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 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."[1] 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 [2]. 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)

[3] 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 [4]. 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 [5]. 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 [6]. 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. [7], [8] -- 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)

Another flaw is that this situation fails to consider the truly incompetent workers who are a hazard to their workmates, and are in general a financial loss to employ. Even at zero-wage, the "labor" that these people can provide is not a valuable resource. This demographic is a non-zero percentage of any population; some societies deal with it by providing useless jobs for them, or allowing them to remain unemployed. The best example I can think of is in the form of a conscripted military, which still has a selection criteria. Even with "universal conscription" (where, by mandate or by force, all individuals must report for service, possibly with zero compensation), there are some people who are so undesirable to work with that they are not accepted even under those conditions, because their presence will create a net loss of productivity for the rest of the organization. To some extent, this also applies to those individuals who suffer from the most extreme forms of debilitating handicaps and disabilities. In the U.S., those demographics are systematically excluded from unemployment statistics, because they are not "seeking" work, but they still count as "unemployed" by some definitions. Nimur (talk) 16:40, 22 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. [9]. 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 concur. Clearly the absence of unsweetened coconut in supermarkets is a tacit conspiracy. Nobody wants you to get healthier than they. Vranak (talk) 17:35, 24 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)

That was certainly in Germany. They always ask for some strange formalities. Otherwise, I will seriously advice against putting a director "on paper" just to obtain something. Legally and strategically, this can be a terrible move. Quest09 (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

OR: It depends. If he's one of the dads or a former prof. and you need their funds/support/name to get going it can work out wonderfully. --71.236.26.74 (talk) 06:56, 23 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)

All of them. Ginogrz (talk) 00:44, 22 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 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)

As far as I know all airlines in the world use feet, whether the metric (or any other) system is commonly used in their countries or not.--Zoppp (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't aircraft built and operated in the area of the former Eastern Bloc operate in meters? — QuantumEleven 08:54, 22 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)

Specially for not web-development related jobs. Apparently, web-developing is traded over the web. But, what about other typical freelance jobs like translators, researchers, consulting...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quest09 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 21 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: [10]. (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)

Astronaut, it is specifically because of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Here is a NY Times article summarizing a Supreme Court decision from last year that finally ruled that the 2nd Amendment forbids the government from banning handgun ownership. Amending the US Constitution (including repealing part of it) takes a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress and then approval of the legislatures of 3/4 of the fifty States, so in the current political situation there's no way the Second is going to be repealed any time soon. The entire country is stuck with it, at least for now. Tempshill (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually the country is only "stuck" with it because it is what a significant portion of the citizenry wants. If the citizenry did not want it, repealing the amendment would be no problem. Googlemeister (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, sorry if "stuck" implied otherwise. Tempshill (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Brazil might still have a lower rate of school shootings if Brazil doesn't have laws against carrying guns near schools. Most US mass murders in my lifetime have been in places where gun control ensured that no one was likely to shoot back: besides schools, there was the Long Island Railroad incident (populated by commuters from NYC), not to mention the Happyland Social Club fire (in NYC; if the killer had had a gun, likely there would have been about 3 dead rather than eighty). —Tamfang (talk) 01:31, 22 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 [11] 71.236.26.74 (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

As the link says that Tim Tams are no longer available and the whole premise of the link is about sharing your memories of Tim Tams I think you may be less than lucky (unless there is some old stock about) 86.4.181.14 (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

[12] stock Tim Tams and ship to the USA.--TrogWoolley (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I've asked this a few years ago =P --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Large scale electrical experiment.

Was it this?

thumb|100px|right|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)

In general, for those with really no money at all, getting student aid that doesn't need to be paid back is not toooo terribly difficult. The trick is that a lot of people fall into a student aid "gap" where their parents earn enough money that they don't qualify for aid but realistically the tuition is a bit too much for them to reasonably pay. These people take out a lot of student loans. For higher education degrees that are expected to turn around a lot of money after graduation (business, law, medicine), loans are usually the only option. For those which are not expected to turn around money (e.g. graduate school, Ph.D. in English or History, etc.), the universities themselves usually subsidize the education through grants or teaching or both. This of course varies a lot from university to university and amongst the different "tiers" of universities. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Note also that students in a Commonwealth supported place in Australia pays (or defers) a heavily subsidised fee which is only a small percentage of the "full" fee paid by, say, an international student. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The other alternative in the US is to join the military. After serving for three years, then after you leave the military the government pays most or all of your tuition plus a stipend. If you want to be a doctor the situation is more complex: the military pays for everything but you msut remain in as military doctor for some time. You end up debt-free more quickly than your civilian peers even if you started from poverty. Unfortuantely, the number of bright kids from poor families who figure this our early enough is very low, and many very bright poor kids end up in trouble of one sort or another and fail to even graduate from high school. Leaving aside the moral issues of the failure of society to these kids, the loss to the economy is horrific. -Arch dude (talk) 02:04, 22 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)

Life insurance and health insurance may be conducted along similar lines in some countries, but they're treated differently in Australia. You may have to undergo a medical examination for life insurance, and if you have certain conditions, you'll pay higher premiums. But our private health insurance system is run on a community rating basis, whereby everyone in the same state who takes out the same product from the same company must be charged the same premiums (apart from optional features such as different levels of excess, co-payment etc., which vary the premiums) - without regard to their current state of health or their medical history. The flip side is that treatment for any pre-existing condition is not covered for the first 12 months of membership. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:40, 22 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)

In Australia the vehicle is compulsorily insured against personal injury to all others (and a small amount recently for the owner/driver)which pays for all medical expenses actually incurred (ie eventually repays the Government scheme for the cost of treatment). Other damages may or may not be paid, usually following a court case. Where there is no insurance (eg injury in an uninsured building) the person still gets the treatment they need, through the Medicare scheme. Nobody goes without the treatment they need, albeit they may have to wait for the less urgent things. - KoolerStill (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there any other country in the developed world that's got anywhere near as a bad a health system as the US? 78.146.215.136 (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably not possible to tell as there is not a solid way to compare systems to each other. Googlemeister (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what you mean by "solid" — I suppose you mean "easy enough for people to understand and agree it's a fair measurement" — the health care in the United States article says that according to the WHO, the US is ranked 72nd in health care worldwide. So, 78, I think your question might be answered slightly differently as, "no, no other wealthy, industrialized country in the world has a worse health care system than the US." Health care reform is currently the top item in the US's national news, when Michael Jackson isn't being buried, of course. Tempshill (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Private healthcare? Worse than socialized healthcare? That's a new one on me.--WaltCip (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Then you have learned something new today. In USA we pay a fortune, but shareholders must take their cut at every stage in the process so the insurance companies are still desperate to cut costs wherever possible. APL (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comment surprises me, WaltCip. I live in Canada, and here, a great many people are horrified at the thought of American-style private health care. This isn't to say no one supports private health care (the Alberta government comes to mind in particular), but public health care is one of the things Canadians are traditionally proud of. So to us, the idea that private healthcare is worse than socialized healthcare is the norm, and your perception, while not entirely "a new one on us," would certainly be in the minority here. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. As a Canadian, I would say most people I know here concede that the top tier health care in the US is better than Canadian care. However, as far as efficiency, effectiveness and value, I think most Canadians that know the stats would agree the Canadian system is better overall. But if I was a billionaire from somewhere else in the world, I wouldn't come to Canada to wait in line and receive standard medical care, I'd go to the States and receive extraordinary medical care at an extraordinary price. As for your comment on Alberta, Klein proposed a type of public-private system quite similar to the British system, although he only supported it for some procedures etc as I recall. Alberta made Alberta Blue Cross free to residents at the start of this year, meaning (I believe) full coverage is more available here than elsewhere in Canada. TastyCakes (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

While it's *incredibly* biased, you might want to pick up Michael Moore's Sicko for an interesting comparison of the U.S. system with various public healthcare systems. Just remember to take it all with a pinch of salt. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 19:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

One reason WaltCip may have said that is that he is probably American, and in America, "socialized health care" is a phrase of doom, politically. Opponents of it have seemed to succeed in making the phrase connote, "totalitarian and/or inept government bureaucrats are going to rob you of your health care". The word "rationing" is another term that is always used by opponents of American government-provided health care. The public seems to react particularly negatively to the latter term, ignoring the fact that there is already rationing in effect — it's just that the rationing is put into effect via how much money you are able and willing to pay. Also, for most Americans, there's an underlying belief related to the American dream that "worthy" people will have money, so if you aren't able to afford good health care, you are probably not a very worthy person anyway, so who cares if you get sicker than others. This whole paragraph sounds like a lot of OR but I believe it summarizes the attitudes of many Americans. Tempshill (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have experience with both the Canadian and U.S. healthcare systems, so I can provide a bit of insight here. There are some advantages to the U.S. system. In America, there is no serious doctor shortage and far shorter waits for specialist visits and surgery. In fact, until the rise of HMOs, most Americans didn't even need a referral from a primary-care physician to get a specialist appointment. So traditionally, Americans have gotten better healthcare than Canadians -- if they have insurance. But most Americans do have insurance. That's why healthcare reform failed in the early 1990s -- most Americans, thinking individually rather than collectively, had something to lose in the adoption of a national healthcare plan. What's different now is that healthcare costs have spiraled so badly that many Americans can't afford even the co-payments or the stuff their healthcare plan might not cover. Many Americans are now "underinsured" -- they have insurance, but not enough insurance to protect them against possible catastrophic illness or injury. It's gotten to the point where many in the middle class, rather than just the unemployed and working poor, have something to gain through national healthcare. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

And if you are in the lower categories of healthcare (e.g. student healthcare) you have very, very little covered at all. It's basically accident insurance with a smattering of regular maintenance thrown in, and everything with co-payments and surcharges. (And insurance companies trying to avoid paying for everything possible. That's right, my yearly physical was purely cosmetic, of no medical necessity, sure. I get examined because it's fun.) Anyway I think the point in particular that the problems in the US healthcare system have hit the middle classes (where basically everyone has had or knows someone who has had major problems dealing with their insurance in the times in which it was really needed) is what is pushing reform at the moment. Caring about the uninsured makes for nice speeches but hasn't translated into real policy here; the insured-but-not-well situation makes a lot of people (myself included) looking enviously at the public health programs of Europe and elsewhere. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 23:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"Australia or a civilised country"? Heh. — One thing seriously wrong with medicine in These United States goes back to WW2 wage controls. Employers offered fringe benefits such as medical insurance to entice workers without raising nominal wages. Then employment-based insurance was made non-taxable, which means it's much cheaper for most people than getting medical insurance any other way — so the whole industry is structured on the assumption of employment-based insurance, which, besides being an Awesomely Stupid way to organize anything, means two degrees of disconnection between the consumer and the payer (vs just one with private insurance). —Tamfang (talk) 04:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL, good catch. We (other?) Aussies missed that. - KoolerStill (talk) 03:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Why does nobody ever consider the fact that a nation of what, 30 million, might be able to do some things that another nation, with *ten times* the population, can't do?209.244.30.221 (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This thread seems to have shifted into a debate on health care systems. Getting back to the original question, my understanding (and I don't have a reliable source for this; it only comes from fiction TV shows that are supposed to get this sort of thing right) is that hospitals in the US are required to treat emergency cases even if they think or know there's no payment coming -- but only while the situation is still an emergency. What they aren't required to do is provide followup care. If a hospital is private and run for profit, as soon as it's no longer an emergency they'll discharge the patient. Out of decency they may try to turn over, or at least direct, the patient to another facility, probably a less well equipped, that's community-owned or charity-supported and that does see its job as including cases it won't be paid for. Perhaps someone can provide cites to support or refute what I have said. --Anonymous (Canadian), 21:45 UTC, July 21, 2009.

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)

The concept of "sandbagging" (i.e. "hustling") was probably invented long before the actual term was. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:48, 22 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)

Have you tried Casio's website? Try this link: Casio watch manual search, and enter the "module number" in the search box. The module number is marked on the back cover of your watch. --Zerozal (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

or try searching for "casio dw 6900 manual", clicking on the first link, clicking "download manual" etc http://ftp.casio.co.jp/pub/world_manual/wat/en/qw1289.pdf

Did you even try to look?83.100.250.79 (talk) 15:51, 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)

"Research" like this really isn't the remit of the Ref Desk. I note particularly that there's no validity to any conclusions that are drawn as a result of your proposal. You've not provided a sufficient test population, there's no control, the testers aren't documented, there are no defined criteria for our judgment (what defines personality or character?), there are no defined criteria for your judgment (what constitutes "accuracy"?), and so forth. You may be interested in our article on cold reading, which is all this amounts to. — Lomn 13:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

How you dress can be a reasonably accurate predictor of your personality. You may also be interested in Malcolm Gladwell's book 'Blink' in which he references a study that showed people could accurately predict people's personalities by simply seeing a photograph of their bedroom (in this case dorm-room). As it stands I would expect that more could be 'read' into the way you presented the information about yourself than the information itself..."neither do I like bright/colorful", "white - which isn't really a color" as well as a number of "I do not"s. All of these influence how I assume you to be as much as what you describe. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

From the opening remarks in your question I would hazard a guess you are a transvestite??? 92.22.178.59 (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That occurred to me too, but there are some hints the OP is not a native speaker, so I wouldn't necessarily draw that conclusion.

OP: "Dress" is the general term for clothing; "a dress" (s.) or "dresses" (pl.) refers specifically to an item normally worn only by women. Or male transvestites. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes I was looking, when I tried the website I got no results. But thanks anyway, the second one you suggested was useful.Scotius (talk) 11:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

JackofOz: you are indeed right, iam not a native speaker. Thanks for telling me about the word usage though. user with ip address - 194.221.133.226 : can you predict my personality reasonably acurately from my dress?. For the sake of curiosness What have you inferred about my perosnality from a lot of "I do not"s?.

Gilad_Shalit

Is Gilad_Shalit alive? According to the article some people believe that yes. However, where is the evidence. In the links I see no evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quest09 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that anyone here at the Reference Desk has any information beyond what's in the article, particularly the section about 2009 developments. Tempshill (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

REV Patrick Murundu Andieli

I have removed this (duplicate) message as it is entirely irrelevant to the wikipedia reference desk and contains personal information. ny156uk (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ammendment 21 of US Constitution

Did any national level legislator who originally voted to pass the 18th amendment on the prohibition of alchohol publicly apologize for what was obviously bad legislation and then vote in favor of repealing the 18th amendment? Googlemeister (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No national-level legislators voted to pass either amendment (at least not in their capacity as legislators); the 18th was passed by 3/4 majority of state legislatures and the 21st was passed by 3/4 majority of state-level conventions (the only amendment to have been passed in such a method). The US Congress' involvement was limited to proposing the amendments. Is this pedantic? Somewhat. However, it's important to recognize that Congress specifically chose a new method of ratification to overturn a prior amendment. It's additionally worth noting that Congress proposing an amendment is not tantamount to passage of the same. — Lomn 20:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

From a pedantic point of view, I think "pass" in the question must be interpreted as including both the "proposal" by Congress and the "ratification" in the different states. Since the question refers to "national-level legislators", the ratification process can be ignored and it resolves to: "Which members of Congress, if any, voted in favor of both amendments and made a public apology for having voted in favor of the 18th?" I assume the voting details, at least, are on record somewhere: anyone know exactly where to look? --Anonymous, 21:35 UTC, July 21, 2009.

Why? Would we similarly single out the subcommittee that reviewed an eventually-unpopular bill? Congress doesn't vote "in favor" of an amendment; they vote in favor of letting the states decide. — Lomn 23:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Congress did pass the Volstead Act, of course. Algebraist 23:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

We are singling out Congress because the original poster asked about "national-level legislators". And no amendment gets passed without a supermajority in both houses of Congress. That is certainly a vote in favor of it. --Anon, 03:30 UTC, July 22, 2009.

Distance is longer while average traveling time is about the same

how could sometimes when a modify route plan, lets say from Mission Viejo to Ventura when we via the 405 to the 101, the distance is 4.8 miles longer while the average traveling time is only 2 minutes longer than the 5 to the 101? I always thought via the 405 to Ventura is a better bet on average. Is it the speed limit on the 101 is less than the 405. Is US Route's average speed limit 10 minutes shorter than the interstate. Is US freeway's speed limit 55 miles, the State Routes non-at grade intersection same as interstates highway. Could this be why it is faster to travel on interstate/intrastates than US Highways? I don't think the 405 is as congestive as you think. The 101 goes through Chinatown, Hollywood industrial center, alot of capitals of entertainment, yea and Hollywood Bowl. yea ha! The 101 would obviously be bad on weekends, at rush hour yeah, while 405 is just airports. Then which route on average is the safest way to get to Ventura? Will 5 to the 134 to the 101 help? I don't know if the 134 will be this helpful.--69.228.145.50 (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This confusing question is all over the place. In the future please try asking a single, shorter question. Firstly, if the distance of route A is longer than the distance of route B but the travel times are about the same, it simply indicates that route A is a faster route, which I think you know; so this indicates the 405 would indeed be a better bet on average. All your questions about freeway congestion on individual freeways are too general because it totally depends on which direction is being discussed and the time of day; some freeways are worse going northbound in the morning, others worth going southbound in the morning; it mostly depends on the vast population's commute direction. Weekend traffic is always lighter. I would advise looking at the Caltrans maps at various times of day if you are interested in trying to gauge the speeds of different roads. Tempshill (talk) 04:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

July 22

Growing your own seaweed?

Has anyone ever heard of growing your own seaweed? Is it realistic? Is it possible? Does it have to use saltwater?--Dbjohn (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes (and yes, yes, yes)- seaweed is also called macroalgae see : http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=macroalgae+growing+saltwater+aquarium&meta=

If you want to grow seaweed it will have to be salt water, however freshwater macroalgae exist as well.83.100.250.79 (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

for biological questions try the science desk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.250.79 (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Socks: cotton, polyester, spandex

I have two choices: socks with 80% cotton, 17% polyester and 3% spandex or socks with 83% cotton, 16% polyester, 1% spandex. One of both is also cheaper, but which one is the best quality? (if it matter at all).--Quest09 (talk) 11:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Parole

Why is Julio_González_(arsonist) eligible for parole, but Madoff not? Quest09 (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)