces and all legal (and illegal??) means to recover the money have been exhausted. Astronaut (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not quite what I'm talking about. As I understand it, cheque encashment is where a cashing service provides cash in exchange for a cheque written by a 3rd party. It's used by people without bank accounts or if you need the cash straight away and can't wait for the cheque to clear. I would have thought that crossing a cheque (as is done in advance for pretty much all cheques are in the UK) would make that impossible, but apparently it isn't. --Tango (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite of my previous answer A crossed cheque (needs better explanation in that redir) is deposit-only, so it technically cannot be exchanged at an encashment dealer. Like many other things though, the rule is observed in the breach. If everything works out OK, it's all good. If there was a problem, the cheque-writer would have recourse. In a recent Canadian case, a home-reno customer wrote the contractor a cheque then called his bank and stopped payment. The contractor cashed the cheque at an encashment service and vanished. The cash service was able to sue the cheque-writer under some weird bills-of-exchange law - but if he'd put the two crossed lines on the front of the cheque, he would have been successful in his defense. I imagine the same thing would apply in the UK, since we share common law. Franamax (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Was the cheque written out to the contractor (in name) or to the bearer/cash? Nil Einne (talk) 08:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It was written to the contractor. But since it was uncrossed, the contractor was free to sell it on, and the liability to pay went with it. It sounded pretty unfair to me, but there was that obscure provision of the Bills of Exchange Act or something that meant if the customer wanted to restrict the cheque to bank-cashing only, he should have put two vertical lines on it. First I ever heard of a "crossed cheque" which apparently is utterly common in the UK. There's also the issue of the guy writing the contractor a cheque, presumably knowing he was going to immediately stop payment - that's skirting with fraud, if he had a problem, he should have just refused to pay. Franamax (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, as I understand it there are three (or more) types of crossed cheques although the precise meaning may vary depending on your jurisdiction. For example here in NZ, a crossed cheque without anything written [32] is payable to an account only but any account no matter who you write is supposed to receive it. In this case, I presume you will be liable to anyone who legally receives the cheque. In other words, if you you give it to someone who gives it to someone (e.g. a cheque encashment service), you'd probably be liable to the third party regardless of what dispute you have with the second party. (You agreed to pay money, the third party accepted that and agreement from the second party in good faith, the fact you no longer want to pay money to the second party is not the concern of the third party, that's between you and the second party.) Clearly if the cheque was stolen, things would be different and since it is paid to an account, it would hopefully be easier to track down the person who stole it. If a third party received the stolen cheque, you probably wouldn't be liable since the third party accepted a stolen cheque it's their responsibility although if you didn't cancel the cheque in time, you'd have to try and get your money back from the third party. Then there is a non negotiable crossed cheque. This cheque can only be paid to the person named unless the person named signs it over to another person. I suspect things would mostly be the same here if a third party accepts a cheque (you'd be liable) that was signed over to them by the second party. The primary difference would be that if it's stolen, the person who stole it can't bank it in nor can they transfer it to a third party. You'd be entitled to the money back from your bank if it were paid out. Then there is a non-transferable crossed cheque which in NZ is now the same thing as AC Payee only [33]. This can't be transferred to a third party so your bank should never pay the money out to a non-named party and if they do, you'd be entitled to get your money back. Nil Einne (talk) 08:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

TBH, in the UK I'd never heard of a company accepting a third-party cheque like that. However, doing my research properly, I find that Cash Converters in the UK do provide a third-party cheque cashing service (see this link for info), but there's a lot of checking to be done - verify the cheque, show three forms of ID, sign the back of the cheque, and so on.

I just noticed they also offer loans against your car at a staggering 437% interest - yikes!! Astronaut (talk) 04:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Loans at ludicrous interest rates are associated with those sorts of businesses here in the US as well (note the lead photo advertising both). --Random832 (contribs) 21:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Is "checque cheque encashment" anything like "check cashing?" Edison (talk) 06:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to "criticize" British spellings, it'd help if you bothered to type them correctly. Malcolm XIV (talk) 08:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I misspelled an unfamiliar word. But I cannot find the criticism of which you complain. It was a reasonable question which led to a much needed explanation of a practice of drawing lines on checks which is unknown in the U.S. This is not a private chat room for people from one English speaking country, but an international encyclopedia, so sometimes clarifications are necessary and useful. Edison (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"Cheque encashment" sounds like the U.S.'s check cashing -- in the specific sense of check-cashing services that you find mainly in low-income neighborhoods, sometimes in the same place as the payday loan businesses. These are surrogates for banks. Middle-class people have bank accounts; a good chunk of the lower class doesn't, and some of them don't want one.

My brother once worked for an armored-car company and spend long days in one of their vehicles parked outside the office of the state employment commission. Essentially, he and his partner sat in the truck, cashing unemployment checks -- presumably for people who lacked a bank account.

I'm guessing that a "crossed check" is a check made out to A, signed by B, which A then endorses or "signs over" to C -- so C wants to cash a check made out to A. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Crossed cheques (checks) are a British weirdness.

• In the US, if I write a check to Joe, only Joe can cash it - unless he "endorses" it or "signs it over" to George by signing the check on the back somewhere. In fact, when you put a check into the bank, you have to endorse it over to them in order that they can turn it in to the bank it's written against.

• In the UK, THEORETICALLY, Joe can just give the cheque to George and George can just cash it without any special endorsement by Joe - UNLESS the person who wrote the cheque "crosses" it. This is done simply by drawing two large, parallel vertical or diagonal lines across the front of the cheque - to "cross" the lines with the amount and the recipient's name. A "crossed" cheque can only be cashed by the person it's made out to (Joe in this case)...there is no possible way for George to cash it instead. Joe can also take my (uncrossed) cheque and cross it himself so nobody but he can cash it - which is safer for him.

Now - clearly, you don't want cheques that are going through the mail to pay your electricity bill getting stolen and cashed by just anyone - which CAN happen with uncrossed cheques because they are essentially just like cash. So crossing your cheques is a VERY common and important thing to want to do. So common in fact that most banks issue pre-crossed cheques by default. My British Barclays Bank cheque book has two vertical lines printed across the front of every cheque - if I want "uncrossed cheques" I have to order them specially. So this whole "crossing" thing has rather passed into the history books. These days, pretty much all cheque books issued to individuals are "crossed" by default.

I vaguely recall that there was a time (I believe in Ireland) maybe 20 years ago(?) when the banks were on strike for a protracted period and people used uncrossed cheques just like cash. You'd be paid with an uncrossed cheque - you'd keep it and use it to pay some bill and get another uncrossed cheque as "change" - cheques got handed around all over the place and when the banks reopened, everything got sorted out.

Sadly, this doesn't help our OP. I have no clue how cheque-cashing services can do what they do - probably they have to make special arrangements to be treated like bank branches.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The proofs of id and address and the process for first-time users described here, for example, sound very similar to the process of opening an account at a high-street bank. So maybe the cheque cashing company in effect opens an account in your name, and makes you a cash loan of, say, 98% of the face value of the cheque, which leaves the account overdrawn. When the cheque clears they take 2% of the funds as commission and pay the rest into your account with them, which clears the overdraft. So, in effect, the cheque has been deposited in an account in your name - you just don't realise it. (I haven't found a source that actually describes how this works, so this is speculation !) Gandalf61 (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you'd need to look under "Bills of Exchange". An uncrossed cheque (which is the norm in Canada) is a bill of exchange whose value is the face value. It can be exchanged for valuable consideration - if you write a cheque to me, I can endorse the back of it and sell it to someone else. A crossed cheque is different in that you restrict the value to be only vested in the payee, who can only exchange it with a bank. It is an old British concept, is part of Canadian law but not well known. It's probably in some US statute from 1720 or something too, but completely unheard of. Interesting cultural cross-overs in this thread... Franamax (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, there is some analogy in US law, if you have JSTOR access: [34]. Franamax (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

My chequebook is not crossed (I'm in NZ) and I did not make a special request. Also the existance of different types of crossing that I mentioned above seems to hold (or at least once did) in quite a number of Commonwealth countries e.g. South Africa, Canada, Singapore, India, and of course the UK. Also see [35]. So in other words, before talking about crossed cheques, we really need to define what sort of crossed cheques we are talking about as they have different effects. Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm primarily asking about the UK, and I believe almost all cheques in the UK are pre-crossed with "Account Payee" (at least, mine are!), so let's go with those. --Tango (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, here's an answer paid for with your TV license fees: [36] Here's another q on the same subject: [37]. As I said above, the rule is observed in the breach. Cheques flow just fine until there is a problem - at that point, whoever accepted the crossed cheque is on the hook. This means that the third-party encashment service has crafted an agreement with their clearing bank that they will accept liability for any disputed crossed cheques, and almost certainly are required to keep funds on deposit to cover their maximum liability (I'm thinking that the bank will require them to keep 2-4 weeks turnover in a deposit account). Since the vast majority of encashment customers are legitimate (desperate, but legitimate), the service can charge a rate sufficient to cover the occasions when they are defrauded.

This system can work because the clearing bank itself has almost no risk in the transaction. Unlike us average joe's, banks sit on both sides of the transaction, so they can just withhold funds and get their own cash money back from wherever it's most convenient.

This is not much different than opening a merchant account with a credit-card company. They will require you to keep funds on deposit with them sufficient to cover your own mistakes and to cover the risk you present. For instance, the CC company will keep enough of your money to cover potential claims for returned merchandise and potential frauds. If the CC company sees your merchant account getting a lot of claims for defective merchandise, they will increase your holdback amount (or cut you off). There are also escalating deposit balances required depending on whether you want a signature-only, CC-number-over-the-phone and web-entry credit-card payments. Translation: the card company tilts the field so that they lose as little as possible.

Same thing applies to cheque-encashment. If you wish to start such a company, you will have to approach a bank to get your third-party cheques cleared. Expect them to lay down very clear terms as to how that works, and to give you a very definite number of the cash you need to deposit to even begin such an enterprise. Franamax (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic, thank you! --Tango (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Job

What are the easiest high paying jobs around? As in one that you use the least amount of effort for money gained. (Preferably those that don’t require a uni degree). cheers 203.202.144.223 (talk) 03:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia editor. ...oops...sorry...was reading upside down. :-D --Scray (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Being a socialite and endorsing lots of things would probably do it. It's not a "job" that's easy to get into, though. Some other celebrity jobs would also qualify. Most other highly paid jobs require either very hard work or significant skill or talent. --Tango (talk) 03:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably no longer true, but some city traders supposedly don't have a degree and get a six-figure salary and similarly large bonuses. Astronaut (talk) 04:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC) (edit)... come to think of it, that business is very cutthroat and I guess the work itself take a lot of effort. Astronaut (talk) 04:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, TANSTAAFL my friend. If there was a perfect job that anyone could get, required minimal effort, needed no prior training or experience, and paid you enough to afford an affluent lifestyle, we'd all have it. People get paid because other people place a value on the services they provide. Unfortunately, providing no valuable service doesn't often get paid very much. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

My friend works for a local counsel (in Australia) he gets paid $35 an hour to stand still holding a stop sign. On occasions he may have to turn that sign to the "slow" side to allow the infrequent traffic to move through. There has to similar jobs to this one??? 203.202.144.223 (talk) 05:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

When I first read that a few days ago, I couldn't work out why a counsel employed stop-sign holders (I was imagining some complicated Court procedure, or parking warden) but it suddenly came to me just now that it's a council worker! I had to pick myself up off the floor I was laughing so hard. I'm a little slow on the uptake, sometimes... Gwinva (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

A nice illustration that "hard" is subjective. Sounds perfectly dreadful. --Scray (talk) 05:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Standing still and holding a sign for hours on end does sound rather hard. Legs get sore, your mind wanders, you get bored easy. Plus, essentially your standing in the middle of the road; so if the 17 year old playing with her cell phone isn't paying attention, you become her new hood ornament. That kind of hazard sounds rather bad too. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Package subprime mortgages into collateralized securities and sell them to foreign investors! Oh wait, that's been done. Plasticup ^T/C 05:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Marry well!--Artjo (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

...and Divorce early.

Seriously - the law of supply and demand operates here. Economics 101: If a job is easy and well paid and requires no special skills or training - then large numbers of people will apply for it. The potential employer will realise that if he offered less pay - then there would still be plenty of applicants. Hence the pay falls to the point where either the legal "minimum wage" statute kicks in - or nobody will do the work for that little money. It follows that the only way to get a high paying job that's not difficult or physically taxing is to have a rare set of abilities. Unless you are biologically different (maybe an extra arm or something) - or were born a savant or a 'natural' baseball pitcher, concert pianist or something - you're pretty much forced into learning a skill set that is in demand - yet few others have. Of course when such niche jobs appear, and if the training is easy - then more people will rush to learn that skill and again the pay involved will settle down to "what the market can stand". So I don't think you'll find what you're looking for. In the end, your best bet is (yes, I know you've heard this before!): Work hard in school, go to college - learn a skill that you enjoy exercising - and you'll get a job that you'll enjoy doing. My job is interesting - challenging but not painfully so - and I'd probably pay them to let me do it if they didn't pay me! But to get there I needed a modicum of natural ability - a decent degree and a lot of years doing less interesting jobs to build up the experience I needed to get here. But I now have a fairly rare skill-set, honed to perfection - and I get well paid jobs that I love doing. But (as Jayron32 said) TANSTAAFL - it takes effort to get there. SteveBaker (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That supply and demand control the price of labor is absolutely true—what happens though, is that the market only works efficiently for jobs in private enterprise that don't have to deal with strong unions. Your $35/hour road-crew buddy works for the government, and probably somebody knew somebody else to get him the gig, or he got lucky. If something changes, or he gets too comfortable and screws up (oversleeping too often most likely), he'll be out on the street with zero skills. Something to keep in mind when selecting careers—look for something that potentially leads somewhere else that you also want to be. Darkspots (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

How about Realtor (Estate Agent to my non-NorthAmerican friends)? A few months training is usually enough, and over here a single sale will net you many thousands of dollars. Unfortunately now may not be the best time to get into it...DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't they have pretty low salaries, though? If you don't get a decent number of sales, you get very little money. Getting lots of sales requires hard work. --Tango (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, I don't think it's a particularly good time to become a real estate agent in many Anglosphere developed countries... Nil Einne (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I have seen jobs which were easy, high paying and for which there were no special qualifications such as education or special training. They were jobs in a privately owned factory occupied by sons of the owner, who were amiable enough but lazy and lacking in ambition. They could come in when they felt like it and do a little undemanding work, for very high rates of pay. In extreme cases, it is not even necessary to show up. Businesses and local government sometimes have similar jobs for family members of political leaders and their cronies. The only requirement for getting such a job would be to be related to or friends with the right people. Edison (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, prostitution. No need for a uni degree and well paid considering the amount of work you have to put in. Legal in some countries. Also horrendous, imho, but having fun while working was not part of the question. Lova Falk (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Kim Kardashian has seemed to have discovered an easy, well-paying job. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Socialite was my answer right at the top, it's not an easy "career" to get into, though. --Tango (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Bed tester --132.216.22.163 (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Going around to yard sales, buying a whole bunch of electronic crap and collectables for next to nothing, and then selling it all on eBay. I reccommend a BlackBerry or similar device so that you'll know what the market is before you buy, however. Wait a miunte, why am I telling you my secrets?! :) GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Another one that makes money, but isn't reccomendable because you can lose more money than you make, is doing illegal stuff (examples: stealing, scamming, selling drugs, blackmale, but don't actually do any of that, I'm just joking). Of course, I'll report you on the spot if you do it on the internet! :P GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

In many countries, these aren't exactly easy jobs, particularly if you want to actually make money and not get rich... Nil Einne (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

While you can make a lot of money buying things and selling them on ebay, I don't think you'll make much without working hard at it. --Tango (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Moats for fire control

Are moats ever built solely or primarily to control wildfire? NeonMerlin 05:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The principle of creating a firebreak in areas prone to wildfires is common. The idea is to create zones of unburnable areas to stop the spread of wildfires. The most common method is to use a controlled burn to pre-burn an area, thus when the wildfire comes through, it reaches an area whose fuel has already been consumed, and thus cannot spread. However, digging a wide ditch (which is essentially all a moat is) appear to be common as well. See the link above on firebreak... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that you mean a water-filled moat, Google searching on the likely keyword combinations didn't turn up anything useful. There are several problems inherent in creating such a firebreak. First, where do you get the water to fill it? Wildfires are common at dry times of the year, when water is likely to be in short supply on the ground. The fires spread effectively because the forest is dry. Second, how do you keep the water in? All that dry, thirsty soil means that you'll be left with (at best) a slightly muddy ditch if you don't line your moat with something relatively waterproof. That's going to cost you. Third, you don't get that much extra effectiveness in stopping the fire by digging and filling a moat compared to the much faster process of simply clearing the ground ahead of the wildfire. (Width of non-flammable terrain is much more important than depth—wind will carry the fire easily across a narrow crevice, water-filled or not.) Fourth, it's difficult to bring heavy ditchdigging equipment up into the hills.

I can see a moat being used for cosmetic reasons to protect certain high-value, small-area features, but it's just not a worthwhile strategy for fighting a wildfire. In principle, a moat of moderate size and with proper waterproofing could also be used as a reservoir for a building's fire-suppression equipment, to encourage a wildfire to pass around the structure. I don't know of any examples off the top of my head, but that doesn't mean someone hasn't tried it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Little House on the Prairie (not the most academic of sources, but at least based on first-hand memories) has a homesteader ploughing a furrow around his house, then starting a small fire just outside the furrow, as protection against wildfire. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a basic firefighting technique, variously known as a backfire, backburn, or burnout. --Carnildo (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Shakespeare in Love

The section Shakespeare_in_Love#Historical_accuracy says that the movie has several comic anachronisms, including a mug marked "A present from Stratford-on-Avon"; Shakespeare leaping into a ferry and saying "Follow that boat!"; Queen Elizabeth I remarking "Have a care with my name or you will wear it out". Can someone please explain to me why these are anachronisms. 192.8.211.11 (talk) 06:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

With the first one, decorated mugs, plates etc for the tourist market did not become the fashion until - well, I don't know exactly, but I'd be surprised if it was any earlier than around the 1850s. Stratford didn't become a tourist attraction until the 19th century or later, and there would have been no mugs of that kind - or maybe no mugs at all - back in Shakespeare's day. "Follow that car" came into vogue after the arrival of, you guessed it, the motor car. It's a well-known movie cliche for someone hopping into a taxi and having the driver take him wherever the car he's following goes. I'm not saying nobody ever used that form of words in Shakespeare's day, but in the sense they were using it, it's a 20th century invention, and thus anachronistic to apply it to the 16th or the 17th. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Tom Stoppard's well known for his affection for Shakespeare, and so the film's screenplay is in someways a loving, playful bouquet. Another anachronism has young Will consulting a person who's clearly a shrink, dressed in Elizabethan garb. Will's got writer's block, and gets a potion to help dispel it. People in the 1500s no doubt had mental illness, and sometimes talked with others about it, but the format is clearly a reference to our own time.

Again, Geoffrey Rush's character is based loosely on Philip Henslowe, whose "diaries" are an important source of information about the Elizabethan theater. In the film, handbills eventually appear with a Hollywood-like lead-in (Philip Henslowe presents a Rose Theater production, a King's Men play... sorry, couldn't find an image of the handbill). This is not how plays were promoted in the 1500s, though promoted they were. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(Just as a note, the "talking method" of psychiatry—with an analyst and funny chair—did not originate until the very late 19th century.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"That's my name, don't wear it out" is most likely a pretty recent phrase (though I don't know for sure). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oddly, we have very little on the history of commemorative items. However, from watching the Antiques Roadshow, I'm sure I remember seeing rare examples of plates commemorating events - usually coronations - from the late 17th century. Whether this trade was in existence in Shakespeare's time, and whether it extended to other items, I don't know. As I understand it, the Western practice of bringing back souvenirs from a trip really dates from the Grand Tour, so probably originated at a similar time. Warofdreams talk 14:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

A subject well overdue for an article, methinks. Any takers? (Anyone who claims the Ref Desk doesn't earn its stripes in identifying gaps in our articles doesn't know what they're talking about.) -- JackofOz (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

An article on what, commemorative souvenirs? —Tamfang (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Devotional medals and pilgrim badges were probably common in the middle ages. Though few would probably say "a souvenir from Canterbury" or anything like that they would have an image of a saint which would identify where it was from and would probably be more effectively in those less literate times. Some small place like Stratford-on-Avon would not have any tourist or pilgrim trade at that time. meltBanana 19:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, Tamfang, that sort of thing. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There are quite a lot of commemorative items from Queen Victoria and Prince Albert's wedding, I don't know if there were any for the Queen's coronation or not. Perhaps the wedding was the first real commemorative period? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hikers in the Alps got little metal plaques from each village they passed through, and which they affixed to their walking stick (is alpenstock the correct term?). This was widespread in the late C19, if my recollection of Mark Twain's A Tramp Abroad is correct. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The article bestseller cites some early examples of spin-off products, such as The Sorrows of Young Werther porcelain figures and even an eau-de-cologne, but that's still roughly 175 years after the bard's time... Asav (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Robbing a bank

If someones robs a bank, hides the money, get caught and don't give the money back, may he keep the money? I am assuming that the law will not live you in jail indefinitely and you could have spent the money... Mr.K. (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You'll initially have been convicted for robbery. If on release you start spending the loot, you open yourself to new charges along the lines of handling stolen goods. So no, getting to the end of your robbery sentence does not mean you can enjoy the loot without further legal difficulties. This question is related to the concept of double jeopardy, but since the offences are distinct, I don't think that concept applies in this circumstance. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't buy that explanation. That just begs the question: What happens if he goes to jail for robbery - comes out, spends some of the money - gets charged with handling stolen goods and does MORE jail time - THEN what happens when he comes out and tries to spend more of the money? He certainly can't be charged with handling the same stolen goods again - because that certainly would be double-jeopardy. So does he get to keep it after two jail terms? I don't think so - so I think this explanation is wrong.

Worse still - what if the Statute of Limitations kicks in when the person is in jail? Under those circumstances - he can't be charged with handling stolen goods when he comes out because that crime happened too long ago. So what happens then? That's why you need the "Proceeds of Crime" act. But even without that - the money still legally belongs to the person it was stolen from (or perhaps their insurance company) - the crime didn't somehow transfer the ownership to the criminal. Therefore if the robber does reveal that he has the loot after he's done his jail time - and even after the statute of limitations has run out - then he surely can't simply spend it, legally and openly. It hasn't somehow magically become "his money" - he has to give it back, right? The only question is under what law do you sue him to make him give it to you? You need the law because he may spend all of the loot on a fancy car or something - then you need to allow the person the money was stolen from to sieze (and sell) the car in order to reclaim at least a part of his losses. I believe that the "Proceeds of Crime" act is intended more to prevent the criminal from making a pile of money by selling his story to the press or making money from movie rights or something. SteveBaker (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think your P1 is a misreading of double jeopardy. If he robs, is imprisoned and released, spends some loot, is done for handling, imprisoned and released again, and then spends some more, the set of facts changes and he could, would & should be had up for handling again. The Proceeds of Crime acts are, in my understanding, predicated very much more on recovering assets from criminals, than preventing enrichment from selling stories. And that act also removed the obligation to find the actual cash made/acquired by the crime, meaning that many more criminals can be subjected to the sanction. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

arrrghhh, no it doesn't beg the question. --LarryMac | Talk 13:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does. The English language is defined by how people use it. "begging the question" is used far more to refer to "requires the question to be asked" than the logical fallacy it used to mean, so the meaning of the phrase has change. Keep up or get out of the way! --Tango (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The formal sense of the term is a subset of the vernacular sense. —Tamfang (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Tangentially to this tangent...I have never heard of "vernacular" being used as a synonym for "colloquial". Is that your meaning? reference.com says they are synonyms, so I guess it is correct. Plasticup ^T/C 03:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I mean "colloquial"; two members of the same profession (e.g. logicians) may use terms of art (e.g. beg the question) in their specialized sense while conversing in a colloquial register (e.g. saying ain't). —Tamfang (talk) 08:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The statute of limitations would likely never come into play. Let's say I rob a bank and get put away for fifty years (i.e. for armed robbery, maybe I killed a guy during escape, etc.). I then get out, crack open the safe I've been keeping the loot in and start spending it. I'm now trafficking in stolen goods; the fifty years in the slammer had no bearing on the statute of limitations because the crime occurred after I got out of prison. Matt Deres (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think SB has misunderstood the Proceeds of Crimee Act (which exists in many countries). While it's true such laws usually prevent a criminal from selling their story, they are also intended to prevent criminals from profiting from crimes in any fashion. Depending on the country/law, they may for example make it so someone found guilty of a serious crime has to prove their property was obtained legally (which is generally controversial for obvious reasons) or otherwise it will be seized. They aren't of course so much directed at bank robbers (although they would apply) but more at organised crime, drug offences and stuff like that Nil Einne (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

In 1996 here in Ireland the "Proceeds of Crime Act" was passed allowing the Criminal Assets Bureau to seize assets believed to be obtained through criminal activity. You don't have to identify the loot itself. The UK passed a law of the same name and scope in 2002. There may be similar laws in other rcountries. Fribbler (talk) 13:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If money had been in storage for, say, 20 years, and you handed over a handfull of it to buy something, it would stand out to the cashier, in contrast to the newer bills other customers presented. It would be necessary to spend it only in small batches. If an attempt were made to deposit it in large amounts at a bank, it would really raise a red flag. It could be sold to a fence in exchange for new money, but the fence would pay an increasingly small fraction of face value as the money got older and trickier to spend. Most of hijacker D.B. Cooper's $200,000 in 20 dollar bills from 1971 was not recovered, but anyone trying to spend the bills now would stand out compared to those spending newer currency. Ironically someone found a portion of the Cooper payoff in 1980, and got to keep a portion of it as a reward. $300 of the money (face value) was auctioned for $37,000 to collectors. In that case, the serial numbers of the loot are on record. Edison (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You might find this story along those lines interesting. --Sean 14:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Question about when patent numbers stopped showing on items

First time user, long time watcher.....:)

I want to know when patent numbers stopped being printed on items. As a child, I always saw patent dates printed, then patent numbers, then it seems it went to just "Pat'd", and then nothing. I have an item with a patent number, no date. It is probably from the 1960's, and I would like to know when numbers stopped appearing on items, or if there is a source for date checking patents by number.

Thanks! Jim Buckmeister2 (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

For looking up US patents, you can go to uspto.gov. Here's their patent number search and other patent searches. Patents from 1790 to 1975 are only available as TIFF images, and require a TIFF plug-in to view. But if you just want to know the date of the patent, that will be displayed without needing to install a TIFF plug-in. --Bavi H (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually a far easier way to look up US patents is Google Patents. No plug-ins required and they are full-text all the way back. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me RefDesk-ers, but where are our manners? We ought to be congratulating Jim on crossing the boundary from reading to writing! Welcome to the community, sir! Plasticup ^T/C 02:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, welcome across the Rubicon. But I think Bucky was asking then manufacturers got out of the habit of stamping Patnet 4,234,567 on their products. I have no answer, but I would not want him/her disappointed by our inability to understand the intent of the question. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, we answered the point about "date checking patents by number", which I interpreted as asking about how you can tell the date of a given patent number (which is pretty easy—just plug it into Google Patents and it'll tell you when it was granted, which gives you a time window of when it was in effect). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Question re legality of "looking at child porn"

In some jurisdictions even looking at child porn is illegal. How does this work for the police when searching a suspects computer? If they can't look at it how can they tell what it is and prostitute? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.227.119.175 (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"Include a title with your question. Please make the title meaningful. A word or two that briefly tells us the subject of the question would be very helpful. Questions headed "Question" or "Query" give readers no idea what the question is about. Such titles should be avoided." Malcolm XIV (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

What jurisdictions do you have in mind? Federal legislation in the U.S. (18 U.S.C. 2251, 2252) identifies four types of crime related to child pornography: production, trafficking, receipt, and possession. A law enforcement officer who, for example, locates the child pornography on someone's computer is no more breaking the law than she would be in taking possession of illegal drugs found in the desk drawer while executing an appropriate search warrant.

(I've taken the liberty of changing the title of this question.) --- OtherDave (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Note the Freudian Slip of the OP, replacing 'prosecute' with 'prostitute' :) He even supplied us with his IP..... :)--ChokinBako (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If someone searches for it via Google or other search engine, there may be a record of the search having been done from that IP address stored at the websearch host. The site viewed is likely to have a list of all IP addresses which visited the site and what they looked at. If it is saved to the hard drive, it would be very difficult to remove it. Merely deleting a file leaves it on the drive. If it is saved to a CD, nonvolatile thumbdrive or other storage media, that would be physical evidence. If someone clicks on a popup link or a link received via email, looks at an illegal image, and deletes it, the site viewed is stored in the viewing history for the browser on the user's computer, until that is cleared. The computer ref desk could probably advise as to whether clearing the history of sites viewed really removes it. We cannot provide legal advice as to whether merely looking at such images is prosecutable in the many legal systems of the world. Edison (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

A cop who chases a speeding car is also speeding, but they're immune from prosecution because they're engaged in the act of apprehending offenders. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

They can still get in trouble if they do it dangerously, though. --Tango (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh of course. I was just making an analogy. A cop who's investigating a child porn racket may unavoidably view illegal images, that's OK. If they go the extra mile and collect their own private database of images, that's not OK, and they'll run the same risk as the offenders they're chasing. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Reasons To Dislike The UK

After the above US-version, I would be interested to know what people who are not from the UK think. We Brits, personally, hate the place and our government, and our 'credit crunch', and housing crisis, and the rest I could write. But, foriegners do not experience it like we do. Anyone want to start?--ChokinBako (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

RefDesk is not a forum, please stop adding to this thread

They don't ask original questions? :-) Well, the stereotypical Brit has this kind of class orientation thing that we Canucks find puzzling. Worried about who is more closely related to the ninth earl of Bumwick or whatever. In Canada, we know we're not a huge international power; what pull we have seems to stem from the idea that we're a bunch of nice guys and if we're scolding you, it must mean you're in the wrong, y'know? Brits seem to think they're still a significant power in the world, when that hasn't been the case in half a century. That's not really a dig at Brits, per se, but their government's foreign policy. Oh yeah, and that accent you hear on EastEnders just sounds completely put on and fake. To my ears, even the broadest Texan, Aussie, or Newfie accent at least sounds legitimate, but not those. I still like Brits though! Matt Deres (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

When did the reference desk become a forum? When did personal opinion pass for questions (or answers for that matter)? DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

We Americans just love the UK. Especially if it is the country our ancestors came to America from before that unpleasantness in the 1770's, and especially if we watch the great programs from the BBC and read novels by British authors. It is the only place I go for foreign vacations. Roger Miller said it best in his 1966 hit "England Swings [38]. Edison (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Robert Mugabe certainly has something against us... ask him! --Tango (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I like most things about the UK, but the big exception for me is the utter shemozzle when it comes to Terminology of the British Isles. I know this now includes Ireland as well, but it used to be part of the UK. Is there any other nation on Earth that uses so many names in different contexts? There's no such person as the "Queen of England", but people regularly refer to her that way because saying it any other way is just too hard. There are countless debates here about whether a given notable person is British rather than English, Welsh, Scottish or Irish. Can't they all just agree to be British first and whatever else second? That's the recognised demonym for the whole country and it's what's on their passports. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

<rant>Right, I ignored the previous "reasons to dislike the usa" soapbox. But I've got something on this one: 1) Who won the war Germany? Oh really, only 5% of German troops ever fought against a British soldier in world war II. So the answer is probably the Soviet Union. 2) We're all British! Sorry, says who? That "identity" was forged militarily, not by any love for a super national state. Thats one of the reasons we left. 3)....well not much else to be honest, well maybe the famine, Northern Ireland etc. but in general I like the UK. Great place to visit, very much similar to ourselves, and great craic....But anyway Jack, I don't think the people of the UK need to "accept" their Britishness. It was imposed and is voluntary, no? </rant> Fribbler (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Right, well it seems so far, that only the people who live in the United Kingdom Of Great Britain Northern Ireland actually don't like it or think it is so 'great'. This is why we all thrive to live abroad!!!--ChokinBako (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Except me. Republic of Ireland. By a few mile south. :-) Fribbler (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice one, Fribbler, but I am a scouser! The only reason we Brits can be proud about 'winning the war' is because we are the only European nation that Germany attacked and yet never had a single enemy boot on the ground, being an island nation with storms all over the English Channel helping to defend these isles, much like the kamikaze that saved the Japanese from Mongol attacks a thousand years earlier. In fact, no foreign boots have been on our soil since 1066. Not many nations can claim that.--ChokinBako (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This is very soapboxy. But I'll bite. Germany never invaded the UK, other than the channel islands. Hey, we got a few stray German bombs too. So even my hometown was "attacked"; so the UK wasn't the only country "attacked" without boots on the ground. A thing that irks me about English nationalists (and yes, they are rarely Welsh or Scottish) is the idea that England seen the worst during the Blitz. I think it's insulting to Warsaw, Stalingrad, Dresden and the like. Germany was distracted by a war on many fronts. Don't pretend you won in a staring match. Not being invaded wasnt due to Stiff Upper Lip, rather luck. Damn, I'm exhausted by ranting....anyhoo this whole thing can be boiled down to yes, there are people who dislike the UK. Thank you :-) Fribbler (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Now, that nicely illustrates my point above about terminological confusion. The Channel Islands are part of the British Isles, and also part of the British Islands (different thing) - but they are NOT part of Great Britain, and they are NOT part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The question was about the UK. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. But the "British Isles" debate is one I've only seen on WP. Anyone I know happily lives in the British Isles. I don't think that's the point of "Reasons to Dislike the UK".Fribbler (talk) 23:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'd like to suggest removal of this thread. It will never lead to a conclusion, and provides a soapbox to, well, people like me, :-) and others. We should deal in facts. Fribbler (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Because when you go to an Indian restaurant in the UK, instead of smiling and saying, "Hello, what can I get you this evening," the waiter scowls and says disinterestedly, "Yes, please." And then when you ask for salad dressing he looks at you like you're from Mars and says "Salad ... dressing???" And if you try to strike up a conversation with the guy next to you at the bus stop he looks at you like you're a child molester. And when you go to a pub on a Saturday to watch college football on NASN the manager says he can't turn any of the TVs off rugby. And they invented The Mosquito. And the concentration camp. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'd like to suggest removal of this thread. It will never lead to a conclusion, and provides a soapbox to, well, people like me, :-) and others. We should deal in facts. Fribbler (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. I've refactored and collapsed it as a preliminary step. Franamax (talk) 01:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

kosher salt

I ate a pinch of kosher salt straight out of the box. Now my throat feels a little tight and I feel like I am going to vomit. What should I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.141.241 (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ask a doctor? Technically, this is a medical question, I guess, but really, there's not a thing wrong with eating a bit of salt "straight up". You probably feel nauseous because of the strong taste; if it really made people sick, pretzels would be outlawed! On the other hand, there may be something wrong with ya that's completely unrelated to the salt at all, which is why you may want to get a Doc to look at you. Matt Deres (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Drink some water. And stop eating salt. Too much can destroy your kidneys.--ChokinBako (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been drinking water for hours and my throat still feels tight and I still can't shake that feeling that I'm about to throw up. What else should I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.141.241 (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

See a doctor or call a nurse-advice line if you have one in your area. Franamax (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If you fear that the salt was significantly different from other salt because of the word "kosher", questioner, put your mind at rest. Kosher salt is in no way chemically any different from almost all other salt. Quote from our article: "Kosher salt gets its name not because it follows the guidelines for kosher foods as written in the Torah (nearly all salt is kosher, including ordinary table salt), but rather because of its use in making meats kosher". A coarser form is used for this purpose, rather than the finer form we normally use. So, there's certainly nothing about it chemically that's causing any problem. It would have to have been a really huge grain to scratch the lining of your throat. Maybe you caught a bug at around the same time, and the bug's causing the problem, not the salt. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

See a doctor. Everyone, remember we can't give medical advice (and some of the answers above are crossing dangerously close to that line). Even if we think salt couldn't possibly cause anything wrong, that doesn't mean there couldn't be something wrong that's not caused by the salt. --Random832 (contribs) 21:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, that person could have some kind of intolerance to salt that we don't know about, and it is for reasons such as this that we have the medical disclaimer. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. Kosher salt is just salt; it's just ground more coarsely and doesn't have iodine added. You can't have an intolerance for kosher salt and not for "normal" salt. The only way it can harm you is by raising your sodium levels. If the OP feels sick, s/he should see a doctor, but the salt has nothing to do with it. Matt Deres (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(Distinctive) Evil Women, fictional or real

I have been invited to a fancy dress partner and the rules are - go as someone/something evil. I'm fine (as a male) because there's loads of choice it seems, but it's much harder for my girlfriend. Any ideas beyond witches? Ideally it would something quite distinctive so once people are told who it is they can 'see' it (or better still can guess purely from the outfit). Any help/ideas would be brilliant, the more the better.ny156uk (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Depending on her looks (hair color and length) it might be easy to create a recognizable likeness of some female politician who is not liked by a portion of the American public. The views of those at the party might vary as to whether a particular woman was evil. Edison (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Cruella de Vil? The step-mother in Disney's Snow White? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.103.130 (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not make something really unexpectedly evil, like a bunny girl with a machine gun or a knife, or something really shocking like that? That would certainly turn some eyebrows. --ChokinBako (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it's obvious to point out you do not take along a real machine gun or a knife or your evening might end up more shocking than you expected... Lemon martini (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Kerrigan if the crowd is into PC games.--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Myra Hindley, if the boundaries of good taste are not a problem to you. Malcolm XIV (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Bella Abzug? Golda Meir? Betty Friedan? Blossom Rock? (I'm talking about looking evilish, not saying these ladies were evil). Oh, which reminds me - Morticia Addams or Lily Munster. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Anything with devil horns and a tail? Maybe that isn't "fancy dress" enough. Plasticup ^T/C 23:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher? Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

My most hated villian from all of fiction, surpassing Iago, the Marquise de Merteuil, and Sigmund Ausfaller, is Nurse Ratched. I'm not sure how you'd dress up like her, though, other than just dressing as a nurse, which people might misunderstand. --Trovatore (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Mrs. Bathory if you're into history mixed with pop culture.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Depending on the crowd, howabout just putting your hair up and wearing some glasses? ;-) (Oh, if only she were actually evil.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Eva Braun? Also Anne Coulter, who is I suppose more mean than evil. You could go Biblical and try Jezebel, Delilah, or Herodias. Cruella de Ville would be really really funny, too. I also like Maleficent, and Ursula would be funny. She could also go as a generic siren or harpy. My dad suggests any James Bone woman. Then there's Dolores Umbridge. --Masamage ♫ 02:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that that was a borderline-Freudian slip of the finger, and that Masamage actually meant James Bond's girls, and not James Bone's.... :D

On a more serious note, you can actually pull in a bunch of hits – real and fictional – by doing a Google search for list of evil women (movies) or some such. Many bloggers have made lists of their favourite evil ladies. AFI's 100 Years... 100 Heroes and Villains has a few female villians, though many have already been named above.

One more thought—could you be an evil couple? Adolf and Eva are a bit obvious, I suppose, but Bonnie and Clyde are a possibility. Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

What's so evil about poor Eva? Bad taste in men? (Now, Madam Ceauşescu is another story. Put her together with Nicolae and I think you've got something.) --Trovatore (talk) 04:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Joan Crawford, particularly in her title role in Mildred Pierce, or even as portrayed as she allegedly was in real life by Faye Dunaway in Mommie Dearest. A more evil bitch one could not find.

Oh, how remiss of me. I've just remembered Mrs Danvers as played by Dame Judith Anderson in Rebecca. (For those who don't know the movie, "Mrs. Danvers as conceived by Judith Anderson is widely considered one of the screen's most memorable and sexually ambiguous female villains".). -- JackofOz (talk) 04:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha, I did mean James Bond. Ooooopsy-doodle.

Also, coming back to this, my favorite entry so far has been Nurse Rached. She could wear a name tag, even, because nurses often do. Entirely awesome. --Masamage ♫ 04:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Dignitaries around the world born on August 31st

Who are the dignitaries born on August 31st who have created history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.88.91 (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Click on August 31 and you'll have a very comprehensive list. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2

Geographic jigsaw

All this recent talk of geographic ignorance leads me to ask if there’s such a learning aid as this:

An online jigsaw where the pieces are in the shape of countries, major islands etc. There's probably be something like 300 pieces. The pieces are upsized/downsized so that the areas are all equal, and all the learner has to go on is their shape. The player has to move them around so that they fit together, and a piece immediately assumes its correct size when it's put in the correct spot on the screen.

Anyone know of anything like this? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No. But the top hit for a google search of "geography quiz" leads to a very useful map website. Darkspots (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I had huge flashbacks when you brought this up. This has what you're looking for and more. However, you can't do the entire earth at once; you have to go by continent. Paragon¹²³²¹ 01:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a fun place for beginners. hydnjo talk 01:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, those are excellent. Exactly what I had in mind, only on a smaller scale. I went straight to Level 9 in Europe, and it was a lot harder than I expected. The US states weren't easy either (I had to cheat and use the borders.) Thanks. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The one Paragon mentioned is the one I always use. (Which is why, as was mentioned a few questions up, I CAN, in fact, find the state of Guerrero, as well as every other Mexican state. :) And many other obscure little places. I actually spend a lot of time on that site... I've been told I have way too much time on my hands...) I was excited when I saw this question, thinking, "Boy oh boy, Jack, have I got an answer for you!" And then I saw Paragon beat me to it... Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 03:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There's StatetrisAPL (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That's cool, too. Tks, APL. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I prefer the quiz over at Lizard Point. The maps.com one is too finicky for such a tiny picture and the handling is weird. This one has lots of quizzes, from continents to major cities to provinces/states. Matt Deres (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Abuse contact for Obama supporting teacher

Does anyone know what school district Kathy Sawada (creator of the vid of brainwashed kids singin' 'bout Obama)? Furthermore, does anyone know how to contact them? A district website would be good to know about. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Abuse? Please now—don't be hyperbolic. Anyway, she's at the Colburn School of Performing Arts. That took me a whole five seconds to find out via Google. And it really doesn't sound like she "brainwashed" them (their parents were involved)—nor does it sound like it was an official school activity, nor does it sound like there was any pressure to participate. (Judging by the self-description of their activities, anyway.) But hey, believe whatever the right wing blogs tell you to believe—they couldn't possibly be misreporting things for their own political agenda! Might as well fire off a few knee-jerk e-mails, right? Nothing like going bananas over nothing, eh? I mean, in the absence of not knowing for sure, why not just believe the anonymous internet commentators who believe that Obama is a "socialist" (but somehow have managed to avoid calling George W. Bush or John McCain that despite their desire to nationalize certain Wall Street institutions this week). They wouldn't lead you astray, no sir! --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, why do I see a padlock icon after the external link in the above passage? —Tamfang (talk) 08:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again, is it soapbox week on the RefDesks? We aspire to provide factual answers here, not opinions. Asking questions about "brainwashed kids" does not invite a factual answer (all kids are brainwashed doncha'know - it's called growing up). Political questions and polemical responses are not needed here, so let's just close this thread now. Regards. Franamax (talk) 06:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, the question is potentially a valid question if it wasn't phrased so poorly. Anyway you should be able to find any and all answers to the question at [39] so I don't see any further need to discussion of this matter Nil Einne (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

GO-PCHS-NJROTC has already indicated his desire that McCain win the election, I doubt this question was anything more than political propaganda. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Headset to hear dictations

Which is the best headset to hear and transcribe dictations even though the audibility is less and can be vaguely understood, ofcourse, with reasonable cost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.88.91 (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

commercial ice cream tubs

my roommates and I really love ice cream. Where can we buy ice cream in huge tubs like they have at ice cream shops? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.100.72 (talk) 02:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You may well be able to order them through your favorite ice cream shop! Or at least they can tell you who their supplier is. --Masamage ♫ 02:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ice cream stores I know would be delighted to sell you tubs of ice cream, especially if you let them know in time to add them to their weekly order from their supplier. They might not want to sell their only tub of a flavor and have other ice cream fans be disappointed. Try to negotiate a low price, rather than paying some "by the pint" or even "by the cone" price. But if you pig out on the tub of ice cream, beware of Brain freeze. (not medical advice). Edison (talk) 04:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Baskin and Robbins? Dairy Queen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.215.237 (talk) 02:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Geography/Social Studies Question

What do Baltimore, MD and St. Louis, MO have in common that no other U.S. cities have in common? Hint: has to do with location.--69.250.55.119 (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Both cities have been located under the same baseball team? (The Baltimore Orioles were once the St. Louis Browns.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Neither city is part of any county. They are considered "independent cities", and are not counties unto themselves (like Honolulu, Hawaii), nor consolidated city-counties (like Jacksonville, Florida) but are considered outside of any county. Outside of the state of Virginia (which has dozens of these) this is a rare situation. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, both lie on Interstate 70 and U.S. Route 40. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

So do Kansas City and Denver. CL — 04:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Both are (mostly) surrounded by eponymous counties that they aren't part of. St. Louis borders St. Louis County, Missouri (and Illinois); Baltimore borders Baltimore County, Maryland (and touches Anne Arundel County]]). In both cases, the cities were at one time part of the counties they are named for. —D. Monack ^talk 05:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Or which were named for them? —Tamfang (talk) 08:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

need list of what sells the most online...demographics,stats

would like to know where to find demographics or stats of what sells the most online thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meanzebra (talk • contribs) 04:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Pornography. Franamax (talk) 06:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Follow up question: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Job

OK, easy, well-paid jobs don't exist. However, what about easy unpleasant well-paid jobs, like perhaps something in the line of truck driver in Iraq, or mining in the Australian desert or working in an oil field somewhere.

Please, don't suggest prostitution. Whether is it easy and mostly nor even well-paid. Mr.K. (talk) 09:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how you can combine easy and unpleasant. Standing around holding a contruction road sign then. In the oil patch, you'd want to be in the construction / maintenance end of things where there are large bits of time when you wait for a crane and do nothing at all. You could try safety crew in a chemical plant - it pays fairly well, and it's hardly ever unpleasant, except when you're running towards the spill when everyone else is running away. Otherwise you're back to the usual - prostitute, drug-dealer, tobacco-smuggler.

Equipment operator in the oil sands at Fort McMurray also springs to mind. That's well-paid. Franamax (talk) 10:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

With easy I meant easy to get with low-qualifications. Equipment operator in the oil sands seems to be a good example in this direction. BTW, I told you not suggest prostitution. In many parts of the world, it is not considered a job. Mr.K. (talk) 10:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Working on an oil rig pays damn well from what I hear and I'd call it pretty unplesant stuck on a metal rig for several months 88.211.96.3 (talk) 10:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand refuse collection pays comparatively well for what (unless you're the driver) seems a low-skilled job. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You had it yourself—working for a U.S. government contractor in Iraq or Afghanistan. You'll make more money if you have military or law-enforcement experience, but no matter what, they need a lot of guys. And if you're a U.S. citizen, the first seventy grand or so of your income is tax-free. Darkspots (talk) 11:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The logical follow-up question of the follow-up question is: so, where do I get these kind of jobs? Mr.K. (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I would have said Bechtel off the top of my head. When I was talking to someone about this a couple years ago, that was the company they mentioned repeatedly. So I googled right now and found this. Not very encouraging, that. If you're seriously looking for a job, email me and I'll ask my contact what the story is today. Darkspots (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There is of course the classic job for the hard-up and untrained. Entry qualifications area minimal, all the training is paid for by the employer, the wages are OK, it gains relatively high respect, although it is (sometimes) unpleasant. I speak, of course, of joining the army. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I hear the guy who holds the construction sign gets paid up to $19 an hour, so that could qualify as easy, unpleasant, and well-paid. Useight (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you define 'easy' to be 'relatively unskilled', or 'no heavy lifting', or both? If you're willing to work in a desolate, miserable location for long hours and doing backbreaking labor, you can do quite well in mining. Get involved with something like Xstrata's Raglan mine project in northern Quebec: [40]. An acquaintance of mine did a bit of contract work up there. Apparently the miners are extremely well-paid, and have (IIRC) two weeks of time off between four-week stints at the mine. Downside is that there's nothing to do after work, and you're only a few degrees south of the Arctic Circle. (On the bright side, that means it's easy to save your cash....) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

From what I've heard, there's good money to be made in the housekeeping services that clean up after violent crimes. If you can cope with the psychological difficulty, scrubbing brain matter off of hotel room walls might qualify as 'easy work.' -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I want to go back to the just plain easy part. At least in Canada, start a charity. This stuff is priceless - you establish a charitable foundation with defined aims (whatever, something to do with blind children in Botswana is probably good) and get a tax deduction number. Now you contract with a charitable fund-raising organization to get out there and beat the bushes for money. They do all the work, and take only 70-80% of the money raised. If you've come up with a good story, they'll be able to raise decent money. Now you have funds coming in, which you have to distribute appropriately. Of course, to do it right you can't just give it all away immediately, you have to bank it and investigate the options. And of course, any decent foundation needs to have a managing director to oversee the process - and of course a decent charity has to pay its director appropriately. Nothing too extravagant, let's say $65,000 - $80,000 a year. Also, a book-keeper will be needed, at appropriate wages - let's say it's your wife, at the bargain rate of $30,000 per year. So let's look at the numbers: $500,000/year raised; 350,000 to the tele-fund-raisers; 100,000 to the noble organizers; 50,000 accumulated to do good works. Please think of the children! This is not fantasy at all, it describes a portion of registered charities in Canada. I'm sure they are all doing it for noble motives. What could be more noble than helping others? </cynicism> Franamax (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

e mail of naraynamurthy

what is the e mail adress of mr narayana murthy founder of infosys technologys?Ashokumar31 (talk) 10:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC) a k jain

It is very unlikely that you would find the e-mail address of someone like Mr Murthy available to the public. If you wish to contact him, you can write him a letter (To: Mr Murthy, Infosys Technologies...), or use his company's contact form to get closer to your goal. — QuantumEleven 12:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

At least one one in 10,000 people in India, that is, one hundred thousand Infosys employees, know his email id. Just curious, why you want that? --V4vijayakumar (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No spiders in damp buildings?

I am a chambermaid in a small hotel which has two wings - the North wing has damp walls but the South wing is ok. Every once in a while I have to remove cobwebs from the South wing but no cobwebs develop in the damp North wing. Is this s coincidence? Or can I assume that if I have spiders at home, my home is healthy? Thanks. 84.67.172.148 (talk) 10:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Since there are spiders in derelict and condemned buildings, the idea that "spiders indicate a healthy home" is unfounded. — Lomn 12:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Spiders, as i understand it, like warm places, so perhaps that is a factor? 194.221.133.226 (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there are no prey there so they didn't spin webs or perhaps there are jumping spiders there which don't spin webs.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Spiders indicate a home which is becoming healthy. If you have bugs, you will get spiders. They will stay until the bugs are gone, then the spiders will go away too. I'm no expert, but I'd think damp walls might not be conducive to web-forming spiders, since the damp would eventually creep over the web and reduce its trapping ability - thus favouring jumping spiders per Lenticel. Web-forming spiders will come to eat flying insects, hunting spiders will come for the creepy-crawlies. A "healthy" home will have almost no spiders - if they don't find insects, they don't stick around. Franamax (talk) 23:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yacht

I would like to purchase a yacht, but I dont know anything about them, so, is it possible to get one that will drive it self, eg if I want to sail from the South Africa to Florida, can I just punch in the relative info and ly back drinking beer with bikini clad woman while it steers itself, money is no problem —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You mean a yacht. Yeah, yachts can navigate by themselves to a point, but they would need a human to guide them into port. Plasticup ^T/C 14:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

And how much would one cost, I need one big enough to live on and through parties, how much is the upkeep? Thanks again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If you have to ask how much they cost, then you cant afford one!--GreenSpigot (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You dont get rich by spending willy nilly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

While saying "a yacht will steer itself" is true to some extent, it's a bit like saying "a plane will fly itself" because it has an autopilot. You still need someone competent to be in charge. If you are rich enough to be buying a party yacht you may as well hire a skipper to look after the boat while you party. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

South Africa to Florida is thousands of miles, it would probably take weeks in a pleasure yacht, that's not a journey you want to take without someone that knows what they're doing. --Tango (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Driving in a straight line might be simple enough for an autopilot, but doing things like avoiding weather, now, that's something I'd want a live, well trained human to do... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft autopilots can do many of those things - on a typical 9 hour transatlantic flight, the pilot actually takes the controls for a couple of minutes on takeoff - and for about 10 minutes on approach to the destination airport - and even that can be performed by the autopilot if necessary. SteveBaker (talk) 04:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The other issue is that vessels get tossed around with waves, wind etc, and go off course unless there's someone in charge making sure the vessel stays on course. While you're down the back making whoopee with the bikini chicks (probably bikini-less chicks by this stage), you might find yourself smashing into Brazil, or Cuba, or entering the Bermuda Triangle, never to be seen or heard from again. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

GPS-aided autopilots have no problem avoiding these issues. — Lomn 13:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Are they really that accurate? Assuming a calm sea, if I start out on the western side of South Africa and point my boat at Florida, and then go and read "War and Peace" down in the hold, can I really expect to finish up exactly where I pointed the boat at? What about the need to avoid other shipping? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Still, there's something nice in system redundancy... Having a live human backup is probably a good idea. Autopilot may be able to handle everything, but do you really trust it? Plus, what if some psycho tries to hook up with your hot wife, traps you in the hull of a sinking ship, and you have to sneak back on board your own boat to kill him with a flare gun. Hyh? What will you do then... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Even without the psychos, it would be good to have someone on board that knows how to use a flare gun! Also, if the boat sinks, I doubt the life-raft has an autopilot. --Tango (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Shipboard GPS-enabled autopilots would be easily able to navigate an ocean. I have a friend with a sailboat autopilot that can navigate small lakes (well, small as in Lake Ontario), an ocean is the same thing. Of course, in really heavy seas, you wouldn't want your autopilot putting you side-on to the waves trying to get to the programmed destination, so you would still want to have a boat-type-dude onboard. Port entrances could be tricky too, and I'd check the auto-unit to be sure it would sail around islands and reefs that might get in the way - it'd be a bugger if your programmed course included traversing Saint Helena or something equally inconvenient.

But mostly I'm commenting on the original mis-spelling. Because of my single-handed efforts, when you zoom in to the NRCan atlas, as here - well, let the email excerpts tell the tale:

• 11-Sep-07 To: info-atlas@nrcan.gc.ca I am disappointed to note the number of "Yatch" clubs shown, rather than the more accepted "Yacht".
• 11-Sep-07 From: info-atlas@nrcan.gc.ca I am forwarding your e-mail to the people responsible for the topographic maps.
• 18-Sep-07 To: info-atlas@nrcan.gc.ca Hey, looks like we have "Yacht" clubs now! Excellent response, many thanks.

So it's not just the RefDesk posters who get the spelling wrong, whole government departments do it too! :) Franamax (talk) 23:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Vaporware or Snake Oil

Can you name one item which you thought as Vaporware, or Snake Oil first when you heard of it, but truly it is not. --V4vijayakumar (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Our list of vaporware includes a (cited!) section on eventually-released products. Individual opinions, though, are generally outside the remit of the Reference Desk. — Lomn 16:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Vaporware is not quite the same thing as snake oil. Vaporware is something that's promoted as if it existed - but does not. That doesn't mean it's impossible for it to exist - and it's very common for things that were once vaporware becoming "real". Snake oil is something that is actually being sold that simply doesn't work as advertised - and commonly cannot work as advertised. Duke Nukem Forever is still vaporware - Hydrogen fuel enhancement for car engines or Homeopathic 'medicine' is snake oil. It's perfectly possible that Duke will finally make it onto the store shelves - but even though hydrogen fuel enhancement kits and homeopathic medicines are EASILY available, they do not, cannot and will not ever work.

So...

• Vaporware that finally appeared to my surprise...the Playstation 3 maybe. I was pretty sure the difficulties they had with making the darned thing would kill it. The International Space Station - I didn't think that would ever get funded enough to get it even close to finished (although I still don't understand what it's for exactly!). I'm beginning to think that the ultimate vaporware (Duke Nukem Forever) may yet see the light of day - that would be be ultimate 'from the grave' revival.

• Snake oil that became "real"...that's tougher...Speech recognition software maybe. That stuff was just utterly useless when it first came out in the 1980's - it didn't work worth a damn, yet it was advertised and sold as "You can do dictation into your computer right now!"...they claimed 90% recognition rates...but they didn't get close to that and even if they had - having to correct one word in ten would get really frustrating amazingly quickly! I didn't think I'd ever see it work - yet today it's quite routine for computerized call centers to ask you to speak names, numbers and such like and it works reliably - over nasty phone lines, with any speaker and a wide range of accents and (amazingly) without you having to "train" it for each speaker. Dictation software is still a little flakey - but it's getting better and better.

SteveBaker (talk) 02:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought the Optimus Maximus keyboard was vaporware as it was first unveiled in 2005 as a concept but didn't actually get built until 2007 and is now only just being released into the wild in bulk. It was even listed in the Vaporware Awards due to the amount of um'ing and ah'ing over it's release date. Nanonic (talk) 02:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Oooh! Yeah - that's an excellent example. Now it's finally out, at something like $800, it's transitioned from "Vaporware" into the merely "Silly" category. SteveBaker (talk) 04:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the best example is Project Xanadu. Seems to be one of the longest vapourwares that eventually became reality to me. In terms of vapourware vs snakeoil, some of the examples given as vapourware could probably be called snakeoil. E.g. Glaze3D. There was also Rainbow Storage but I removed that Nil Einne (talk) 09:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I went through many debates with the "inventor" of Rainbow storage - it was a ridiculous concept that could never possibly have worked - the guy had never even tried to store stuff in the way he claimed to be possible. His premise was (roughly) if you can print ASCII characters onto paper - you can store about 7 bits per character (ASCII coding - right) - but if you allow yourself to print triangles and hexagons and spirals and stars and...well, you can think of a VAST number of symbols and you can also print them in a variety of fonts and colors and pack even more information in there - then you can use different colored backgrounds and get even more - and you can overprint one symbol that's in red with a DIFFERENT symbol in yellow...and so forth. Then he went on to come up with some wild guesses about the number of symbols that could be thought of - multiplied all of the numbers together and got data densities that are pure science-fiction. What he didn't understand was that there IS a limit to the degree to which you can do this - and that is the resolution and color precision of your printer and scanner. Printing fancy shapes and then recognizing them is hard - but simply printing a grid of colored dots has even higher bandwidth than this approach could truly produce because any pixel could take on any color. When you look at the maximum possible density and the quality of color recognition - you get a theoretical maximum density that's many MANY orders of magnitude less than he was claiming. Of course in practice, issues of registration, color bleed, aging of paper and dyes and a bunch of other issues means that the two-dimensional barcode systems already in widespread use are pretty much optimal - and their densities *SUCK*. But the inventor was a bozo and couldn't be reasoned with. Obviously he never could possibly have produced the crazy data capacities he was claiming - and he never once actually demonstrated it...except fraudulantly...so this was neither vaporware nor snake-oil. SteveBaker (talk) 04:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Where do non-standard airline call signs come from?

In communicating with air traffic control, most commercial airliners will use a Type C call sign which is the same as their name -- for example, United Airlines Flight 204 will be "United 204". However, a few carriers use other titles: British Airways goes by "Speedbird", ValuJet Airlines went by "Critter", and so on.

So here's my question -- why do some carriers end up with these different call signs? My initial idea was that they were used when the original name might be difficult or confusing in radio usage, but neither of the above examples seem to fit that (and an obvious potential confusion, using "Delta" for Delta Air Lines, refutes that -- the confusion being that "delta" also represents the letter D in the NATO phonetic alphabet, which is used in air traffic control operations).

Any ideas? Thanks for anyone taking the time to answer this; as a former administration here, I appreciate those who take time out of their day to try to help out people they've never met before. 70.122.36.93 (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, we do have articles on airline call signs (and call signs in general) and on "speedbird" in particular. According to that article, when call signs were introduced, the company simply picked it to represent their logo at the time. I suppose the process may have become more formal over time, but those old callsigns are still retained. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

According to the FAA, telephony designators "should, preferably, resemble the name of the [airline]", and not be more than two words or three syllables. Additionally, they say "letters" (presumably meaning both ae bee cee and alpha bravo charlie) will not be assigned, but existing assignations (like DELTA) will remain. Two different airlines can use the same designator, providing they have a written agreement to avoid confusing conflicts (both Virgin Atlantic and Virgin Blue use VIRGIN, but Blue is only allowed to use it within Australia). Non-standard designators seem to be mostly US domestic airlines (like Valujet) or very old callsigns (like BA's SPEEDBIRD or PanAm's CLIPPER). FiggyBee (talk) 06:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The only addition I can make here is that like most everything else, history rules. If an airline has used a call-sign in the past, it can keep using it because everyone will recognize it. As an example, CP Air used the flight designator "CP" for many years. Long after it became Canadian Airlines, the flight number on the tickets was "CP720" (for instance). Why? Because the air-traffic controller would recognize the radio voice as it came into his territory "this is CP720 bound for Malpensa" and would know the exact plane and it's destination. Why change it when it's worked up 'til now? Franamax (talk) 00:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Earlier question regarding series of numbers correlated to number of strokes in roman equivalent

Hi,

Could you please help me find an earlier question and its answer regarding what the next number would be in series of numbers where the answer was to be found when converting the numbers into Roman numbers (i.e I, IV, X and so on) and then counting the strokes needed to write them?

I also have a similar question without answer. Can anyone find the logical continuation for 154967328?

Thank you for any help! ~Tigger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.188.214.165 (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

0. Matt Deres (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The previous ref-desk thread you're referring to is the top one here. Deor (talk) 22:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

imimigration

Can an immigrant on a tourist visa legally work in the US if they own their own business —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.53.241.4 (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we can't answer this question because it asks for legal advice. Darkspots (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The questioner did not ask for legal advice; he asked what the law is. That's different. Unfortunately, I don't know the answer to his question. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...let me rephrase. My friend says he has a tourist visa until 2012. Is that possible? D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.53.241.4 (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Per the US State Department, the visa expiration date and the length of time you have permission to remain in the United States are very different terms. It appears that a visa lasting until 2012 is not unreasonable, however, as the FAQ discusses 5-year visas. — Lomn 20:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Your friend should contact the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS--formerly the Immigration and Naturalization Service) for detailed, specific information about what he can or cannot do under his current visa. The InfoPass website (link) provides instructions (PDF) on how to contact USCIS by telephone (for routine inquiries) or to make an appointment for in-person discussion (for more detailed or complex quetions). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Your friend has it COMPLETELY WRONG. On a 'non-immigrant' "B-1" or "B-2" visitor visa (B-1 is for business travellers, athletes and the like, B-2 is for tourists) you can't stay for long periods - and you CERTAINLY can't work (although on a B-1 you can attend business meetings, conferences, etc so long as you are not paid in the US). The visa has a long expiry date (you can obtain them for periods of between 3 months to 10 years if you're a businessman who comes to the US often for meetings and such) - but that doesn't mean you can stay here until the visa expires. It means you can visit for periods of (typically) up to 30 days per year until it expires. HOWEVER, the immigration officer at the airport (or whatever) is the person who decides how long you can stay - and this is an entirely discretionary thing as far as I can tell. The date by which you must leave is stamped onto the "I-94" form you get as you enter the country. In practice, if you tell those guys how long you'll be here and show a return ticket to prove it then they'll stamp that onto the I-94 so long as it's not more then 30 days and so long as you haven't already been in the US recently or for too long. If you have a good story ("I'm going to the such-and-such conference that's in town this week") and a firm return flight then they aren't going to say no. But this is what stops you taking a trip over the border to Mexico or Canada every 30 days and staying here more or less permenantly. When your I-94 expires - you're an illegal immigrant whether you have a visitors visa or not. Details here...and especially Here. SteveBaker (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Why are we giving advice about U.S. immigration law? This is against our policy, folks. Darkspots (talk) 08:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

We're relaying that which is publicly available from official US government sites and citing it as such. Other than SteveBaker's "in practice", nothing above is novel synthesis or the like, and I have a hard time construing the "in practice" as "legal advice". — Lomn 13:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Lucrezia Borgia. -Arch dude (talk) 04:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Your friend should not contact United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. There is no system for checking your immigration status within the United States unless your identify yourself. If he plans to stay until 2012 and start his own business he should contact a lawyer, but he should not contact the government until he knows his options. Staying without a valid visa is the easiest and often the best option. Plasticup ^T/C 04:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This 'easiest' and 'best option' however, can be a terrible choice. Mr.K. (talk) 07:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? Plasticup ^T/C 14:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, it's usually best for people answering ref desk questions not to advice the OP to break the law... --Tango (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Tourists, per definition, are not allowed to work. If your friend is planning to immigrate to the US he should find a wife, a place to study, invest 1 million, open a new business (and create at least 10 jobs) or find a employee who would sponsor him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.K. (talk • contribs) 08:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Besides that, the type of visa your friend can apply to, will depend on many factors. Having been working as a translator for the US troops in Iraq, would grant him special rights, that someone from Nigeria may not have. Being a UK national excludes him from the Green card lottery. Giving advice is impossible not only due to wikipedia's policies, but to the lack of basic information that we have. Mr.K. (talk) 09:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Women in combat roles in US military

Why are women not allowed to enter units intended for direct combat in the U.S military? RoyalOrleans 21:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Because US law forbids it. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe the relevant law is Women's Armed Services Integration Act, which allowed women into the regular army and determined in which roles they were allowed to serve. Darkspots (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

My reading is that the questioner probably knows it's legally forbidden, but wants to know why it's legally forbidden. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a very good question - this is one of the last bastions of legalized sexism. The law was passed in 1948 - before that there were no women anywhere near the battlefront. The law reflects views of the 1940's - protecting "the weaker sex" and all that nonsense. It was a step in the right direction - but it's time to erase all differences and make women in the military fight just as the men must. SteveBaker (talk) 01:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, the question misrepresents the way that jobs are assigned in the military. When you join the military, regardless of what all the recruitment videos and commercials tell you, you do what you are told. You don't get a job because you choose it, you get a job because someone with stars on their eppaulettes has decided they need to you do it. Its not that there are thousands of women seeking frontline combat jobs, and being actively prevented from getting those jobs by the law. They may or may not want those jobs, but that;s moot. The fact is, when you join the military, the people with a higher rank than you tell you what to do. You get assigned a job and you do it. Now, women are not assigned frontline combat positions, but thats not the same thing as saying they aren't allowed to choose to have them. If a woman got to choose what her job in the military was, she'd have MORE rights then anyone else... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

In modern conflicts such as Iraq there is no front line, when the "war" is an occupation opposed by partisans (terrorists to some) who attack convoys and checkpoints. 61 American women have been killed by enemy action in Iraq as of July 17, 2008, probably more American service women than have been killed by enemy action (in compabet or in enemy attacks) in all previous wars. [41]. This does not include those dead from disease, accidents or other causes.[42] Edison (talk) 03:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

61 women - and 3000 or so men. It's not exactly evidence of equality in the military is it? If you observed that many servicewomen safely in barracks at home, you'd probably find that something close to that number would have died in car accidents, disease, natural causes, etc without being anywhere near enemy action. SteveBaker (talk) 03:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Not ethat these were combat deaths, not accidental or from disease. Many such deaths occurred in addiition to the 61. Edison (talk) 05:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, in the Israeli Army men and women served at the front lines in integrated units until relatively recently, if I understand it correctly (and I don't claim to be an expert). They decided to segregate the units based on sex when they found that when women were injured in a unit, men in the same unit were more likely to commit war crimes and overreact aggressively—when men "took responsibility" for the women, psychologically speaking, they were more prone to be excessively violent than when they were serving with other men. For those who want a reference to the Israeli bit, I read it in On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society. Very interesting phenomena—and perhaps a good reason not to necessarily want total sex blindness when it comes to military work. (Not to mention the abysmally high level of rape and harassment of women in the US military in particular. Frankly I think an all-woman combat unit would probably do better than one integrated with men for a number of reasons.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Energy conservation with natural gas in the home

I've read where energy can be conserved by turning the thermostat down to 60 (F) from 65 during the night. Is it really worth it? How about from 65 just to 62? Is it more cost effective to just keep it at 65? How much does one really save turning it down for only 7-8 hours at a time?

Also, does taking a shower use up a lot of energy becuase the water needs to be heated? If I cut down to 3 showers a week from 7, am I saving money? What about if I run a sishwasher while I shower, thus heating the water faster when I turn the shower on?

Of course, moving to Atlanta might just be better :-) Thanks.

Whenever you reduce the thermostat (assuming you're heating - not cooling!) you're saving energy - one degree - half a degree - every little helps. Shorter showers, cooler water - yep that'll help too. The issue is where you become so uncomfortable that life becomes miserable for the sake of a few dollars. I don't see how running the dishwasher while you shower helps though. Most (if not all) dishwashers run from the cold water feed and heat the water using the dishwasher's own internal heater as needed. That's not going to make any difference to your shower which is probably fed from your hot water tank. The best way to make a shower more efficient is to get one with a 'flash heater'. Those are quite popular in the UK - I havn't seen many of them in the US yet. Like the dishwasher - it's fed from the cold water feed and heats up the water as it comes out of the pipe! It heats exactly the amount of water you need - not a drop more. It also avoids leaving all of that hot water in the pipe between the hot tank and the shower head. SteveBaker (talk) 01:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Both of the dishwashers I've had (in Canada) have been plumbed to the hot water line; then there is a control to tell it whether to heat the water further or not, as you prefer. Perhaps it's different in places where demand water heaters (what Steve calls "flash" heaters) are common. --Anonymous, 03:35 UTC, October 3, 2008.

The answers always depend on specifics. In my house, the dishwasher draws from the hot water heater, so I can turn off the dishwasher's electric water heater and use natural gas, which is cheaper. Yes, turning down the thermostat helps, but the quantitative effect depends strongly on where you live. To get a major effect, you will need to make a major change: for example, you can cut your per-capita domestic energy consumption (almost) in half by finding a room-mate. You can cut your gasoline consumption by 20 percent by telecommutng one day a week. You can cut your gasoline consumption in half by moving closer to where you work. You can move from a house into an apartment. These major changes have a major impact on your energy usage. Minor changes (like a 5-degree thermostat change) will have minor effects. -Arch dude (talk) 03:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

In terms of thermostat settings, the question of how much you save is more to do with how cold it is outside. Because heat loss (per Newton's law of cooling) is proportional to the SQUARE of the temperature difference, if it's 60 degrees outside and you turn your thermostat down from 62 to 61, you'll knock 75% off your heating bill - but since the heater was probably hardly ever on in the first place, who cares? on the other hand, if it was zero degrees outside and you reduced from 62 to 61, the percentage saving would be 1-(61²/62²) which is only 3% of your bill - but since you need about a thousand times as much heat energy to keep your house warm when it's zero degrees outside than it is when it's 60 degrees outside (for a 62 degree thermostat setting), that 3% represents 30 times as much money saved. So when the temperature difference is large, a small change in your thermostat setting will save you more money (in absolute terms) than when the temperature difference is small - but the percentage change in your heating bill will be less impressive. (In reality, this is a gross over-simplification since most thermostats have a fairly wide tolerance so that they don't turn on until the temperature is a couple of degrees below what you set and they don't turn off again until it's a few degrees above what you set - hence if the thermostat is set to 62 and it's 60 outside - the heater will probably never turn on anyway).

I strongly agree that the big decisions (where you work, how you commute, what you drive, how your house is heated/cooled/insulated) have a much bigger effect than nudging the thermostat up or down a degree or two. But most people are unable to quickly change any of those big things - and the little things DO help.

But if you can plan in advance, you can do VASTLY better.

My house has walls that are a foot thick - with two layers of state-of-the-art insulation and a six inch thick concrete layer between the two to provide thermal inertial (see Insulating concrete forms for details) - brick (mostly for the look of the thing) on the outside and sheet-rock on the inside. We have as much attic insulation as will reasonably fit (between 1 foot and 3 feet) and a thermostatically controlled attic fan to bring in cooler air from outside when the attic space heats up during the day. Here in Texas, for much of the year it's hot in the day and cold at night - but the 'inertia' of all of that concrete means that the house stays at pretty much exactly the average of the day and night temperatures - so the times of the year when we need to heat or aircondition is dramatically reduced and all of that insulation (about 5 times what most houses in Texas are build with) minimises losses so that what heating/cooling we do need to do is for shorter intervals. Even at times when the nigttime temperature is so high that we still need to aircondition at night - or when it's so cold in the day that we're heating in the day - that "averaging" effect of the concrete means that (because of Newton's law of cooling) we never see the high peaks in consumption due to that "energy loss is proportional to the SQUARE of the temperature difference". Mathematics and physics really works and our monthly electricity bills (this is an all-electric house) are less than a quarter of our neighbours over the year.

This fancy construction added about 5% to the construction cost of the house (and incidentally made it proof against 300mph winds - no small benefit in "tornado-alley", made it very quiet inside and seems to dramatically reduce the number of insects we find in the house because there are no gaps between slab and walls for them to sneak through). When you crunch the numbers, that extra 5% on the construction cost paid for itself in about 4 years of reduced electricity costs - and that's neglecting the other benefits. If this became more widespread, it ought to be possible to negotiate a reduction in tornado/hurricane insurance too.

Using more concrete in construction is not a good thing - concrete requires a lot of energy to produce, so it's not just 5% on the COST of the house - but also a large increase in the CO2 footprint for the construction phase. However, I calculated that over the same 4 years it takes to recoup the 5% cost - you've also saved more CO2 than you produced when building the place...so again, there is a net win after about 4 years. Since houses typically last for 30 to 100 years (especially the ones with solid concrete walls!) - there is no way to lose here.

It's easy to make that kind of decision when you're building a house - but the number of times most people get to do that in their lifetimes is roughly zero. Since people (foolishly) don't consider the insulation properties of a house when they buy it, builders don't want to add 5% to the cost because it makes them seem too expensive. What is required is for government to require the gas and electric companies to pay that 5% on new homes and to allow them to charge extra on their bills to that customer until the 5% is paid off (with appropriate interest). That extra cost on the energy bills could still pass on some of the savings due to efficient design onto the customer. This would benefit home owners in the longer term and cost them nothing whatever (and perhaps save them a little) over the shorter term. It would cost the energy suppliers nothing once the scheme is up and running - and because it would reduce the amount of new energy production infrastructure, would save them a fortune over the longer haul. It would also help to save the planet - which is no small matter!

All it requires is for some legislator to write a law and vote it through...not rocket science by any means!

SteveBaker (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

GEOMETRY MAGAZINE QUESTION

Hello,Iam a reader of a magazine called Geometry Today,I have a question for you guys. It`s a contest and the prize is ove a million dollars so I need your help. This is it,I have to name the intersection of two planes PQS AND HGS. and there is a question involving a line that lies in a plane,and onee line that does not lie in the plane.I know it`s a bit much,but I really want the money I`ll even split it with you guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.74.21 (talk) 23:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Umm, "a magazine called Geometry Today"? A million dollars? Really? hydnjo talk 00:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure it's not Homework Tomorrow? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There really is a set of seven math problems each of which has a million-dollar prize. See Millennium Prize Problems. Six of these remain unsolved. This is not one of them. -Arch dude (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly something we could help with if we had the full details of the question - but the information you've given us is sketchy at best...nowhere near enough to answer your question. However, questions of intersections between lines and planes and such are amazingly easy to those who paid attention in school - and it's hard to believe that readers of a geometry magazine (who you'd thing would be REALLY expert) would have any trouble answering it. If it's really as easy as it sounds (on the basis of your very sketchy description) then probably tens of thousands of people will respond correctly and it'll end up being a total lottery. The biggest problem here though is that I get not one single hit when I type "Geometry Today Magazine" into Google's search engine...which does indeed make it seem like this is an exceedingly poor effort at getting us to help with homework. Poor, not only because it's so easy to disprove - so unlikely to start with - AND you didn't even give us enough information to answer the question even if you HAD fooled us.

For what it's worth, you have to find the equations of the two planes (the general form is Ax+By+Cz+D=0 where D is the distance of the plane from the origin at the closest point and (A,B,C) is the unit vector that's at right angles to the plane). With two such equations, you can substitute one into the other to find the equation of their line of intersection. Finding where two lines intersect is a similar problem - you have two parameteric line equations and you can solve those two equations to find the point at which they intersect (if indeed they DO intersect).

SteveBaker (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Can't hardly wait to see what happens when he turns that in tomorrow! -hydnjo talk 03:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There was someone on the reference desks a year or two ago who posted a bunch of obvious homework questions claiming that they were attempts to win prizes from magazines. I wonder if this is the same person returning. --Anonymous, 03:38 UTC, October 3, 2008.

That's possible but it seems that the half-life of these folks is less than our usual response time. Suppose it could be a resurrection but that would mean that he's flat-lined. -hydnjo talk 04:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

"PHYSICS MAGAZINE GUY" was his moniker. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 07:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If you send this problem to the Mathematics reference desk I'm sure they'll give it the attention it deserves :) Dmcq (talk) 09:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You should know that my computer has "cut" and "paste" features! SteveBaker (talk) 12:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested in knowing where a magazine called "Geometry Today" would get a million dollars. APL (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Possibly a very productive question. Sounds like the answer to this might also answer the question earlier about what's the easiest job that gives lots of money. Dmcq (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

As a quick Google indicates, no magazine called "Geometry Today" exists. bibliomaniac15 22:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it might exist - Google doesn't cover every entity in the world - but the owners may never have heard of the internet, or consider that there's no reason or point in having a website. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

October 3

Brucelee

Was Brucelee's death natural? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.88.91 (talk) 01:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

See Bruce Lee. Dismas|^(talk) 01:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It was certainly mysterious and controversial - but I don't think it was "natural" - the most common theory was that he somehow had a strange reaction to a muscle relaxant he was taking - but he'd has all sorts of seizures and other problems for several days before that and the interactions of various treatments and the recreational drugs he was known to have indulged in could easily have been to blame. SteveBaker (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

White cultural clubs

What North American universities, if any, have had white cultural clubs? What have such clubs done, and how successful have they been? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeonMerlin (talk • contribs) 02:39, 3 October 2008

Umm, what textbook is your class using this term? hydnjo talk 03:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what makes you think it's for homework. I've wondered the same thing. I've also wondered what would happen if I created the National Association for the Advancement of White People. <-- wondering if we have an article... Dismas|^(talk) 03:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC) hmm, unfortunately it was a hate group... I should have suspected that... Dismas|^(talk) 03:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Dismas: The phrasing of the question seems to ask for an essay response. In particular "...how successful have they been" seems to require a subjective rather than a factual response. I'm sure that lots of debate could be initiated with such questions but our policies discourage that. I'm not sure that its homework but it seems so. -hydnjo talk 04:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Most universities have a lacrosse team. Is that close enough? Plasticup ^T/C 04:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

And some even have drama clubs. -hydnjo talk 04:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

My point was not entirely facetious. It is rare to find a "black" society or a "white" society whose primary requirement is skin color. Often they are "cultural societies" which practice and celebrate cultural activities associated with a race or ethnicity, and often persons of any race are welcome. Polo may be as much a cultural activity as Djembe. Plasticup ^T/C 05:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The quiz bowl team at my school was pretty pasty. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about North American universities, but British ones have plenty of societies devoted to specific white cultures (such as French, German, Polish etc.), but not general ones. (That would be weird, and redolent of white supremacism) AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call these cultures 'white'. Being French doesn't imply that. Indeed, I don't see the point of mixing up what is culture with what is race. Even talking about black or African culture seems meaningless to me, since there is no unity in the definition.Mr.K. (talk) 09:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, culture is as culture does. White Americans tend (tend, mind) to group all blacks together, whether they've been in North America since the 1600s, came from Cuba during Mariel, or just got off the plane from Ghana. Since "visible Caucasians" have been the majority in this country, subgroups have tended to form around things like country of (ancestral) origin: "my family is Irish," when in fact great-great-granddad came over during the Civil War or the potato famine. This was reinforced during periods of heavy immigration; most large cities, especially in the eastern half of the country, had neighborhoods that became heavily ethnic -- people with roots in Poland over here, people with roots in Italy over there, in Detroit even neighborhoods of Chaldeans (Christians from Iraq). Various "white pride" groups endlessly compare themselves with the NAACP, but go on to stick the Confederate battle flag everywhere ("it's not hate, it's heritage...") or ranting about conspiracies. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Plasticup, I know what you were alluding to with the lacrosse reference but since you bring it up, I'm sure you're aware that in international lacrosse matches, the Iroquois compete as an independent team? Lacrosse was a long-time Native-American sport and was adapted as a handy way for natives and Brits to beat the crap out of each other. I'll leave for someone else to supply the ref where a fort was defeated because the "Indians" started a lacrosse game and lured the British soldiers outside to watch the action. Suffice to say that lacrosse is in no way emblematic of white dominance (which I know wasn't your point anyway :). Franamax (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

role of individual in conservation of nature

where do i find the appropriate information

John Muir might not be a bad start. --Sean 14:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Theodore Roosevelt would be another, but more controversial, one. Rmhermen (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Rosenstrasse protest

what happened to these people afterwards? did they continue to live in germany? if so how? if they left, when where to and how? what about the 25 men send back from Auschwitz, did they not tell about what they had seen there, this article is a bit lacking please provide me with as much info as possible and I will improve it vastly. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello 193.115, Auschwitz was a huge complex of concentration camps composed by three main camps with several satellite camps. One of these main camps - Auschwitz II (Birkenau) - was an extermination camp and therefore claimed more victims than the other two main camps and also more than any other extermination camp in Germany. These 25 men were condemned to forced labor in Auschwitz III (Monowitz), which served as a labor camp, where they served some weeks. It is probably not possible to know something "about what they had seen there." However, it is possible that they didn't know anything more than other contemporary witnesses.

It is believed that almost all of the 2.000 Jews houses at Rosenstraße were released. Protean Editor (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

sister city

it's written here in wiki that - san francisco has bangalore(india) as a sister city. but in sister-cities.org, there's no mention of bangalore... what is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.50.131.192 (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sister cities of San Francisco, California also has Bangalore and references the Sister Cities International website. This website is out of date (note the copyright notice at the bottom of the page ends in 2007), an up-to-date listing is available on the sfgov website. Nanonic (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, there may be other cultural exchange organizations that operate on a similar model to "sister cities" and the lists of exchanges may have been condensed from several sources... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It is often a bit tricky to track down the details of twinning, with information changing over time and sources contradictory. An example I was involved in was this discussion. --ColinFine (talk) 09:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a "bit tricky" - one of the unreferenced swamps of Wikipedia. Many of these sections have the sole reference to SCI, which is only for US-->many. I say, look for the references first and {{fact}} tag the rest. For an example of what a "Partner Cities" section should look like, see Montreal. I added sources where I could for the Montreal article, cleaned it up, then added "fact" tags to the orphaned articles. This is a big dirty area, but probably best addressed on the individual article talk pages. Failing that, at the Village Pump somewhere. It's really not a RefDesk question, but it's an area of Wikipedia I'd be happy to see cleaned up. Franamax (talk) 01:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Namibia

I am trying to find info on a town called, phonetically, Eye-Ice i think it is located in Namibia. any info would be greatful. it contains natural springs and is a tourist attraction, I went there as a child. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

We have an article, Tourism in Namibia and also Towns in Namibia and there's a website http://www.namibiatourism.com.na/. I haven't found anything that looks like it would be pronounced Eye-Ice, but if you take a look you may see something familiar that could narrow down the search. --Tango (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you're looking for this place? Laenir (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats it!!! Thank you soooo much —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

And the Ref Desk serves another happy customer. Plasticup ^T/C 22:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Landing a plane on Autopilot in emergencies

I seem to recall watching a movie starring Halle Berry as a stewardess, where a Boeing 747 was hijacked and the pilots all killed. The protagonist of the film, along with Halle Berry, neither of which are pilots, then goes through the intricate steps of attempting to land a 747 without experience. My questions is, could they not just through on the autopilot? I know most professional pilots choose to land the planes themselves because of their distrust of the autopilot system, but is the autopilot that bad? Surely in an emergency situation like this, it would suffice? Acceptable (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• By the way, that movie is Executive Decision. --Anonymous, 18:48 UTC, October 3, 2008.

Kurt Russell's character was a pilot, though not of commercial jets. Also, Mythbusters showed that it was quite possible for non-pilots to be "talked down" by a real pilot via the radio, though this has never happened. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Autopilot says "yes", dramatic license says "no". --Sean 15:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Not all aircrafts have a landing autopilot, not even all 747s. Besides that, not only the aircraft, but also the airport must be equipped properly to allow automatic landings. And pilot have to be trained for automatic landing, since they still have to perform some tasks like: extend flaps and gear when appropriate and deploy reversers. By the way, I don't believe pilots distrust the autopilot system. After each automatic landing - that has to be performed once in a month - the aircraft needs heavier maintenance than after a human landing. Mr.K. (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It's worth noting that some autoland systems also incorporate automatic application of brakes and thrust reversers (see also autobrake). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC) (link corrected TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC))

Point taken about the aircraft's capabilities, but presumably in a no-pilot-aboard-but-plane-can-do-it emergency they would redirect the plane to a suitably-equipped airport. Also, why more maintenance after an autolanding? --Sean 19:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The autoland feature is only available on some aircraft - it doesn't work well in strong cross-winds and not all airports have the necessary systems to support it. But in such a drastic emergency - I think that rerouting to an airport that did would not have been a big deal. The extra maintenance is probable required by some anachronistic FAA regulation - I doubt that the computer does a worse job than the pilots. The tough part for amateurs trying to land big planes (I used to work in flight simulation - so we saw a LOT of bad landings and many more crashes when amateurs were trying it) - is getting both lined up and at the correct glide slope AND at the correct speed. All of that can be managed by just about any decent autopilot - without help from the airport and without a specific autolander. Once you're aimed at the right runway at the right height and speed - then almost anyone can land a big plane from few miles out. Pilots don't use the autopilot when they can reasonably avoid it - but it's not because they don't trust it - it's because they LOVE flying and they hardly ever get to do it anymore! SteveBaker (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Followup question: In the Nelson DeMille book The Lion's Game, terrorists kill the passengers and crew of an airplane using an airborne poison and the plane lands itself without anyone alive. Is that possible? Plasticup ^T/C 22:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say doubtful. I'm pretty sure most planes can't be remote controlled and that it's unlikely the plane would have already been set to land. Stuff like this has happened before albeit not caused by terrorists Helios Airways Flight 522 and maybe not with planes that have autoland anyway (er scratch that example, it wasn't everyone in the plane unconscious, I still think there's been at least one case though) Edit: Uncontrolled decompression, 1999 South Dakota Learjet crash may be the case I'm thinking of. Nil Einne (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

To sum up all the recent autopilot threads; an autopilot is to flying as a calculator is to mathematics. It's a great labour-saving device, but you still need a clueful human pushing the right buttons for it to be any use. FiggyBee (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Flag of convenience

Are ships flying a flag of convenience required to ever visit their alleged home port, or can they stay for their whole duration in ports they are actually used in? JIP | Talk 19:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Some landlocked countries offer flags of convenience. Hard to dock there! BrainyBabe (talk) 06:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Time of bailout

Does anyone know the time the US bailout bill was passed? Because I saw that around 1:30 or so, the Dow starting falling pretty fast after doing well earlier in the day, and I was wondering if the two were somehow aligned, and why that would be. zafiroblue05 | Talk 19:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems like it was passed at 1:22 PM EDT according to this page from the House of Representatives website. Laenir (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

As for the why, nobody knows -- and anybody who claims to know is lying, or they'd be richer than Warren Buffett. No one actually understands why the market does what it does. — Lomn 20:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The unusable but seemingly true explanation, as far as I can see, is that everyone follows everyone else, leaving the market a chaotic system that doesn't really follow reason. You could consider that a sort of understanding...

Indeed what I heard was people bought stuff overnight (I guess expecting this to happen) so it went up. Then the bill was passed, and everyone was waiting for the market go up. But when it didn't people began to sell again because it hadn't gone up as they had expected. This was at least according to one economist, on Al Jazeera English Nil Einne (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Or, and I'm just speculating here, there could be other factors influencing the market other than this bill. Like, you know, today's abysmal jobs report. Plasticup ^T/C 22:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. People try to blame the market, which includes millions of trades by thousands of people every day, on a single event "Oh, the market went down, and there was this bit of bad news today, so they must be related". Except, there's bound to be something bad and something good every day, so all you have to do is wait for the market to do what it always does, and then say "It must be cuzza this bad thing". If it did the opposite, you'd just say "It's the good thing that caused this". The reality is that the market is very complex, and assigning any sweeping moves to a singular event is probably just pulling stuff outta ones ass. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. The media in particular like to assign singular events being the cause when in reality things are always more complex then that. On the other hand, suggestion it had nothing whatsoever to do with the bailout (or whatever event) is even more silly when you consider the timing etc IMHO. Note also that just because you can't precisely predict what will happen in a certain situation doesn't mean you can't, by analysing what happened, predict why it happened. In other words, while you can't say 'if X, Y and Z happened, then the sharemarket will do A' you may be able to say 'the sharemarket did A and from my analysis the reasons were X, Y and Z'. It is alway much easier to analyse why something happened after the fact, then to predict whether something will happen before the fact. This doesn't mean your analysis of why something happened must be wrong... Nil Einne (talk) 08:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an economist, but I presume the reason economists speculated it was connected to the bailout is because share markets rose after the jobs data was released [43] but fell after the bailout [44]. I guess it's possible that people randomly decided to wait until 3pm or whenever the markets began to fall to sell stuff because of the poor jobs data, but I have to admit, to an uneducated observer POV, it does seem much more likely to me that the economist suggestion that it was connected to the bailout in someway is much more likely then the random wikipedian suggestion it was completely unconnected to the bailout and people just randomly decided to wait until after the bailout before they started to sell their shares but yet the bailout had absolutely nothing to do with the timing instead it was just a random period they decided to wait (because if you're gonna sell your shares why not just choose a random period of time before you do it). I guess it's up to the OP to decide which one he/she agrees with. Nil Einne (talk) 07:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

why the day start at the hour 24???

why the day start at the hour 24??? Wouldnt make more sense (if we want to say that the they start at the our that we call 24) if we started to call as 1 the hour that we call 24, start to call as 2 the hour that we call 1, start to call as 3 the hour that we call 2............ 189.0.153.254 (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

In what convention is the hour "24" used? Standard 24 hour clocks start at 0. — Lomn 20:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a problem known to software people as "the fencepost problem". You always need one more post than you have pieces of fencing - unless you are fencing an enclosed space in which case the number is the same. In this case, you have 24 hours - so you need 24 numbers. No matter where you start, there will always be a time when it's 24:00hrs and things get confusing because digital clocks want to call that 00:00hrs. So if we did as you suggest then the problem would STILL be there - only now at 11pm instead of midnight. Calling all of the time between 23:59hrs and 01:00hrs using 00:xx hrs does avoid the confusion - and if you follow military time - then there is no 24:00, it goes from 23:59 to 00:00hrs.

Actually, if you follow military time, it goes directly from 2359 to 0001. The time 0000 is never used, because it's ambiguous (or, at least, could easily be confused) which day is meant. A sentry changeover (or whatever) is unlikely to need to-the-second precision. 81.187.153.189 (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Erm, what? I'm calling on this... FiggyBee (talk) 06:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The really big problem is with 12 hour clocks - nobody is ever sure whether 12:00pm on a digital clock is midday or midnight. We happily say "half past twelve" when we mean "half past midnight" - but that means that 12:01am is two minutes after 11:59pm. It's much clearer to have the clock never display a 12 at all and have 11:59pm, 00:00am, 00:01am which is completely clear and unambiguous.

Indeed, isn't the minute after 23:59 = 0:00? I've never seen hour 24... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The answer is that there is no such thing as "12:00pm", pm means post meridian, or after midday, it makes no sense to say that midday is after midday or the midnight is after midday. The correct form is "12 noon" or "12 midnight". --Tango (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

While I understand the reason why technically 12:00:00.00000000000000000000000...pm is ambigious, I disagree that no one is sure what it means. From my experience, 12pm nearly always means 12 noon. This because anything after 12pm is obviously 12 in the afternoon so most people automatically assume or accept that 12pm is 12 noon regardless of whether it's an accurate usage of the term. The same applies to 12am. Remember also, as I hinted it is only exactly 12pm that is ambigious/meaningless. Even one picosecond after noon is still technically pm. Nil Einne (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Lots of people are sure what it means, but lots of people are not; this makes the usage problematic. Properly there is no 12 pm nor 12 am; there are 12 noon and 12 midnight, and that's how they should be written. (Confusingly, "12m" sometimes means noon, with the m standing for meridiem or whatever the nominative of that word is, so that usage should be avoided as well.) --Trovatore (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? I'd like better evidence for this... Evidentally some US government printing guidelines recommends the opposite 12-hour clock but that's about all I could find that suggests there is any real common confusion. While it is obviously still best practice to avoid 12pm and 12am, it's definitely not uncommon and at least where I live, appears to be used largely without confusion [45] [46]. P.S. I did come across one thing which mentioned some bus timetables and the like use 12:01 or 11:59 to avoid any confusion. P.P.S. As I said in my first post, I'm not denying what proper usage is and that 12pm and 12am are technically inaccurate/ambigious. I'm simply challeging the assertation that "no one knows what they mean" since from my experience, the vast majority of people do know what they mean and use them consistently regardless of the technical ambigiouty. Also, from a digital clock standpoint, it makes sense that your clock will light up the pm indicator the moment it reaches 12 noon rather then wait 1 picosecond before it lights it up. Indeed I'm pretty sure Windows does the same thing... P.P.P.S. Also see [47] & [48] (that's about the limit of my experience, so if things are different in the UK, the US or wherever else and the terms are commonly used interchangable I'd like to hear about that) Nil Einne (talk) 22:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Almost certainly, all of this nonsense started before the invention of the zero - which (amazingly) really only reached the Western world in the 12th to 16th centuries. This problem of failing to count things like this from zero leads directly to the "fencepost" problem where you don't know how to number the posts even though the panels may be numbered unambiguously. This explains why we had problem at the turn of the millennium when people argued about whether the correct time to cheer was:

• At midnight on the last day of 1999,
• At midnight on the last day of 2000.

There were other options!

SteveBaker (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Convention. The same thing happens with peoples ages, in some places it starts with zero and others from one or it can be evn more omplicated. In some places the numbering of storeys starts at ground and others from one. Dmcq (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Measuring time as we do only came about after the invention of clocks (which I think post-date the invention of zero, but don't quote me on that). Before that, time was much vaguer and inconsistent. Often, an hour was defined as one twelfth of the length of the period of daylight which depends on the time of year. I've also seen time measured by the time between when you get up and an hour later being "1st hour", then "2nd hour" and so on - counting the fences rather than the posts! --Tango (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

A large part of this question is "Why are there twenty four hours in the day?" Once you've arrived at that number and then numbered the hours from 00 to 23 (and the minutes from 00:00 to 23:59), which I think follows on inevitably in a technological society, the day has to start somewhere and the logical point is at 0000, which can also be called 2400 but usually isn't. For historical reasons, 0000 is bound to be either at midnight or at midday, and of the two midnight makes far better sense, as it would be crazy for one lot of daylight to be split between two different calendar days. Coming back to "Why are there twenty four hours in the day?", see our article on Hour, which tells us something I didn't know: "The hour was originally defined in ancient civilizations (including those of Egypt, Sumer, India, and China) as either one twelfth of the time between sunrise and sunset or one twenty-fourth of a full day. In either case the division reflected the widespread use of a duodecimal numbering system." Strawless (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The media often seem to believe the opposite - that it's crazy for one lot of night to be split between two different calendar days. Events are often described as having occurred "overnight", as if that pins it down to a precise date - but it doesn't. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

IIRC correctly this is the reason that the Julian day (used mainly by astronomers) runs from noon to noon rather than midnight to midnight. --Trovatore (talk) 00:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought the fencepost problem was avoided by treating 00:00 as the beginning of the day and 24:00 the end, so e.g. 24:00 on October 4 is the same as 00:00 on October 5. At least that's what Markus Kuhn claims on his page about ISO standard date/time formats. And the day needn't start anywhere. I'm fond of the system where you double-cover the times using hours from 00 to 47, so that any 24-hour period can be treated as occurring on a single day and any time can be stated without a fencepost problem. It combines the main advantage of UTC (unambiguous worldwide) with the main advantage of local time zones (no change of date in the middle of the working day, or night as the case may be). -- BenRG (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

how is babby formed?

how is babby formed

how girl get pragnent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.141.241 (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

See pregnancy. --Tango (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Tango, see xkcd. --Trovatore (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Trovatore, see somethingawful [49]. Plasticup ^T/C 22:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Or this week's b3ta. Meme's eh? Nanonic (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

So i herd u leik Memes? Fribbler (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Funny thing is that I actually read the question when it was out for answers. bibliomaniac15 22:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

And Tango Makes Three. BrainyBabe (talk) 06:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

They need a way to do away with insane mothers, who kill their babies, because these babies can't fight back? It was on this news this morning, a mother in Arizona killed her two babies. They are taking the babies back to New York to lay them to rest- my prayers are with the father. I am truly sorry for your loss.

(Because nobody's said it yet) I thikn it's better if you talk with a parent or other respected adult about those issues. While it's better if such discussion comes slowly, learning bits over time rather than one long talk about the birds and the bees, there are times when more information than usual may be given at one time, too. 209.244.30.221 (talk) 12:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

A quick look at the contributions of the IP should reassure you about the seriousness with which they asked this question. Darkspots (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I treat all questions as serious, I find it the best way to deal with jokers and/or trolls. It's far more fun for them if people get angry at them, if someone just answers the question and moves on it rather spoils it. --Tango (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes (dog housetraining problem)

I got a puppy about 4 months ago and she has been housebroken for at least 3 months. Now all of a sudden she is pooping in the house everyday. I know she must be upset about something but I can't figure it out. We have a doggie door and she goes out when ever she wants.I am really baffuled. Thanks

(personal information removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.146.233 (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It's probably best to take her to the vets and be on the safe side, it could be some kind of medical problem and we can't really advise you there. --Tango (talk) 23:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the no-medical-advice thing applies to dogs. Our liability is much, much less. The vet probably won't be much use unless it seems like her poop is different, that she's incontinent. You probably need a dog trainer. They are almost always very helpful, and they tend to charge less than human therapists, and work a lot faster. The dog trainer is key because it's really easy to misunderstand what your dog needs. A good trainer may be able to solve your problem in one visit to your house (plus you doing the training they tell you to do). Good luck! Darkspots (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No-medical-advice is not really about liability, and as you can see from 'veterinarian' being added to the 'no medical advice' thing at the top after many discussion of this subject, dogs are considered very much to be covered. If you wish to discuss this further, please do so on the talk page.

Person who asked the question! Please, don't listen to random strangers on the internet; take your dog to see a qualified professional. They know far more about these things, and can examine her. 79.66.115.246 (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Strange—that's what I thought I had told her to do. :) (Dog trainers are qualified, certified professionals, you see). Darkspots (talk) 01:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

They make incontinence medicine for dogs. Ask your vet about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.141.241 (talk) 04:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't vetical advice but it works for sure - next time your puppy poops in the house, rub its nose in it - and repeat the exercise every time until it stops - just don't let your kids kiss the poopy puppy. And if that doesn't work, take it to the Vet. 92.23.56.200 (talk) 11:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This suggestion flies in the face of all contemporary thought about dog training. Really, do yourself a favor and talk to a good trainer. Check the links in the article, they look okay. Darkspots (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You put it delicately. Our anonymous advisor has suggested not merely an ineffective and counterproductive training method: they've suggested animal abuse. It's like "training" your baby to use the toilet by smearing his face with his used diaper each time he fills it: in short, insane. - Nunh-huh 15:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

1. It's NOT ineffective. 2. It's NOT counter-productive. 3. It's NOT animal abuse - training a dog to defecate OUTSIDE is unnatural as that doesn't happen naturally to the dog ie. it's artificial behaviour, but that's the price a dog pays for being a human's pet. 4. It's nothing like smearing faeces on a baby's face - at 4 months old a puppy is developmentally equivalent to a 3 year old child and should NOT therefore be crapping around the house - with or without diapers. 5. I have trained dogs and have loved them and been loved by them in return - for over 40 years - and that doesn't happen if you abuse them. 6. In short - it's not insane - but a very sensible, effective, well tried and tested, and productive cure for the problem. The puppy is having obvious psychological association problems and needs to be reminded she is the junior partner in a human's kennel - not to be abused nor to abuse. 92.23.56.200 (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

People with actual names and actual reputations have come to conclusions that differ from our anonymous contributor's assertions. Again, our questioner should be seeking out advice from a reputable professional rather than an anonymous drive-by dog-abuser. - Nunh-huh 17:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh woe is me and thrice woe- I am wounded - mortally wounded - what pray awaits me in in canine hell? Perish that I should be in the charge of a master (or mistress) who cannot control me, and I am left bereft in an unknown environment wherein I am cast adrift on a sea of canine psychologists (the underclass of Wall Street Masters (and Mistresses) of the Universe). Oh woe and thrice woe. Signed Anonymous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.134.220 (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

October 4

Secret room

I found a secret room in my mansion yesterday. I found two skeletons sitting opposed a table with a chess board with some pieces on it between. The game was in progress - not finished. I want to know whose move it was next: black or white. Is it possible to tell? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.251.204 (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Easy. This sort of thing happens constantly. What's the position of the pieces on the board? Darkspots (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Each king on kings bishop 4 . No other pices —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.251.204 (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that an illegal position? Whoever moved last just put themselves in check. --Tango (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that position can't exist. The skeletons are messing with you. What are they wearing? Do they seem like clowns? Darkspots (talk) 00:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course the game should have been declared a draw when the last man other than a king was captured. Though I'm not sure it was required to be called a draw — could be that one or the other player had to claim the draw, and if they're both optimistic enough to think they can somehow squeeze out a mate, then perhaps they'd be allowed to play on.

(But then the original poster said there were no other pieces, not no other men, so it's open whether there were pawns.) --Trovatore (talk) 00:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It's possible to make an illegal move; the other player then calls them, or the first player themself realises what they've done, and they then take the piece back and make an alternative move. If they both died after the illegal move, but before it had had a chance to be corrected, that could explain it. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

A draw is not automatic with only kings on the table, nor can either player claim one. If your opponent refuses to agree a draw, your only option is to play on until the fifty move rule allows you to claim a draw. Or until someone loses on time, which would be the only reason to refuse to agree a draw in this situation. Algebraist 08:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

But if I may approach the original question seriously for a moment, the answer is that from an arbitrary game position on a chessboard it usually is not possible to know whose move it is. Only in some special cases, like if one player is in check, can you tell. For example, the opening (1) e4 e5 will produce the same position as (1) e3 e5, (2) e4. (Or for us old-fashioned types, that's (1) P-K4 P-K4 versus (1) P-K3 P-K4, (2) P-K4.) In a typical position the history of most of the men that have moved will be ambiguous in the same way, so you can't tell how many half-moves there have been. --Anonymous, 05:01 UTC, October 4, 2008.

Tour guides at Glamis Castle tell of such a room, but it is supposed to hold a Lord of the castle and the Devil playing a card game until doomsday, not a chess game. Edison (talk) 05:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Car Speaker problem

I am hoping there is someone who knows a little about car audio. My problem is that one of my 6.5 inch Alpine speakers switches from emitting sound, to going silent throughout any song I play. I have replaced the speaker and the problem persists. I have two amps, one for my Kicker sub, and one for my two 6X9 speakers, and my two 6.5 inch Alpine speakers. This driver side speaker is the only speaker that is having problems. What could be causing the speaker to turn on and off, and if it has to do with the music being too loud, why would only this speaker shut off? Thanks for any help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.126.152 (talk) 07:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, intermittant electrical problems in cars are nearly always caused by faulty connections or faulty earthing. The intermittant fault is noticed when any movement disturbs the connection, whether that movement is heat exansion, road vibration or loud music. Examine the wiring carefully (at the dashboard end and to the amp and speaker), making sure every connection is very tight. Get new connectors or wiring if necessary. Astronaut (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you swap the speaker wires at the amp connector? (You might need some special tools to disengage the receiver clips from the plastic plug) If you can do it, swap both the L/R wires (switch both the active and ground wires, (L+/L- with R+/R-), so that the right channel of your stereo goes to the left speakers and vice versa. If the problem changes sides, it's in the stereo. If it stays the same, it's in the wiring or the speakers.

Next, you can use some extra leads - from the wires ending at the left speaker, pull them off that speaker and hook them up to the right speaker instead. (You will have extra wires running across the back of your car when you do this) If the problem is now in your right speaker, it's the wiring that's the problem. Same test to check the wiring on the other side, but opposite hands.

The essence here is to swap sides to figure out where the problem is: either the amp, the wiring (most likely), the speakers, or the connectors. If you're confident with wiring, cut, splice and repair the wires themselves to do these tests - that way you can eliminate the connectors themselves as the problem.

If all this sounds really complex, or you don't know how to use a soldering iron to fix up when you're done testing, or you don't know what electrical tape is: go to a car stereo shop and say "fix it!". Franamax (talk) 01:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the ideas, I will first inspect every wire to make sure they are all tightly connected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.126.152 (talk) 05:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Petrol prices falling in UK??

I don't think I was dreaming; nor was I drunk; but I feel sure I heard a newscaster on TV last night foretelling of an imminent sharp fall in petrol prices to 74 pence per litre (it's currently about £1.10). I think this story was in some way connected to the story of the $810 billion bailout Bill passed by the US Senate and House of Reps., but I can't see the connection. Was I dreaming or did this story get told? And if so, how can it be so? 92.23.56.200 (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Google News (news.google.com, or for the UK, news.google.co.uk) is a great place to check for recent news stories. I just searched on "petrol" and "prices", not even using the UK site since the word "petrol" would eliminate North American stories. Apparently the notion that the price might fall to 74p is linked to speculation of a drop over the next few months in the price of crude oil, so not an "imminent sharp fall", although there has just been a smaller sharp drop due to retail price decisions by Asda. --Anonymous, 12:44 UTC, October 4, 2008.

There has been a significant drop in the price of oil already, it just takes time for that drop to filter through to the retail market (interestingly, it doesn't take any time at all for price rises to filter through, odd that...). --Tango (talk) 12:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Equally interesting is that French at-the-pump prices change constantly in line with oil prices. So we now pay 1.30 Euros a litre, whereas two weeks ago it was 1.42. Wonder why UK prices remain static for lengthy periods ?````DT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.216.121.30 (talk) 16:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Ever heard of Rip-Off Britain? Petrol overpricing is just the tip of the ice-berg. Ever paid British alcohol prces? Ever paid British Cigarette prices. Ever eaten in a British restaurant? Ever bought a ticket for a British train journey? Ever bought a British car or house? Like I said - Rip-off Britain. And it costs a fortune to heat our homes and wash and dry our clothes. No wonder so many of us retire abroad when the time comes. I shall watch and report on the "dropping" petrol prices over the coming months. 92.23.56.200 (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If this forecast is coming via futures prices, I wouldn't hold my breath. Oil futures have been startlingly inaccurate in recent months. Plasticup ^T/C 18:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's put this in terms of another commodity - let's imagine a world where we all have to buy candles every 3-7 days. Furthermore, all the candle-sellers have big signs at the road showing their price for candles, denominated (at least in Canada $0.001/1.30) in tenths of a percent. Let's further imagine a situation where if the candle-dealer across the street changes their price by one-percent then everyone goes over there to buy their candles, except the few people too lazy to click the turn signal. What duty do I owe my customers? The duty of losing my business because I was wrong 1 part in 100? When candle-dude across the street starts raising prices, why wouldn't I match that pence for pence? And when wholesale candle prices start coming down, why would I change my retail price, as long as my sales are holding up? At the end of the day, I know I won't get rich selling candles, but I'm damn sure gonna feed my family!

Now let's confound the picture. The government seems to have it in for candle-burners, just as they do for tobacco-burners and alcohol-burners. They even have a term for it: "discretionary expenditure" and sometimes "luxury tax" and also "externalities" - fancy terms for stuff I could actually choose not to do, things that might hurt other people because I choose to undertake those activities. So there's a whacking big tax on my candle business right from the start. Furthermore, there are only three or four places I can reasonably get my candles, because everytime someone else says they'd like to establish a new candle-making facility (let's call it an "oil refinery"), a bunch of people start wailing and moaning about how no-goddam-way-you'll-make-candles-in-my-backyard.

Put that all together. I look at the overall profitability of my candle-selling business. I buy the candles and get them to where you can buy them. Why on earth would I care what you think of my individual pricing decisions? Do you care about me? Are you loyal to the candles I sell, and to my particular candle-shop? Didn't think so. Screw you.

(And refining and marketing margins among the gasoline majors are up a touch (3.5%-->4.5% or so) but not rapacious by any means). Franamax (talk) 02:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly

92.20.134.220 (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

health insurance portability and accountability act

Does HIPAA affect the patient's access to his or her medical records?If so, decribe the effect and the procedure for obtaining access. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dissh9 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't post your homework questions across multiple web sites. Perhaps you could tell us your thoughts on this question, and the volunteers here might be able to offer assistance with specific areas of difficulty. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Virgin Forest

I have read about white pines being over 200 ft tall and oaks 8 ft in diameter. Most of them have been cut down, so is there anyway to grow them back? Guides say that a white pines maximum height today is only 80 ft tall, if that is true how did they get so big? Do trees keep getting a bigger diamter until they die? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

What species of white pine? Eastern White Pine says that currently extant white pines are up to 180 feet tall. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 01:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Once you cut a tree down, there is no practical way to grow it back to the original height. Yes, some trees will keep increasing in height and expanding in diameter. They eventually all reach a natural limit where they become unstable during storms and get blown over, or become old. Only a very small part of a mature tree trunk is alive, the rest consists of dead cells that contribute to the structure. The dead (and some of the live) parts are vulnerable to attack, mostly by insects, but also by birds and other animals. The final height of any tree is a function of the tree species, soil fertility, soil stability, water availability, wind intensity, root system depth, competing species, predation, fire prevalence, probably another dozen factors I've not mentioned. The best way to get tall trees is not to cut them down. You can see this best in untouched old-growth forest, like the Douglas-firs at Cathedral Grove. Very impressive they are too!

This process could be enhanced with careful management. There is a story from Sweden of a project to grow ideal trees for ship masts, and they indeed managed the forest perfectly to produce the ultimate tree - and successfully completed the project well into the steamship age! Franamax (talk) 03:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Our article on coppicing has information about what happens to trees when they are cut as part of woodland management and then allowed to regrow. I don't think coppicing has ever been practised much in the Americas though, unless there is a Native American tradition that is not widely known. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

October 5

self-efficacy - beliefs about personal competence in a particular situation.

What are the differences between self-efficacy and self-esteem? What strategies can teachers use to enhance students’ self-efficacy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpp112 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(Side cmt) Teach their students how to do stuff right, instead of teaching them how to feel good about doing stuff wrong? Franamax (talk) 03:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) This is probably a homework question but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I'll let others get into your 2nd question, but if "self-efficacy" means having confidence in your ability to be effective in what you do, that's a world away from self-esteem, which is about having respect and love for who you are. People often confuse them; if you make mistakes, do things badly etc, there's a tendency to think you're a bad person. Not so. It just means you're mistake-prone, but you yourself are still a fine human being. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

As Jack said, the difference in the two is belief in your own ability, version belief in your own self worth. They may be related, but not always. For example, I am a total clutz, and don't consider myself all that talented in many areas, but I am a generally easy going guy, and usually feel pretty good about myself. I don't have a very strong sense of self-efficacy (I'm not confident in my abilities) but I have a lot of self esteem (I generally like and respect myself). --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There's an article self-esteem here. As to helping people having the confidence to give things a try rather than just praising them for nothing I fully agree with most of the criticisms in the article, self-esteem has become a narcissistic cult producing psychos. Dmcq (talk) 09:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Another, evidence-based source for concepts related to self-efficacy is Dr. Carol Dweck of Stanford U. Her 2006 book Mindset: The new psychology of success contrasts people who have what she terms a fixed mindset (e.g., the notion that intelligence or talent is essentially set at birth) and those who have a growth mindset (e.g., people who believe that by learning new information and skills, they can increase their abilities). --- OtherDave (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't let them read the Ignobel Prize-winning study Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments. --Sean 15:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

anal irritation

Ever not wipe your anus so well after defecation and get that scratchy, burning, irritated feeling around and inside your anus? What causes that? Is it unhealthy? And how can you alleviate that? Bilodeauzx (talk) 03:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Believe it or not, Wikipedia has an article about itchy assholes. Read away, and you may be informed. I certainly was. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You've no idea how good the timing of this question was, thanks!!!--Artjo (talk) 05:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ill advised suggestion by DMCQ removedNil Einne (talk) 10:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are asking "is it unhealthy" or "how can you alleviate that" then you should see a doctor not random people on the internet. We can't provide medical advice. As the article above demonstrates, there a lot of possible causes your problem some potentially serious, a professional can best advise you on what specific cause is the issue in your case. Nil Einne (talk) 10:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Life Insurance Bond Ratings

What is the bond rating factor for Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance Co? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.248.33.205 (talk) 04:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I found this (very old) and this (quite old) but I think you'll have to subscribe to S&P at www.ratingsdirect.com if you want the updated ratings. Note that the credit ratings given at the company's website are not for bonds. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy and Reliability of Wikipedia

I had a college psychology professor who told us to never get any information off of Wikipedia because since anyone can edit it, it isn't accurate. She is very well traveled and has lived in Hawaii and Europe for some years, and she said that she talked to a scholarly figure at some sort of school. The man said that he looked himself up on Wikipedia and that the article didn't even has his name correct (along with other mistakes). This was her example to prove that you should never research anything on Wikipedia for academic use because you don't have any idea who edited the article. So I want to know, is Wikipedia really an unreliable source that should be veared away from when doing academic work? Was my professor right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.126.152 (talk) 06:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. You should never use any encyclopedia for any serious scholarly research, except as a "launching off" point, and Wikipedia is no different in that regard. If you are doing serious research (and if you are beyond the 6th grade, you should be considering getting beyond encyclopedias ANYWAYS) you should always be working from source texts(primary sources) and analyses thereof(secondary sources). Wikipedia is a tertiary source, that is its purpose is to compile information from other reliable sources. If you are really doing research, you should be using those sources, not a derivative source like Wikipedia. Now, Wikipedia can be useful in this regard. If you find a particularly well written and well referenced article, go dig up those references. Its not that you should never look at a Wikipedia article, but seriously, if you turned in a paper to your college professor, and cited an Encyclopedia Brittanica article, you should rightly be laughed out of the class. The issue is not Wikipedia per se, but its the use of properly rigorous sources. Again, find the articles and books the writers of good Wikipedia articles used, and then read those yourself. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(EC)You could do worse than starting with Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia and exploring the links from there. I'll try to find you some other stuff too. BrainyBabe (talk) 06:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There are also guidelines at Wikipedia:Academic use and Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. Here is an article with several public figues evaluating their own biographies on Wikipedia. There are examples of academics who have assigned their students to edit Wikipedia, reasoning that this is the best way to teach them its strengths and weaknesses. I am trying to find that reference. I think he was in Vancouver, and in the field of Latin American studies, but I'm not sure. BrainyBabe (talk) 06:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Found! BrainyBabe (talk) 06:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with all the above. I'd also make the point that it's easy to find errors. We did the same here for a while - we had a long list of errors we'd found in Encyclopedia Brittanica. I think that article's been deleted now, because it didn't serve any purpose other than bolstering our own egos. Just as finding tons of EB errors didn't mean that EB is crap, finding one WP error does not mean that the whole project is crap. It's a fairly arrogant and egocentric - not to mention illogical - stance for an academic to say that, because his article is not totally accurate, then the rest of the information we have here is ipso facto unreliable. That would suggest that his article is at the top of the heap in terms of importance; that may be the case in his mind, but few if any people would agree with that. I've met people of recent times who are highly intelligent, very well read, extremely articulate, have very good education including at tertiary level, have well-developed positions on social issues and current affairs, etc - and the word "Wikipedia" still means nothing to them. I explain what it's about, and they warn me it must be a scam or a load of rubbish, because a concept like that couldn't possibly work, or it would be utterly unreliable at best. That's the sort of attitude that prevails out there: "I don't know much or anything about it, therefore it's not worth knowing about". Yeah, right. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Whilst there are people out there who deliberately add inaccuracies, there are many dedicated editors who will correct inaccuracies when they find them. Unfortunately, there are a lot more articles than there are dedicated editors, so any help is appreciated. One of the mantras here is "So, Fix It". Did the professor who's name we got wrong, fix their article, or did they just moan about how inaccurate Wikipedia was? Astronaut (talk) 11:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

As much as I agree with the general "so fix it" mentality, it is generally considered unresonable to expect people to have to correct articles about themselves. We need to get these things right and when people complain that there is a problem with an article about them, which they have the full right to be annoyed about, we need to take their concern seriously, not dismiss their concerns and tell them to fix it themselves. Also, someone editing an article on themselves, even to correct obvious inaccuracies tends to generate controversy. See WP:BLP. Nil Einne (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I find the "so fix it" argument particularly useless when we're discussing Wikipedia's overall reliability (even though I fully agree with the "if you find an error, you should fix it" sentiment) -- not that anyone in this discussion presented it as a counter-argument, but I've seen that happen countless times. If you're already familiar enough with a topic to spot a mistake, that's great, but if you reading an article in order to learn about the topic in question, you really need to know that what you're reading isn't just someone's opinion or an outright fabrication. I think reliability can be and often is an issue with Wikipedia, but I also think that in the majority of cases, it's not that difficult to figure out whether a piece of information is reliable or not. Simply checking whether it is sourced tends to go a long way. That's a bit of a burden on the average reader, but still. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Another good point about the "so fix it" issue. In many ways it reminds me of how some Linux proponents like to tell people it's not Linuxes fault that it often has poor hardware support. If it's an argument about the philsophical differences or fundamentals of the design or whatever then sure it's an okay point. But if an end user is saying I don't want to use Linux because it has poor hardware support then it's not a particularly helpful especially when they already have the hardware. (The same applies to Vista of course) Nil Einne (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to go off on a tangent here: It's not really true anymore that Linux has poor hardware support. Or at least, it's much much less true than it used to be. Not so long ago, installing any Linux distro on a new machine meant long hours, even days, of futzing around with recompiling the kernel and looking for drivers and on and on. Network cards were especially difficult to handle. Now you can just buy a laptop, download Ubuntu, and have a decent shot that it will work pretty much out of the nonexistent box. Oh, you'll still get your chance to fiddle, of course; the hardest thing I remember, last time, was figuring out how to turn off the infernal tap-to-click bug^Wfeature on the touchpad; I had to go into Xorg.conf for that, and admittedly it was easier in Windows. But the barriers to entry have come down so much that if you just want a little more control over your box than Windows gives you, it's worth checking out Linux. --Trovatore (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

(EC) I think you're partially missing the point. I highly doubt the professor thought his article was the most important thing ever. Far more likely, he checked out the article on himself since it was the simplist thing to evaluate and the one where he could be resonable certain, without dispute, that he was correct. It's also perfectly normal that people are interested in check out articles about them. So him using his article as an example was probably not because he thought he was the most important thing ever but because it was something which he had evaluated and he knew was clearly wrong. And having someone's name incorrect is one of the more fundamental errors. Note tha I see no evidence the professor was saying the number of errors was distributed evenly acorss wikipedia. More likely, he was suggesting that wikipedia did have errors (which it does), these errors would be hard to detect to someone unfamiliar with the information and it is therefore an unreliable source. Even presuming he only ever checked out one article, that on himself (and we have absolutely no way of knowing if this was all the professor did), it is unresonable to believe that when something can get such a fundamental issue wrong as someone's name it can be perfect in other areas. Likely, the professors personal opinion of how wikipedia works also had something to do with it and while it perhaps works better then he thinks, he was ultimately correct that wikipedia is far from perfect. I note here I see no evidence that the professor was suggesting EB, or any other encylopaedia as a source instead so really it's somewhat of a moot point whether either one is better then the other. Note that while we do cover some areas better then others and the more broadbased topics may be of a better standard then articles on professors, it's difficult for the reader to know precisely whether the article is one of those that is decent or not, beyond relying on FA etc status which is beyond the understanding of most readers. The other issue is of course that by the nature of WP, at any defined moment the article you are reading could be full of shit. You can of course check out the edit history and make sure you use a permanent link to any citation but in reality, most people probanly don't and so from a general POV the professor likely also felt this was a problem and I would say he was correct in this matter too. The fact is academic work doesn't work well with citing and using stuff that is constant changing. There are of course errors in everything but definitely I would say WP, as with perhaps any broad based tertiary source like EB is far worse then more specific sources which I suspect the professor was thinking people should use. Note also that it's not as if the professor went looking for errors. Far more likely he checked out one (the article on himself) or more articles and found errors. In other words, while the professor's views on WP were likely tainted and maybe not 100% inaccurate, he was fundametally right that you have to take great care when using WP as a source in academic work, and it's probably best avoided. Also, whatever level of research the professor may or may not have done, it's not as if this was some sort of paper presented to a conference. It appears to have been more of an off the cuff remark made to a collegue based on personal experience. Nil Einne (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is one of public perception. Almost every time I read about Wikipedia in the press, it is overwhlmingly negative, whether it mentions inaccurate information (like in this case), deliberate vandalism, or Jimbo's latest appearence on TV. Hardly any mention is made of the efforts of thousands of editors who try to ensure the facts are correct and that they can be verified elsewhere. Unfortunately, way too many commentators would rather write about the few articles that are (at that instant) "full of shit" rather than the thousands of articles that are in pretty good shape. I would suggest you can use Wikipedia for academic research, but check out the history of the article, follow up on the sources and satisfy yourself that the article is stable and accurate. Astronaut (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Academics dismiss Wikipedia for a variety of reasons. It's true that not everything on Wikipedia is correct, esp. when it comes to biographical details of lesser-known people. That is usually because very few people edit such articles and very few people know the "facts" and so one person's error or misunderstanding or typo can carry a lot of weight. For articles that are heavily trafficked and contain information that many people know, the entries are usually much better—often even better than other encyclopedias, where again relying on the opinion of one or two experts can sometimes inadvertently propagate falsehoods. Use your judgment and if it matters, seek multiple sources of authority—this is good advice with any source of information.

Be aware though that your professor and practically all academics use Wikipedia for simple things like checking dates or finding quick facts. It's an open secret that professors and grad students are heavy traffickers of Wikipedia like everyone else, but they often pretend otherwise and certainly discourage students from relying on it (I've had this exact conversation with many of my professors). And it's also probably true that most academics who have graded student papers have found mangled or incorrect information that is ultimately sourced to Wikipedia—but there's mangled and incorrect information in most student papers, it's just that usually the sources of such errors are more diverse! --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Another problem, I think, is that an individual comes to Wikipedia for a specific purpose -- e.g., to learn more about Robert Burns, or the Treaty of Versailles, or the Tokugawa shogunate -- might land on a page edited mainly by monomaniacs, axe-grinders, the agenda-ridden, or out-and-out loonies. Adherents of some microscopic faith will exhaustively edit the page for some saint or doctrine, and by persistence wear down many editors who have lives outside of Wikipedia. The vast majority of articles may not have this problem (though I suspect more than half of all articles do). And the poor fool who reads discussion pages for articles will discover controversy over any number of crucial points, like whether it's the Catholic or the Roman Catholic church or whether the surname Macdonald should always capitalize the first D. It's like dropping into a sports bar to watch the game and hearing two people at the next table arguing about what brand of socks Shoeless Joe Jackson wore -- then returning four weeks later to find the same two psychos arguing about the same two socks. --- OtherDave (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

What makes Wikipedia so much better than paper encyclopedias is a complex matter - some things are obvious - we aren't limited on space, we have FAR more editors - errors can be fixed immediately rather than in the next edition (or never if someone just splurge $1000 on a set of Britannica's). More subtle things are that we endeavor (not alway successfully) to list our references - you can look at the bottom of most articles and see a list of books, web sites, etc that were used in writing the article. Britannica doesn't do that. Another cool thing is that we have a "Talk" page for every single article - where you can go and ask the very people who wrote the article for more information or to query a fact. This is a powerful thing.

However, academics do get very upset with us. The reason for that (and I know because I've asked LOTS of them) isn't that Wikipedia is horribly inaccurate. When you pin them to the wall and point out all of the independent studies that show that we are no worse than the leading paper encyclopedias - and actually a LOT better than the worst of them - they switch tack and complain that students are not going to the original source material. When you point out that this would be true of any online encyclopedia - so why aren't they banning Britannica-online and Encarta? Any you mention that neither of those lists it's references so that even if the student WANTED to look them up, they couldn't....well, then the REAL reason compes out: that they are sick to death of students cutting and pasting chunks of Wikipedia into their homework (or at least simply rephrasing what we say without doing any serious work). That used to happen with paper encyclopedias too - but to a much lesser extent because of the fact that you had to go to the library to read paper encyclopedias - and when you are in the library, it's just as easy to look up primary sources as it was to copy a chunk out of Britannica. But by the time their students are in the middle of their careers, most books are going to be available online anyway - so the concept of large buildings full of dead trees is on the decline. Personally, I suspect that a lot more copying from encyclopedias was going on in those days - but because there were a re great number of different encyclopedias, it would be very tough for teachers to figure out whether the essay had been copied.

But this ISN'T a problem with Wikipedia - it's a problem with how their students behave. Telling students that Wikipedia is banned because it's incorrect; is to lie to your students and shut off what is (in truth) an exceedingly valuable resource - one that has not been equalled thoughout all human history. (Try going to your local library to find out who is the voice actor for Crusty the Clown - or whether it snows on Mars (it does - but we only found that out last week!). Like it or not, this encyclopedia is around for keeps - it's going to be the number one repository of all human knowledge for the next hundred years - with things like the iPhone and the Amazon Kindle - you can literally have all of human knowledge in your pocket. The correct response to this is not to say "Don't use it" - but to start teaching students HOW to use it effectively. What they should say to students is this: "Go first to Wikipedia if you want - but for anything that seriously MATTERS - make sure to examine the list of references and go and read the original sources in the library or out on the web. If the article is inadequately referenced THEN DO NOT USE THAT ARTICLE." They tend to forget the purpose of teaching - they are there to prepare students for their working career - and failing to use Wikipedia adequately throughout their career will hurt their long-term prospects compared to people who know how to do research using modern tools.

Bonus points should be offered to students who find fault with the Wikipedia article after looking up the references. This will encourage them to actually check the facts and also let them see first-hand that Wikipedia (like all encyclopedias) is sometimes wrong.

At my son's last school (which is one of the top ten rated high schools in the whole of the USA), they now require all non-fiction essays to be accompanied by a list of references against which the essay could be fact-checked. That's the correct way to deal with the rise of the Internet - and Wikipedia in particular.

SteveBaker (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear! That's an outstanding commentary, Steve. My only quibble, and it's a positive one - Wikipedia is going to be around for a lot longer than 100 years. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Gutting a rabbit

I plan on a little rabbit hunting soon. I've found resources on how to skin the rabbit, involving chopping off feet and head and taking off the fur like a coat...but have no found a decent resources (preferably with photos) that covers what/how to remove the innards. Thanks in advance for advice. --Kickstart70-T-C 07:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It's somewhere in the first few chapters of John Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Having never done this myself, I don't know how good this instructional video really is, but I'd be pretty confident about giving it a shot after watching this. (I have no doubt that I wouldn't be anywhere near as fast or neat as that guy, though!) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That helps greatly, thank you! --Kickstart70-T-C 17:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not that different from dressing a squirrel. Google has lots of suggestions. See BassPro Shops' suggestions. It is important to bleed a slaughtered animal quickly, so blood does not coagulate in the meat, and avoid spilling intestinal contents on the meat you plan to eat. Remember step 1: "Catch the rabbit." Yum! That said, there is a rabbit which lives in my (urban) back yard which I would not dream of harming. Edison (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

If all else fails, this is a good book. --Sean 15:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Perfect round

Why is a perfect round of golf 18 under par when it's possible to get even lower by eagling/albatrossing some holes? 58.165.15.180 (talk) 12:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It is explained in the lead paragraph of Perfect round like this: "(it) is the lowest score generally accepted as being in the realm of possibility among professional golfers". What I understand by this, is that whilst pros do score eagles and albatrosses, they don't do it consistently enough to push their score below 18 under par over all 18 holes. In fact, the lead paragraph goes on to say "(it) has never been achieved by a professional golfer in a professional event". From what I've seen on TV, a score of 18 under par is difficult enough to achieve over a 4-round tournament. Astronaut (talk) 12:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Chuck Norris could do it...with a putter. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

A "perfect" round of gold would be, conceptually, a score of 18, since you would be hitting a hole in one on every hole, but I doubt if that's ever been done. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No bounce

Has anyone ever gotten a far shot into the hole without the ball ever bouncing? 58.165.15.180 (talk) 12:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

We're going to need some context here. What ball? What hole? How far is far? Plasticup ^T/C 15:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Judging by the previous question immediately above from the same person, I suspect the questioner is talking about golf. Specifically whether anyone has ever got a hole in one (or other similarly long shot) without the ball bouncing. While I can't say for sure, my OR feeling is that the velocity of the ball and hardness of the hole lining, would cause the ball to bounce out again. Now if the ball hit the flag first and "trickled" down the flag pole, that might be a "funny". Astronaut (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not look at some examples? 190.244.186.234 (talk) 12:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

shafting work in ships

what are the basic principles in shating work in ships? sumal (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

12 seconds on Google (I timed it) and I found this. Phew, I think I need a rest. Plasticup ^T/C 15:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Allmusic Guide mirror

Are there any decent mirror sites for allmusic.com? It never works well for me. I know answers.com has some of AMG's content, but it is not complete. --71.239.110.144 (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of any mirror sites. It's one of the best music sites on the web, so persevere. And personally I've never had any problems accessing it. Maybe the problem is at your end. Some websites don't perform particularly well with certain browsers. Have you got the latest version of Firefox? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 07:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Maroon Clowns

Question moved to Science desk, where you are more likely to find editors to help. Just follow the link. Gwinva (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this is more of a question for the science desk than miscellaneous. If I knew how to move this question or link you there, I would. But alas, I don't. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 03:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. (In future, just cut question using "ctrl-X". Start a new section on required page and paste question: "ctrl-V". Once that is saved, you can link to it with wikilinks, as I did, or copy the url.) Gwinva (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I edit conflicted with someone who answered, so I've moved the answer to Science desk, hope that's alright, Plasticup! Gwinva (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

virtual console

I have super mario world 3 and everytime i turn off my wii, the progress is erased. Why does this happen?--Dlo2012 (talk) 22:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Many games of this vintage, for either technical or paradigm reasons, have no save function; you're expected to play the game the whole way through in one sitting. According to our Super Mario Bros. 3 article, the SNES and gameboy remakes were saveable, but the original NES version - as emulated on the Wii virtual console - was not. FiggyBee (talk) 05:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Some virtual console games have a primitive save feature that Nintendo has added on for the Wii. I don't know if Mario World 3 has such a feature, but if it does you'd find it in the (HOME) menu. APL (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Diplomatic bag acceptance

Can a diplomatic bag be rejected for carriage by an airline operator, and must this bag always be accompanied?

Omowright (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Our article on the subject, doesn't discuss this at all, I see. A Straight Dope dope column titled "Is there such a thing as a diplomatic pouch?" discusses them in more detail, and it seems to imply (though doesn't explicitly say so) that the bag doesn't need to be accompanied: "It's a means by which governments and their ambassadors can send items to one another without fear that the goods will be detained or inspected by foreign governments." If an ambassador sends something to his government, that means he isn't carrying it himself. Then again, he could have a courier carry the bag -- but considering that the "bag" may actually be a crate, chances are it's going to be out of his sight during transport anyway, so the point is a little moot -- on a practical level, it makes little difference whether someone is accompanying in the bag, if it needs to be checked in and is transported in the plane's cargo hold, only to emerge at the other end. Anybody could mess with it when it's out of sight; you might as well just drop it off at the airport and have someone else pick it up once the plane lands.

The Straight Dope article doesn't say anything about an airline operator refusing to carry the bag. Personally, though, I would be very surprised to hear about an airline operator doing something like that independently, without explicit instructions from a pretty influential government agency; messing with international diplomacy on the company's own initiative isn't going to endear the company to the powers that be. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Article 27 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations says you can entrust it to the captain of the airplane (if s/he has official authorization). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Related subquestion: what is meant by inspecting? If the bag is passed through a X-ray or Geiger counter is that an inspection? What is an enemy country that still has diplomatic ties smuggles an atomic bomb into your country? Mr.K. (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That straight dope artcle says they can't be X-rayed. It also says that some countries set a maximum weight for diplomatic pouches, so that would probably eliminate your atom bombs, as they're rather bulky in real life. They're also likely to set off radiation detectors and various stages in the process, which I'm sure would cause an incident. 72.10.110.103 (talk) 13:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

UK Universities

What would you say are some good UK universities for Engineering? I probably want to do electrical/electronic engineering but would probably prefer to do a course like that of cambridge where you just do engineering and later on specialise. So good universities for either course... Thanks --RMFan1 (talk) 22:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how much it's changed - but the University of Kent at Canterbury used to have a scheme whereby you enrolled for a particular specialisation - but your entire first year was spent doing more or less unspecialised science courses and at the end of that year you could opt to change your specialisation. That sounds like the kind of thing you're looking for. SteveBaker (talk) 03:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You might find it helpful to speak with a careers advisor, who will have access to all that sort of information. I do know that Durham, a highly reputable university, offers an "integrated programme" with general engineering in first years, with specialisation later. Gwinva (talk) 03:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, bear in mind that your choice of university should be based on a number of factors, only one of which is the quality of the teaching. You can have the best engineering course in the country, and you'll still have a bad three years if you end up in a boring place where there is no social life. Look for somewhere that you can actually bear to live in. Read the articles here on Wikipedia about the cities. And invest in a copy of The Student Book. I applied to university more years ago than I care to remember, and this book was a great help to me. Good luck. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 07:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

What makes the Icelandic economy so volatile?

[50] Looks like there are unique issues. 23:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.78.179 (talk)

Actually, that looks like the exact same issue that is plaguing the US and Europe. An unregulated financial sector over-extended itself, and when the sub-prime crisis precipitated a credit shortage, they didn't have the short-term reserves to handle it. Plasticup ^T/C 01:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Iceland has gotten into a lot of trouble because of the carry trade. See this Economist story that mentions it. There are a few countries that have a high current account deficit that have also seen their currency rise in value, which is counter-intuitive normally—look at America, whose massive current account deficit caused mostly by consumer spending has caused its currency to decline over the last few years, which is the normal thing to have happen. Iceland, in contrast, has kept interest rates high to control inflation. So, in the carry trade, investors borrow a currency with low interest rates like the yen, and buy interest-bearing securities in a place like Iceland. Any bobble in exchange rates can wipe a carry trade investor out, so an appreciation in the value of the yen means that everyone dumps their Iceland bonds, which can spark a selloff of investments by domestic investors as well. Do that enough in a smaller economy and you've got problems—Iceland had a big crisis in 2006 because of this. Now they have an overvalued currency which is tanking fast as money is getting pulled out for safer investments. Darkspots (talk) 07:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

October 6

Immigration to Canada

What is needed to immigrate to Canada? I may move there. What ID will I need? I'm asking for another person. Powerzilla (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Immigration is a long, complex and expensive process. It's not like you show up at the border with a driver's license and bang, you're in. See http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/index.asp for more info. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That depends on the length of your stay. If you just want to visit for a few weeks you can travel on a tourist visa or even a visa waiver. Plasticup ^T/C 01:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Just seen it. How does one get the necessary documentation and still be "legal" in Canada? I've heard about how US soldiers from the Viet Nam War got into Canada because they opposed that war.Powerzilla (talk) 01:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

My client claims that she has no ID due to have been in a cult that has heavy references to the NWO. There are cults like that all over the US. How can she get the required ID then? Powerzilla (talk) 02:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I have heard of people like that writing to his/her Senator's office. Plasticup ^T/C 03:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Assuming your client is a U.S. citizen and resident, a practical way of moving forward with establishing ID is to get her birth certificate (good link). Then you need to put together all possible documents establishing her identity (even things like utility bills in her name, lease agreements, anything that's "official" with her name and address) and get either a passport or a non-driver's license in her state of residence (a passport is more to the point, but if it seems easier to get the non-driver's id, do that first, then the passport's a slam-dunk). An interim step might be to get a social security card, see this link. Darkspots (talk) 07:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

kit homes

What is the largest kit home available by mail? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.155.27.93 (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Try asking these folks. -hydnjo talk 02:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

excuse me sir, but you're sitting in my seat.

Can anyone explain to me why is it that when people sit in the same seat two or more times in a church they expect to be able to have the exact same seat every time upon their return? I'm writing a paper on social norms, and this bizarre, yet commonly accepted 'norm' is one of my topics of interest. Where did this belief originate and why is it such a big deal in our churches today? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.15.211.76 (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The seat becomes saved and it's always been that way. -hydnjo talk 02:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In a Synagogue, one should sit in the same seat every time (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, chapter 90 paragraph 19). This is learned from the actions of the patriarch Abraham (Talmud, Berachot 6b)Simonschaim (talk) 05:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

When my parents and I would go to church when I was growing up we often sat in the same seat. Although, if someone were already there, we didn't raise a fuss and nothing was said about it. Basically, I never encountered what the OP is theorizing. Dismas|^(talk) 05:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Pretty much as Dismas discribes it in our (Catholic) church. -hydnjo talk 06:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Is such a phenomenon restricted to church? As I recall, people tended to sit in the same seats at school, at uni lectures, even on the bus... I've even met people who try and sit in the same cinema seat each time they go. Is it just that we're all creatures of habit? Gwinva (talk) 06:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

But to refer specifically to churches, it was once a tradition for families to purchase pews, and to always sit in them. Some old churches still have the brass name plates. Gwinva (talk) 06:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

here's one church's pew plan showing who was renting them. another. C.S. Lewis always sat in the same pew as well. Gwinva (talk) 06:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with that as well. Including how we arranged ourselves in a car and in the restaurant booth. Hadn't thought about those before but the "arrangement" was indeed pervasive, even in casual environments (remember the The Simpsons couch gag) -hydnjo talk 06:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

On training courses that go for more than a day, where people are free to choose their own seats, the default assumption of most people seems to be that they'll stay in the same seat as they had on Day 1, unless it's taken when they walk in in the morning. But there's a minority who have the opposite assumption: they'll take a different seat every day, unless there's no choice, or they particularly want to sit next to a friend or someone they're hoping will become a friend. It's probably no surprise to most people here that I'm in the latter group. Because I also like to turn up only a minute or two before scheduled starting time (a hearing problem makes it very difficult for me to converse in a room where everyone is talking; nothing to do with being a misanthrope), there's usually little or no choice as to where to sit on Day 2 (or even Day 1, for that matter), and it usually means I'm sitting where I was on Day 1. However, whenever I have managed to snaffle a different seat, nobody's ever asked me to kindly move. They walk in, look terribly surprised for a moment or two when they see "their" seat is occupied, and then make alternative arrangements. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

At one training course I attended, friends were deliberately split up on the first morning because the trainer wanted people to mix with others. So I and a few others moved back together, but we were told to move apart again. How I loathed that course... --Richardrj ^{talk email} 07:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

To 68.15.211.76: I hope that we've added some dimension to your paper. -hydnjo talk 07:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

question

This question was more a science question, so I moved it over to the Science desk. Check it out there! -- Captain Disdain (talk) 13:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)