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 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. [1] 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.[2] 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 [3]. Edison (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Per the site Bugs cited,[4], 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. [5] See Joe Bussard about the owner of Fonotone. [6] says that R. Crumb (of underground comic fame) issued a 78 called "Wiscinsin Wiggle " circa 1975. [7] 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[8] (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: [9] 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 [10] or [11] 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 [12]. 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.[13]--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 [14] 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 [15][16][17] 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 [18]. 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."[19] 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 [20]. 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)

Elected or rotating? —Tamfang (talk) 22:12, 20 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)

[21] 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 [22]. 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 [23]. 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 [24]. 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)

My two bits. I have to deal with something over the phone about every week. For me the first thing to do when I call a customer service line is to get past the automatic system and talk directly to a real person. If that person is able to answer my question, solve my problem or perform the service I am looking for with confidence and speed, then they are a good agent. I usually prefer the agent to be spunky and lively rather than brain-dead and bored with their work, and if they don't stutter and squirm and don't have a clue as to what to do (or whom to forward me to) then they should probably be doing something else.

Another thing: using scripted conversations with customer service is still a rarity over here - however scripted calls are usually the matter when people call you to advertise services or goods.

An example: I was calling a transport company with a rather unusual affair about a month ago. I called a general number I found written on the facade of their building, and the lady I talked to patched me through to another one, who then gave me another number. I was patched through or given further numbers four times. Each time it was a woman, and each one of them was fairly confident about what she was doing and who I was supposed to be connected to. I liked that. However in the end, when I reached the person who could have helped me (I was denied help, albeit in a friendly manner), she sounded bored and basically pissed at life. That left a bad impression overall. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 07:22, 20 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)

If only they could have been as successful with Comiskey Park...or should I say, US Cellular Field... ugh. -Elmer Clark (talk) 20:19, 21 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)

I recall an old joke that the most effective means of using the Pill was for a lady to hold it between her knees . . . DOR (HK) (talk) 06:18, 20 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)

HEY, great discussion so far! Keep it going :) --Tilmanb (talk) 06:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Useful websites according to Ouro are: a German-English dictionary, another dictionary, local news and gibberish, Allegro - the largest on-line auction site in Poland and my bank. As said above, highly subjective, ain't it? I don't use Amazon, Ebay, Facebook or Myspace, at all, and they rank top in Alexa, right? I read the news at the BBC website as mentioned above. Google and Wikipedia take up the top positions for me, almost in any case. Apart from this there's e-mail and the occassional torrenting. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 07:08, 20 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. [25], [26] -- 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)

My most successful tactic ever for dealing with a difficult manager was to find him another job, far, far away. Of course, it helps if the economy is moving in a forward direction! DOR (HK) (talk) 06:20, 20 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)

There is a Federal minimum wage, though it's lower than California minimum wage, which in turn may be lower than San Francisco minimum wage. If memory serves. —Tamfang (talk) 06:16, 21 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)

And we can presume they're not going to want to negotiate it either since they're willing to work for a cent a decade (or perhaps that's their secret? Pay them 1 cent a decade but you need to provide full medical, all my housing, food, even luxuries like 60 days of all paid holidays to anywhere in the world, new computers every year ...) Nil Einne (talk) 17:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The other item missed in this otherwise surprisingly complete response to the OP is that companies sometimes go bust. When they do, employees are laid off, and there is a lag between losing one job and getting another. Back to the main point: a minimum wage is the lowest price for which labor may be legally sold (or, purchased). In a very real sense, it is price-fixing. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that somewhere around a statistical 3% unemployment rate is considered "full employment": about 3% of the population is engaged in moving from one job to another at any given point in time. --Carnildo (talk) 05:49, 21 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. [27]. 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)

I've bought real coconut, opened them drank the "milk" then scraped out the coconut meat (unsweetened, naturally.) Royal pain in the arse compared to buying a package of sweetened coconut . Coconut is usually added to sweets such as cakes. Edison (talk) 00:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed that unsweetened shredded coconut is kept frozen, which is obviously more expensive than it being on a shelf. Perhaps it is sweet enough that its tonicity has a preservative effect? --Sean 16:31, 20 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)

It is not suggested that the holder of an MBA gives any actual benefit - it is an academic degree, as has been said. But it is still a box that Governments like to tick. Presume they think that it means something, even though some MBAs are not good at the actual business of commerce. Cannot see what value a cited source is in this case, we are describing common practice in general terms. And government over-runs are reported every month.86.219.35.243 (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)DT

OK, so the answer to my first question is that an MBA is required as part of the vetting process for government contracts? I'm still wondering what "s.o." means. Thanks. 78.146.249.124 (talk) 10:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It is just shorthand for "someone." So that you have "someone with an MBA." Livewireo (talk) 13:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No, MBAs are not required as a vetting process for government contracts. MBAs are only as valuable as potential employers want it to be. Since some cost more than $100,000 and two years of time, I don't know if it is economically meaningful go through this path. Specially after this crisis, employers (and any buyer) is wary about how much value he is getting for his dollar. That could simply mean that they will prefer people with a plain B.A. and some experience than a employee with an MBA, a sense of entitlement and lots of debt.Quest09 (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry folks. I can offer only some old OR. Our company ran into such requirements at least 3 times. First of all to get a bank loan. That may have been the bank loan officers very own idea, but we needed the loan and the solution was as easy as changing one of the "on paper" directors. The next was indeed for a government project. We were asked to supply the qualifications of all individuals involved in the project and then the official mumbled something about insufficient project management qualifications (!) We asked what a couple of PhDs and MAs could do to make him happy and sure enough he asked for someone with an MBA. Again that may just have been that one officials odd idea of qualification, but I bet we wouldn't have gotten the contract if we hadn't assigned our "puppet" director to be "virtual" project manager". The next time was with a project to expand a client's business to Europe. The lawyer there (can't remember whether that was Germany, Sweden, Spain or where) said they needed someone with a business degree as a local director. So, it does happen and no one will tell you about it before you run into such weird stuff.-- 71.236.26.74 (talk) 22:40, 20 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)

Evening classes, or as I think they are called in the US, night school, are good places for meeting people including women of similar intellect. If you have an interest, joining a local club or society for that interest may also have similar results. You could try PlentyofFish which is said to be free. Do not expect things to happen quickly. In the UK, some of the more intellectual magazines have personal columns which are effective in getting dates with more up-market or up-scale women: perhaps there are similar magazines in the US. For pure physical contact, there are adult contact websites and magazines, but I think these would be dangerous from a health point of view at the very least. 78.149.162.38 (talk) 18:09, 20 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)

I left a message for 83.100.250.79 reminding them to be more civil in their replies. Strangely, we don't have a user warning for civility. Astronaut (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

a Twinkle level 3 warning for inappropriate use of humor would fit. Edison (talk) 00:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

...And yet, for the first time, I've failed to obtain a correct response from the Reference Desk... Is what I ask impossible to fix? 117.194.232.131 (talk) 08:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

There really seems to be very little information on that model on the web. Just a wild, wild guess: Since someone above mentioned batteries, maybe the battery for the memory inside the set is faulty. That would be a job for a repair-shop though. Are you sure the TV can handle the input signal from your antenna/cable box/other equipment. Something you could maybe check is whether you get any response by using the on-set controls. Good luck. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 22:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

One common theme I've seen on the web is some people have difficulty using this TV with replacement remote controls. Is your remote the original one? I did try a little lateral thinking. Perhaps the "PI" is in fact "P1", meaning "Program 1" or "Channel 1". If you can get the remote to work, perhaps there is a menu to let you tune it in, or small thumbscrews somewhere to tune in each channel. Alterntively, searching on the web suggests that this TV might be the same one available in eastern Europe. Perhaps the "PI" is infact "pl" (as in "Poland") and it is telling you the language is set to Polish.

One other thing to consider though: it is quite an old TV, maybe it would be easier to get a replacement. Astronaut (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it wants you to type in the digits of Pi on the remote. Edison (talk) 00:57, 21 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)

Whiskey is "distilled beer" only insofar as they for a beer. both started out as some grains boiling in some water - they call this wort. Nothing that's distilled is going to be called "beer". Probably the only way a beer is going to have any whiskey-like flavors would be if it were aged in wood casks, which is not unheard of, but it not at all typical Friday (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You might be interested in "Innis and Gunn Oak Aged Beer". More details here. And it's pretty good. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The OP is correct insofar as whisky passes through a stage (reached by fermenting the wort) that is essentially beer: to quote the Scotch whisky article, "The resulting liquid, now at about 5–7% alcohol by volume, is called "wash" and is very similar to a rudimentary beer." However, because it is destined to be further processed (in particular, distilled, and then aged in wood) and because the intended final product is somewhat different, details of wash's production up to that point differ from those of beer/ale proper, and it is unlikely to be very palatable.

Firstly, the varieties and blends of malted barley used to make the mash will likely be different from ones appropriate to beers. More importantly, after whisky wort is produced, it is immediately cooled and then fermented (to produce the wash), while beer worts are first boiled for an hour or two, usually with added hops, before the fermentation stage This boiling both greatly affects the beer's eventual aroma and flavour, and sterilises it: whisky's sterilisation occurs in its subsequent distillation, which of course also produces significant but rather different aroma and flavour changes.

While it would be perfectly possible (though expensive) to take a finished beer and ferment it into whisky, the earlier beer-specific details of its brewing would make the end product somewhat different from a conventional whisky; in particular, it would probably be rather bitter unless one had started from a really mild (i.e. almost or completely unhopped) mild ale recipe. A closer approximation could be made by fermenting some unboiled beer wort: I believe one or two "craft brewers" in the UK have made whisky (or have had whisky made by a distillery) from their wort, but this remains an occasional novelty product. Managing to combine both the skills of good brewing and good distilling in one team, and the elements of good beer and good whisky in one wort, would be an unlikely feat.

As earlier posters have said, Scotch (or Scottish) Ales are not the raw material for Scotch whisky, nor are they generally intended to resemble it, they merely comprise a broad style of beer originating in Scotland and popular both there and elsewhere (sometimes in transmogrified form, as in Belgium). However, from time to time craft brewers do brew beers specifically intended to evoke whisky, usually by introducing aroma and flavour characteristics resembling the peat-smoke elements of whisky, and/or ageing the beers in whisky casks (which utilises the active effects that the wood has on alcoholic beverages, as well as any residual whisky itself). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:20, 20 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)

In my experience there's no rule about it. Some eat the olive right away, some wait until the end of the drink, and others don't eat the olive at all. Like a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup, there's no wrong way to eat one. —D. Monack ^talk 05:52, 20 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)

It's just what it says. Státní Tiskárna Cenin is a banknote printer, and this is a promotional item showing off their work. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:43, 20 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)

You may be interested in our article on bicycle racing. Generally, the "reeling in" is a function of the trailing group of riders cooperating more than the front runner. During the middle of a stage, the extra work of being the lead rider of a group can be shared by more riders in the trailing group, meaning that on average each rider uses less energy. Near the end of a stage, cooperation among front-runners tends to break down further -- rather than sharing the load as best they can, many adopt positions that maximize their personal chances at the expense of group efficiency. — Lomn 14:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Harry Potter world's Protego charm and it's efficiency against a Rheinmetall 120 mm gun HEAT round

I have been harboring this question for about half a year now and I can't figure it out, would the protego charm which defends against minor to major offensive spells (and arrows once) defend against "muggle" weaponry (not including nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, eg weapons of mass destruction), example for weapon listed above, also is the M163 VADS defendable with protego? Gsmgm (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The reference desk is really meant to be for questions that can be answered with references. I don't see any useful way to answer your question. Maybe try a chat room or something if you just want to chat about it. Friday (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I would prefer someone with some real knowledge about it and not some ordinary chatter. Gsmgm (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No-one has real knowledge on this matter. There is no real knowledge of it to have. Algebraist 16:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a question about a fictional world, so the only person who knows for sure would be J.K. Rowling herself. And to the best of my knowledge, she doesn't hang around the refdesk, so I imagine you're out of luck here. Sorry. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I meant some useful knowledge, not real knowledge, I can very well sort out real and fiction by myself. Gsmgm (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, why not. It's magic. Stop bothering us. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't be so rude, guys, just because it's not real doesn't mean it's not a valid question. There are lots of questions about works of fiction (perhaps more on the Ent. Desk). Spells_in_Harry_Potter#P mentions that it can cause "minor to strong jinxes, curses, and hexes to rebound upon the attacker", and also arrows as you mention. It is not completely impenetrable though, as it can't block unforgivable curses. So it just depends on how strong it is as to whether it can block a given gun - you may get hints by carefully inspecting the video footage of arrows impacting against the shield. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding 98.217.14.211:s response, please see WP:NPA as I was personally offended by the "stop bothering us", do you refer us to wikipedia? If so consider that I am also a part of this project and your use of us in this occasion can been seen as a effort to alienate me. Please Bitte calm down, it's a damn question I harbored for over half a year before coming here and I have throughly considered the appropriateness. Regarding Aaadddaaammm's answer, thank you very much for an honest answer, I see them very seldom here amongst editors. Gsmgm (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Try not to insult the other refdesk contributors. This is of course a valid question, but (with all respect to Aaadddaaammm) the correct answer is that it doesn't have an answer. At no point in any canonical work does anyone use protego against such weaponry, and to try to extrapolate from effects on arrows is to apply too much logic to a magic system which is as fuzzy and incoherent as Rowling's. Algebraist 21:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

We have an Entertainment Desk which is where this sort of inquiry should be relegated, if anywhere. By "us" I mean the core group of a dozen or so people who actually answer the questions here. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

As a question about a series of books, this would have been more appropriate on Humanities. But that's no excuse for insulting the questioner. Algebraist 01:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Who insulted who? I'm sorry, but suggesting a given question is not germane to this forum is not an insult. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No, but telling someone to stop bothering us is. Algebraist 02:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It is 3x more likely to work against a Rheinmetall 120 mm gun HEAT round then a photon torpedo fired by Capt Kirk. Googlemeister (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the interaction between the magic and and non magic was handled with a lot of hand-waving in the HP series, or simply avoided wherever possible. I doubt there's even a good reference point that could be used to even begin to start thinking about the question. APL (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say, as with most works of fiction, the results would be whatever the plot requires. If it serves the plot to have it work the interesting question would be whether the spell would return the round to inside the barrel of the gun and thus destroy it or whether some magical or physical influence on the round would redirect it elsewhere. Many writers put a lot of effort into weaving plausible and logical story-lines. Eventually, though most run into someone who found some flaw and have to resort to Deus ex machina or Unobtainium to resolve the perceived inconsistency. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Altitude call-outs

I was watching this video on YouTube and there was a female voice doing the altitude call-out; I have noticed there is usually an automated male voice. Is there a technical term for this? Also, is the call-out is in meters or feet? I assume it would be in meters for commonality with airlines across the world that use metric. --Blue387 (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the decision height was called at 200. A bit of Googling turned up the Turkish Air Force Command guidelines, which indicate that decision height is either at 30 meters (100 ft) or 60 meters (200 ft). Antalya is listed as belonging to a Category 1 approach, which specifies a decision height of 60m (200ft). The units were in feet. I'm not sure what technical term you're asking for. "Altitude callout" is a common term (434,000 ghits). Some systems use male voices and some female (see pg 63 of this guide for an example of a female-voice system). 152.16.59.190 (talk) 02:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't view the video from where I am but... I've never heard of altitudes being called out, designated, assigned, or any other such thing in meters. FWIW, I learned how to fly in the US and earned a commercial pilot's license. Dismas|^(talk) 09:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

July 20

Alcoholic Cola

There is a lot of populatity with "malternatives" and I was wondering how many brands sell an alcoholic cola? I have heard of Jim Beam and Cola and also Jack Daniels Hard Cola; are there any others? Is there a rum and coke RTD drink available? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.131.33 (talk) 01:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

In Australia a consistent good seller is "Bundy & Coke" which is a mixture of Coca Cola and Bundaberg Rum, a dark sweet rum made originally as a side-line to refining sugar (from sugar cane) in the town of Bundaberg, in Queensland.- KoolerStill (talk) 06:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Mike's Hard Lemonade Co., while not a cola, is a popular malternative in the U.S. 152.16.59.190 (talk) 08:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I just found Comparison of alcopops, which indicates whether or not a particular beverage is a cola. There are twelve cola-based alcopops listed there. 152.16.59.190 (talk) 08:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Atheists in armed forces

Are atheists less likely than religious people to volunteer for their countries' armed forces? NeonMerlin 01:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This report from 2004 shows 21% of the U.S. military self-identifies as atheist (see pg. 25). It also states "In general, the armed forces show lower religious affiliation than the civilian population..." I've not yet found statistics for other nations. It seems that atheists may be *more* likely than religious people to volunteer for military service. Those statistics could be interpreted, however, as representing a shift in the younger demographic's religious beliefs (most soldiers enlisting are young). 152.16.59.190 (talk) 02:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

So you can find atheists in foxholes! Dismas|^(talk) 09:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

perhaps not true, since less then 75% of the army is in a foxhole at any 1 time, perhaps the atheists are shirking their turn in the foxhole?

There is a big of a chicken-and-egg question there:is it that atheists are more likely to volunteer for military service or that people who have spent time in the military are more likely to become atheists? Working in a war zone,seeing gruesome deaths and injuries,often in the name of religion would be quite a strong factor in persuading someone that maybe there isn't a God Lemon martini (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Moving to Clean Country: Constipation?

Suppose if one grew up and lived all his/her life in a clean, developed country like the US and moved to a developing country as rural China or some obscure village in Africa. Suppose if that person immediately adapts to the dietary regime, hygiene habits and otherwise, the lifestyle of that developing area, one is likely to suffer from diarrhea and vomiting for at least the initial arrival right? Now, suppose if an African child from a poor village suddenly moves to a clean, developed environment, will the opposite happen? Will the child suffer from constipation, at least for the first few days? Acceptable (talk) 06:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll brush aside the medical advice caveat, and point out that diarrhea and vomiting are often caused by bugs to which one has not yet developed an immunity. So, moving from higher to lower levels of sanitation might well increase the likelihood of running into bugs of all kinds, but moving from lower to higher levels of sanitation doesn’t seem likely to eliminate the likelihood of running into any bug one has not met before.DOR (HK) (talk) 06:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Adjusting overnight to typical Western diet might be more of a problem.- KoolerStill (talk) 09:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It is a common occurance for one's insides to get <a bit mixed up> as they adjust to the different foods, water, etc. This is normal and soon sorts itself out. But eating without knowing the source of the food! No. i.e. Fresh salad is often washed in non-hygenic water.86.209.26.36 (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)DT

I look at it this way: you are going to get ill no matter what, so eat and drink what you want. For example, on my first visit to Egypt I carefully followed the advice (no ice, no salads, etc.) and I still got ill. On my second visit, I made a consious decision to eat and drink what I wanted; I still got ill in about the same amount of time and spent the next day curled up in my hotel room, but I had a much better holiday because I was not worrying all the time about avoiding stuff that might make me ill. Astronaut (talk) 01:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I've heard that said - but it's hard to imagine any means by which your body could develop resistance to some huge range of potential diseases in just one day of sickness. However, I agree - eat drink & be merry - and if you suffer as a result, so be it. SteveBaker (talk) 03:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

book sales in the us

Hi,

i'm still searching for a catalogue or database, which can give me sales figures for certain book titles. Is there any database, where i can type in for example Half blood prince and i get the book sales in the us? Thank you in advance for your help, --130.133.152.127 (talk) 08:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Wolfram|Alpha [wolframalpha.com] can help you out a bit - searching Half Blood Prince, gives at least the publication year and approximate [I assume worldwide] sales (65 million). Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Testing it with some more books, it doesn't do as well - sometimes it only has the author, but more often it doesn't even know the book. Seems like it works OK for relatively recent famous books. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

eradicated disease

I read a few years ago a book in which there was a chapter about past and no longer existant deseases.There was a description of a disease that was last recorded in the 17th century or so and it was caused by a species of louse that is now extinct which would go under the skin and eat flesh,they would form boils under the skin from which when ruptured hundreds of lice would come out,the whole body would be covered in boils and the person in the end would waste away and die.Anyway in the book not even the author was sure that it really existed and i haven't been able to find anything more on it and i can' remember the name of the disease,could you plese tell me more about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.163.61 (talk) 10:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Our article Eradication of infectious diseases doesn't seem to reference such a thing (very very quick scan through!) but may be worth trying the links and references there-in. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds unlikely. Lice don't burrow into the skin; they are quite content to live on the skin. The symptom sounds like something from a horror movie, certainly. Tempshill (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

There are some internal parasites that will sometimes burrow their way out of the body. Those are more like worms then lice though, and I don't think they come out by the thousands, just a few. Googlemeister (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The description rings a very faint bell. I think what I read was a medieval description for lock-jaw. It was assumed to be caused by larvae/maggots in bread boards. Our Tetanus article describes lock-jaw. I don't think the two descriptions of causes are related, though. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm googling 'flesh-eating lice' comes up with nothing unless you happen to be a salmon or in some freaky computer game.'extinct lice' produces nothing worthwhile either(apart from a fascinating article on a now-extinct pubic louse that troubled our ancestors millions of years ago).The fact that as you put it,'even the author(who we can assume to know more than us laymen about such subjects) was not sure that it really existed' should set alarm bells ringing Lemon martini (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Scabies is caused by a small mite burrowing in the skin? Astronaut (talk) 02:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Here in Texas, it is almost universally believed that Chiggers do this exact thing...burrowing under the skin and living there, laying eggs and spreading. However, it's absolutely not true. If nearly everyone in a sophisticated modern society (well...OK...Texas) believes this falsehood - it wouldn't be at all surprising for a 17th Century book to contain such a mistake. SteveBaker (talk) 03:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Freelance market places

Besides Guru.com and elance.com, what are the most active freelance market places? --Quest09 (talk) 10:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

For what type of jobs. For what geographical area or country. There are many sites that may be more active for the specific trade or area. (I know where I fish for projects. If such clients don't offer contracts at the guru / elance sites I don't really care how many C++ code hack or typist jobs they move each day.) It all depends. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Side salad

When served a side salad in a restuarant, is it better etiquette to eat it direct from the side-salad plate (and thuis be eating from two plates at the same time), or move some of it to your main plate and eat it from there? 78.146.249.124 (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I would eat it straight from the side plate but I wouldn't of thought it really mattered. I'm sure either is fine.Popcorn II (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd just eat it from its own plate (and yes, be eating from two plates). Although, unless you're at a rather fancy place or occasion, I wouldn't be all that concerned about the absolute fine points of etiquette. As long as you don't burp out loud or pick your teeth, you should be fine. Dismas|^(talk) 13:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) For an informal meal, it is perfectly appropriate to eat the salad directly from the side salad plate: [28]. (For practical reasons, this has the advantage of preventing the mixing of salad dressing and dish sauces or gravies, and protects leafy salads from the wilting effect of hot food or plates. The salad plate may be chilled, or at least not warmed, before service.) Moreover, unless a meal is being served 'family style' from large, common bowls and trays, there's no reason to ever need to transfer food yourself from one plate to another.

For a more formal occasion or a fancier restaurant, there is generally no 'side salad' option; the salad course is served separately before or after the main dish. (Before anyone asks, it's acceptable to use your dinner fork to eat a salad which is served with the main course; there's no need to switch between salad and dinner fork when you go from one plate to the other.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I also opt for eating directly from the side plate. surely the purpose of serving it separately is to keep the two foods apart until you want to eat them. Richard Avery (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Salad is often served with a hot dish. Ergo, eat from both dishes. NB If the chef wanted the salad on the main dish that is where he would have put it. Follow the chef!86.209.26.36 (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)DT

Further to what Ten said, if you eat at a restaurant (in the US) check your utensils before you start. If only one fork was provided make sure it doesn't disappear with your salad dish when that is cleared. There are places that serve a steak-knife or other suitable additional utensil with the plate for the main course, but you'll have to ask for a replacement fork or butter knife if that disappeared along with cleared plates. (lotsa OR) -- 71.236.26.74 (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Geography of school shooting

According to the article about School shooting, it is apparently much more common in certain 4 regions: US, Canada, Germany and Scandinavia. Why is it like that? --Quest09 (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The "Profiling" section of that article has some data which sounds pretty speculative. They are rare enough that there is bound to be a lot of variance in the killers' personalities and "reasons" for killing, so I think anyone who directly answers your question is speculating, too. Bowling for Columbine is a documentary that explored this matter, among other things, at length (and I believe it's currently free to view on YouTube). Tempshill (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't read too much into those lists. It may be that the article had a Finnish contributor who knew a lot about school shootings in his country, but did not have a similar contributor from Brazil or Mexico or wherever. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

For US and Canada, the number of incidents in our list (76 USA, 9 Canada) is in rough proportion to the size of their populations (300M USA, 33M Canada). Next in line is Germany which has a population of 82M and 5 school shootings - that's less than a fifth the rate in the USA and Canada and not that much different than other 'civilised' societies. The numbers of school shootings in Norway and Finland (2 and 3 respectively) are really too small to be any kind of a reasonable scientific sample. So statistically - it is really only the USA and Canada that are significantly anomalous.

The numbers of school shooting events per million people living in the US and Canada are vastly more than other countries. You don't have to look far to see why: Around 50% of US households have guns - and guns are exceedingly easy to obtain - you can buy them in some supermarkets - and if you can't pass the "waiting periods" and "background checks" - you can go to one of the 5,000 gun shows that are run each year and circumvent the rules very easily. You can also get guns via mail order - $150 will get you a shiny new semi-automatic 9mm pistol - enabling a kid to swipe a parent's credit card and pose as his/her parent in order to pass the flimsy legislative rules. A kid who wanted a gun would have absolutely no trouble in getting one. Canada's gun control laws are quite a bit tighter than the USA - but still nothing like as strict as Europe. However, the US/Canadian border is vast - and only very lightly patrolled - guns flow across the border easily - and again, a determined kid could find one fairly easily. It's a LOT harder to get a gun in most of Europe.

Other countries with access to guns that is as easy as the USA include places like Brazil - where gun ownership rates per capita are only a little lower than the USA & Canada - but deaths from guns per capita is higher than anywhere in North America. Given that - it would be surprising if the numbers of school shootings in Brazil were not at least as high as the USA/Canada - yet not a single one has been reported!! One might suspect either under-reporting or that local law enforcement doesn't distinguish a school shooting from any other kind of shooting...or it might simply be a failure of our article researchers to find that information. I suppose it may be that countries like Brazil simply allow disaffected kids to not bother going to school rather than forcing them to do so and going crazy when it's all too much for them - I doubt that's it. But without data, who knows?

The actual "shootings" statistics really disguise the magnitude of the situation in the USA. The number of "gun-related incidents" in US public schools hovers around 10,000 per year. To people from the UK, that number is utterly incomprehensible. If there were even ONE "gun related incident" in a school in the UK in any given year, the outcry would be spectacular. Even if you adjust for population size (which would equate to 2,000 incidents per year in UK schools) - it's inconceivable that there could be 10 gun-related incidents for every single school day in the UK! Yet this seems to be OK to a majority of Americans.

SteveBaker (talk) 03:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"Gun-related incidents" is also misleading by being over-inclusive. An adult visitor to a school accidentally bringing a gun with him and a student pistol-whipping his teacher are both "gun-related incidents". --Carnildo (talk) 05:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Geez, Steve, way to hold on to your pet theory in the face of contrary data. Instead of blaming the data, you could consider that there might be some other factor than "availability of guns". Bowling for Columbine considers this, for example. Tempshill (talk) 06:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Steve, while saying that "you can buy them in some supermarkets" is true, it gives a false impression of the proliferation of this practice. It's not like they are on the shelves next to the cereal and peanut butter. The "supermarket" that I think you're referring to would be predominantly the Super Wal-Marts. And it should be pointed out that those stores also carry clothing, cosmetics, books, dishes, furniture, and many other goods besides just food and guns. There are entire hunting/camping/outdoors sections for these stores. Also, I'd like a reference for your assertion that a child can use their parents credit card to get a gun in the mail. I have not done so myself, but I would be willing to bet that such a purchase would still have to go through a licensed gun dealer and the purchaser would have to pick the gun up, after showing proper identification, at the shop of that dealer. Dismas|^(talk) 06:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Despite his dodgy OR reasoning about Brazil, Steve is right about some things: If the UK were to suddenly experience the same rate of gun-crime per capita (whether in schools or elsewhere) as the USA experiences, there would be uproar, questions would be raised in the House of Commons, the police would be ordered to search everyone even remotely suspicious, and even tighter gun controls would be hurried into law. Quite why the US federal government doesn't enact tighter gun control laws, is beyond reason. Astronaut (talk) 07:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to point at Gun politics in the United States. — QuantumEleven 08:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Tim Tams

Is there a place where I can buy these in the USA? Maybe on the internet with shipping in the USA? Googlemeister (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Ask your grocery store to order a box [29] 71.236.26.74 (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Large scale electrical experiment.

Was it this?

Or perhaps this?

About a year ago, I found a photograph. It showed some giant scientific machine, really huge, literally cobwebbed by lightning and sparks. I think it possibly had something to do with releasing huge amounts of electricity at once to simulate nuclear fusion, but I'm not sure. Anyway, I've since lost this photo of this giant machine and would like to find it again. I'm 50/50 sure I found it on wikipedia. Does anybody know the picture I'm talking about, and what it was? -OOPSIE- (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Was this the picture? See Nikola Tesla. Tempshill (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Or was it this? See Z machine. Tempshill (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It was the Z machine one. Thanks a million!!! -OOPSIE- (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

July 21

How to get to Simi Valley from Mission Viejo

Usually if like school district or inter-county taxi was to go to Simi Valley from Misison Viejo will they take the 5 to the 118 or 405 to the 118. Anyways is it mor convenient to take the 5 to the 118 or the 405 to the 118. The 405 although distance is longer than use, is still less traffic congestions to take the 405 than the 5.--69.228.145.50 (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of local knowledge, but I would think that it would somewhat depend on the time of day or week. You are probably right that I-5 tends to be more congested most of the time, and particularly during the work week, though I think almost any highway in LA will be tough during rush hour, and 405 goes past some major commute destinations around Long Beach, LAX, and Culver City. On weekends, I am guessing that I-5 would be the better bet; I'm guessing that I-405 is more congested on weekends since it goes past LAX and lots of recreational destinations whereas I-5 goes past mostly empty Downtown LA. Marco polo (talk) 01:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Google Maps suggests both routes. Via I-405 is a little longer (6 miles/5 mins), but it also advises that the 90 minutes travel time can be doubled in traffic. Using the live traffic reports feature, I see there is currently two sections of construction on I-5, though I-405 is more congested around Long Beach and Santa Monica. The Live traffic feature also allows you to show conditions at different times of day, so have a play. Astronaut (talk) 02:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• What about Ventura? I still think we should take the 405 to the 101, this is what mapquest said would be the fastest. Dowtown LA (101 Hollywood Fwy) , traffic jam is just diamond solid, platinum plate, nickel gold, turbocharge inferno. The 405 is definitely better than then 101 and the 5 is to my opinion. Would anybody try to take the 5 to the 10 to get to Santa Monica? Then what will be the most convienient way to get frm Misison Viejo to Ventura? I wouldn't take the 101 to pass Downtown LA, I would most often and always take the 405 to the 101. To Arcadia is it better to take the 605 or the 57? What would you do?--69.228.145.50 (talk) 03:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Mapquest said to take the 405 to the 101 to Ventura. Via the 405 to the 101 is 4.8 miles (4 minutes longer) I suggest not to pass Dowtown LA on the 101. Most of map sites say to take the 405 to the 10 to Santa Monica, you can take the 5 to the 10 though. Distance is equivalently the same. To Arcaida, most sites say to take the 605 to the 210 up, 210 to the 57 down. Well the 57 goes through many of points in orange county, orange block, anaheim circus, then at diamond bar, the 57 merges and collides with the 60. Well, the 605 is a open empty land just a boring drive.--69.228.145.50 (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

And trust me or not taking the 5 to the 101 I say is NOT a good idea! No matter what the 101 in Downtown LA is WORSE than the 405. The 405 is not bad at all in orange county, take a look the 405 just past the 605 (orange-LA County line boundary) is 4 lanes, then near LAX, the 405 is like 5 lanes. The 5 to the 101 at the tip of orange county, lets say passing Knotts Berry Farm, down to 3 lanes, then the 101 begins via left exit on Five Level down to 2 or 3 lanes, until the 110/101 connector, the 101 widens again. They actually still doing construction on the 405 between the 10 and the 101. O and forgot about Universal Studio Hollywood, a solid-ack amusement park. The 101 goes through capitals of entertainments in Hollywood, Hollywood Bowls similar to Rose Bowls up in Pasadena. The 101 near the 110, is the place for Chinatown, Little Tokyo, Kor-town.--69.228.145.50 (talk) 03:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

What kind of shoes are these?

Okay, guys. Take a look at this picture:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_WaOOu3Hlmpw/RyJFm8l2bOI/AAAAAAAAATI/fAPd-GMX51M/s1600-h/fotos+102.jpg

What kind of shoes is the guy on the far left wearing? DO WANT Dethmetal (talk) 03:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that a (gasp) Nike logo on the side? Twang (talk) 03:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

They look like Nike high-tops. If you are looking for the specific model of Nike shoe, then you might do better by emailing the pic to Nike's customer service people. Dismas|^(talk) 03:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

USA university fees

in Australia the government has set up a scheme where if you can't afford to pay upfront fees to go to university, you dont pay straight away but start paying back a percantage over time once you start working and making money and can afford to pay it then. that way if you come from a poor family you still can become a graduate. do they have this scheme in the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Payneham (talk • contribs) 05:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

See student loans in the United States and student financial aid in general. --Carnildo (talk) 05:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

In the US, it is a cliche that doctors, in particular, have to work for years merely to pay back their student loans. Tempshill (talk) 05:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Also take not that many private universities offer generous amounts of financial aid money. That is, if you and your family can not afford to pay, money, in the form of grants, will be given to you. Acceptable (talk) 06:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

US hospitals

Is it true if you have no insurance that US hospitals, even emergency departments, will turn you away and let you die? How can the US be such a cruel country? I cannot imagine this ever happening in Australia or a civilised country. What is wrong with you people that you think this is normal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Payneham (talk • contribs) 04:20, July 21, 2009 (UTC)

It's not true. Emergency departments are required to treat anyone who comes in the door, which leads to problems where (expensive) emergency departments are some people's only source of medical care. --Carnildo (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Carnildo is correct on all counts. There is no need for alarm. There are government programs that are supposed to reimburse hospital emergency rooms for emergency care for those who are unable to pay, though there are, I understand, continual tugs-of-war about this. Medicaid is a government program that provides for medical treatment for the very poor in the US, but there is a large population that isn't quite poor enough to qualify, so their only medical care occurs when they are so sick they have to go to the emergency room. (My understanding is that illegal aliens also have a disproportionately large amount of their medical care take place in emergency rooms.) The result is that the public is apparently paying a lot more for medical care than they would for this population than if Medicaid were simply expanded to cover this population. As with everything about health care in the United States, this assertion is controversial. Tempshill (talk) 05:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Struck my "There is no need for alarm" claim, as actually health care in the US is too expensive for too little, and getting worse, and we need to shift to, I guess, an Australia-style medical system at once. Tempshill (talk) 05:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The Australian system includes private insurance for anyone who wants it/can afford it, with higher income earners penalised a small amount on their tax if they don't take private insurance. (It starts from around $1000 a year). The insurance is available from numerous companies, but you deal with them directly, so there is strong competition between them, unlike where the insured is stuck with whatever their employer chose. Everyone is covered by the Government scheme, called Medicare; private insurance offers more choice, shorter waiting lists, and coverage for "extras (dental, optical, physiotherapy etc). Hospitals are financed by the States, with substantial Federal support.

The result is that nobody really knows what the costs are. I was recently shocked to see, in an emergency department, a notice to say that uninsured persons (ie tourists) would be charged $912 a day if they are admitted, up to $2400 for intensive care. Residents pay not one cent.- KoolerStill (talk) 08:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Mind you, we have our issues, too. If you're so sick that you have to go to an emergency department immediately, you'll be treated immediately (more or less). There's no charge, but we all pay a tax levy for such treatment, so it's not really free. If it's necessary to admit you to hospital and you choose to be a private patient, there'll be a cost; this is usually not fully covered by private health insurance, assuming you have it, but you do get to choose your own doctor, which is an important thing for many people. But if you need certain kinds of operations for non-life-threatening conditions, such as a hip replacement, and you have no PHI and have to rely on the public system, you'll be placed in a waiting list and you may be waiting for literally years for treatment, depending on where you live - by which time the condition may have advanced quite considerably. But that's a worst case scenario and, from what I've gleaned of the U.S. system, I'd much rather be sick here than there.

Btw, overseas visitors can insure themselves against the costs of hospital treatment in Australia, and given the figures quoted by KoolerStill, they'd be very wise to do so.

And another btw, PHI can never guarantee shorter waiting lists; who is treated in which hospital at which time is always entirely the prerogative of the hospital; and the doctor of choice must have admission rights to the hospital otherwise they can't operate there at all; but in general terms, having PHI will usually mean you get more prompt treatment, in the hospital of your choice, by the doctor of your choice, in return for the cost of premiums and (usually) some out-of-pocket costs. And you pay the normal Medicare levy regardless, whether or not you ever get any benefit from it. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a note on the uninsured tourist: the government requires people over a certain age to have medical insurance from an Australian provider when visiting Australia - which means those most likely to get injured or sick (holding all things, such as participation in extreme sports, equal) - are insured while in the country.

Depending on the level of insurance one chooses, and one's income bracket, the medicare levy penalty for not having private hospital insurance can often exceed the cost of getting insurance, so it's no small incentive for getting insurance. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

But back to US Health Care. My wife and I are mid-50's and visit the USA quite frequently on holiday - usually the West Coast. We keep in pretty good health but I have a 20 year history of managed High Blood Pressure and managed raised cholesterol levels which are both well monitored and controlled. My wife suffers from osteo and rheumatoid arthritis and has an artificial knee replacement. Clearly, we would never dream of travelling outside Europe without private health insurance - but Boy, whenever we tell an insurer we intend to travel to the USA - you can hear the number-cruncher going into overdrive. Why?? Because I am seen as a Heart-Attack/Stroke risk who would cost a fortune to treat in the USA - and my wife is seen as a falling-down/tripping hazard for whom it would cost a fortune to treat any fractures etc. But if we want to travel there, we simply have no choice but to take the hit. One final comment though. We always answer every health question honestly and fully so yes - the premiums do go up automatically because of the perceived increased risks of insuring us. But what about the big fat alcohol guzzling chain smoking and grease gobbling guy sitting near us on the plane who can honestly say he has no medical history to report - to date - so he doesn't get charged any extra loading on his insurance premiums. Who really is the greater risk of a heart attack or stroke? Him or me? I leave the answer to you folks. 92.22.178.59 (talk) 09:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

92.22 if you doubt the risk-assessment capabilities of Life Insurance businesses you should probably take a look at their profitability. Smokers are charged a premium over non-smokers and heavy drinkers are liable to have exclusions or ratings, as are those that are notably overweight. Non-disclosure is always a risk but the company can only assess risk based on the information provided. If you believe that your high-blood pressure and raised-cholesterol mark a smaller risk than an overweight smoker that drinks you might want to spend some time thinking who has A) the better information at their disposal and B) the greater incentive to know the answer more definitively. The answer in both cases will (99.9% of the time) always be the insurance-company. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy Clarkson has a story. He says the man who washes his cars on one of his trips to America had been badly burnt by his car exploding when rammed by a police car. The botched plastic sugrery cost half a million dollars, $15,000 of which came from the officer's insurance. Resulting in lifelong debt. The car-washer has dropped off the radar to avoid paying back money he hasn't got. Vimescarrot (talk) 10:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sandbags

When was the sandbag invented? --Carnildo (talk) 05:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as we know, late-eighteenth century. See sandbag.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Casio DW 6900 G-Shock Watch

Does anyone know where I can get a user manual for a Casio DW 6900 G-Shock Watch or know how to change from 12 hour to 24 hour time format ? Scotius (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Personality and dress color / type - a small test

Dress can be used project personality, is the reverse true?. Iam male and prefer to wear single colored dresses that are full arm, whether it be a pullover or a shirt. I do not like stripes or checks or even a large logo. Neither do I like bright/cheerful colors, except white which isn't really a color. Most colors in my wardrobe are black, gray and darkblue. Iam becoming sceptical about the theory that one can judge a person by the dress he/she prefers to wear. Perhaps I could be wrong. To test the theory, please try to predict my personality or character. After a few days, I'll give a honest feedback regarding the accuracy of this theory. 131.220.46.25 (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)