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

July 13

The difficult one...

I was just reading the difficult one question above, and a thought struck me, and I want to know if it's right. First let us assume that there exists a most difficult question. Let us call it X. Now, this by definition would be the hardest to answer. But consider the question X U Y where Y is any other question, say what is 1 + 1 ?. Now, this question is even harder to answer than X, because it requires that we must know the answer to X and something else, in this case, 1 + 1. But X is the hardest question to answer. Which means we have arrived at a contradiction, proving our assumption to be false. There cannot exist a question which can be called the most toughest question. Or, the sequence of tough questions diverges without a limit. Which means that the answer to OP's question is : There is no answer. It is like asking "what is the biggest number ?". Am I making sense ? Rkr1991 (talk) 04:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about how you are constructing that union. Let's say question A is "solve 1+1" and question B is "solve 2+3" What is A U B? If A U B is simply "1+1 = ? 2+3 = ?" Suppose A and B are independent; is your argument that P (A U B) = P(A) + P(B), which, assuming A is non-trivial, is >= P(B)? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The question X U Y might not be any more difficult to answer correctly than just the question X, if answering X already involves answering Y. For example, X could be the question “What are all the questions which have a correct answer, and what is the correct answer for each of those questions?” That question is unacceptably sloppy, in that it’s left undefined as to what it means to answer a question correctly. But for any definition of answering a question correctly, under pretty much any reasonable definition of how “difficult” it is to answer a question, there wouldn’t be any question more difficult to answer correctly than X. I think that X might be a correct answer to the original question of what the most difficult question to answer is. Red Act (talk) 04:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

OK forget about the union bit, just consider the new question as two questions asked as one question. The second question can be anything at all in the universe. So even if I find one question that is not included in X itself, then I can prove that X cannot exist. So from what Red Act says, we have indeed found X. X should be such that it incorporates all the questions that can be asked, otherwise X does not exist. So X is "Answer all the questions that can be asked." This has to be the most difficult question. Now are we home ? Rkr1991 (talk) 07:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's a paradox. Logically, P(A U B) = P(A) + P(B) - P(A ∩ B).But, even though it's possible to frame a question that will correspond to A U B, how is it possible to frame one corresponding to A ∩ B?? Supposing A is question that goes like: "What is the most difficult question to answer" while B is a question that goes like: "What is 1+1?" so logically, A U B will be a question like:"What is the most difficult question and what is 1+1?" But is it in any way possible to frame A ∩ B here? Any ideas? Anyone? 117.194.229.163 (talk) 08:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It does seem like it would be possible to define the problem of “the most difficult question” in a way that it actually does have a provable answer. A first stab at such a framework might be something along the lines of:

Axiom 1: There exists a set of “answerable questions” such that each element of the set can be represented by a countable string of Unicode characters.

Axiom 2: For every answerable question, there exists a set of “correct answers” to the answerable question, such that each correct answer can be represented by a countable string of Unicode characters.

Definition: For each answerable question, the “difficulty” of answering the question is the sum of Unicode characters in the smallest string that represents the question, plus the sum of Unicode characters in the smallest string that represents a correct answer to the question.

Axiom 3: The “difficulty” of answering a question that asks for the answers to multiple subquestions is greater than the sum of the difficulty of answering each of the subquestions.

Theorem: Let X be the question which has all answerable questions as subquestions. Let Y be any other answerable question. Then the difficulty of X is greater than the difficulty of Y.

The difficulty of X is basically $\aleph _{0}$. Red Act (talk) 09:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh jeez - please - that's pseudo-mathematical bullshit. You're trying to formalize something that's not defined rigorously enough to be formalizable.

• You say: "the “difficulty” of answering the question is the sum of Unicode characters in the smallest string that represents the question, plus the sum of Unicode characters in the smallest string that represents a correct answer to the question" -- So something like "Are there three positive integers a, b, and c can satisfy the equation aⁿ + bⁿ = cⁿ for any integer value of n greater than two." (Fermat's last theorem)...to which the answer turns out to be "No" - is somehow an easier question than "What is the square root of 12341203948712039487123098273502394875203497582304958723045987230458723045987234058723450198723412341230941827340193874 to an precision of 0.00000000000000000001 ?" (for which the answer is "111090971499541939540617341950772052720229439882381084301517.26741388709120337521")? The former question occupied the best minds in mathematics for 350 years - where the latter was answered by me alone in about 20 seconds. There is clearly ZERO correlation between the size of the questions and/or answers and the "difficulty" of arriving at the answer.
• Axiom 3 is also bogus. Very often the stepwise approach of asking several sub-questions makes answering the final part easier - not harder.

Which makes your conclusion as bullshittish as it sounds. The concept of 'difficulty' is in the eye of the beholder. My question about the square root of 12341203948712039487123098273502394875203497582304958723045987230458723045987234058723450198723412341230941827340193874 is difficult for you - because you have only calculators of limited precision. I have the Linux 'bc' arbitary precision math package - and for me it's as easy as 2+2. Furthermore - I find computer programming questions easy - because I'm a computer programmer. Questions about the biochemistry of lipids are quite beyond my ability. Difficulty is also a function of the way you think...if I ask you to tell me the sum of the numbers 1 through 100 and you don't know the trick - it'll take you quite a while to add up all of those numbers. If you happen to "spot" the trick of adding the biggest number to the smallest and the next biggest to the next smallest - you get the answer in about 10 seconds. Sometimes it's just random whether a question is difficult or easy. Some questions (like "Is Fermat's last theorem true?") used to be insanely difficult...but now that the proof has been found, it's easy! Even my square root question was pretty tough - right up to the point when someone wrote an arbitary precision math package for the PDP-11 back in the 1970's. The difficulty of questions changes over time and with available knowledge and technology.

So please - don't pretend you can find the answer to a silly question like this with this kind of approach. The answer was given more than adequately to the original questioner last week. We can easily come up with infinitely difficult questions - so the answer to "what is the most difficult question" is clearly any one that has infinite difficulty. And that's all we can say on the matter.

SteveBaker (talk) 12:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, come to think of it, the theorem could be made more general by replacing the definition of the “difficulty” of a question so that it is merely assumed as an axiom that there exists a function called the “difficulty” of a question, whose domain is the set of answerable questions, and whose range is the set of integers (or maybe reals?). Red Act (talk) 10:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Great - but now you've presumed the existance of a function that answers the OP's question...that doesn't get you any closer to understanding how that function works - so this is just so much irrelevent hand-waving. SteveBaker (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's break this new question down a little:

• First let us assume that there exists a most difficult question. Let us call it X. - Fine - but recognise that since there are questions that are either (a) impossible to answer or (b) would take infinite time to answer - we must say that X is infinitely difficult to answer.
• But consider the question X U Y where Y is any other question, say what is 1 + 1 ?. Now, this question is even harder to answer than X, - No, it's not because infinity+1 equals infinity. Both questions are infinitely hard.
• Which means we have arrived at a contradiction, - not at all.
• There cannot exist a question which can be called the most toughest question. - Yes, there can - providing that it's infinitely tough. We already came up with infinitely difficult questions in answer to the previous OP...so this is solved.
• Which means that the answer to OP's question is : There is no answer. It is like asking "what is the biggest number ?" - yes, it is indeed exactly like asking that - and the answer in both cases revolves around the concept of "infinity"...and for exactly the same reason. The argument that there can be no biggest number because whatever you pick as the biggest can always have one added to it to make it bigger also neglects the fact that infinity+1=infinity.

Infinite answers are not always comfortable ones - but they are very often the truth. There exist some number of infinitely difficult questions - those are the most difficult...and that's all you need to know.

The only tricky part of this is defining "difficulty" - but it seems clear that either a question that cannot possibly be answered (eg "is this theorem true or it false?" for some theorem caught in the Godel Theorem trap - which is fundamentally unanswerable) - or one that takes an infinite amount of time (eg "what is the sum of all of the decimal digits of pi") ought to count as "infinitely difficult".

SteveBaker (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Questions of the form "is this unprovable irrefutable sentence true or false?" are not inherently unanswerable, as I pointed out above (well, not for all philosophies of mathematics, anyway). Algebraist 13:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The proof the OP seems to be getting at is the following, which can be drawn from an analogy on the longest sentence or biggest number:

1. Assume there is a most longest sentence, or biggest number. Call this number or sentence N. 2. In the case of a number, add one to the number, symbolized by X. In the case of a sentence, add an additional word; in this case, "It is a fact" symbolized by X. 3. The new longest sentence is now N + X, and the largest number is N + X. 4. N + X is greater then N. 5. Through an indirect proof, we can see that there is no largest number or longest sentence.

I believe the OP is attempting to correlate most difficult problem with largest number or longest sentence. In the case of a longest sentence, it may not be meaningful, just as the most difficult problem may not be meaningful.

I believe that the argument is on the right track, though seemingly a little off kilter.

74.79.219.157 (talk) 00:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Douglas R Jordan

Habits

Why are good habits difficult to adopt as compared to bad ones? sumal (talk) 08:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Bad ones are generally easier to do and more fun. PhGustaf (talk) 08:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a simple case of Observer bias: Because all of the good habits that are easy to adopt have almost certainly already been adopted. The remaining good habits that you have not yet adopted - but feel that you should - are therefore the hard ones that remain at the end. On the other hand, bad habits that are hard to adopt simply don't come into your sphere of consideration (why would you even consider starting a bad habit if it was difficult to start?!?) - while bad habits that are easy to adopt are the ones you tend to pick up. Hence you only notice the difficult good habits and the easy bad ones. SteveBaker (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Also see Deferred gratification.71.236.26.74 (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"When faced with two evils, I take the one I haven't tried yet." -- Mae West

Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the difference between USC(United States Code) and CFR(Code of Federal Regulation)

My job kinda related with some of American laws, when i was going over some materials, this question just came up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astljames (talk • contribs) 09:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

United States Code is laws passed by congress. But congress doesn't want to get bogged down with tiny administrative details, so many laws it passes enable the executive (most often executive agencies) to make regulations - these are the Code of Federal Regulations. The relevant USCode defines the scope and powers of the executive's ability to make such regulations. 87.114.25.180 (talk) 11:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

To give a little more details; congress may pass a law which says "Coal-burning power plants must reduce their emissions to 20% of 2009 levels by 2020" or something like that. Then, the Environmental Protection Agency will develop a regulation designed to meet that goal, such as "Coal-burning power plants must install <XXX type of filter> whenever the plant is renovated" or "New plants must encorporate <XXX technology> to combat polution" or something like that. Congress passes laws, but the executive branch passes regulations which are designed to put those laws into action. The difference between a "law" and a "regulation" isn't really substantive; it's merely where it comes from. Congress could pass laws which contained the same sort of language that a regulation does. In the example above, Congress could pass laws mandating the use of certain technologies. Insofar as they didn't, the executive department "makes up the gap" between the text of a law and additional clarifications which are necessary to put the law into practive. The difference between the two is that regulations are constrained by the laws that authorize them; in almost exactly the same way that the laws Congress passes are constrained by the U.S. Constitution. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 12:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

And slightly more technical — Congress doesn't simply state a goal and expect the Executive Branch to make it happen. Congress says, "The Secretary of Jellybeans shall promulgate regulations" to put the legislation into effect. —Tamfang (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, you may find the article Nondelegation doctrine interesting. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Brownie problem

I made some brownies yesterday from a premixed dry ingredients package that was over a year old. I did not have any eggs so I substituted a tablespoon of oil for each egg recommended. Despite baking at standard brownie temperature, the brownies never really solidified, even after baking long enough that the edges were starting to become burnt. Was this because there is something in eggs that makes them set while baking, or could the age of the dry ingredients have caused the problem?

PS there were no herbal additives in the brownies. Googlemeister (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... let's see if I can remember enough Good Eats to answer this one. It's the eggs for sure; eggs are not (just) fat. For one, egg yolks contain emulsifiers that act to prevent the oil and water from separating (most box brownies I'm familiar with call for both). Additionally, the proteins in eggs will set at temperature, which probably lends supporting strength and allows the brownies to rise properly. Note that most box brownies call for an additional egg if you want "cakelike" (that is, fluffier) brownies, which lends credence to the idea that they're the primary agent that keeps the brownies from collapsing. — Lomn 16:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(EC)While I cannot speak for your recipe, there is indeed something in eggs that makes them set while baking, which is not found in oil. Experimentally, you can see this by cooking an egg and cooking a small amount of oil: the egg will set and the oil will not. You know this, since fried, boiled, poached eggs are set. Theoretically, it is the proteins denaturing that are responsible; the oil does not contain significant amounts of protein. 86.140.144.220 (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want to substitute eggs again, stock up on some Lecithin (from a pharmacy or health food store). You can also add a bit to sponge cakes and angel food cakes to make them fluffier. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You can, however, replace the oil with an equal amount of applesauce. That works just fine and has less fat. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

? 86.140.144.220 (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

? what? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Export license

I want to mail computer memory (RAM) from the U.S. to a foreign country and am trying to determine if I need to get an export license for this. I can't seem to find where on the USPS web site (or anywhere else for that matter) where I might be able to find this information. Does anyone have better Googling skills than I do here? Thanks. howcheng {chat} 16:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

One important bit of info would be if you intend to do so commercially and on a large scale or if you just want to mail a couple of memory sticks home to a friend upgrading his/her computer? It is also important to note that there are countries to which you may not legally mail technology from the US.71.236.26.74 (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it's just a single one-shot eBay sale to Poland. However, I realize that there are a number of restrictions on mailing electronics to foreign countries, so I just need to figure out if this is even possible to do. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 20:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't quite have the time to dig up the exact page, but these 2 sites look like they could answer your questions. [1], [2] Hope this helps. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ownership of lost library book

I am curious about something me and a friend were arguing over the other day. Suppose a person loses a library book they checked out from a library, and they paid a fine for it (the fine is greater than the market cost of the book), and then they find it a long time later, do they still have an obligation to return it? (The fine will not be refunded even if it is returned, due to the time elapsed.) My friend's view was that since the person paid the fine for it, which is at least the cost of the book, then they effectively bought it, and should be able to do whatever with it now. I disagreed, and my rebuttal was that when a person checks out a book, they have an obligation to return it, and that when a person loses it, they violate that obligation, and the fine is the punishment. As a punishment, and not business transaction, it does not need to transfer any rights to the punishee. The library never intended to give up ownership of the book, and thus should not be forced to now. Also, if it were the case that the fine transfers ownership, then hypothetically people could buy books from the library against the library's will, by "losing" them, which would be unfair to the library, especially since some of the books are out of print. What do you guys think? --76.91.63.71 (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I once damaged a library book, courtesy of a monsoon-style downpour and a leaky rucksack, and returned it shamefacedly to the library to be told, as expected, that I would be charged for a replacement. I didn't mind paying, but was surprised and pleased when in return for my money, which came to a little more than the cost of buying a new copy from my local bookshop (probably to cover the cost of new labels, security tag, plastic cover and so on) I was offered the damaged book to take with me. My library effectively treated the transaction as a sale, not a punishment, and I acquired a tatty but readable copy of the book. I take the point that replacing an out-of-print book would be more difficult and perhaps more expensive, but most things can be obtained at a price and I suspect the library's rules would permit it to recharge a lost book at replacement value, whether that be the current publisher's price or that charged by a dealer for a second-hand copy of a rarer item. Karenjc 19:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

At all library I have had a card at, once the cost of a fine reaches the cost of a replacement, you are charged for a replacement and you keep your copy as stated by the above poster. Googlemeister (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If it's been a while since you lost the book the library may also not want the book back. If they still find it in demand they'll have bought a replacement by now. Libraries do not keep all books they acquire. (Many libraries I frequented had periodic "book for a buck" sales of old stock.) If a book is not read often it will be replaced in the stacks by one more in demand. Only in rare cases like a frequently requested out of print book would a library like to have your copy back. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I did that once - but it's VITAL to explain that the book is terminally, forever, utterly LOST - or else they may continue to levy late fees. I don't believe late fees count towards the price of the replacement book - hence it's critical to tell them that the book is LOST as soon as the charges look like they might be approaching the value of the book. However, as others have pointed out - once you've paid for a replacement - the book should be yours if it ever turns up again...however, not so if you've just run up the charges to more than the value of the book. SteveBaker (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Some libraries will refund most (but not all) of the book replacement fine that you paid if you find the book within the next X months (usually 6 or 12). This is a good thing if you're charged a flat Au$100 (~US$70) for a book, regardless of the cost of the book. Other libraries won't care. Generally, of course, it's cheaper to buy the book from a bookshop, so it's not worth borrowing and "losing" books from the library as a way of getting them.

Depends on the book and the replacement costs. If they charge a flat fee, then there will exist out of print books and textbooks which cost more than that flat fee.--droptone (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, most circulation libraries have book turnover rates that would shock most patrons (median replacement time is often less than 3-6 months for the typical book in the collection). This is dramatically different from a research library which archives large quantities of rare copy. Ordinary use does significant damage to books. Nimur (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

In the libraries I work at, if you still have an outstanding fine for the item and return it, your fine for the replacement will be waived(the price a library pays to purchase a book is more than what stores sell them for due to licensing issues and to make up for lost revenue a publisher might have because people can read the book for 'free' as well as the processing time and materials required for a new book), but you will still have the late charges which will not be waived. If you have already paid for the replacement of the book, then the book is yours to do with as you please, especially if the library has already placed an order for replacement. If they have yet to place the order, then I am sure you may negotiate for a refund and they'd be happy to accommodate.142.132.4.26 (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on these licensing issues? I was not aware that libraries had to pay special licensing fees in order to loan books in their collection. Are you sure the higher cost is not due to the higher quality editions the libraries buy, or the overheads involved with the distributors the libraries source their books from? Dforest (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Please help

What are the qualities that a client interaction manager needs to have as I have an interview coming in couple of days” ideally the clients are the airline counterparts” , and I have to crack this interview coming in a couple of days.ANybody?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.36.6 (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Your first two stops should be the job ad and the company's website. There's usually lots of information in there on what kind of people they have and would like to have. I think the closest we have is Customer relationship management which unfortunately isn't a very good article (some software company advertising). Customer service isn't much better. Your best bet is sitting yourself down (with a buddy/family member if you find it difficult) look at what image the company wants to portrait and what their customers' expectations are (look at some of their customers' sites, too) Then see how your abilities and experience can help them achieve those goals. Airline makes me think of keywords like sophistication, reliability, cost conscious, safety, just-in-time, on-call, 24/7, responsive. Trawling the sites will give you more precise examples. "I have accomplished X doing Y." is more effective than "I can do Y." or "I have done Y." 71.236.26.74 (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Driving in America.

I am a British driver of many years experience (thankfully no accidents) - but next year my wife and I are going to America for a holiday. We have been there many times in the past but I have never driven a car in America. Also, I have only once before (in Mallorca)driven a Left Hand Drive car (with a manual gearbox) but that wasn't aided by Spanish signposts. So can anyone here give me some advice on how easy or difficult I will find driving in America; and also point me to a "Highway Code" equivalent? And are there any helpful virtual reality Left Hand Drive simulation software programmes I could acquire - maybe a Wii game or similar? And finally, what level of insurance should I buy for sufficient cover? Thanks in anticipation.92.23.200.116 (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the first thing you should know is that, if you rent a car in America, it will likely be an automatic transmission car; these are actually more ubiquitous in America than "standard" manual transmissions. You can get a manual tranmission car (I currently drive one) but, unlike many other places, they are not as common. Otherwise, you will probably find driving similar to other left-side steering countries. You will find the freeway system, the Interstate Highway System, to feature roads comparable to the Motorway system in the UK or the Autobahn in Germany. I have only ever driven in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, so I don't have a lot of places to compare to. But in most places, guidesigns are fairly easy to follow, but your driving experience will vary greatly depending on where you intend to go. DO you have a place in the U.S. you are specifically heading? --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 18:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jayron and yes, I should have mentioned we will be flying to either Miami or Orlando in Florida, and then heading to Key West. Thanks again for your prompt reply. 92.23.200.116 (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Having gone the other direction (from US to UK), I can say that most of the transition is fairly straightforward. Keep particularly aware of left-vs-right turns: in the US, left turns are across oncoming traffic and should be given the same consideration you give right turns in the UK. There's no single source for a Highway Code equivalent, since states are free to enact their own particulars, but any one state's guidelines should be sufficient. I suggest perusing Tennessee's driver's license study guide for its coverage of road signs and conventions. If you prefer to check the state(s) you'll actually be visiting, try a Google search of "<state> DOT" or "<state> DMV" for the Dept of Transportation or Dept of Motor Vehicles, respectively. As for insurance, I would ask your own insurance company (they may provide insurance on a rented vehicle) or a travel agent for guidance. Most rental companies in the US are happy to offer their own insurance at time of rental, but the rates will probably be higher at that point. Exact minimums may vary, but to go back to TN as an example, liability insurance of $25000/person, $50000 total, and $15000 property is the minimum. Alabama has $25000/$50000/$25000 requirements for those respective categories. — Lomn 19:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Florida's minimum insurance requirements are $10000 personal and $10000 property liability. — Lomn 19:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Per Lomn, having done it in the other direction, it is fairly easy. Turns across oncoming traffic are notorious, though; beware of turning left, as you're conditioned to regard left turns as less inherently hazardous. You will quickly adapt to having 4 feet of car on your right instead of your left, and all the controls, save the shift (which will invariably be automatic) will be where you expect them to be. I personally found riding as a passenger in what I would normally expect to be the driver's side rather nerve-racking. Acroterion _(talk) 19:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(EC) First of all you should e-mail a couple of prospective rental places and make sure they rent to foreigners. (The selection is surprisingly limited!) If you have relatives here it would probably be easier if they rented the vehicle and register you as second driver. You could probably buy insurance through AAA or even the local British equivalent (I know that some German relatives got s.th. through their auto club.) That may not come cheaper than the insurance the rental agency offers. One thing that is different in the States is that lots of our roadsigns are written in "plain text". We don't have many of these icon signs that you'll be familiar with in Europe. Some foreign people find it annoying that "Speed limit" sings come in two varieties "minimum speed" and "maximum speed". School zones are another thing that's not that easy to navigate. They have hours posted when the speed limit applies, but that's usually in such fine print you'd have to get out and study the sign to read that. Sometimes drivers will honk at others going at the "school zone" limit outside of the posted hours. Instead of roundabouts we have "Spaghetti interchanges" twisting exit/access roads in over and under passes. Exits can be on either the left hand or right hand side. One way to help you figure out lanes is to google your starting and destination addresses and then "test drive" the roads at maximum zoom in the satellite map view. That way you won't get many lane change surprises. There are fewer landmarks than in Europe, so navigation information will often be given in "miles driven" and compass directions. Get used to setting and monitoring your odometer. We can't navigate by pubs because we have so few of them :-) Make sure you know both the name and the number of the road you are supposed to take, labeling on signs isn't standard and may be either. Locals may even give you "nicknames" like "the Loop" or "the Bypass" you won't find on any map. Be sure to get complete street names. (e.g. there are several Main St. in Dallas, TX and it's suburbs and "Peachtree" can be anywhere in Atlanta, GA) If you plan a long drive be sure to take some bottled water. Hope this helps. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Not regarding saftey, but if you are driving in the Florida Keys, keep in mind that there are several drawbridges between the keys, and you might end up just sitting in your non-moving car for fairly long time periods (1-2 hours not uncommon) if you are going from one island to another. Googlemeister

Both Orlando and Miami are major tourist destinations and car rentals should be well prepared for tourists. Note though that Orlando is about 4 hours drive from Miami and at least one route is a toll road. There is a bus though. Key West to Miami is another 4 hours drive (if you are lucky). The whole distance from Orlando to Key West is about the same as the distance from London to Edinburgh. Rmhermen (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That's what we had thought of LA, Calif. This was back in the 80s so things might have improved since then. We found that only 2 of the 8 local choices for rental car agencies would rent to foreign tourists and when we went to pick up the car the attendant had such trouble with the concept of non-US drivers license and no local insurance that we went ahead and rented the car for our relatives and paid the "additional driver fee". ... And you'll need a credit card. EC cards or cash won't get you anywhere in the US. For anyone under the age of 24 coming across this, watch out for the minimum age requirements. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm Canadian and drove in the Orlando area last year. It is reasonably well signed. As Rmhermen mentioned, there are lots of toll highways (motorways). I'm pretty sure that if you rent a car at Orlando's airport (the car rental companies are pretty well organised there and most of the major ones are located on site), you almost have to hit a toll road on the way out. Either keep small change handy, or make sure you go to the booth with the attendant. Another thing to consider is a GPS device for your rental car. It add some expense, but may be worthwhile for driving in an unfamiliar place. As for insurance, if you have a "Gold" VISA or some other premium credit card, it may cover your insurance costs. Let's see.... Speeds are exclusively in miles per hour, and distances in miles. You can usually turn right at a red light after you've stopped, but make sure there are no local prohibitions. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 20:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Another very important thing you should remember is which direction traffic is coming from when crossing a street. A British friend of mine once told me that in Britain there are signs that warn tourists that traffic is coming from the right first instead of the left, but I have never seen anything like that in America (probably due to there being more tourists to England than from England). Just make sure that you look left first before stepping into traffic, as this can be a very simple (yet very dangerous) mistake to make, as your habit of looking to the right first is probably quite ingrained into you. —Akrabbim^talk 20:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant and very helpful responses to my plea for help. Thanks immensely to all of you. Anyone interested in meeting us at the airport and accompanying us to Key West? 92.23.200.116 (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It's actually pretty easy to adapt to driving on the other side of the road. After about 10 minutes in the car (ie, by the time you're out of the airport car rental district), it'll seem pretty natural. The main things to watch out for are:

1. Single-lane roads - like the lanes between parked cars in a parking lot or a one-way street - where it's easy to lose track of which side of the road you're supposed to be on - resulting in a need to be extra-focussed when you next turn onto a more normal two-way road.
2. Intersections between "divided highways" (aka "dual carriageways") with other dual carriage-ways - where it's easy to get confused and wind up on the wrong side of the divider(Eeek!).
3. Other subtly different road rules (eg the "Right on Red" rule at traffic signals and the bizarre and often lethal rules of the infamous "Four way stop").
4. Crossing the street on foot...very dodgy! Fortunately, here in Texas, nobody does that - we all get into our cars and drive over to the other side of the street (You may think I'm joking...but I'm not!).
5. I've never had trouble renting a car AT AN AIRPORT with a British driver's license and credit card...however, I advise booking ahead just to be really, really 100% sure. Airports see foreigners renting cars every day - they take it completely in their stride. However, if you are at some back-of-beyond place - life won't be so simple. The credit card thing is very important. Almost nobody takes cheques anymore - and certainly not without an in-state driver's license. You can't pay for either car or hotel with cash! So make sure you have plenty of credit and charge cards!
6. There isn't a single "highway code" book - there is at least one for each state! The rules of the road in the USA are not completely uniform from state to state - and sometimes the differences are pretty serious. For example, in Texas, if there is a police car over on the hard shoulder - stopped. You are required to slow down to either 25 mph or 30mph below the posted speed limit (whichever is more) - or to change to a lane that is not adjacent to the police car. I doubt that this is the exact rule in any other state...but I guarantee they'll have other strange laws instead. There are all kinds of laws relating to how you drive near those big yellow school busses for example. One weird one I heard recently is that in Texas, it's legal to drive in bare feet - in many other states, it isn't. There are states in which it's illegal to fill up your own car with petrol - you have to wait for an attendant to do it for you. I once got pulled over in California (I think it was California) for having my high-beams turned on while driving on a dual-carriageway - even though there were no cars coming the other way!! There are MANY bizarre legal differences to catch you out...but I've found that having a British driver's license and a rental car will allow you to talk your way out of most cop-related traffic incidents...they really don't give a damn about you - and they can just mentally envisage the paperwork it's going to take them to file a charge and the unlikelyhood of you ever paying it! So be super-polite to the cops - look scared (not difficult - just notice the GIGANTIC firearm(s) they'll doubtless be carrying!) - and be suitably apologetic for not being aware of the local laws...99 times out of 100 that'll get you off with a warning.

Keep an eye on the speed limits too - they are generally lower than the UK - but (especially in small towns) they have a nasty habit of dropping the speed limit by 5mph for no readily discernable reason - SPECIFICALLY in order that the local police can earn money for their town by catching out-of town motorists and issuing speeding tickets. It's REALLY easy to fall foul of these on long trips - especially at night. You'll be driving at 70mph in a 70mph limit and a 60mph limit sign will flash past for no good reason - and before you know it, you're up for a $100 fine.

Incidentally - if you're going to be renting a car - it'll be an automatic for nearly 100% certain. If you aren't used to driving automatic (most Brit's aren't) - then that comes as a strange thing. Hardest of all to get used to are those automatics that don't have a hand-brake - but use a ratchetted foot brake instead. Doing a "proper" hill start in one of those comes as a bit of a puzzle! One rental car I had used a hand-activated lever down by your left knee to operate the "parking brake" - it was right next to the bonnet catch handle - and (to my embarrassment) I must have popped open the bonnet a dozen times at stop-lights before I got the hang of it!

The toughest "wrong side of the road" driving is driving a left-hand drive car in a right-hand drive country - or vice-versa. That's *NASTY*! SteveBaker (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Florida is flater than a pancake - hills aren't an issue! 75.41.110.200 (talk) 06:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

One thing that nobody has mentioned is the color of stripes along the road. In the US and Canada, yellow striping is reserved for the left edge of the part of the road you will be using in normal driving. In other words, a two-way road has a yellow stripe down the middle; a one-way road, including one half of a divided highway (dual carriageway), has it on the left. All other stripes are white. So the only times you should ever see a yellow stripe on your right are (a) if you are in a reversible middle lane such as a two-way left-turn lane, or (b) if you have pulled into the lane for opposing traffic in order to pass (overtake) on a two-lane road. (Of course, minor roads may have no stripes at all. And in cities, a one-way street may not have a yellow stripe on the left, but in that case it won't have one at all, only white stripes.) Also, stripes along the edge of the road are not used for parking restrictions. These are expressed by signs or in some places by painted curbs.

In general North American roads use stop signs far more than British roads and yield (give way) signs far less. Consequently people tend to disrespect stop signs, so don't trust other people to stop, but be smart and do stop yourself when you come to one. By the same token, the four-way stop is used for equal-priority intersections where Britain would use a mini-roundabout, which is essentially a four-way yield. At a four-way stop, whoever gets to the intersection first has priority to continue, and in case of a tie, the one on the right of the other has priority. A four-way stop is marked by a standard stop sign with a small plate underneath reading "4-WAY" or "ALL-WAY".

When parallel-parking, you must be facing the same way as in the adjacent traffic lane, i.e. park only on the right-hand side of the street unless it is one-way.

Traffic lights are placed on the far side of the intersection (in most states; a few place them over the middle of the intersection), but still govern whether you are allowed to enter the intersection. If the cross street is wide, you may have find yourself having to stop 100 feet before the light. Sometimes there is a sign "stop here on red signal" reminding you where to stop if you are first in line at the red; otherwise just stop at the first line across your half of the street. If you are turning left, you can pull forward into the intersection as soon as you have a green and then wait for a break in oncoming traffic. (That's if there is no separate signal giving priority for left turns.) Red-and-yellow is not used; if you want to know when the light is likely to turn green, you can keep an eye on the signal for the cross street.

In urban areas the left lane of freeways (motorways) may be reserved for "high-occupancy vehicles", in which case it is marked with diamonds and special striping. In many places two people in the car qualifies it as "high occupancy"; if signs say "HOV-2", that's what it means.

In navigating for long-distance travel, you primarily use the highway number and compass direction. Signs will show "north" and "1" in a highway emblem. The compass direction means the general direction along the road, not the direction of the local little bit where you are -- if you're from London, it's like "northbound" on the Underground (which got the idea from Americans). There are different emblems for Interstate highways (which are all motorways and keep the same number across state lines), US highways (which keep the same number across state lines), and state highways. In fact, almost every state has its own different emblem for its state highways! But you don't have to learn them all, just realize that different ones are used and go by the numbers.

In navigating in cities, note that the same named street may consist of disconnected segments -- this allows for the possibility that in a future year they will be connected. In some cities street addresses follow a systematic plan so that if Maple Street and Elm Street are both north-south, then 800 Maple Street will be due east of 800 Elm Street. So a short street may have large house numbers. In other cities, especially older ones, this is not the case. Street addresses often increase both ways away from an axis, so you have "800 North Elm St." and "800 South Elm St." (In some cities, especially in Canada, the compass direction comes at the end. Some cities have more complicated systems. If you see a compass direction not in the usual position for the city you're in, it's just part of the street name.)

Oh, in most states exits on freeways are numbered by distance, so "Exit 60" does not mean the 60th interchange (junction), it means the one 60 miles from the start of the road (or the state line). This is handy for knowing how far you have to travel, if you know the exit number where you are getting off. --Anonymous, 11:57 UTC, edited 12:01, July 14, 2009.

That last point though rarely applies to toll roads. Googlemeister (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again everyone - I think I'll just stay home - phew! 92.20.21.228 (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And if you're overwhelmed by the prospect of driving in the US, have you considered flying to Key West? American Airlines has direct flights between Miami & Key West airport. It's definitely pricier but the flight's only 50 minutes. —D. Monack ^talk 02:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

metaphysics

Why do bad things, such as untimely death (i.e., in childbirth) happen to good people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkready (talk • contribs) 19:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You may be interested in our article on the problem of evil. There is no universally-agreed answer. — Lomn 19:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we only notice when they happen to good people and tend to shrug off bad things that happen to bad people. TastyCakes (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The Book of Job addresses the same (or similar) issue - the article is long with much discussion of the philosophical aspects of the story - though it does seem fair to summarise that nobody really knows why unfair things happen. 83.100.250.79 (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It's worth considering that, if they (bad things) didn't happen we would be either

Living in heaven

or Omnipotent gods

It's a vital part of being human - if you (like most people) find that something you have difficulty accepting I can recommend reading Suffering#Philosophy I find the thoughts of Schopenhauer, and to a much lesser extent Nietzsche comforting, I hope you do too.83.100.250.79 (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that seemingly innocuous and harmless concepts such as "comfort", "solace" require the opposite to exist for them to have any meaning - eg without strife there is no solace.

Thus to elimate suffering, you must also eliminate kindness, and comforting behaviour. 83.100.250.79 (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

They are independent of each other. corr(bad things|good people)==0. Plasticup ^T/C 20:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

comment The subjective identification of a 'bad thing happening' is quite dependent on who it happens to. Though I'm not disagreeing. 83.100.250.79 (talk) 20:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a strange idea that if you help an old lady cross the road you should be less likely to be run over by a bus. Crossing the road will increases the chance of being killed fairly much irrespective of whether it was for a good or bad reason. Dmcq (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This is similar to a question we had earlier about why it's easier to give in to bad habits than it is to pick up good ones. Our threshold for seeing something as "a terrible thing" depends entirely on who it happens to. We are less inclined to say that some event is bad when it happens to a bad person. If your mother's car gets stolen - you're horrified - but when a car thief's car get stolen, we have a good laugh about it. Even if a used-car salesman's car get's stolen, we wouldn't think that such a terrible thing because we don't have a lot of respect for that kind of person. Same event - three different people - produces three different grades of reaction. This is probably enhanced by the fact that we generally perceive (rightly or wrongly) that people close to use (friends and relatives) are more or less "good people" - and we react much more strongly to bad things happening to people we know than to complete strangers - that also introduces some inherent bias into our perceptions. SteveBaker (talk) 23:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"Rain falls on the just and the unjust." Everyone has a bullet with their name on it. It's just a matter of what that bullet turns out to be. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The rain falls always on the just/And also on the unjust fella/But mainly on the just because/The unjust steals the just's umbrella!--TammyMoet (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

… Burma-Shave. Deor (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If it didn't rain, we wouldn't appreciate the sunshine. Stuff happens. 92.27.146.141 (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

...unless it got foggy...or cloudy...or we went indoors...or maybe if it got dark at night. Actually, that's a pretty amazingly meaningless saying. SteveBaker (talk) 06:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It works just as well in reverse. If the sun didn't shine, we wouldn't appreciate the rain. Googlemeister (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

But I hate the rain...did the sun just stop shining or something?! Corollaries of these awful sayings are always good fun. I'm especially fond of "Every silver lining has a cloud" and "The early worm gets the bird"...which frankly, are a lot more true than the original statements from which they are derived. SteveBaker (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Index funds

I live in Canada and have been putting money into Bank of Montreal index funds (S&P 500 and the TSX equivalent) on automatic payments. I am a little concerned that the fees for the funds are about 1% each - considerably higher than what I've heard index funds generally charge. Is there something I'm overlooking that makes up for this? As a Canadian, what are my other options? I don't think an ETF would work because transaction fees alone would quickly add up to more than 1% for my monthly deposits. Can I buy a fund automatically from a third party mutual fund company and ditch BMO? TastyCakes (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

In the US I know of actively managed funds that are from about 1.5% down to 0.3% with 1% being a bit above average. Whether or not this is typical for Canada, however, I can not answer, but recently on CNN I saw a chart that showed how well several funds did in 2008 and a higher fund price did not seem to correlate with a higher return. Googlemeister (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm aware that mutual fund fees can go up to significantly higher levels. My question is for index funds, the type that buys everything in proportion to its presence on the market without any kind of analysis, and is (in theory) much cheaper as a result. TastyCakes (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's a chart of Canadian index funds with fees under 1%, as of April 2008. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah perfect, thank you very much. It would seem I should look into TD... TastyCakes (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

July 14

Hawaii state routes - Why are the numbers so big?

I was just in Hawaii and I noticed that some of the state routes have numbers over 7000. It seems impossible that Hawaii maintains that many state roads. Four digit numbers are a lot harder to remember than two or three digit numbers, so why does Hawaii use such large state route numbers? 71.227.1.59 (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You may find the answer in the lead of List of Hawaii state highways which also notes that locals don't generally refer to them by number anyway. Nanonic (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

A more complete explanation is at the website hawaiihighways.com. — Michael J 21:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

78 rpm records

what year were the last commercial 78rpm records made?. Is there a a last particular song? does anyone make gramophone needles that do not have to be changed every song? how long do they last? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Payneham (talk • contribs) 00:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I know they were made as recently as the 1950s. There used to be harder needles that were multiple-play. The old one-use needles were relatively soft and would conform to the grooves of the particular record. In fact, they supposedly could be used more than once if you were playing the same record over again a couple of times, but it wasn't recommended to push them very far. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This article - Gramophone record - says that there were 78's issued as late as the 1970s, for some children's records, but does not specify titles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The one-play needles were for players that used acoustic reproduction. They became obsolete when electronic pickups appeared, by the 30s. By the 50s there were long-lived sapphire and diamond styli. The pickup would have a stylus for 78s on one side and a stylus for 33/45 on the other, and would be flopped as needed. PhGustaf (talk) 03:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot to mention that point. The replaceable needles were used with Victrolas and Grafonolas and the like. Meanwhile, here's an interesting little writeup. It's possible that the last major-label issue of a 78 was a Chuck Berry release in 1960. [3] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The Grafonolas didn't last long. The oats and raisins made a real mess of the records. PhGustaf (talk) 03:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I crunched right into that one. Victrola was invented by Victor to play their records. The Grafonola was invented by Columbia to play their records. Of course, they were interchangeable - they could play each others' records. Anyway, Victor became part of RCA which formed NBC radio and later NBC-TV. Columbia became CBS radio and later CBS-TV. Edison Records, despite a promising start, did not go the distance. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And here's another article that talks about other 78's, not mentioning the Chuck Berry one, but notice that it's also 1960.[4] That sounds like a good bet for when 78 ceased to be considered commercially viable, although it seems that 78's were produced to some extent well beyond 1960. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

For a given company, it would be possible to determine the last 78 titles they carried in their catalog. In the 1950's recordings were released on both 78 and 33 or 45. In the late 1950's record stores stopped ordering 78's since their customers preferred the newer formats. Whole stocks of new 78's were sold out at five cents per record. at some stores. The later 78's were likely to be on vinyl and of pretty low surface noise and pretty high fidelity compared to 78 records of earlier decades. I recall reading about a rock group, probably in the 1970's who had a record released on 78 as a bonus to go with an LP album. The ols master cutting and pressing equipkent was still setting around unused in a corner of a factory. In India, the Beatles were released on 78 rpm in 1965, and new 78 records were released through 1974 [5]. Edison (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Per the site Bugs cited,[6], a Moby Grape LP in 1968 included a song recorded at 78 on the otherwise 33 LP 78. I still believe there was a LP release accompanied by a 78 record probably a few years after that. Fonotone, a small but respected label, issued 78s in the US through 1969. [7] See Joe Bussard about the owner of Fonotone. [8] says that R. Crumb (of underground comic fame) issued a 78 called "Wiscinsin Wiggle " circa 1975. [9] says it was recorded in 1972, but not when it was released. Edison (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I used to own a 78 single of Downtown by Petula Clark. Since that song was first released in 1964, 78's were certainly still being produced in the UK at least as late as 1964. My first (portable) record player was bought new in about 1972, and featured the dual flip-over 33 and 78 styli mentioned above. 87.194.161.147 (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

A lot of folks still had 78s even though they weren't really being made anymore, and many phonographs had the two-sided stylus you're talking about. One problem with 45s, being acetate, is that they scratched easily. 78s were probably superior technology - but bulky to carry. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

As a collector of 78s I can offer up some belated advice. If you have an old victrola player from ca. 1900 to 1930 you should change your needles very often. These players have heavy tonearms that use steel (or sometimes bamboo or cactus) needles. These needles should ideally be changed after every record side. In reality this depends on the quality of your needles and records. I wouldn't play a rare or valuable 78 with a used needle, but you could get away with playing a used needle on a common record for one or two more plays if you don't care about its value and don't plan on playing it dozens of times. Hold a used needle up to the light and spin it in your fingers: the more the light flickers off the tip, the more worn-out the needle is. These needles are very cheap, you can buy them from ebay for around 5 dollars per 100. Victor also produced what they called a "Tungs-tone" needle which lasted around 50 plays, but good luck finding those today. If you are using a modern turntable you should use a modern stylus that is adapted for 78rpm recordings. The grooves of 78s are shaped differently than 33s and using the wrong stylus will ruin your records. These styli should last a long time just as styli do for 33 RPM records.

As Edison remarked above, the 78 RPM format was popular well into the 50s and dwindled into obscurity during the 60s. The turnover happened at different times in different countries, with India and Argentina being some of the later to change. I think it'll be impossible to determine the very last song/record released in this format, as you have to weigh different songs on different labels being put out in different countries, of which the last markets were poor, unindustrialised societies (many communities in India used hand cranked players long after they went out of fashion in the West because they didn't take electricity). ThemFromSpace 07:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Lodgers in Britain

I remember reading in several novels about a group of retired people( who have no relatives),of which one or two of them are ex-servicemen, lodging together in some place like Blackpool( sea resort), the lodge is generally run by a widow/spinster. All of them stay, probably till they die, by paying their way out of pension.It is not exactly a old age home too. My question is do such establishements still exist in England today?Or did it go out of fashion since the 40's a& 50's? sumal (talk) 03:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you are talking about bedsits. They certainly still exist, although my anecdotal evidence would suggest it is usually young people living in them rather than pensioners these days. --Tango (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

With the widowed landlady, it sounds more like a boarding house. Kind of like a small cheap hotel where the rules and behaviour are arranged more for the owner's convenience than the residents'. These both offered short-term accommodation for holiday visitors, and sometimes also had permanent residents as you describe.

I doubt there are many or any traditional boarding houses around any more. That is, the building and the business may still be running, but not like a 1950s boarding house. They will have turned into a small hotel or guesthouse, much nicer to stay at and less likely to have permanent residents, basically because standards of service and facilities have improved since then and nobody would want to stay in an old-fashioned boarding house. The beginning of Bill Bryson's "Notes from a Small Island" covers this quite well, describing his initial stay in the early 70s in a guesthouse verging on boarding house, followed by his return in the late 90s to find the area full of pleasant little hotels with the old-style ferocious landladies nowhere to be seen. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 07:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In Australia there are still many of these left. They are called "boarding houses" although sometimes they are named "xyz Lodge". Often they are buildings not suitable for conversion to boutique hotels...too small and too old, often larger suburban family houses with more rooms obtained by subdividing the living room and enclosing verandahs etc.

Younger people (unemployed etc) often live in these, in "flatettes", which is a room with a cooking corner, shared bathrooms and "self-contained" (ie they are responsible for the cleaning). They may be around $120 a week, about half the unemployment benefit. Pensioners are more likely to be in simple rooms, with meals, basic cleaning, linen and laundry services provided.

They are NOT the "genteel poverty" type of places featured in UK books and movies...they are generally desperate poverty places, de facto nursing homes, taking all but $20 or $30 of the weekly pension for their "services", which are usually more neglect than service. There appears to be no regulation of this "industry" but every now and then a small scandal erupts over one. They survive because of a lack of hostel style State-provided accommodation for older people who are not sick enough to be in nursing homes, but not well enough to live totally independently.- KoolerStill (talk) 09:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Odd perspective in a photo

Front of building

Back of building

Looking back at some pictures I took and uploaded, I'm curious how I got the results pictured to the right. Both photos are of the same rectangular building, taken from two different angles: if the box below represents the building, the pictures are taken where the X's are marked.

  ____ X (back)
 |    |
 |    |
 |    |
 |____|
       X (front)

How is it that the building looks rather flat in the front picture but normal in the back? I've tried to remember how I took this picture, but I can't quite imagine how I did it, and although I photograph lots of buildings, I've never taken another picture like it of any building. Nyttend (talk) 03:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a photography expert, but it looks to me like you were either using a different lens or that you were using the same lens (something with just a slight fisheye effect, as cameras often have) and that you might have been standing closer to the building on one side than on the other, tilting the camera upward to catch the roof, and thus "stretching" it more on that side. Both photos are "stretched", just the one side more than the other. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the relative sizes of the windows tells me that you were definitely closer to the subject on the one, hence the stretching is more exaggerated. And now this is coming back to me. 50 MM focal length gives a "natural" perspective. That's what a typical single-lens-reflex camera will have. A typical aim-and-shoot will have a "wide angle" lens, such as 35 MM focal length, which allows more stuff in the picture but also causes the "stretching", which is why you can't take several pictures from such a camera and create a fake panorama. If you have a 50 MM lens, you can. I think that's what's going on in these photos - a wide angle lens from two different distances. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure the building is rectangular? Assuming the description of the photos are correct, the building is trapezium shaped (see Google Maps). And according to the EXIF data they're taken at the same focal length, ruling out any perspective change. --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, since it's in North America, it's trapezoid-shaped. --Anonymous, 08:01 UTC, July 16, 2009.

I can't do Google maps on my antique PC, but I would point out that the second photo appears to be taken from significantly closer to the building. So if the camera is using a standard, somewhat wide-angle lens, then it would be more distorted when you're closer to it. In the first photo, he was able to get the building within a landscape framing. In the second one, being closer, he had to turn the camera sideways in a portrait framing (note the pixel counts are flipped from the first picture) to get the entire building in the shot. That exaggerated the stretching effect. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I can do Google maps on work PC, which I just did, and you're right, the building is more like this (as best I can do using this method) although I would say my general explanation still applies:

  ____ X (back)
 |    |
 |    |
 |    |
 |    |
 |    |
 |   /
 |  /      X (front)
 | / 
 |/

Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no. The "stretching" you referred to is actually called foreshortening. With ideal lenses perspective has nothing to do with focal length; fisheye lenses are anything but common; creation of panorama does not depend on the lens focal length; and lastly there is nothing peculiar about the perspective in the second photo, it's the first photo with the building looking far flatter than possible if it were rectangular that is strange. That effect is the opposite of fisheye, and there aren't anything other than digital manipulation that I can think of, that would creat that kind of distortion. --antilived^{T | C | G} 12:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, I can take a series of photos with a 50 MM and splice them together and make a decent fake panoramic. That won't work with an aim-and-shoot, due to the stretching that I referred to. It would be really nice if the original poster would get back here and comment some more, unless he's just pulling our lariat. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations. You know, if I'd looked at the building in Google Maps first, I wouldn't have brought this up: it's so much simpler when I see that it's not rectangular! Sorry for not returning sooner; I've been taking and uploading pictures today, since the weather was great for photography. I can confirm that I took the pictures at the same settings with the same camera, etc.; other than the angle, the only difference between the photos was about one minute in time that it took me to go from one angle to the other. As well, my only image editing software is Windows Paint, and I'm not skilled enough to do anything significant with that :-) Nyttend (talk) 04:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

What about the physical distance from the building? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If you're still in the vicinity of that building, it would be interesting to take some photos from the exact distance away, on each side of the building, and do it in both portrait and landscape, and see the effects. Now that you're aware of what can happen, you could take several photos, each angle up a little more. If you feel like experimenting. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

NO. See this, he's using a fish eye (probably 8mm or something) on a APS-C sensor DSLR, far wider than any 35mm lens. If by "stretching" you really mean distortion then I shall inform you that unless it's a really crappy camera (you can probably do panos even with a Holga) there will not be anywhere near that much distortion to change the way the photo looks. --antilived^{T | C | G} 12:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

All I can tell you is that the typical wider-angle aim-and-shoot camera distorts the image, or "stretches" it as I call it, such that if you take several individual shots and try to construct a panorama from them, it won't work - the edges won't match up. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of trying to get pictures from the same distance. However, I haven't a clue when (or if) I'll ever be back to the site; if I ever return, it will be months or years from now. As for the distance: I believe that they were taken from a similar distance, judging by the size of the windows. My goal was simply to get as much of the building as possible in each picture, so I basically aimed the camera at the building and walked backwards until I could get most or all of it in one shot. My camera is a Canon Powershot A540, quite similar to this one. Nyttend (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

An aim-and-shoot, with a wide-angle lens. I think that explains it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Explain what? There's nothing to be explained here, the camera captured exactly how it is in real life, that the building is not rectangular, it's just the OP/photographer remembered it wrong. And you do not create panoramas by stitching up photos by the edges, modern panorama making software are far more sophisticated than that. It's a limit of projecting a sphere (the scene) onto a plane (the sensor/panorama), which breaks down at around 150 degrees with the rectilinear projection, requiring the use of more exotic ones like cylindrical projection, equirectangular projection and the "little planet" sterographic projection. --antilived^{T | C | G} 01:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I used Google SketchUp's "Match Photo" feature to import the two photos and trace a rough 3D layout of the building and the camera positions. From that layout, I made the following calculations.

The photos seem to be taken with the same zoom or lens.

• The first photo is 56 degrees wide by 44 degrees tall.
• The second photo is 42 degrees wide by 54 degrees tall.

The distances from the camera to the building in each photo are similar.

• The first photo is at a distance 1.15 times the width of the building*.
• The second photo is at a distance 1.05 times the width of the building*.

(*the width of the wall that is visible in both photos)

--Bavi H (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty cool, never knew SketchUp can do that. --antilived^{T | C | G} 01:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I had no idea about it either, until I happened to see this page of video tutorials. The last two videos show how to use the Match Photo feature. Note that Match Photo helped to create the building, but I had to use the Ruby console to help draw lines from the camera points. But once you have the lines you want, you can right click on any line to get an info window with its distance. Also once you've matched the photo, you can click on the Zoom tool and read the vertical field of view from the status bar, but you'll have to use trigonometry to calculate the horizontal field of view. --Bavi H (talk) 05:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, if you look carefully at the original photo, you can actually tell that the building is not rectangular. Up near the roofline there is a cornice with a row bracket-shaped things either holding it up or serving as decorations along the bottom of it. The upper rim of each bracket forms a rectangular shape, which is not distorted by anything except normal perspective. Now look at the place where the two walls meet. --Anonymous, 08:06 UTC, July 16, 2009.

Here's another way: The air-conditioner units in the windows are rectangular boxes but look different than the corner of the building. --Bavi H (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There's simply no way that there's such a bad distortion to render a rectangular building looking like that on a consumer camera. --antilived^{T | C | G} 01:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Boycott

The Gap Inc. employee handbook[10] (page 8) states that:

"By law, Gap Inc. employees and agents may not support or cooperate with an unsanctioned boycott of another country that is "friendly" to the United States. The Company must report to the U.S. government any information or any request to support a boycott. . . If you learn of a boycott of another country that is "friendly" to the United States, call our Legal department."

However our boycott article says:

"In the United States, the antiboycott provisions of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) apply to all "U.S. persons", defined to include individuals and companies located in the United States and their foreign affiliates. The antiboycott provisions are intended to prevent United States citizens and companies being used as instrumentalities of a foreign government's foreign policy. The EAR forbids participation in or material support of boycotts initiated by foreign governments, for example, the Arab League boycott of Israel. . . However, the EAR only applies to foreign government initiated boycotts: a domestic boycott campaign arising within the United States that happens to also have the same object as the foreign-government-initiated boycott is completely lawful, assuming that it is an independent effort not connected with the foreign government's boycott. . . Inducing government action through lies or fraud, attempting to suppress free speech through intimidation, or falsely claiming that a domestic boycott campaign is foreign governmental in origin may, in fact, constitute conspiracy against civil rights, a Federal felony, punishable by fine and imprisonment."

Is there any justification for the Gap Inc. policy? Has there been any controversy or lawsuits about this? Note that this is a request for information, not for legal advise. Thanks, --S.dedalus (talk) 04:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like Gap might be a little overzealous in its approach. But why would you assume the wikipedia article has the facts right? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Because in the U.S. free speech is considered an inalienable right. Thus limiting the ability for an individual to campaign for a boycott would be a HUGE deal. I think I would have heard about it. --S.dedalus (talk) 04:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Freedom of speech has to do with protesting against the government. It does not extend to undermining a company you work for. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In this case the issue isn't directly attacking the company you work for, but rather supporting a political position which may or may not harm Gap. I'm very confidant that that is protected by free speech laws. Do you have sources that would suggest otherwise? --S.dedalus (talk) 04:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see the distinction your making. If all the initial facts you stated are true, it could in fact be what I would call a "legalistic bluff", to put it politely. But it could also be an attempt by Gap to show loyalty to America and its allies. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You're way off on this free speech thing. It's got nothing to do with that. As Baseball says, first amendment issues only apply to the government. The use of the "friendly" language highly suggests this is an issue of some treaty or other labor law with some esoteric background. The first amendment's a huge red herring here. There are some laws, particularly state laws, that will protect workplace political speech, but this is not a constitutional issue, but rather one passed by the state legislature. In fact, freedom of association under the first amendment will give some organizations the ability to exclude members that do not agree with their social positions, political or otherwise. Shadowjams (talk) 05:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but the words "By law" suggests that it is a First Amendment issue, and the word "support" can be understood as meaning only verbal support. Unless the company means that "the law allows us to control what you say and do".Sjö (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

If I'm understanding the question correctly, let's say a private Muslim organization in the U.S. wants to boycott sales of jeans to Israel. Some employees of Gap decided to support that boycott. In effect, then, you have employees of Gap supporting a move that would hurt sales of their own company. No company is going to stand for that kind of activity, nor should they. There is no constitutional right to employment in a particular job. If you're working for a company and at the same time working against that company, you're gone. End of story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, firing someone based on their political views is employment discrimination, and thus illegal in the US. --S.dedalus (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You do not have the right to earn income from a company while at the same time engaging in behavior that undermines that company's ability to earn income. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Not on company time to be sure, but on you're own time I'm pretty sure the company has no right to interfere with your freedom of speech. I would be very interested in sources which refer to this though. --S.dedalus (talk) 04:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

So would I. Merely supporting a political party on your own time, for example, should be out of reach of a company's tentacles. But directly engaging in activity that undermines your company would have to be a no-no, I would think. As a simple example, imagine a PETA supporter working for McDonald's part of the time and then in off-hours participating in a march outside a McDonald's with the intent to intimidate potential customers. No company would, or should, have to stand for that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of sources, what's the source for that Gap policy? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

A booklet called Welcome to Gap Inc. page 8. It's the official reference book for store policy used by Gap employees. I don't believe a copy exists online, but I could be wrong. --S.dedalus (talk) 05:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you know!! It DOES exist online: [11] page 8 --S.dedalus (talk) 05:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Looks like a standard code of conduct, kind of similar to my own company's. Codes of conduct can be summarized fairly simply: Don't engage in any activity that could harm the company in some way. This means things that are illegal or unethical. Making honest but bad business decisions are outside the scope of such documents, as that's a whole different story. :) But you left out some key parts of it which I'm emphasizing, along with emphasizing a keyword that your original quote included. That changes the flavor of it, and seems to have to do with on the job activities. It has to do with another company saying, to an individual within the Gap company, such as a salesman, "If you'll support this boycott, we'll buy your product." That would be clearly unethical behavior. I also noticed it's dated 2005, but I can see why they would say this:

"By law, Gap Inc. employees and agents may not support or cooperate with an unsanctioned boycott of another country that is "friendly" to the United States. The Company must report to the U.S. government any information (about which it has knowledge) or any request to support a boycott. A company could make such a request in a bid invitation, purchase contract, letter of credit, or verbally. If you learn of a boycott of another country that is "friendly" to the United States, call our the Legal department."

Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Good call, and my bad. I didn't see any particular significance in those "legal definition" words, but now that you point them out, I see your point. Clearly what you describe would be unethical. --S.dedalus (talk) 05:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is that sometimes the wording on these codes of conduct are kind of obscure, like they're trying to say something but trying not to quite say it the way you and I would say it. The hypothetical they're describing strikes me as the flip side of a salesman being approached by someone who is not "friendly" to the U.S. Let's say Iran. That's a safe bet right now. If someone from Iran approached a Gap salesman and said, "We'll buy your product if you'll do such-and-such or NOT do such-and-such", that would also be serious trouble brewing - depending on current laws regarding trade with Iran. Cuba comes to mind also. Those kinds of cases are obviously a little more clear-cut, but I think they're all part of the same ethical/legal topic. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've seen a variant of this Gap language in the employee handbook of at least one company I have worked at which was not in textiles nor retail sales. As mentioned above, this exists specifically because of the Arab League boycott of Israel; at one time a lot of faxes were circulating trying to prod random US companies into joining the boycott. Tempshill (talk) 06:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That explains why they included it, and also why they worded it vaguely, so as not to target any one group and thus risk complaints of anti-Arab bias. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

MBA college

Is EIILM kolkata cumpus under University Grants Commission (UGC)?Supriyochowdhury (talk) 07:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Nominal Diameter of a pipe

The structural steel pipes are designated by nominal diameter. But the dimensions neither internal diameter nor the external diameter match with the nominal diameter. What is meant by the term NB? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasantachdash (talk • contribs) 07:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"Nominal" means in name only, and is merely a convenient label. As you have observed, true values are not the same as the nominal value. As for your second question, NB can mean several things. See NB.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking through the list it is likely OP was asking about "nominal bore". 71.236.26.74 (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

We have an article on Nominal Pipe Size that should answer your questions including NB. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick to get bored and tired/frustrated

Read some articles on the internet that an average worker works productively for a total of about 4 hours on 8 hours work day. Some in slashdot claim that their productive work amounts to 6 hours per day. I do not work for anybody, I am preparing a comprehensive manuscript for my own use. People always do more when they do something for themselves. Based on that assumption, my productive hours should be about 6 hours per day. However It is not even 3 hours in my case when I sit for about 10 hours in front of the computer. I get burned out too easily and boredom sets in too easily. I can concentrate on a task continously for about 20 minutes. All of the figures gets a lot worse if I were to do something for others. It gets even more terrible with the increasing complexity or difficulty of the task. No big problems with intelligence as I have consistantly scored above average in IQ tests. Generally speaking - patience , motivation, mental energy, interest,involvement = too low and boredom potential, frustration trigger= too high. Please say how it could be fixed? 131.220.46.26 (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)frustrated

Seems to me that you are doing the wrong things. Motivation comes either from an intense personal interest, or from some external force. i.e. Recruits conscripted into an army are <motivated> (OK that's the wrong term but it suffices here) by the fear of what will happen if they do not follow orders. Similarly people in enmployment are motivated at least in part by the need for the salary. You obviously do not need more money, so your work must be boring to you. Change your work!86.209.28.63 (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)DT

As someone who spends a lot of time working on writing himself, I will note that I can't do more than 3-4 hours of writing per day. I can do a lot more of other kinds of work, but writing is for me especially mentally taxing, and after 3-4 hours of it I'm basically unable to work very effectively at it. I don't think this is unusual (I know many others who do similar types of work and have similar tolerances). It is obvious that certain types of work are more taxing than others. This happens even if you love the work.

My recommendation would be to try some different work habits. Try working in a different location. Try taking a break and exercising half-way through the day. If you have a flexible schedule, you should be able to try a lot of different things. Trying going for a swim mid-way in the day. Try not drinking as much coffee, or drinking more of it. I hang around a lot of people who spend a lot of their time doing self-motivated writing, and everyone has a different strategy for keeping on task and not getting burnt out. There's no easy answer to it, but you should feel empowered to mix up your schedule a bit. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(EC) If you're not doing the wrong things you may be doing them for the wrong reasons. Some people get a kick out of solving differential equations while others enjoy sorting a stamp collection that would "bore the socks off" people who don't. Just because someone says you're "supposed to" like doing something doesn't make it right for you. Maybe the rewards you are getting are too far removed from your activities? In that case, splitting things up into smaller units and working on several different tasks in rotation may work for you. Some people are even most productive when their minds can entirely detach itself from any outside or self-imposed reward scenario. Since you seem to be working from home you have already found out that a standard office/employment set up doesn't work for you. Vice versa working at a home office doesn't work for everyone either. Some people need to step away from their home setting and its distraction. Some need deadlines and supervisors who monitor their productivity. There is no mold for people. Find out what works for you and forget what you think is supposed to work. If the end result is positive, no one cares whether you achieved it in one 10 hr. stretch or several 20 min. intervals. If you really find your situation untenable there are workarounds you can train for that are designed for AD (no HD) sufferers that might work for you. There are training centers in major cities. Ask s.o. from a health profession to direct you towards a reputable one. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If you have considered you may have one variety of ADHD, you may wish to consult a doctor. Tempshill (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice of you to direct me to ADHD. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_attention-deficit_disorder, I have symptoms of both ADHD-I (Procrastination, Avoiding tasks or jobs that require sustained attention, etc) and ONLY 2 of ADHD-H symptoms ( Impatient,Intolerant to frustration). It is probable that I have ADHD or AD or some other psychological disorder. Because, I get bored quickly / loose attention / become frustrated very easily in all but simplest of tasks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.220.46.25 (talk) 12:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

And at this point we have to point out that the Refdesk isn't allowed to attempt to diagnose medical problems or offer medical advice, so we have to ask that you see a doctor. Tempshill (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Bored and frustrated? Why not check the Reference Desk and answer some old questions? Juliankaufman (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

What's the Big Deal with Sexual Intercourse?

What has elevated the act of sexual intercourse in our society to such a big ordeal as to warrant us in placing laws on age of consent and such? What is different between sex and other physical actions such as a handshake? Why does one not need to be 16, 18 or 19 years of age to shake hands? Acceptable (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The typical handshake is not an invasive procedure. Although, given the spread of germs like the swine flu through manual contact, adopting the Asian practice of bowing instead of handshaking might be a good thing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And vaguely related, there's the social cost - unwanted pregnancies, the spread of venereal diseases, etc. - and specifically regarding the age of consent, to protect the young from predators. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Orgasm, and sexual arousal are the big thing. It involves a psychological state that people find, understandably, potentially subversive. I think this is the first and foremost reason for society's brakes placed upon sex acts. Bus stop (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Adults can do whatever they want. Children have to be protected from predators. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You may well ask what the point is of having laws in the first place. Truth is, if you ignore laws and nobody locks you away, you haven't really done anything wrong. Vranak (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The line had to be drawn somewhere. There can be disagreements as to where the line were drawn. The law may be defining children, or it may be defining sex. But the differentiation between sexual union and grasping another person's hand for a bit of shaking is the state of mind involved. I don't mean to be pedantic, but I'm just answering the question asked, in the most direct way possible. If the questioner meant something other than the issue I'm addressing, then let the questioner clarify the question. Bus stop (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no line. A law is a reservation: we authorities reserve the right to prosecute anyone caught doing these things. But if in their infinite wisdom there is no harm being done, then they will of course not prosecute. A law is a weapon that may or may not be employed. There is no 'line'. Vranak (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it is the questioner is asking. But the law can't say "case by case basis", even if that would be logical. To give a mundane comparison, consider the legal mininum age to drive a car. There might well be 12 year olds who would do a better job of driving than the average 16 year old. But the law has to be consistent in order to prevent endless court cases over the same question: "My kid's old enough to... [whatever]". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The only really regulating laws on sex in most Western societies these days are in fact only the age of consent (and is no other "and such" except in societies that outlaw adultery, premarital sex, and homosexuality, all of which are fairly commonly outlawed in non-Western parts of the world). Age of consent is simply because it is recognized that adults will prey on youths who are sexually inexperienced and do things to them that the youths in question (much less their parents, etc.) later recognize as being abusive and undesired. The specifics of what age to put it at is a social norm. If you do not see the difference between shaking hands and having sex... I suggest that maybe you're not old enough to have sex yet. ;-) They're not the same sort of thing, at all, which one can rather easily see if one contemplates all the people you'd be happy to shake hands with but not have sex with. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure Baseball Bugs' repeated reference to "predator" is that helpful. Many merchants, especially those targeting children, are predatory, but most of the time we don't lock them up for it.

The main justification for age of consent laws is, as 98. pointed out, that (1) the young are judged to be unable to make a fully informed decision about such issues. This is important because (2) the psychological, social and physical consequences of their (uninformed) decisions can be profound.

On point 1: of course, some individuals are more mature than others, and some people may experience no negative effects from sexual activities at a young age; nevertheless, the law seeks to protect the generality.

On point 2: that is the difference between sexual activities and, say, a handshake. Whereas a handshake is unlikely to have severe negative consequences (with potential exceptions, as pointed out above), sexual activity may. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The word "predator" has a very specific meaning in this context, i.e. paedophile. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that some places do have different ages for various things, e.g. closeness of age, person in position of trust or authority. And there are of course many other age restrictive laws e.g. for forming contracts, getting tattoos, piercings, smoking, drinking, drugs, pornography Nil Einne (talk) 01:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the difference between sex and a handshake? Well, say you're blindfolded. You can shake hands with anyone, and it doesn't make a difference who does it -- you'll feel the same. But let's say someone -- pardon me for assuming you're a heterosexual man here -- performs oral sex on you. If sex were like a handshake, oral sex would feel the same no matter who's doing it. But what if you take off your blindfold and find that the person performing a sex act on you is your mother! Or a guy! You would be horrified. That's because sex is only pleasurable when it is based on mutual attraction and consent. Otherwise, it is violation. Even if it doesn't feel like violation at the time, you might see it that way later. That's why there are laws against sexual contact in situations where one party's ability to grant meaningful consent is questionable, such as between children and adults or between jail guards and inmates. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Or how bout this? A stranger walks up to you, grabs your hand and shakes it. This may strike you as odd but you probably wouldn't be particularly upset. Now, replace handshake with sex and adjust your feelings accordingly. That's the difference. 164.156.231.55 (talk) 13:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Police receive complaints about lewd activities at the local lover's lane and send a cop to investigate. He spots a car parked in the lane, in the car are a young man and a girl. The girl is knitting and the man is reading a comic book. Suspiciously the cop demands "What are you doing here"? The boy answers "In half an hour she'll be 18". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Scientology told me who I am

I am not my past, my failures or anything similar. Isn't that incredibly nice? Where did they get this definition about me?--Quest09 (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

We have lots and lots of articles on scientology, including Oxford Capacity Analysis. Friday (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Though one can argue quite forcibly that you are, in fact, made up of your past experiences. That doesn't necessarily mean you can't change your path, but to pretend the past experiences are negligible is decidedly silly. Ditto failures. Beware people or groups who only tell you things you'd like to hear. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Telling you what you want to hear... those kind of people are called salesmen. Fittingly, someone was asking about how to become a salesman. The secret is to (1) be willing to lie; and (2) be willing to believe the lie yourself. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it might be comforting - but it's awfully trite...and WRONG. Of course you are your past...your intellect is the sum of what you have learned...what you have been. Everything you own comes from your past. Another well worn phrase says that we learn by our failures. If that's true (and it's certainly true in part) - then we are (in part) the sum of our earlier failures. SteveBaker (talk) 05:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The notion that "you are not your past" could be a shorthand way of saying that you don't have to be a "prisoner" to your past. Like the old saying, "Today is the first day of the rest of your life." Whatever you've done before, each day is a new opportunity to do better. Wow, I'm starting to sound like that salesman. I leave you with these words: "Good, better, best / Never let it rest / Till the good is better / And the better is best." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Negative theology describes God in terms of what (S)He is not. L. Ron Hubbard founder of Scientology turned this around to define the spirit of an individual in negative terms. Scientologists get their ideas from Ron's books. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

So that's their excuse. Well, I wonder what would have happened if Hubbard and Norman Vincent Peale ever met. Would they explode, like matter and anti-matter? Or would they have merged into a super-evangelist? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it was 50 Cent who said (and I may be paraphrasing) "Where you're at is more important than where you're coming from - but if you don't know where you're coming from, how are you ever gonna know where you're going?". I agree with the sentiment. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

As long as you don't let it be an anchor that keeps you from where you want to go. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Deprecated: people

Could certain kinds of people become deprecated in the same sense that some old technology is deprecated? I mean, currently if you only have some basic instruction, you can still find some kind of work, in a farm cleaning or such simple things. However, if a robot, that is cheaper and good enough, could cope with such tasks, many people would logically become deprecated.--Quest09 (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your use of the word "deprecated". Dictionary.com gives: dep⋅re⋅cate

   /ˈdɛprɪˌkeɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [dep-ri-keyt] Show IPA Use deprecated in a Sentence –verb (used with object), -cat⋅ed, -cat⋅ing. 1. to express earnest disapproval of. 2. to urge reasons against; protest against (a scheme, purpose, etc.). 3. to depreciate; belittle. 4. Archaic. to pray for deliverance from.

--TammyMoet (talk) 18:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I used to do an office job in the days before computers became commonplace. Most of what I did could have been more easily and cheaply done by a computer. It was incredibly boring, so I resigned and did something else (doing a degree). My skills at that time were 'depreciated' - perhaps you mean redundant - but I wasnt. 92.27.146.141 (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You're looking for occupations that are now obsolete? Sure, there's lots of them. All sorts of craftsmen existed to skillfully craft things that now are either no longer needed, or are simply mass-produced by "unskilled" labor. "Parchment Maker" used to be a job, so did "Arrow Maker". The former is no longer in demand, the later is no longer a craft.

Or are you asking if "people" as a whole might be made obsolete? That's not really possible to answer. Someday, perhaps. APL (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

An arrow maker is a fletcher, and it is still a craft, although not much in demand - see this search for handmade arrows. Warofdreams talk 18:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Fletcher! I knew there was a word for that. It could be argued that the occupation is still obsolete even if there exists a specialty market. (You can still buy brand new sliderules!) APL (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not looking for obsolete occupations, since I know that there are lots of them. I used deprecated in the sense of deprecation, something that is a bad choice, even if it could work. I really mean that people with only basic skills could get obsolete very soon. That means that not even poor farmers would want them, since robots could be cheaper and better than them. --Quest09 (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(after e/c) I think this is the use given in Wiktionary, #3: "...considered obsolete but still available for use...". A beter term would be that the person (or, more usually, their skills) had become obsolescent. Under capitalism, this would lead to unemployment, and if there was no suitable alternative work in the economy, the answer would probably be retraining. If that is not available, or not possible, then the person would be in the same situation as someone who is currently unemployable (for example, because of health problems or addictions). Either social welfare can support the person (possibly with a requirement that they undertake specific tasks), or they can be left to survive, or not, on charity. Some theories of unemployment note that, in the absence of minimum wage and trade unions, markets will tend towards full employment - for example, this theoretical person could find work if they were cheaper than the robot - but that's little comfort if the amount you will receive is less than enough to survive on. Warofdreams talk 18:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In the computer science usage, the people who can say that a feature is deprecated are the people who have authority over that feature, and a plan for the future. For example, a standardization committee can say that a library function is deprecated, because they expect to drop it from the next version of the standard. Or Microsoft can say that an API function is deprecated, because it has some problem and they plan to drop it from a future version of Windows. In a market economy, there is nobody who can say with authority that certain people or occupations will be "dropped" in the future. Instead, the individual market actors either do, or do not, hire such people. If there is not enough demand for a certain occupation, it may die out, but that lacks the deliberate planning that "deprecation" implies. -- Coneslayer (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

By the year 2050 our W2 tax statements will come with a warning that human labor has been declared deprecated by the robot council. APL (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You mean an occupation that has become less valued right? Hand weaver?83.100.250.79 (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hand weaving is a specialty product and can fetch premium prices. It is not as common as it once was in developed countries but there is still some demand. And to the OP, while many robots paint, assemble and weld and computer "expert systems" have replaced other industry jobs, farming has been almost untouched by robots so far. Mechanization has reduced the number of farm laborers needed in developed societies but we don't have robots picking ripe fruit and avoiding rotten ones yet. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 23:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Like this? - True story! SteveBaker (talk) 05:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Tender

Hello, Please could some one help me, I have the opertunity to gain a large contract with the UK government or my local council, all I need to do is submit a tender, stating how much I will charge to do the work, (construction mostly, painting platering ect)However I need to have this tender in a specific format. Where could I find a template for this? I have tried google but most of the sites want to charge you to do this for you. I have read our article called tendering but this was of little help. All I need is a template, or instructions on how it should be set out. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.147.65 (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

To be honest if you don't have the requisite experience/knowledge in tendering for a contract then you're probably not going to get anywhere without professional help. However you could look at [12] or [13] for a start. Exxolon (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Also have a look at the website of the council/government branch you'd like to submit your tender to. Most have rules posted. Here's an example I googled for Brighton [14]. Check the required qualifications carefully especially on insurance and only submit a tender if you can meet all of them. (OR I second Exxolon's opinion that you may need help. If you think the paperwork is daunting now, it usually gets worse during the contract phase. Budget including lawyer fees.) -- 71.236.26.74 (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, just as a purely FYI kind of thing: no matter what the manner of work involved, knowledgeable people will not think highly of someone who makes spelling and grammatical errors or leaves in typos, etc. Here, you're just posting on a board to ask your question (you don't need to break out your dictionary to post!), but if this is the kind of spelling and sentence structure you use all the time, you may also want to ask (or employ) someone to copyedit your proposal before submitting it. It may seem like a stupid thing to worry about, but sloppiness is sloppiness, and it would be a shame to lose a valuable "opportunity" to something so trivial to fix. Matt Deres (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Know your competition. You may be up against bidders who deliver their tender in a smart binder with glossy pictures of previous work and impressive references. Further to Matt Deres'As good advice, as a minimum get your tender smartly laid out using a word processor. Put it in a plastic wallet and post it in a full size envelope - no folding. There are plenty of secretarial services that can do all this for you, and their advice is worth gold. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

CEO what??

What does a CEO of a company do????while we slog our A**** out.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.140.188 (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm intrigued to know what A**** is - are you slogging your asses out? How is that even possible? Anyway, we have an article on Chief Executive Officer, but that (perhaps tellingly) barely covers what a CEO does. There's an attempt at a definition in the corporate title article: "The CEO of a corporation is the highest ranking management officer of a corporation and has final decisions over human, financial, environmental, technical operations of the corporation. The CEO is also a visionary, often leaving day-to-day operations to the President, COO or division heads. Other corporate officers such as the COO, CFO, CIO, and division heads report to the CEO. The CEO is also often the Chairman of the Board, especially in closely held corporations and also often in public corporations." It might be better to say that these are things which a CEO may typically do, but it's not uncommon for senior managers to have considerable say over the actual tasks they undertake personally, and delegate some roles. Warofdreams talk 18:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This website http://managementhelp.org/chf_exec/chf_exec.htm and links therein may be of help. They do a huge amount of things. What they do will probably differ enormously from 'those who slog their A**** out' but that doesn't make it any less hard work. Effective delegation of work is surprisingly difficult, and I can say that from my experience mental-tiredness is every bit as bad as physical-tiredness (that is my statement to those who think that only manual labour is 'real' work and anything else is just pen-pushing). ny156uk (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what CEO's do, but I used to wonder what general managers did, unit the day a manager gave me some paper of old accounts, managerial stuff etc to shred - there was literally tons of the stuff - it was a small company and I didn't see anyone else making it - so perhaps they "work like dogs" too. Deep down we all hope so : )

83.100.250.79 (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out - that one does not always have to work hard in order to make a massive contribution to the company. Many years ago - when we were using BIG expensive computers to make flight simulators and I was just a junior engineer, I found a sneaky way of using one $70,000 graphics card instead of three. We sold a hundred of those machines - so in about one day's work, I saved the company $14,000,000. Back then that would have paid my salary for perhaps 280 years! The point is that it's perfectly possible that a particular CEO or other "overpaid executive" might spend 90% of his/her days at the golf course - but if just once every few years (s)he saves the company a few millions of dollars - or brings in millions of dollars of new business - then (s)he may well be vastly more valuable than the 'mere mortals' working their asses off doing the grunt work. The disparity of pay and privilages may well seem unfair - but business is about practical economics - not some ideal of fairness. One has to be pragmatic. SteveBaker (talk) 05:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The CEO is responsible for everything the company does — the creation of every widget, the thinking up of every idea, and the pouring of every cup of coffee. It's impossible for 1 person to invent all the widgets, manufacture them, pack them up, market them, sell them, and collect the money; so the CEO hires underlings — often a President and some Vice Presidents — and divides up all the company's duties between them, so they each are responsible for some part of what the company does. So, now there's a Vice President of Manufacturing who is responsible for creating every widget. Impossible, again, so that Vice President hires some underlings and divides up their duties; and so on; until the company is fully staffed, and the CEO is in fact able to do everything that the company is supposed to be doing, through all these underlings. Without knowing where you work and what you do, it's impossible to tell whether the CEO job is harder than your job as you slog your A**** out. (One correction to the first sentence in my reply here: The CEO is responsible for everything at the company, except that the board of directors, which is supposed to represent the interests of the shareholders (the owners of the company), is responsible for hiring and firing the CEO, and is also supposed to be responsible for decisions on which the CEO has a conflict of interest, like setting the CEO's pay, and overseeing an annual audit.) Tempshill (talk) 06:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

So the Sword of Damocles applies to these guys?--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It often does. If a company's performance fails to live up to expectations, the board may can the CEO and leave most of the staff intact. CEO is a high-risk, high-gain/loss position. As well it should be. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It's less risky if your contract provides for a Golden parachute though. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It should also be noted that a high percentage of CEOs last less then 18 months at their job. Googlemeister (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The modern CEO will always have an exit strategy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Criminal Injuries compensation in the USA

I hope this question doesn't cause any offence to any US readers who may know the background to it - that is not my intention, and I apologise in advance. I live in Scotland (part of the United Kingdom) and was today walking in the Highlands with my wife and dog when we met some really charming visitors from California. We got chatting and in doing so, a middle 30s looking guy told me how his wife had been murdered in a multiple shooting and suicide event in a Post Office in Santa Barbara a couple of years ago. He and his son were visiting friends in Scotland and I was so sorry for him and expressed my horror at his awful experience. He was so sad at losing his wife but at the same time, he was so grateful that he still had their son with whom he had a very strong and mutually supportive relationship after their terrible loss. I wished I could have been more understanding and supportive but as strangers walking in opposite directions, that simply wasn't possible. But we did part as friends and I wished him every good wish imagineable for the future. But afterwards, I got to wondering what practical, financially compensatory, and counselling support he and his son might have had from the State of California in particular, and the United States of America in general. Clearly, as a widower the devastating effects on his home and professional life and the increased responsibility for caring for and raising his son would be dramatic to say the least. Is there anything in the USA akin to the British Criminal Injuries Compensation Board which makes awards to the victims, and families of victims of crime, in varying amounts and circumstances? I certainly hope so. Just concerned and curious. Thanks. 92.20.21.228 (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

There are various victim compensation schemes. As an example see California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board. A US American ref desker will be able to give you more information.

PS: I have unindented your question to keep with the format of the ref desk. I hope you don´t object.--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

_{removed repeat of question below}86.4.186.150 (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Blood in mouths/throats due to injury

In a number of movies I have seen (mostly war movies, Jaws, etc), when someone has an injury to their torso, being anywhere from a shark bite, to a gunshot wound, their mouths fill with blood, and it seems to be filling their throat/lungs. Does this really happen when someone has an injury of this nature? If so, why? Is there a reason for this to happen? What causes the upward movement of blood? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.101.15.164 (talk) 22:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. What you're seeing in movies is the actor expelling the contents of a blood pill or similar special effect that he's secreted in his mouth prior to shooting. That's what makes it look like a big mouthful of blood. What actually happens is a great deal messier/grosser. Blood should not be sitting within the G.I. tract or within the lungs, so the body will naturally try to get rid of it through coughing (if in the lungs, airway) or through vomiting (if enough gets into the stomach, esophagus). It tends to come up with all the usual bile, chyme, etc. that you associate with expelling stuff non-voluntarily from the mouth. Someone expelling blood in that kind of manner is someone who needs medical attention ASAP. Matt Deres (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

we have an article about coughing out blood, not much but it says that extensive injury might cause you cough/vomit blood. That blunt trauma to the chest can also cause you to cough blood out.[15]--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

And here's the one about vomiting blood.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

A chest wound could cause injury such as a rib puncturing a lung, or a penetrating chest wound, resulting in frothy blood expelled through the nose and mouth. Either superficial or serious injuries to the head or throat could also result in coughing up blood or blood from the nose. If you merely bit your cheek you might spit out blood. Edison (talk) 04:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the Reference Desk does not provide medical advice, please consult a medical practitioner, especially if you have been bitten by a shark and are bleeding profusely from the mouth. (sorry...couldn't resist) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.14.130.136 (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

(Added in archive)

When this thread was current on the Reference Desk, I remembered seeing the following item on Roger Ebert's web site, but not well enough to cite it. It's on there today again (as one of the little "movie glossary" items that change every so often), so I'm taking the opportunity to copy it.

Dead for Sure, No Doubt About It

In a movie, the absolute proof of the death of a character is when blood drips slowly from the corner of the mouth. This is in too many movies to document. An interesting variation was the dripping of liquid metal from the evil mutant's mouth in "X-Men 2." As a physician, I can tell you that blood coming from the mouth after a fight is either, 1) a sign of a communication of the esophagus with a major blood vessel, which would be fatal, or 2) a cut in the mouth, which would not be.

(signed) KEN ROSENZWEIG, ENGLEWOOD, N.J.

--Anonymous, 07:17 UTC, August 21, 2009.

July 15

Left and right contact lenses.

I have gas-permeable lenses, and I need to know which lens is the left one, and which is the right. I know that a lot of GP lenses are colored, so as to be able to tell the difference between the 2, but I've forgotten which one is which. One is blue, and one is green. 204.113.200.218 (talk) 01:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried calling the ones who sold you the lenses? They might have a record of it. Another obvious way might be to simply try them both ways, and see which way is clearer. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever been photographed while wearing the different coloured lenses? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you know the manufacturer? If so, can you check their website to see if they have a standard for color associated with left or right. It would make sense to assign blue to left and green to right (four letters versus five letters), but I don't know if they made that sensible decision.--SPhilbrickT 15:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The lenses are colored, or the lens case? My lens case is green for the right eye and white for the left. Green, starboard, is how I remember. Plasticup ^T/C 15:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't wear contacts, but oddly enough, I remember the port/starboard thing in the same way. It should make sense to use the mnemonic of port = left (and = blue for lenses, I guess) because they all have four letters (helpfully, including blue), but instead I remember that starboard and right are both the "long" words, as compared to port/left. The fact that green is also longer than blue gives me this deliciously warm feeling that all is right in the world... Matt Deres (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The mnemonic I learned from some book – in childhood, before I had been exposed to the words otherwise – is that port wine is red (unless it's tawny...), and port has four letters like left. (I have a pair of custom earplugs in green and red.) —Tamfang (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This does not address the question, but when I wore hard lenses they drew a dot near the edge of the right one with a pen. -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Euw. You don't know where that pen has been! —Tamfang (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Arrow missile range

User Flayer have cited this [16] source to provide evidence for the 90 km range of the Arrow 2 missile. However, this source has not been dated and have no relevance for the Arrow 3 missile. During my discussion with him, Flayer told me that the sources I provided to indicate a range of more than 1000 km range [17][18][19] for the existing Arrow missile are not valuable or reliable us the source he provided and hence he deleted my edit on the Arrow 2 box (and it doesnt matter whether the box is of Arrow 1or 2 or 3, as long as the article is about the all Arrow "family" the box title can be changed-the issues are what source is more reliable and if my sources can be accounted)-so please tell me what is your opinion. Is this is the right place for references entimation?--Gilisa (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is a major news network so ought to be reliable. Regarding your second reference, you could cite Reuters directly [20]. Your sources seem reliable enough, but don't specifically state that they refer to model No. 3. Nevertheless, since they do make clear that they're talking about something more recent than Arrow II, I would have thought that would be okay.

It seems the only issue is whether you're talking about Arrow 2 or Arrow 3. Can't you put both and state which range applies to which model? A simple carriage return between entries will allow both to go in the same box. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

PS: It's better to discuss this on the article talk page though. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit problematic to put both models in one text box because as you wrote the sources give no indication to which model the range apply. However there are reliable sources in Hebrew for that (but again, another procedure to start). I will further address the issue on the article talk page.--Gilisa (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Your sources don't say that an Arrow missile has a range of 1000 km. They say that it is tested against a missile with a range of 1000 km. This is consistent with the Federation of American Scientists (often one of the best sources, experts at filtering through the military PR and coming to some kind of settled view about the secret capabilities of weapons systems) page on Arrow here; for Arrow 2 they say it "can detect and track incoming missiles as far way as 500 km and can intercept missiles 50-90 km away". With that distinction in mind, your and Flayer's sources tell a consistent story - the upgraded Arrow 3 can detect targets at roughly 1000 km, and kill them at about 90km. That's entirely consistent with its role as a theater missile defense system; an ABM with a kill range of 1000 km would only be useful against ICBMs fired virtually from the other side of the world; hardly a theatre defense, and of no use to a country like Israel that is worried about its neighbours not a power several thousand of miles away. 87.114.25.180 (talk) 13:18, 15 July 2009

First, you have to identify yourself. Second at one of the sources (El Jazira) it is quaoted that "he test site will allow Israel to measure its Arrow interceptor missile system against a target at a range of more than 1,000km". You have to read the sources before commenting on them. And again, identify yourself otherwise your opinion will not be regarded. Finally, the source you just gave is not dated-the Federation of American Scientists is good as a source as long as you have date on the article-one reason for it is that this reaserch organiztion allways updating its data. BTW, other sources also tell that this Arrow model has a range of more than 1000 km, it's a matter of simple comprehension to get it from the text what more that even Arrow 2 dealed with missiles that have a range far greater than 1000 km as the Sheab 3 --Gilisa (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Gilisa - in answer to your original question - no, this is not the right place to ask for opinions on the evaluation or interpretation of sources. The right places for this discussion are (1) the article talk page (as pointed out above) or (2) the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Please don't bring content disputes to the reference desks. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link.--Gilisa (talk) 13:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Gilisa, surely everyone is welcome at Wikipedia? There are numerous valid reasons someone may not want to sign up to an account, we shouldn't ignore valid opinions because of this. If the poster's argument is wrong, then it should be disregarded, but not because he/she chooses to post as an IP. Prokhorovka (talk) 14:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It's accepted in Wiki that one would sign his/her name when participating in public discussion. It also have a reason you know, someone may more easily replu on the behalf of his/her own opinion while giving the impression that his/her argument represent more than just him/her. So again, when it comes to disagreements I expect users to sign their name.--Gilisa (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

What the fuck are you talking about? Everyone above you has signed their posts, and even if they hadn't sinebot would come along and add a little signature tag after the post. You can also find who made what post in the history tab. I think you need to read WP:Signature.

It's also accepted in Wiki that people may edit from IP accounts, and signing from one of these is still signing. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Well if people on wikipedia are basing quality of arguement on volume of agreement they are being daft. Volume of agrement is a poor indicator of truthlessness...for example...A shockingly large number of half-wits think Princess Diana was murdered, think the Moon landings didn't take place, think September 11 2001 was planned etc. Objective assessment of evidence is what is important, not volume of people proposing said evidence is correct. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's obvious, but unfortunately it's much harder for facts to be heard when there are too many who object to them-and it's valid for Wikipedia as well.--Gilisa (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Please find another forum for this discussion; this is the reference desk, not the relevant article's talk page. IPs have as much right to an opinion as named accounts. For what it's worth, mainstream news agencies frequently confuse this sort of technical distinction, and I have grave doubts about the veracity of the 1000 km range. Acroterion _(talk) 15:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

OK--Gilisa (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

creative way to motivate people

please think of creative ways to say things that help motivate people to protect the environment. Can you please provide some expression of ideas or wordings that can promote environment activities? You know, how we say motivating things that give people the urge to act? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.0.5.211 (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't mess with Texas. --Sean 17:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Fear is a great motivator lol. But seriously, things like money are always good motivators. And if people feel loyal to something, like a business or company they will always try harder than if they hate their job. So promoting a good atmosphere, like being friendly and chill is good too. May I also add that your ip address is very unusual, at least I've never seen one in the 1xx range before.

I think one of the stumbling blocks to motivate people to help the environment is the whole tragedy of the commons principal. This is a complex form of the prisoners dilemma whereby if everyone works together, everyone is better off, but each has a built in individual advantage over the others if they don't play ball. Whatever method for motivation will have to consider how to address this. Googlemeister (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess that by 'the environment' you are probably talking about modern issues concerning 'the planet', but your question made me think of those old wartime posters that had everyone joining in with helping out. There was one encouraging people to save fuel by sharing rides in cars and it had a bloke driving in his car next to a spectre of Hitler and read "When You Ride Alone You Ride With Hitler!". Loads of then where about saving food for the winter, growing your own vegetables, etc. One just read "Eat Less Bread!". Just google wartime posters or similar and see some. Popcorn II (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

"OMG! WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!"...well, that might be a little over-the-top. But everything depends on your target audience. If these are people who are already aware that there is a major problem - then your work is to combat apathy and the hope that someone else will fix it - you need to work up enthusiasm and a feeling that they can "make a difference". But if these are people who are either unaware or disbelieving in the fact that there is a problem at all - then you need a more educational approach. SteveBaker (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Apart from apathy and disbelief/ignorance you'll also have to fight fatigue and frustration. Media hype, scam artists, well intended political efforts and shifting environmental foci are to blame. Yesteryear's "save the planet" idea all too often turns into this year's bad idea. Scientist often battle over results and some factors taken for granted in the beginning tend to not pan out after a while. Many people have hopped onto one too many bandwagons labeled let's just do something. Make sure the actions you propose include the big picture (Energy balance, Carbon footprint, water use, resources etc.). Carefully check for studies criticizing the effects. My personal favorite would be building a trash monster, then suggest viable ideas for avoiding trash and building another one after those have been applied. Try to not get too far out with your suggestions or you'll be left with only the hard-core crowd that won't need motivating anyhow.71.236.26.74 (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the real problems aren't going to be solved by a bunch of people getting together on one Saturday morning two or three times a year to pick up trash from the local park or whatever makes them feel good about themselves. That's not just unproductive - it also leaves people with the feeling that they've "done the right thing" - which may lead them to feel OK about failing to attack the "big picture" problems because "they've already made a sacrifice". Well, it's not like that. There is absolutely NOTHING you can do in short spurts like that that'll help the problem one little bit! The real solutions require longer-term behavioral changes. Buying more efficient appliances, better insulated homes, smaller cars, CFL's, etc. Living closer to where you work, using public transport where you can, recycling and composting as a matter of habit, avoiding over-packaged products, buying things that are made locally rather than shipped halfway around the planet, not having lawns that need watering, voting for politicians who are prepared to enact the necessary tough legislation, looking into the way things happen at work and actively seeking to save energy and cut waste in the workplace. It's only these long-term changes that really make a difference.

So here are some of the things I've done:

• My all-electric house has foot-thick walls, reflective window glass, and things like automatic attic ventilation. I designed it with windows on the corners of the house to allow light in while minimising heating from sunlight - my electricity bill is less than half that of my neighbors. These energy-efficiency measures paid for themselves in about 5 years.
• The house is in dense woodland - I have no lawns and do no watering or yard work of any kind (gas powered garden tools are HORRIBLY polluting and energy-wasting) - the trees help to shade the house in summer and trap heat in the winter and wildlife abounds in the area. My water usage is way lower than the average house in my area - but I think we could still do better with things like on-demand flash-heaters for showers and bathroom sinks and 'grey-water' recycling from showers and baths used to flush toilets.
• My car gets a solid 42mpg (US gallons)...that's what it actually ACHIEVES in daily driving...not what the manufacturer claims. Most cars that claim to be fuel-efficient claim 35mpg and actually achieve about 25mpg. Most hybrids don't come close to the mpg they claim.
• My recycling and composting efforts - and a refusal to buy over-packaged products where possible - mean that I produce only about half a trash-can of trash per week. My neighbors seem to produce one or two trash-can-fulls TWICE a week. If everyone did this right, we'd need one trash pickup every two weeks instead of two pickups per week!
• I have no incandescent lamps left in my home (well - except in the fridge and cooker hood) - and I'm gradually transitioning to LED lights (although the price is kinda steep!).
• At work, we lobbied management to install a computer controlled air conditioner/heater controller that turns off the A/C (except in the server room) and turns the room lights off at night and at the weekends. If you want to work late or come in over the weekend, you just phone or send an email to the computer giving the start and end times that you'll be working - and it'll make sure the place is cool while you're there and allow you to turn the lights on and off manually during that time. This costs $15,000 and saves $15 an hour in electricity at night and during the weekend...do the math...why doesn't every company on the planet use one of these?

These are not things that everyone can do immediately - but when you have the opportunity to do the right thing (eg when you next buy a refrigerator or a light bulb or a car or house) then these things should be uppermost in your mind. None of these things required an sacrifice on my part - my house is more comfortable and quiet because of the insulation - I save money on electricity and gasoline - my car is small but it'll go 140mph and accellerate fast enough to blow away most muscle cars. I love having no yard work to do - and the woodland is simply gorgeous to live in. Once you are geared up to do it (and providing your local city services are geared up to support it), recycling is painless.

SteveBaker (talk) 08:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Recycling is not quite as uncontroversial as it used to be. It has come under some fire because it uses mains water. That takes quite a bit of energy to produce (Not just the H2O but also the additives). Somehow they found that that hadn't figured in the calculations until water became a scarce commodity in some places (e.g. Atlanta had a drought last year). All of a sudden the life-cycle comparison didn't look that rosy anymore. The fact that the local recycling effort asks participants to rinse their trash (and people use warm tap water to do so) has turned a lot of former supporters against it. Somehow the revised energy figures and seeing their $$$ landscaping wither due to water rationing while the trash can/should get washed put a significant damper on things. Avoiding trash is a lot less likely to be subject to changing tides and for lots of products choosing alternatives with less packaging is no hardship. Composting takes some skill and real-estate. Willingness doesn't always match ability and opportunity. (Some incinerator facilities are actually complaining that the trash mix supplied by ecologically minded citizens doesn't contain enough combustible materials to keep their furnace at an optimal temperature :-) On turning off the A/C there seem to be two conflicting schools of thought both of which provide plausible calculations and examples. I think it depends a lot on the building. One opinion holds that it takes much more energy to cool/heat the building back to a certain base temperature and turning off the AC/heating only makes sense for a period of a week or more. Others say that even overnight and on weekends the difference ends up in savings. (OR we are still waiting for the "30% energy savings" our new AC/furnace was supposed to provide. We think that figure was based on heavy use by a large family. We just never used that much to begin with, so the savings are minimal.) Our new roof has a Ridge vent which is said to save vs. the attic fan we used to have. (Comparison data is unfortunately not available. Our fan never worked properly.) I have replaced part of our landscaping with fruit and vegetables. That saves a bit of energy/money/CO2 vs. supermarket produce. I don't put any effort in it except for throwing in some seeds, throwing some nets and harvesting. (I don't like gardening, my plants look a bit more ratty than in gardening catalogs, but the fruit an veggies are just as good as from a meticulously maintained yard. Even the critters like them, hence the nets.) There are lots of things one can do that actually work and won't get blown out of the water by the next report. It's just as easy to put a lot of effort in to things that don't work. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 10:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

To say "educational approach" assumes that it is just a matter of informing people of facts, when the problem may be philosophical differences. There is an underlying idea of everybody chipping in and doing their bit to achieve a group goal, which is something I disagree with regardless of context. Individuals must be motivated by individual goals, this is a matter of principle for me.

You offer a list of measures you have taken which allegedly benefit you besides being good for the environment, but the absence of a sacrifice is not the same as a reason to do a thing. There is a hidden sacrifice in the loss of the option to do a different, polluting thing. Options have value.

Personal benefit, fear, and the removal of misconceptions are all potentially motivating, but there are some of us on whom none of this juju will work because we disagree with environmentalism on a deep level.213.122.35.222 (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Nazi in solitary confinementfor 40 years after war

I recall some nazi being put in a a prison with no other inmates, only him, in solitary confinement for 40 years after World War II. I can't remember his name,anyone know who it was? 92.251.255.18 (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably Rudolf Hess. DuncanHill (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes that's it thanks. 92.251.255.18 (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep. He had Spandau all to himself for twenty years. That's about as solitary as confinement can get. PhGustaf (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Eventually, he was found "mysteriously" strangled to death. Edison (talk) 01:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Shortly after the Soviet's agreed he should be released, if I recall. Although, he was completely batty by that time. Plasticup ^T/C 12:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally (OR) I think he went batty in 1941. --Dweller (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Ummm...he was a Nazi. Let's start at May 1920 at the latest and work backwards. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Forced labor

When people are sentenced to "hard labor", what sort of labor do they actually do? What sort of labor will Euna Lee and Laura Ling be doing for the next twelve years? Do they produce or build anything? Or is it purely meaningless punishment, such as digging holes and then filling them back up? Mike R (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

See Penal labour for a little info. Hopefully someone will be able to provide more info beyond this. ny156uk (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Neil Hanson's fine book The Custom of the Sea describes "hard labor" in 19th-century England. (The "Custom of the Sea" includes a protocol concerning who eats whom when several are starving in a lifeboat.) One of the labors was, indeed, moving a pile of rocks from one end of a room to the other one, and then moving them back. Over and over, all day. No idea what they do today in Korea. PhGustaf (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

France or some such country had a neat gadget consisting of a metal drum full of gravel which had to be turned a given number of times per day. Satisfies me as better defined than "breaking large rocks into small rocks." Edison (talk) 01:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

See Laogai for practices in China. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I asked this question last month. Dismas|^(talk) 03:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry! Mike R (talk) 05:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

In Texas prison labor sometimes includes filling in potholes. Since such road repairs rarely survived the next rainy season they keep having to fill them up again. They let mother nature do the digging up. In between drivers appreciate not breaking their axle (or Steve Baker being able to park his mini :-) in the holes. Work condition for prison labor in China is usually described as grueling. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 04:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

There does seem to be two schools of thought here...and as a result, standards may vary around the world.

• One idea is that the labor should not only be physically exhausting - but also pointless and soul-destroying. Breaking up rocks with hammers was a classic one in the USA for a long time. There was machinery that could do that work far more cheaply and easily!
• But the other view is that you can get prisoners to 'repay the cost to society' by doing harsh jobs that other people won't do. In Texas, maintaining roads and ditches seems to be a popular one...and lest you think that this isn't such a terrible punishment...just try doing that in 105 degrees and 50% humidity (which is what we've been subjected to here in Austin recently).

Working in a license plate factory would be a more typical prison job in the US.

SteveBaker (talk) 07:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

In North Korea, where Euna Lee and Laura Ling were sentenced, the labour camps are notorious. Here's one media report on the conditions. The work is described as in "mining, logging, farming and industrial enterprises". AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say working in a license plate factory was just a prison job rather than "hard labour", ditto for stitching mailbags, which is the UK equivalent (they are probably machine made these days, though). --Tango (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the work done in prisons is actually support work for the administration of the prison, such as working in the prison laundry (cleaning the sheets, etc.), working in the kitchen, working in the prison library, and some prisoners even do administrative work in the prison offices. (All I know about prisons I learned from watching Oz :) ). Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Historically, see treadwheel. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

July 16

AP courses

Is it true that if you take enough of them, and go to the right college, that you can skip a year or two of college? --Freiberg, Let's talk!, contribs 02:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Generally, no. Selective colleges, such as the U.S Ivys, do not care what you did in high school. They demand four years of exorbitant tuition paymnts. You might get to take advanced courses instead of introductory courses. At a lesser college, you might get to save college tuition. Edison (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, generally yes they do. Most schools offer credit for high scores on the AP exams (usually 4's or 5's; sometimes only 5's). Not just higher placement in a course sequence, but actual credit towards a degree. You should check with the admissions office of the schools you are interested in attending; but the OP is right. With the right combination of AP exams, depending on your major, you may enter college with enough credits to qualify as a second-year student. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

At Harvard, for example, AP scores can allow "eligible students to graduate from Harvard College after only six or seven terms of enrollment in the College or, if accepted, to enroll for their fourth year in one of the master’s degree programs."[21] I personally received course credit (at a slightly less prestigious state school) for my AP scores in Physics and Calculus. It would take a very motivated and smart high school student to get enough high AP scores to skip a whole year, but it's definitely doable for most colleges. —D. Monack ^talk 03:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Bullshit on the claims that US Ivys allow you to graduate early with high scores on APs, per recent experience of a family member. They will do anything to get the 4 years tuition payments. Edison (talk) 03:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, There are 4100+ colleges in the U.S., and 8 Ivy League schools. Your family's anecdotal experience at a single one of these Ivy League schools notwithstanding, AP exams do get you credit at nearly all U.S. colleges. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 03:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to AP courses, I had enough credits to enter college (a state university) as a sophomore and wound up graduating in 3.5 years. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I can vouch that Princeton also allows students to graduate in 7 or 6 semesters if they have enough AP credits (4 and 8 respectively, although I don't remember what the required minimum score is). See the "Advanced Placement" and "Advanced Standing" sections here [22]. I don't think many people do this even if they qualify, since it makes it much harder to fit in all your major requirements and still take other classes that might interest you, but I do have a friend who graduated in 3 years. Rckrone (talk) 06:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

My son (who is at UT Dallas) will be able to graduate a year early as a result of AP courses he did in high school. (He actually graduated high school a year early - so he'll be done with his degree TWO years early!) However, he's having to pick up some community college courses during the summer vacation - which don't count for credit hours but do allow him to gain the prerequisites needed in order to take some of the more advanced courses that he needs for graduation. So, yes, it's definitely possible in at least ONE college! However, that's certainly a question you'd want to ask the college before enrollment/admission. My kid went to one of the best high schools in the USA - and it's possible that AP credits from that school are somehow "more valuable" than those from other high schools - but I kinda doubt that. So check with the college - they are usually very approachable when it comes to questions like that. SteveBaker (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

As of last year, Yale University didn't give you course credit for APs. Good scores (5's) can let you skip introductory courses, but that just means you take more higher level classes. Presumably that hasn't changed. However, most schools do give you course credit, and (with enough AP credit) will let you out in 3 years. Plasticup ^T/C 12:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to counter, Edison's rant. Here are the policies for the Ivys: Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, Princeton, Penn, and Yale. Some classes you do not receive credit for (merely a waiver) and since students can receive credit for some AP test results it seems unlikely that the schools are merely trying to gouge students out of extra tuition monies. But to get back to the OP's question, yes, most schools give you credit if you receive a high enough score (usually a 4 or 5 at better schools). Whether you can parlay that into graduating in 2 or 3 years depends on many other factors, including your major (graduating with a degree in engineering is likely to take longer than a degree in psychology on average), the schedule of your required classes (some schools have unwieldy prerequisites which hinder your progress), how flexible you are in your class scheduling (do you want to merely fulfill the requirement or take a class that interesting and/or useful), your willingness to overload/take full semesters, etc.--droptone (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Thank you for the incredibly detailed response. Its definitely more than I could have asked for. --Freiberg, Let's talk!, contribs 13:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the specific requirements of the school. With my APs I was able to skip a few otherwise mandatory courses at my non-Ivy-but-very-well-known school, but they were all very general (e.g. basic "can you read and write" courses, and my SATs let me skip my "can you add" math requirement). There's not a WHOLE lot of benefit in doing so in my opinion. College isn't a race, and graduating early doesn't actually impress anyone. (I did it and now feel it was pointless and that another semester of courses I just was curious about in would have been a whole lot more interesting, fun, and useful.) The real advantage to APs is not that you get to skip college courses but that colleges want you to have taken them — they help you get into school more than they help you get out of it. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Facebook and Twitter updates

Social networking websites are a minefield. I've heard that it is bad form for your Facebook and Twitter updates to mirror each other, but why? And if it is indeed advisable to make them distinct from one another, what kind of content best suits each one? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Mirrored updates being inherently "bad" is baloney. Even if your livelihood depends on social media, there's a very good argument that you ought to have all your content available in as many places as possible rather than requiring a consumer to hunt around. "Check Facebook and Twitter" doesn't sound so bad, but what happens when it's "Check Facebook and Twitter and MySpace and LiveJournal and LinkedIn and Flickr and YouTube and ThisThing and ThatStuff and OverThere...."? Lunacy.

However, for 99%+ of users, the correct answer is "put content where you like." — Lomn 12:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I don't think it's bad form at all. There are apps specifically designed to update both statues simultaneously. I suppose that if your Twitter status has lots of Twitter speak (@username, #hashtag) it may be confusing to your Facebook friends who don't tweet. At worst, it just seems like it would be redundant though.

Facebook doesn't have a character limit so it lends itself to longer posts (although that may also be considered bad form) whereas Twitter is more succinct and set up for conversation. In the end though, if someone has such a problem with your status on whatever site, screw em. It's easy to unfollow someone on Twitter and it's easy to hide updates from specific users on Facebook. 164.156.231.55 (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

are common law and case law the same?

or does common law include case law and something else? would that explain how wikipedia has two different articles on both? i don't understand the differnce —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.0.48.51 (talk) 13:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Case law exists in all legal systems, it merely refers to the body of legal precedent established by court rulings. Common law refers to a legal system unto itself which places "Case law" as legally binding. Other systems, like Civil law such as Code Napoléon, do not count case law as "legally binding" and instead only hold "codified law" as legally binding. It should be noted that almost no system is purely based on "common law" or on "civil law" but exist on a continuum between the two extremes. That is, even civil law systems base their codes on long-standing legal precedents and traditions, and even common law systems do write things down which codify expected legal norms. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 13:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Even the U.S. Constitution makes reference at some point to "suits at common law". I'm no lawyer, but as I recall, case law can be overridden by legislation, just as legislation can be overridden by constitution interpretations and new federal laws. That gets into the states rights issue, which is still a significant can of worms. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Could you also explain to me the difference between civil law and statutory law? 117.0.48.51 (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It's the same difference - statutory law is law written down in statutes, civil law is the legal system based primarily on statutory law. --Tango (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The confusion might be that "civil law" usually refers to laws covering suits, vs. "criminal law" which refers to laws covering crimes. Civil cases are usually Person A vs. Person B. Criminal cases are usually Government Entity (whatever level) vs. Person C. Also, in the USA, the term "statutory" seems to be used more in connection with laws passed by the states. Federal laws are theoretically also "statutes", but the term doesn't seem to be used that way. That again goes back to states rights and constitutional law. There are only certain things the federal government can legislate, i.e. the things that are defined in the constitution, which is admittedly a pretty broad list, thanks to the interstate commerce clause and the equal protection amendment. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point - civil as the opposite of common and civil as the opposite of criminal are completely different things. --Tango (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Attempt to summarise:

1. Legal systems can be divided into civil law system and common law system. The first comes from the European continental/Roman tradition, the second comes from the English tradition. There are other types, such as "socialist legal systems", but civil and common are the main ones.

2. Within any legal system, there are case law and statutes. The first is legal principles developed on a case-by-case basis, the second is laws set down by a public authority, such as parliament. Whether one is in a civil or common law system makes a difference as to the roles played by case law and statutes.

3. Within any legal system, all the laws can be divided into civil and criminal. The first deals generally with private relations between people, the second is about offences against the public or the state. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

civics

what makes the government nondemocratic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.161.123.97 (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

How about, disenfranchisement, corruption, and gerrymandering for some examples?

The Economist publishes a Democracy Index. You can look at the references to that article to find the questions they ask to determine how democratic a country is. Note the four big questions they ask:

1. "Whether national elections are free and fair";
2. "The security of voters";
3. "The influence of foreign powers on government";
4. "The capability of the civil servants to implement policies".

AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Depending on how picky you are, republican (not "Republican") governments circumvent a great deal of direct democracy. Living in the state with the longest constitution in the world, much of which is composed of amendments passed via referendum to settle what ought to be legislative matters, I'm in favor of many "nondemocratic" government concepts. — Lomn 13:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not picky at all. The word "democracy" is often used to describe the U.S. and other countries with similar government structures, but generally we are a "representative democracy", or "republic", meaning that we elect legislators to make most of the laws. In a true democracy, every law would be decided by direct popular vote. A referendum is an example of pure democracy. The other extreme is dictatorship, in which the laws are decreed by the dictator. The problem that starts arising with republics is when the minority party feels disenfranchised (e.g. the Republican part in America) and begins to cry "taxation without representation", which is a falsehood, but it sounds snappy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The various root words provide some clues. Democracy = people rule. Thus, a republic qualifies because we elect the legislators. Technically, the legislators rule, but they can be voted out, so they are ultimately accountable to the people. Monarchy = one person rules (i.e. dictates). And so on. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Where's that diagram showing how republic and democracy are unrelated concepts? (edit to add) From Republic: "A distinct set of definitions for the word republic evolved in the United States. In common parlance a republic is a state that does not practice direct democracy but rather has a government indirectly controlled by the people. In the rest of the world this is known as representative democracy." All becomes clear. 86.139.232.168 (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

What diagram? The two are related. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hence my added comment, where I realised that you were using 'republic' in the exclusively American sense to mean 'representative democracy', rather than to mean 'not a monarchy'. Here is a version of the chart, as created by Mwalcoff in 2007. Some of the countries may be out of date.

	Republics	Monarchies
Democratic	Italy, USA	Canada, Netherlands
Not democratic	Cuba, Turkmenistan	Saudi Arabia, Nepal

Mwalcoff 02:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

86.139.232.168 (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Nepal is a democracy. It's also no longer a monarchy. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought at least one country would be out of date. Could you suggest a replacement? 86.139.232.168 (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

(Deindent) Brunei? 94.168.184.16 (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Our article on absolute monarchy has Vatican City, Swaziland, Brüno, Oman, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia and Tonga. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, Liechtenstein. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, the infobox in the article says it is a parliamentary democracy. Does that need changing?

New version of chart:

	Republics	Monarchies
Democratic	Italy, USA	Canada, Netherlands
Not democratic	Cuba, Turkmenistan	Saudi Arabia, Vatican City

How's that? 86.139.232.168 (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Absolute monarchy says Unusual in a time when many nations are moving towards decreased monarchical power, Liechtenstein has moved towards expanding the power of the monarch; the Prince of Liechtenstein was given expanded powers after a referendum amending the Constitution of Liechtenstein in 2004.. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It may be stated that popes ARE elected, not by the "citizens" of the Roman Catholic Church, but certainly by the cardinals present. After all - technically - the US president is elected indirectly. Only a lunatic fringe would argue that the USA, therefore, is a non-democratic entity. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The pope isn't elected by the citizens of the Vatican, though. Algebraist 13:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If Liechtenstein voted the Prince more powers, I'd say that is democratic. After all, what is democracy if you can't vote to give away power? Prokhorovka (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It means you were democratic, not are. Hitler was "elected" as well but that doesn't mean Germany continued to be democratic under his rule. Duh. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. In this hypothetical, they were democratic up until the point that they ceded power to a monarch. At that point they would become a monarchy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

What the heck is the Vatican City doing in that last table? The very idea that the papacy is hereditary is patently absurd. Googlemeister (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Who said anything about being hereditary? See our article on Monarchy "A monarchy is a form of government in which supreme power is absolutely or nominally lodged with an individual, who is the head of state, often for life or until abdication, and "is wholly set apart from all other members of the state."[1] The person who heads a monarchy is called a monarch. It was a common form of government in the world during the ancient and medieval times." Nil Einne (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The Kings of Poland were elected, but they were still Kings, and it was still a monarchy. Same with the Holy Roman Emperors. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The monarchy of Malaysia is elected to this very day. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

green architecture

can anyone tell me from where did this green architecture concept and sustainable building concept originated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.50.129.8 (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The earliest buildings were intrinsically sustainable - ie pre-industrialisation - mud huts etc. 83.100.250.79 (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[23] suggests that the movement has its origins in the green movements of the 1970s

The origin of the green architecture movement stems back to the green political movements during the 1970’s and 80’s.

Though there have been 'back to basics' movements before such as the Arts and Crafts Movement 83.100.250.79 (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Some of these concepts go back to vernacular architecture. Your library may have a copy of the classic "Architecture without Architects" by Bernard Rudofsky, a great book 45 years after its publication. Unfortunately, the pictures are in BW. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

DTC partiticpant number of TDWaterhouse.co.uk

Does anybody know what the DTC participent number for TDWaterhouse.co.uk is please? 5036 is the number for TDWaterhouse (Canada) but I am not sure if it is the same for TDWaterhouse.co.uk. Thanks GreenBlog (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

They would probably fall under the European subsidiary's care [24]. See if you can find them there. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

touring Hudson bay

Dear Wikipedians:

Do you know of any traveling agencies offering economic tours of the Hudson Bay area in Canada?

Thanks.

70.29.25.172 (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

We have an article, Tourism in Canada, which states that Churchill, Manitoba is a popular tourist destination on the Hudson Bay. Wikipedia generally does not give commercial endorsements of any kind. However, WikiTravel has some free free information on the topic. (WikiTravel is not affiliated with Wikipedia). You can also consider commercial search engines, which will have a dearth of advertisements to help you out. Nimur (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

A dearth? You mean, a shortage of adverts?DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahh!! My vocabulary is not up to par! Clearly I meant a plethora of advertisements [25]. I would not like to think that a person would tell someone that he has a plethora and find out that that person has no idea what it means to have a plethora! Nimur (talk) 04:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The cheapest, simplest way to get to that area is to go to Moosonee. It's technically on James Bay, rather than Hudson's Bay, but it's cheaper and simpler to get to than Churchill. Here is a link to the town [26]. It's only accessible by train by Ontario Northland out of Cochrane. (If you are rich you can fly in). Ontario Northland will organise the whole trip, out of Toronto, for you if you like. If you are looking for the true wilderness experience there are tour companies that will drop you and your canoe off in the wilderness (usually some place where a rail line crosses a river) and let you paddle to Moosonee. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

According to the ever-reliable wikipedia, the Hudson Bay Railway runs passenger trains directly to Churchill three times a week. (My dad used to go there to shoot rockets off. He said it was cold and dark.) PhGustaf (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Travel to sub-Arctic Canada is generally expensive. The train fare to Churchill, Manitoba is not cheap, and there are no discount airfares available. It's possible to drive to some towns, but it's a mighty long drive. When the aim is to actually "tour Hudson Bay", i.e. see more than one location along its shore, it quickly becomes prohibitively expensive. There is no land transport or roads between coastal cities, no regularly-scheduled maritime travel during the brief season when the waters are navigable, and distances are great. Your best option is chartering a small plane (a bush pilot) to take you around, which is relatively easy but quite expensive. Everything is generally quite costly up north, including food and lodging. --Xuxl (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR - My experience with hiring bush pilots in the far north counter-indicates you on price. It's often easy to get a one-way flight for $50 to $100, depending on your location and destination. If you're going to a place with a semi-regular scheduled flight, it can be very easy to set up a flight on-the-spot in exchange for cash; a 24-hour notice seems to be standard; and a telephone call a week in advance is almost always sufficient if you have special schedule needs. Nimur (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for your feedback. They are quite helpful and I know now why almost no travel agencies offer any tours up there. 70.31.155.202 (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Why not just go to The Bay?  :) Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Confidence??

What does a customer service or a sales agent needs to do while servicing the customer over the phone to sound confident and gain maximum rating in the customer survey sent..is it knowledge, politeness/courtesy/positive words etcetc? anyone please... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.140.188 (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

A lack of shame in doing something patently absurd, I suppose. See drinking the kool-aid. Vranak (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

What makes customer service "patently absurd"? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll go with the phones. Telephones are absurd. Vranak (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Vranak, that's sort of a silly mentality. The overwhelming majority of issues can be solved with a simple telephone call. This saves time, fossil-fuel expenditure, and money, for all involved parties. Of course, certain customer-service issues do need an in-person visit; in that case, a telephone call may be an unnecessary, mandatory first-step; but to service the maximum number of people more effectively, that is an acceptable tradeoff. Regarding the original-poster's question, I think the crucial issue is that teh service representative must actually be able to address and solve the issue. Courtesy is helpful; effectively solving problems will trump just about everything else. I did a google-scholar search, and found some articles: A Longitudinal Analysis of the Impact of Service Changes on Customer Attitudes, (1991); and Delivering quality service (1990). Because this is an economically interesting topic, a large body of industrial and academic research has been performed; you can search it with Google Scholar. According to the latter source, the crucial element is understanding the gap between customer-expectations and the realistic things the service representative can actually accomplish. Nimur (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I guess that makes me silly then. Vranak (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I still don't understand your comments. Are you saying someone should be ashamed for trying to help their customers? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If they're a sales agent:

Sell the product that the customer needed/wanted - not some crap.

If they're a service agent:

identify and fix, or arrange for the problem to be fixed.

Question for the OP- if my house is on fire and I ring the fire brigade - what do you think would make me more likely to rate the service I received from the fire brigade telephone response teem more highly?

a. Confident manner, b. well spoken, c. sounded knowledgeable about fires, d. got the fire put out.

welcome to Bullshit Castle.83.100.250.79 (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If you don't think you sound confident, the traditional way of improving is to take some public speaking classes. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"Servicing" is what a bull does to a cow. Edison (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to confirm and clarify the above point to the original poster: a person can "service" a machine (perform maintenance on it) and a male farm animal can "service" a female farm animal (have sex with it) but I cannot think of any context in which a person would "service" another person. A sales agent "serves" a customer. (NB: The noun form is correctly "service", so you could also say that the agent is *providing* service or *performing a* service, but the service must always be a thing, not an action.) This is meant as helpful advice to improve your already very good English, not as criticism. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 08:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

As a jokinging pointed out above ie "welcome to bullshit castle" in the world of business you can indeed service a person, or any other sort of nonsense, I would guess that the poster is already aware that an alternative non-standard dialect of english is used in business talk (see Business speak)83.100.250.79 (talk) 12:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

So, dear pedantic (and incorrect) 93 and 83, what is the sales agent serving? The customer? "I served the customer a chicken dinner". "I served chicken to the customer". However, before criticizing someone for using a term which, according to Google gets 114,000,000 hits, and which is the official term for vast number of jobs and offices, you might want to read what the term means. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I'll tell you what would make me highly rate a customer service agent: Taking each call like you are the individual human being you are and not an automaton reading from a script. Nothing is so sure to alienate me as when you call up customer service and the people literally sound like there is an overseer with a whip standing behind them ready to flay their backs if they deviate from script that must be followed to the letter on each call. One of the funniest Saturday Night Live skits I can remember (David Alan Grier (guest host) with Will Ferrel and I think Cheri Oteri was in the skit) was where they were the news anchors on a nightly news broadcast and when the teleprompter breaks, they are so lost they descend into savagery in minutes and ultimately end up cannibalizing each other. I feel like that's who I'm talking to when I ask some customer service agents a question that's not predicted and answered in their booklet of answers to read from. There's always this ominous long pause and then there's the absurd (also stock) speech they give when they don't have the answer before putting you on hold to go talk to someone who actually knows something.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

tallest US buildings

I just read an article about Sears Tower. The article states that the Sears Tower is the tallest building in the US at height of 1450 feet. I was curious about the height difference between Sears Tower and the Empire State Building, so I downloaded the Wikipedia reference article for the Empire State Building. In this reference article, the height of the Empire State Building at the tip of its tower is listed as 1453 feet which is 3 ft taller than Sears Tower. To what height is the Empire State Building measured to arrive at a number that is less than the total height of the building, and thus make it shorter than Sears Tower (now Willis Tower)?

Thanks for your help.

Patric Monteleone —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lodiexpl (talk • contribs) 18:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the image to the right suggests that comparing the height of the Sears Tower, not including the aerials, with the height of the ESB, including the spire/aerial, would yield similar numbers, and is probably the problem here. Our article says the Sears Tower is 1730 ft at the pinnacle. 94.168.184.16 (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The rankings depend on the criteria applied. This article List of tallest buildings in the world shows the different 'criteria' it uses and the ranks accordingly. You can see that the Empire State is smaller in all criteria applied. The difficulty comes about with 'spires' - some are considered integral, some are seen for the height-gaining hunks of metal that they so often are. ny156uk (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) When comparing structures, it is always important to see which height is actually being measured - free-standing structure; human-occupied building space; tallest physical object attached to the building; etc. These different definitions of "building height" are the source of much confusion; to some extent, they are intentionally obfuscated, as building designers are jockeying for "tallest something" while imposing the minimum architectural constraints. Nimur (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no such building as the "Sears Tower." Edison (talk) 04:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't believe everything they tell you. Next you'll be saying there is no such planet as Pluto and no such street in Manhattan as Sixth Avenue. Bah, humbug. --Anonymous, 04:53 UTC, July 17, 2009.

Edison is correct. The Sears Tower has just been renamed the Willis Tower. Just Google "sears tower rename" - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Plus, there is an attempt to have the building known by the moniker "the Big Willie". Big Willie--SPhilbrickT 16:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not likely to be used in legitimate news sources. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous and Sphilbrick know that; they are objecting, Chicago-style, to the renaming. A renaming of Soldier Field was famously defeated recently — though it is apparently not a famous enough defeat to be mentioned in the article. Tempshill (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Moby Dick

what specis was the whale in moby dick? please please answer my question. it has been driving my poor stroke ridden brain crazy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.5.169 (talk) 22:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Our Moby Dick article suggests - reading between the lines - that it was an albino sperm whale - in part based on Mocha Dick. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Gas Leak

Does natural gas show up on gas detector machines like other gas would since natural gas is odorless? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.250.112 (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Gas detectors for combustible gasses don't work by "smell" they work by oxidizing the gas using some kind of catalyst and measuring an electrical resistance change in the catalyst when that happens. So, yes - they work just fine with Natural Gas. SteveBaker (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you know which would best pick up a natural gas leak? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.250.112 (talk) 01:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If you suspect a gas leak, the best thing you could do is to call the local gas company. Dismas|^(talk) 03:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

What kind of natural gas leak are you trying to detect? Any natural source like s.th. leaking through rock, accumulated in a cave or welling up a lake would be odorless. But as you can see in Natural gas#Safety a leak in a house should be detectable because of the smell of the additive. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 03:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Combustible gas detectors are used to find out in methane from natural sources, such as decomposing plant or animal matter is present in a place, as well as to find out if "natural gas" from the utility is present. The latter has mercaptan added to make leaks easier to detect. (O Captan! Mercaptan!) Edison (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

July 17

Birth Control Pills

When women take birth control pills they are told not to miss a pill or else they might get pregnant, but then at the end of the pack they are supposed to take placebo pills for 7 days, therefore missing the pill for a whole week, how does this not make them get pregnant? They are supposed to get their period during this time but what about the placebo days when they don't have their period, do they still have sex? (This is not a request for medical advice for myself or anyone else, I just want to know how the pill works, thanks in advance.) --124.254.77.148 (talk) 04:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Birth control pill#Mechanism of action goes into a lot of technical detail about how they work, but the basic idea is that the pill suppresses ovulation during the part of a woman's monthly cycle when it could happen. The placebo days are the part of the cycle when it wouldn't happen anyway. No ovulation, no pregnancy. (If it works, that is; it's pretty near perfect, but not 100%. Nothing is.) --Anonymous, edited 05:00 UTC, July 17, 2009.

It's got a much higher success rate than the "rhythm method" does. If the woman sticks with the pill regimen faithfully, pregnancy is unlikely. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read the article, but in case it's not obvious, women on the birth control pill tend to have extremely regular menstrual cycles. The placebo pills are always going to be at the correct time because the pills regulate that as part of their action. Matt Deres (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

To the OP, why didn't you put this on the Science desk? Dismas|^(talk) 20:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

As has been noted the placebo pills are part of the design. As should be obvious, it doesn't actually matter if you miss all 7, provided you take the actual pills at the right time. The reason the placebo pills are there is so someone on bill control pills can continue to take a pill at the same time each day Nil Einne (talk)

One who took both the birth control pills with and those without the placebo pills tells me that taking a pill every morning was way easier than remembering to start taking pills again on a certain date in the future. Edison (talk) 03:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. And I would suspect in those rare cases where the pill "didn't work", it was probably due to the woman messing up the sequence. Hence the value of the placebos. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

kindly help....for spectrophotometer

I have moved this question to the Science Reference Desk, where it may have a better chance of getting an answer. You can find it here. Red Act (talk) 08:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Soul Eater fight

Removed duplicate question, already asked on the Entertainment desk DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

What are the most useful websites after Wikipedia in the internet?

The title says it all. Note: I am NOT asking for an opinion but for facts. It IS a fact that Google and Wikipedia can be recommended to anybody as being extremely useful. --Tilmanb (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

For what purpose? Algebraist 15:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Alge brings up a good point. If you are looking for a site for current news and events, you might want CNN, whereas if you are looking for the cheat codes for doom, that is not going to be a useful site and vice versa. Googlemeister (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the most popular websites are arguably the most useful, since the greatest number of people find them useful. You can get a list of the most popular web sites at Alexa. Red Act (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Relative usefulness is difficult (impossible?) to quantify, especially for things with such a wide range of uses, so though you're asking for facts, all you can get is opinions. Vimescarrot (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

After Google and Wikipedia, the usefulness of every other website plummets to near-zero, at least in my books. I like The Onion as a news source but it can be somewhat flaccid at times. Digg is great in theory but in practice it is peopled by juvenile idiots. YouTube is good for music videos. Torrentz is good for sub-legal downloads -- music and games. Vranak (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If other websites are near-useless, why do you use Google? Algebraist 18:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I want to know what others have said on various topics, even if it proves to be painfully vapid. Vranak (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the maps are available from google, but otherwise google pretty much just gives you a link to another site.

The rest is porn, what about Amazon.com (or ebay if you like handing money over for shit) - amazon has to be the 3rd most useful site right? I propose it as fact.83.100.250.79 (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

And Youtube that is useful. Probably equal 3rd usefulness with amazon (or more useful if you don't have any money : )

83.100.250.79 (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd vote for googlemaps. --71.236.26.74 (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't find Amazon that useful. I think this is the case for a fair number of NZers. Sure they ship here but the high price of shipping mean it's not necessarily worth it. And if you don't have a great interest in books, CDs or DVDs there's nothing much there anyway that they'll ship here. Similarly eBay is sometimes useful but TradeMe more so. Also, I'm far from convinced wikipedia is useful to everyone. Many of the non English wikipedias aren't that good for example. And even in English our coverage in some areas isn't that good. And I believe Baidu is the most popular search engine in China by a fair amount. In other words, the 'facts' from Tilman are almost definitely wrong as it depends on what someone wants. Nil Einne (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The BBC news website is good for, er, news. 89.240.61.156 (talk) 23:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It's so subjective and dependent on your needs and interests. For me, for example, epicurious.com/ is a top site, and it's probably almost useless to 99% of you.--162.84.166.147 (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I keep meeting people who've never even heard of Wikipedia, so it's never been of much use to them. But they all know about and use YouTube, Ebay, Twitter, Facebook, MySpace ...... -- JackofOz (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Although I obviously refer to wikipedia frequently, I would say that by far my most useful site is Google. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

impossible manager !! YES

Why are some managers so difficult rather impossible to convince something which is very logical/sensible which they find it weird. and if you were to to be a dissenter to prove it otherwise in a meeting they take it personally and behave in a manner like we're their bonded laborers. A manager who has connections high above and has no sense of insecutity to loose their job hence taking evryone for granted. is there a way out " still working within this company".a manager does not even qualify to be a human, is an epitome of mismanagement,courtesy,extremely arrogant and sly. but has been assigned to manage us. what do we do?anyone..please help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.36.6 (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Not showing him up in meetings, might be a good start. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Our loss of face article is surprisingly large. Tempshill (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Where a bad manager is concerned, I think you have these options:

1. Learn to live with it.
2. Wait for him to move on.
3. Transfer to another department.
4. Find another job elsewhere.

That's pretty much it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

One path is to meet privately with your company's HR department and ask about other opportunities within the company (without telling them the actual reason). Most large companies claim to encourage worker movement over time, in the interest of growing the workers' experience within the organization. Your message shows exaggeration, so it's difficult to tell whether you are just angry that you were overruled a few times, or whether you're saying that the entire working relationship between you and your manager is damaged, or beyond repair. In 99% of cases it's best to meet privately with the manager and have lengthy, honest, frank, specific discussions about your frustrations. In an extreme case you might decide to take the extreme risk of banding together with all your co-workers and going, in unison, to the manager above this person, and all presenting a list of specific errors that the manager has made, and proposing a solution. Of course this will poison the relationship with your manager permanently, and you could all simply be fired for insubordination by either of these two managers. I wouldn't do this unless I was so fed up that I would be quitting the next day (and possibly not even then). Tempshill (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Bit short on time for such a complex question, so here are just a couple of links to shed some light on things: Business ethics and most particularly there ethics of human resource management Promotion (rank), Peter Principle, Social network (we are missing a page on the essential topic of networking in business, or I haven't found it yet), Career development (article needs lots of work), Career and links from there, Managerial economics and "see also" there. Basically, what you consider a good manager and what your company or his immediate boss considers a good manager doesn't have to match. There are also varying opinion whether it is more important in corporations to work on your career or to get a job done. The two don't have to be related. Your manager seems to have an assembly line outlook, whereas you seem to look at things more from a craftsman's perspective. You can either adapt, find common ground or go job hunting. Trying to educate or antagonize your superior is not a promising direction. Unless you can outmaneuver your boss by networking around him banding together is also rarely successful. There are examples to the contrary for extreme cases. [27], [28] -- 71.236.26.74 (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Make a complaint to the HR department or failing that to your boss's boss. Preferably get several people to sign the complaint. Consider a round robin, or you could at worst just make an anonymous complaint. Sounds like a case of macho management with the boss being machismo. I'm writing from a UK perspective - perhaps if you are in the US, with less care for employees, they you run a risk of being sacked yourself I suppose. 89.240.61.156 (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Full employment and wages

If there were no minimal wages, will be all employed? (or at least those who want to work at any price). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quest09 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No, there are unemployed people (albeit not too many) in Singapore and there is no minimum wage there. Googlemeister (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Also see The Wealth of Nations and Labor theory of value. Somewhere in there is the principle that there's a certain "natural" level of unemployment even under ideal conditions. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

For background reading you might like to read the minimum wage article as well as the list of minimum wages by country article, which notes a number of countries like Singapore as having no minimum wage. AlexandrDmitri (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

And there was no UK minimum wage until 1998, and plenty of unemployment before that, and apparently still no minimum wage in the United States in most of the southern states, where I lack data on whether or not there is full employment.

But the OP's question is whether all those who want to work at any price will be employed. So it seems to a question of whether those who lack the urge to employ others, or be self employed, but who are prepared to do menial work for even the smallest wages, can be relied on to spontaneously develop such organizing urges when there is money to be made. I don't know. 213.122.35.222 (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The only evidence I have that I'm not employed is that I don't get paid - so I tend to agree with you.83.100.250.79 (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the answer must be "almost yes" because of the OP's strange parenthetical requirement that we only consider people who want to work at any price. I'm sure that there are companies that would like to employ the entire population of the Earth if the asking price were 1 cent per decade, for example. I say "almost yes" instead of "yes" because there are probably a handful of people out there who are not fit for any work whatsoever — what comes to mind is incorrigible convicted felons who are also blind, deaf, mute, and completely paralyzed. Tempshill (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The flaw in the matter is that a) people are not an infinitely mobile commodity. and b) you could probably get an engineer to do a construction worker's job, but the other way round would take years of training and may fail in the end anyway. Employees just don't come in a convenient "one butt per chair" version. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but there are some tasks that almost anyone can perform, and companies specializing in those tasks would presumably cause 100% employment in the OP's strange category of "people who are willing to work for any wage". Tempshill (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"At any price" is probably the sticking point on this question. If I offered 5 cents an hour to crush rocks all day, I doubt I'd get many takers (Least here in USA), but it would satisfy your condition of 0% unemployment among people willing to work for $0.05/hour. Anyone who took my deal would be a sucker, however, since the 5cents would not even pay for the calories they burned crushing rocks. They'd be better off sitting quietly at home. APL (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd do it - you can have a hell of a good time with 25cents.83.100.250.79 (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Not quite so easy because after a while what do you do with the rock? You'll need a truck driver to haul it. The truck driver won't want to work for 5 cents. And all of a sudden you'll either have to fire all your cheap rock crushers or pay the truck drivers more. The guys who shovel the crushed rock will figure out that they are a level above the rock crushers because the crushers can't get at the rock while the crushed rock's in the way. So they have some bargaining chips. If some rock crushers offer to shovel for the same rate as they get for crushing rock the shovel wielders will have to convince them to ask for the same rate as they do or they risk getting replaced. (This may sound familiar.:) They also risk that the company will just fire everyone, but will figure that that won't happen if they eat a small enough share of the company's profit. So, they ask for 7 cents. The truck drivers will then figure that their work is not only worth more than that of the rock crushers, but also more than the shovel-gang. etc. You'll need someone to do the accounting and they won't want to work for the same pay as a truck driver. Unless you sell the crushed rock the whole exercise is good for nothing. More of the expensive employees coming on-board. By now you'll need a couple of managers. And so on. So even if your lowest level employees would be willing to work for nothing and you had enough rock crushers to demolish an entire mountain, unless you can make the next levels up fit you can't hire them. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 03:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

A hypothetical employer might say to some hypothetical job applicant in the Land of No Minimum Wage, "No, you bad smelling drunken thieving job seeking crack-head, I will not hire you at any specified low pay, not even at a pay of one cent per year. Just Go Away!" Edison (talk) 02:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It's also not true that if employees took almost zero salary that employers could simply choose to employ them at almost zero cost. Employees cost the company more than their pay - they have to have somewhere to work - they need management, some fraction of the cost of the human resources department and so on. In many places in the world (the UK, for example) employers have to pay taxes on the employee's behalf. The list goes on. So in some cases, even if you were paying the person almost nothing, that person might still be costing the company a sufficiently large amount of money as to make employing them non-cost-effective. SteveBaker (talk) 03:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Since this is (probably inadvertently) a weird and out-of-the-box question, you've got to think more out-of-the-box. If I could hire a million people who were willing to work for any price, I would hire them for 1 cent per decade (that's $1,000 per year to me) to physically stand / lie down / sit down all around the legally accessible areas adjacent to the physical workspace of my closest competitor, in order to choke access as much as is legally possible, and make it very undesirable to work there, hence impacting morale at the least, and causing waves of quitters and a shutdown at best. No requirement to feed or water my employees exists in this milieu. 100,000 of these people would be the "sergeants" to monitor whether people were shirking their new duty, 10,000 more would be the "lieutenants" who monitor the sergeants, etc. Even if acceptable sergeants and lieutenants cannot be found and I have a 90% shirking rate, I've still got 100,000 people stinking up the place and harming my competition. There, I'm maximally employing people, even the completely uneducated, in a way that is worthwhile to me, even though the help that I receive from this project is very indirect. Tempshill (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Had to strike my disagreement above. Steve is correct, of course — my great plan only works in places where workman's compensation payments, required insurance payments, and other fixed-price overhead charges are a percentage of their wages. Tempshill (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

In the hypothetical land where you can hire people for a cent a decade, I doubt labour rights are strong enough that you have to provide any decent worker's comp. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Sweetened shredded coconut pisses me off

In the U.S., why is it almost impossible to find shredded unsweetened coconut outside of the rare specialty health food store, but there are always twelve brands of sweetened shredded coconut clogging the aisles at every supermarket? Unsweetened coconut is a wonderful ingredient and sweetening is as easy as pouring some sugar on, whereas removing the sweetening from pre-sweetened is probably not impossible, but... This question is relatively trivial, and I'm not expecting a conclusive answer, but if you baked a lot it might cross your mind also.--162.84.166.147 (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That might be a regional or even store-chain problem. The sweetened coconut are a convenience item. The manufacturer puts in a cheap sweetener and can charge a mark up vs. the unsweetened product. The mark up is so small that consumers don't mind paying extra for the convenience of not having to weigh and add sugar in their favorite recipes. The cooking shows get some incentive to promote the stuff. The cook-book writers jump on to the bandwagon and little by little sales for the unsweetened product shrink. If there isn't a significant number of consumers who need unsweetened coconut for their recipes the stores will discontinue them.
Shredded coconut store and ship well, so you could order online e.g. [29]. If you buy a whole box your usual grocery store will usually put in a special order for you. If you live near a big city try to find out where ethnic populations that cook with unsweetened coconut are concentrated. There are states where you'll be sheer out of luck with that approach. It may also be that in your area it's a seasonal product. Check around holidays whether you can find it anywhere and stock up. An e-mail question to customer service may also work. (Don't try the desk in the store it's less effective in most stores because that gets fielded through their ordering manager and he/she will look at prospective sales. Your e-mail will work its way down from headquarters and thus have more oomph.) 71.236.26.74 (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

If there are any Asian supermarkets in your area, you might look there. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not buy an actual coconut and take a steel zester to it? Cracking is as simple as dropping it onto a concrete surface. If you need to save the juice you can do so in a plastic bag. Vranak (talk) 00:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Where's the question about what you get from an MBA?

Someone asked this question recently. I've searched through the Humanities pages and the Miscellaneous pages, and their archives for June, but I cannot find it. 89.240.61.156 (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 July 8#What they learn in Management schools ????--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. 78.146.236.46 (talk) 09:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

July 18

"Transactions where you need s.o. with an MBA at your company"

In an answer above, someone writes "You don't need an MBA to start your own company, but there are some transactions where you need s.o. with an MBA at your company. Some government contracts and big bureaucratic corporations also require that as part of their "vendor quality" profile." What transactions would these be please? And what is "s.o"? 78.146.236.46 (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone 92.23.194.83 (talk) 10:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Government is always trying to deal with <ethical> companies. These are not apparent from an outside viewpoint. So to check the <quality> of the company a questionnaire is completed. This deals with many aspects of the company's policy, ethical standpoint, reliability, and so on. The quality of the staff is also important. Hence the concern for experienced/properly qualified people (not the same thing of course). It is unfortunate that given all of the care they take, Government contracts are notorious for cost over-runs and bail-outs.86.197.147.173 (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)DT

Without a cited source, I would be skeptical of these claims. Tempshill (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I will go further than Tempshill: there is no part of an MBA that gives the holder any licensing or other professional authority. So, there is no business or legal task that requires an MBA. It is an academic degree only. Sometimes an MBA is combined with another designation, like an accounting qualification or a law degree, that does permit the holder to do certain business activities that are not permitted to those without that additional designation, but not otherwise. A company may require employees in certain positions to have MBAs as evidence of exposure to, if not mastery of, certain concepts and principles of business; however, that is a purely private requirement. // BL \\ (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Meeting people

Since my last relationship soured many weeks back, I am now thinking about the awkward but necessary steps towards trying to meet new women and forming a new relationship. Personally, I tend to find that making the initial connection is the most frustrating part. I don't expect any magic bullets, but I'm wondering if this community has any practical suggestions about what has worked for them? For example, I've tried a couple dating sites over the years and they never seemed to work very well, but perhaps there are particular sites/formats that are better than others. Or perhaps people think that clubs and other sorts of activities work better? Perhaps there are even studies out there about what works in general. If people want to tailor their response to my particular situtation, I'm a man in his late 20s in California. 76.225.157.109 (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That really doesn't narrow it a whole lot, becasue it's hard to know what peer groups you're involved with. Also, are you near family? A really good friend wasn't interested in one woman a few years ago,a nd introduced her to his brother, with whom he felt she would be compatible. He had to invite with to dinner with him a few times, but eventually they met and married just this spring.

So, it isn't necesasrily just you that has to be looking. Ask those in your peer group to help. If they are close to you, they will know your interests and may strike the right chord, like with my friend's brother.

As far as socializing, my friends and I have found friendship is important to develop first, because it's really hard to know what a person is like the first few minutes or even hours you're there, so while bars and online places have found success, those are few and far between. It boils down to participating in the same activities together, IMHO. Becasue, that's what you and a woman want. Staring at each other's face for the rest of your lives would get boring, no matter how pretty she was. :-)Somebody or his brother (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm probably just making a gross generalisation, but since you live in California, wine! It's alcoholic so lowers inhibitions (not too much mind) making the first meeting easier, it's a mature pasttime if you want or an immature one if you'd prefer so you can easily meet whoever you want. Go on a wine tasting thing. Prokhorovka (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest "virtuous joint undertaking"; I've done, or know people who have done, Team in Training and Habitat for Humanity. They all ended up with far more friends than romantic hookups (but Metcalfe's law still applies), but these have the advantages of being worthwhile in and of themselves, mixing you with people you'd otherwise never meet, and not having any of that bar-scene "meatmarket" feel. 87.114.153.140 (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it might help if you first budgeted some time? Your post reads as though you are in a hurry and don't want to spend a lot of time on this thing. Most partnerships require spending time together at mundane mutual activities, some of which were not planned or would be high on your agenda if you were on your own. If you give of the air of someone whom your new love interest is going to have to make an appointment with for together time you won't look like a keeper. As the other posters have indicated sometimes your best chance of finding anything/anyone is just stop looking. Find a hobby or something you wouldn't mind doing with your girfriend/spouse for the rest of your life. Good luck. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 03:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The best advice I can give is to just put yourself in as many day to day situations as you can were there is low pressure (speed dating is probably not good for this). If you have difficulty approaching women, do as much as you can to make yourself seem approachable (smile a lot, but not enough to appear crazy - the first time I did this I was approached within about 3 minutes!). Try to just strike up day to day conversations (do this with lots of people, not just women you fancy - it is good practice), in the grocery store, in queues, on the bus etc. You don't have to go out with a hunter mentality, just make a lot of simple day to day connections and you should find a good match fairly quickly. If you approach somebody in a club, you are positioning yourself as a potential suitor who has to be judged very quickly, in less forced situations there is not as much pressure for either side. Just my two cents. Shower of Jagged Steel (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Faulty Television

I've got a Thompson Quadra, which I bought sometime in 1998. I stopped using it about two years back, but when I opened it a few days ago, I found the letters PI written on the screen. There was no sound, and the remote wasn't working either. I've tried Googling the problem, but nobody seems to have the answer. Can anyone help me?? 117.194.227.51 (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Googling turned up this suggestion: "when the TV is in stand by mode, press both volume controls on the TV and the blue botton on remote control for 5-8 seconds. All buttons must be pressed at the same time". --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

(I assume you changed the batteries in the remote?) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. The batteries are brand new, and they're working normally when held in front of that strange tool mechanics have that blip when a functioning remote control is held in front of it (I don't know it's specific name). And I've seen that so called "solution" posted by Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM earlier in my own Google searches. It doesn't work. Besides, it's supposed to be the solution in case someone has P written on their screen, not PI. 117.194.230.13 (talk) 10:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried sticking the TV in a landfill site, sticking a shotgun in your mouth, and then pulling the trigger?83.100.250.79 (talk) 10:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No yet. Perhaps you could show me how to do it first. I expected a more civilized answer from a Wikipedian.... 117.194.230.13 (talk) 11:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Scotch and Scotch ale

I read that Scotch is distilled beer and I was wondering if there is a beer that taste like Scotch or a beer that would be the beer to make Scotch if it was distilled? I found that there are Ales called Scotch Ale and I was wondering if these ales taste like Scotch or if they are the beer that would be Scotch if they were distilled? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.131.33 (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Scotch is whisky, and Scotch ale is a pale ale (the article describes taste). Whisky is distilled from fermented grain mash. Check out the articles. They are quite informative. 152.16.59.190 (talk) 22:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Codeswitching

What are some of the arguments for and against codeswitching.i mean why do some linguists do not accept codeswitching as normal,preferrable or recommended.And why do some linguists favour it. Please provde specific arguments(preferrably refferenced)

I have read Codeswitching article on wikipedia and similar general introductory articles on the web but specific reasons and arguments are not listed anywhere.(so please dont simply ask me to read the codeswitching articles) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.29.174 (talk) 22:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This question is cross-posted at the Languages desk. 94.168.184.16 (talk) 00:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

July 19

Chilis and Tom Yam

I'm growing some ornamental Thai Bird's-Eye Chilis (the ones that grow upwards) and I'm wondering if they can be used while green or if I should wait for them to be red. Also, I'm thinking of making some oxtail Tom Yam and I've never cooked with them before, so about how long would they need to be simmered (2 pounds) to be tender and their flavor extracted, while still being edible?72.219.136.28 (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think it depends on your taste: red chilis definitely taste different to green chilis. As for oxtail, the joints need to be separated (if they've not been already) and then simmered for 3 hours. The meat will then fall off the bone. The best part of an oxtail is sucking the cartilage on the bone! --TammyMoet (talk) 08:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

When to eat Olive in Martini

Traditionally, does one eat the olive before taking a sip, after taking a sip, after finishing the drink or at another point during the drink? Acceptable (talk) 05:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Generally towards the end of the drink, but before you have actually finished it. Shower of Jagged Steel (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Odd Mucha Banknote

This item on eBay claims to be a 'scarce promotional note' and features the Czech artist Mucha. Where would an item like this have come from or been for? It doesn't look like actual tender. What would it be promoting?91.109.251.183 (talk) 09:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It may be tender but I can't see a denomination so it may not be. Not sure exactly what it is promoting, but Mucha was involved in designs for the Czech Koruna, so it is probably just a limited edition in his honour. Shower of Jagged Steel (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Cycling

How does a cyclist in a road race "reel in" a front running cyclist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanteO (talk • contribs) 13:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if you are looking for actual techniques and tactics that the cyclist who is behind would use, but "reel in" really just means that they close the gap between them and the cyclist in front, regardless of exactly how they do it. Shower of Jagged Steel (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)