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

April 18

Fishing lure

I am looking for manufacturer information on a fishing spoon called flasher I used in Pennsylvania in the 1970's —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walleyeuno (talk • contribs) 01:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

If you haven't already done so, try Google. Chevymontecarlo. 06:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Would that be the Williams flasher [1]. It was so good they took out a patent on the design. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 07:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

soviets

how many of the countries that were previously within the ussr are now led by former members of the kgb,military,or soviet gov. and their names/former positions??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfragd (talk • contribs) 02:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin, the current Prime Minister of Russia, had a stint in the KGB, see Vladimir Putin#KGB career. Gabbe (talk) 09:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest looking at USSR and then reading the articles of/googling the small number of premiers which follow. I'll do my part: the president of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko was a member of the Soviet Border Guard for 2 years and then the Soviet Army for another 2 or so. Some googling says that he was some kind of officer but it doesn't sound like it was a high up position and I can't find any solid references. The prime minister, Sergei Sidorsky, seems to have had a background in industry. Now you can do that for the 13 other ex-USSR members. 129.234.53.144 (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

No one ever leaves the KGB, comrade! Adam Bishop (talk) 02:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Vat was zat Sandvich? Kill zem all? Good idea! FiggyBee (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Some others:

• Emomalii Rahmon, President of Tajikistan, served in the Soviet Armed Forces for 3 years
• Vlad Filat, Prime Minister of Moldova, did compulsory military service for several years under the USSR
• Heydar Aliyev, President of Azerbaijan until 2003 (his son is currently President) was in the KGB

Hut 8.5 15:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Brooks Brothers; High-end?

Might be of a silly question, but generally speaking, is the fashion brand Brooks Brothers considered a high-end retailer? Generally, can one consider them to be on par with say, Hugo Boss or Gucci? Acceptable (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed apostrophe to fix redlink 131.111.248.99 (talk) 04:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It depends. BB has long been a maker of high-quality, but very conservative, clothing. Its wares are designed to look good, but not to stand out. Boss and Gucci might introduce new styles once a year; BB once a decade. BB is less expensive than the others, but isn't of lesser quality. BB doesn't make clothing to show off; the others do. PhGustaf (talk) 04:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I would call it high-end, yes. I'll agree with PhGustaf in that they don't make stuff that will stand out but they are known for their name. They have stores on both Madison Ave. and Rodeo Dr. which are two of the higher end retail streets in the US. Dismas|^(talk) 04:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Ready to wear - never really high end. Saville Row is high end. 92.29.91.224 (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the style associated with BB is "understatement." Bagginess as opposed to form-fitting might might accompany that. A "classicizing" principle is at work in the BB aesthetic, I think. This might be seen as in opposition to the aesthetic employing innovation and updating. Bus stop (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Off-the-peg clothes can never be among the very best. If you want a truly high-end suit, it has to be bespoke. The same goes for women's clothing. I have heard it said that a truly good suit doesn't need a label - the suit speaks for itself. --Tango (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

While true, I can't think of a business setting where a Brooks Brother's suit would be deemed inappropriate. Shadowjams (talk) 09:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Greece and the Euro

Why is the potential defaulting of Greece on its debt seen as a threat to the Euro, given that monetary policy is controlled by the Franco-German axis? If Athens goes under, why should Frankfurt tremble? 86.41.84.199 (talk) 07:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The way this type of thing usually happens (or is feared could happen) is that nearby nations with intertwined economies then fail, then they take out those near them, etc. A sort of cascade failure. StuRat (talk) 13:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but commentary like this suggests the currency itself rather than the underlying economies is at risk. 86.41.84.199 (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

how tall is obama

Resolved

how tall is obama? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.118.28 (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

According to Heights of Presidents of the United States and presidential candidates, he's 6'1" / 185 cm. StuRat (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Slipping Parking Brake

I bought a new Suzuki SX4 SZ4 (Front Wheel Drive only) a month ago and have just done over 1000 miles so far (UK). Shortly after taking it from the showroom I noticed the car rolling backwards when on an incline (even a moderate one) with the parking brake applied and out of gear - including during a hill start which makes it difficult to avoid rolling backwards. So I took it back to the showroom where they checked the car and found the settings were as manufacturer's specifications and the brake cable properly adjusted. But I was told that the problem is common on cars with disk-brakes all round the car as there is less surface area between the pads and the disks than would be the case with 2 front disks and 2 rear drum brakes (as per my last car which never ever slipped backwards on a hill). So I am left wondering if this is correct, and if so, how do these all-round disk brakes survive an M.O.T (Ministry of Transport)test. And how do the manufacturers get past the Health and Safety and other consumer-related legislation. I am led to understand that all-round disk brakes are far more efficient at slowing and stopping the car than drum brakes - (which pleases me), but I am now obliged to leave the car in gear when parked as well as applying the parking brake. Any advice here will be appreciated. Thanks. 92.30.7.103 (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like nonsense to me, certainly something the size of an SX4 should be able to hold itself with the handbrake. If the lever's coming up a long way without the brakes being effectively engaged, just getting it tightened should make a big difference. You should be leaving the car in gear when parked in any case, btw. :) FiggyBee (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Hand brake don't work and “were as manufacturer's specifications” ! Try [2]. I think they have tried to fob you off. Area may be smaller but the force applied is 'higher' on disc pads - so that argument is a non sequitur. And as you point out – how does their excuse square with getting it through the M.O.T.--Aspro (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

If you are suspicious of this, may I suggest you contact the AA or RAC, as these organisations provide advisory services to their members, and will be in a better position to advise on the roadworthiness or otherwise of your car than a bunch of strangers on the internet! --TammyMoet (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It's road worthiness is clear (the MOT requirements defines that). I'm sure the OP would have contacted the RAC or AA if he had been a member. Come on, disappoint me 92.30.7.103. Tell me you are a member but did not think (despite all their promotional bumf) to take advantage of their services (I avoid adding any sarcastic comments because the people working for said organizations are hard working, contentious people). The OP should not have to fork out membership, to get some background info, for a fault that occurs within what amounts to some 24hrs (1,000 mile) of driving time, and just in order to resolve a problem that the dealership should be capable of resolving themselves. After all, what is the point of buying from a dealership...? e-Bay would be cheaper if it was simply a matter of price.--Aspro (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know much about how things work in the UK but am I right that it most likely won't pass a MOT test. If so, even though it may not be due for a MOT test anytime soon, is it possible to get one carried out anyway? Yes this would cost money (I don't know how £54.00 compares to AA or RAC membership), but it may or may not be a more effective way to deal with the problem. If you're sure it won't pass, and indeed it doesn't pass, you then have the evidence to take with you for the dealership and you should I presume be entilted to a refund of the cost, since they refused to deal with the issue and you needed the test to prove to them they were wrong. Of course you probably should inform them of your concerns and plan, and ask for a written confirmation that they believe the brake issues are by design, and not a fault that would cause the vehicle to fail a MOT test. I'm not saying this is necessarily the best way to deal with the problem and obviously you shouldn't need to do so, but if the dealership is being silly it may be a way to deal with the problem. Nil Einne (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The dealership is talking complete nonsense. Why would we install disk brakes if they weren't as effective as drum brakes? If the handbrake won't hold the car on a moderate slope then it's not working. Don't stand for this kind of run-around. The car isn't functioning correctly - period. Having said that, you should always leave the car in-gear and with the handbrake on when parked (you probably know that!). But you're 100% right. The british driving test requires you to hold the car on the handbrake while doing a hill-start and if you can't do that - even on a really steep hill - then the car is undrivable. If they continue to disagree - demand that they let you drive one of the new cars on their lot and see that one slipping under the same conditions...if it does, then you just bought a terrible car - if it doesn't slip - then your car is faulty and they'll be forced to admit that fact. There are lots of other things to test than just the brake cable - maybe there is some kind of contaminant on the brake pads - maybe the pads are faulty. SteveBaker (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, hand brakes working on disks are almost always less efficient than those on drums. With drum brakes, it's very easy to get a mechanical method to press the shoes against the drum independent of the hydraulic system. With disks, it's completely non-trivial, and solutions have included having a separate drum brake mechanism for the hand brake, and having separate mechanically activated calipers for the disks. When I used to rally, it was common to replace the mechanical mechanism with a hydraulic handbrake, for the same reason. (Note: AFAIK this is not legal in the UK, which requires a mechanical brake as a fall-back to the hydraulic mechanism). That said, it's clearly up to the manufacturers to fit a handbrake mechanism that works and can hold the car on a hill. I never leave a car in gear, either - that's what the hand-brake's for! --Phil Holmes (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The reason I suggested AA or RAC is because they will produce an independent report, which the OP can take to the dealership as evidence that the car they sold is not fit for purpose. The OP claims to have bought a "new" car. In the UK you don't need an MOT until the car is 3 years old, and it is theoretically possible that the new car wouldn't pass the MOT because it wouldn't need to. If the car is not fit to be driven on the road, the AA/RAC report would identify why and also provide the solution, which the dealership should then implement. If they were then to quibble, then recourse to law would be necessary - and the independent report would be the evidence to start a court case with. This report would be well worth it. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Twaddle --Aspro (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Bobby Knight

what school did bobby knightcoach first —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.39.209 (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Our article Bobby Knight says "After graduation in 1962, Knight coached junior varsity basketball at Cuyahoga Falls High School in Ohio for one year.". SteveBaker (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing the answer the questioner is looking for is the United States Military Academy at West Point, known for sporting purposes as "Army," which was the first college Knight coached. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

submitting an article on new user

Dear Wikipedia moderators, users and concerned public! I'm having a real hard time using Sandbox and related programs to create an article using wikipedia and need help! easy help! I'm hoping to upload a short and cited article with a quick redirect and want to be able to just submit it to the general public. Hoping someone can give me a detailed instruction guide to the "sandbox" process and help get this article up. It's a small bio on a noted speaker David Wilcock, who talks frequently about fringe and related conspiracy theory and its relationship to spirituality. help would be super helpful! thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukehilton (talk • contribs) 23:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You might be best off at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:Your first article. It should contain everything you need to know. If you have any further question, ask at Wikipedia:Help desk (this reference desk isn't really for questions about how to use Wikipedia, the help desk is, so you'll get a quicker, better response there). --Tango (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is your sandbox. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You can get live help, and talk to experienced users, live here.  Chzz  ►  12:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It is unlikely that David Willcock (conspiracy theorist) is sufficiently notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

But it may be that David_Wilcock_(conspiracy_theorist) is -- go ahead, Lukehilton...be BOLD! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

April 19

UK postage stamp price increases

It seems to me that over at least the last twenty years or so, Royal Mail's prices for first and second class stamps have increased at rates that exceed inflation. I cannot however find a comprehensive history of prices, either as a graph or a table. Most of what I've found is news stories or other commentary about "yet another price increase", often with some limited mention of previous increases, but no full data anywhere. Can anyone help me locate this information? If we find it, it would be good to add a graph to an article such as Postage stamps and postal history of Great Britain or Machin series (I don't know enough about stamps to know where would be best). Most of what Wikipedia currently has on Royal Mail stamps is all about design and other features of interest to collectors. The stamps I'm talking about are non-denominated postage and so don't have monetary values written on them, so the designs don't change with the prices. Indeed, that article says: "Non-denominated postage was first introduced in the United Kingdom in 1989 for domestic mail, in part as a workaround to the problem of fast-changing rates." — Trilobite 05:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

This seems to cover the matter with regard to basic first-class postage, though the information isn't in the form of a graph or table. (We do have an article on the United States that seems to be a possible model for what you want: History of United States postage rates. I'm not finding an easy online source for UK rates presented in the same detail, though.) Deor (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The article linked by Deor covers US rates but not UK. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Plus, it doesn't compare price rises with inflation, which is what the OP asked for. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 12:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Drat, I shouldn't try to Google before my morning cup of coffee. However, I believe the OP asked for "a comprehensive history of prices", not a comparison of price rises with inflation. Deor (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

If someone had access to a run of Whitaker's Almanac they could work it out, as it lists postal rates each year. DuncanHill (talk) 12:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the increase is due more to political theory than straight economics. Before 1979, the Post Office was regarded as a service provided by the government and there was little pressure for income to match expenditure. Enter Margaret Thatcher and her brand of Monetarism and you see the start of a long struggle to make the Post Office pay its own way, with some early success - although it has been making a loss since 2000, despite a a £150 million annual Government subsidy[3]. The choice is: pay more for stamps, or pay more tax to bail it out, or cut the service it provides. Alansplodge (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

This [4] contains a graph showing the tariff for 20g compared to the Cpi --80.195.117.33 (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You could ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Philately. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

According to this blog, the standard first class rates (for a small envelope) rose from 18p to 34p between 1990 and 2007. The rate was 30p in 2005 and 32p in 2006. It rose from 34p to 36p in 2008, to 39p in April 2009, and to 41p earlier this month. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Could this be something to do with a gradual equalisation of postage rates across Europe? In my experience, you will find UK postage rates generally lower than elsewhere in western European countries with similar economic situations; and that is borne out by the statistics provided by 80.195 It generally costs over €0.50 to send a letter in France, Belgium, Denmark, & Germany, with the UK only recently catching up to something like those rates (with the recent rise to 41p). Interestingly, the rates in Germany seem to have been pretty static for the last 10 years or so - from an expensive seeming €0.56 in 2001 to a much more average seeming €0.56 in 2008.

Either that or it's all Maggie's fault for trying to make suggesting a public service (should) pay its own way. Astronaut (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Not all Maggie's fault. In the 2000s, the postal market has been opened [ref], exposing Royal Mail to more competition in the profitable areas of its business (e.g. bulk mail)[5] and leaving it with the obligation to provide an unprofitable universal service. In 2008, with 1st class stamps rising to 36p, Royal Mail was still losing 6p per letter. [6] AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Adjusted the wording above to clarify. Astronaut (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Flight Manuals

Does anyone know where one could find flight manual's for some of the "heavies" in the aircraft world? Like for a Boeing 747 or an Airbus A380? ^Avicenna_sis @ 07:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

eBay. I searched for 747 flight manual as well and came up with a training manual. I'm not sure if you were looking for that though. Dismas|^(talk) 07:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. :) ^Avicenna_sis @ 20:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

side discussion about aircraft manuals

Am I wrong to find such a request (and search for flight manuals) a little worrying. Shouldn't such material be restricted to (and controlled by) the appropriate agencies? 92.30.48.156 (talk) 09:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Yes, you are wrong. What exactly do you think a person will do with the knowledge? Steal a 747? Hijack it and try to fly it by consulting the appropriate page at the appropriate time? Build one from scrap items found in said person's garage? How much more likely that someone is fascinated by such vehicles, and wants to learn more about them. You'll forgive me if I say that the culture of paranoia is entirely out of place in a forum dedicated to making information free. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Of course you're wrong. Anyone who can afford it can buy a plane, and how else could they use it?! ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 10:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) Ditto to what Tagishsimon said. In college my roommates were aviation students and were fascinated by any airline minutia they could get their hands on. (they all loved the airline silverware that I brought with me when we moved into the apartment) One guy was a trainspotter too. There are completely innocuous reasons for wanting something like this. Additionally, how would you go about keeping these things secure? There are thousands of pilots out there that need these for reference material. There are thousands of aircraft out there with these things on board. How would any organization, private or governmental, keep track of every copy? And finally, you can go to any aviation college bookstore and buy copies of the manuals for smaller aircraft such as Cessna 152 and 172s. (that's where I got mine after all) Small planes too can be used for terrorist acts. Don't let your paranoia get away from you. Dismas|(talk) 10:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Oh guys, I am so sorry - clearly I have stepped on a toe or several here. Please feel free to issue these technical and training manuals to any potential 9-11 terrorist in future - as you please - I was merely concerned about the safety of non-terrorist individuals and organisations that might die or be mutilated by the use and misuse of such materiel in future. Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa. After all, it's not planes that kill people.....................92.30.145.192 (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC) So, we should also not teach people to drive because some people may chose to use that knowledge to run people over? Knowledge is neutral - it is only the application of knowledge which is good or bad. Avicennasis @ 20:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Can't believe I forgot this point: assume good faith. Avicennasis @ 20:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC) With the very best of wishes to you personally, that's exactly the sort of crap logic that's leading to photographers being challenged when taking street photography. It's a form of security theater, in which one plays to the perceived risks not the actual risks. In this case, in short, if you think you can fly a 747 after nothing more than reading the manual, you're a braver / more stupid man than me. By the same logic, presumably, domestic flight simulators should be banned? How about the geographic coordinates we've placed on 600,000 or more articles: very useful to terrorists planning their destruction shopping list. Don't even get me started on the offensive uses of Google Streetview. I think you should make some plausible argument for the risk associated with dissemination of this sort of information. Simply flapping your arms around, as you are (metaphorically) doing above does not convince anyone of anything. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Seriously, flying a plane in visual flight conditions while it is in the air, especially a commercial jet is fairly simple. The tough part is the take off, the landing, the approach, instrument flight, what to do if your engine, hydraulics, radio, landing gear etc... fails, and flying in your assigned area when there is other traffic about to eliminate chances for a midair. All these tricky things are stuff that are of little concern to someone who has no intention of returning the aircraft to the hanger in good shape. 65.121.141.34 (talk)

We're obviously having a disagreement about whether or not these should be available. If you want to continue that conversation, do it inside the box. If you want to make any other suggestions for where the OP could find a manual (as it appear that they are available), make it down here. Buddy431 (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I found this pdf online (warning: 9.2 MB download, 964 page pdf), the "747-441 Operations Manual". I'm not sure about the copyright status of it (I'm not even sure where I'm getting this from, it just came up in a Google search). Buddy431 (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

How often do power surges occur?

Looking at surge-protected extension cables, I was wondering - how often do power surges even occur? I'll make it easier for you and say just in one country, not all over the world. Also how do they occur? Chevymontecarlo. 14:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

A nearby lightning strike is one cause. StuRat (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by power surges. Just having a fridge or vacuum cleaner that's being switched off and on will cause voltage spikes but a decently built power supply in the computer should deal with those. As Stu say, lightning will also cause spikes (which can be bit too high for most protectors) but that's fortunately rare. However, if the supply arrives via miles of overhead wooden poles and installed to low standards, then spikes will be more common. Even within the same country, it seems to depend on local conditions and what equipment is also on your side of the main step-down transformer. --Aspro (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

As always, Wikipedia has an article about it. See: Voltage spike--Aspro (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I looked up some OFGEM figures for the UK here which suggests there were about 32 million short interruptions to power supply across the UK in 2005/6, averaging at 132 per 100 customers (no, I don't know why they use that metric either). I hazard a guess and Voltage spike suggests these may be responsible for one category of spikes, to give you some volumetrics. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the software needed to read that document. Does it have any kind of estimates on the causes of the momentary power spikes ? Back where I used to live, no small number of them were caused by squirrels inadvertently contacting a power line where it's attached to a power pole, resulting in an electric arc, a very short power dip, and a fried squirrel. It would be interesting to see if they can estimate the power dips by type. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like you're still using Microsoft Word. Download a free copy of OpenOffice.org and you can always have an up to date office software suite. --Aspro (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope, too high level. It subdivides into: 1) Automatic operation and restored by automatic switching 2) Automatic operation and restored by manual or remote switching 3) Manual or remote operation 4) Operation of switchgear on other connected systems. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't address the question about surges, does it? I have been wondering this too, and have also been wondering whether the useful metric would be how often the surge protector companies actually pay the US$10,000 warranty they claim to protect you with if your equipment was plugged into their power strip during the surge. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That would only be a metric to see how good the surge protectors are. The proper metric would be to see how often something delicate not on a protector is fried. I don't hear about it happening much, but I really don't know. Buddy431 (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You are quite right. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really dealing with the question, but lightning is a big killer of modems (including ADSL of course) and sometimes connected equipment in Malaysia but this usually comes from the telephone line AFAIK which lacks the surge protectors common on US telephone lines. I know someone who's lost IIRC 3 modems (2 ADSL and one v.90 although it's possible there was another dialup) over 10 years or so, and one motherboard (connected to the ADSL line), can't remember if the CPU survived or not. For a long time they did have the policy of manually disconnecting the phone line when there was lightning which probably helped, but of course you may not always do it in time or may be out. They're now using a lightning protector and so far nothing has died in the past 4 years except for the protector which is designed to die if necessary (it has a removable telephone part that can be replaced for IIRC RM15). Actually they did have a different protector once which didn't help protect the v.90 modem. While a big problem in Malaysia, it's also easy to find anecdotal reports from other countries like Australia [7] and the US [8] although again, I'm not sure these are coming in from the power line.

When it comes to lightning, it obviously depends a lot on where you live. Lightning storms are common in Malaysia, the company which made the v.90 agreed to replace it even though it was damaged by lightning although it had to be sent back to the US, the person said they didn't know what to suggest since they got them like 3 times a year there. Similarly here in NZ it's surprising when you have one since they're so rare.

In terms of the guarantees at least for lightning, I personally don't consider them of much use, they often have some fairly stringent conditions/exemptions. At the very least all equipment usually needs to be connected to them for the guarantee but they usually have more that I don't think they're worth much. There was a strong opponent of those on usenet, w_tom, you can see one of his? posts here [9]. While I didn't entirely agree with all he was saying (in particular, for a long time he was sprouting stuff that may have been true in the US, but not Malaysia although seemed to eventually realise when I pointed it out) I think a lot of what he said was useful so you may want to look at some of his other posts.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Please Please help (bad manager)

How do you get this unthankful,arrogant manager to learn a lesson as she thinks i am her slave , can anyone help as i had enough and want to end either her or me n this office..anyone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.36.6 (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Be professional, schedual a meeting with him or her, as well as a 3rd party, make a plan before hand, and in a calm, professional manner explain to them what the issues at hand are, and possible solutions to the problem that you may have, eg, I am unable to do zxy because abc take a certain amount of time to complete, we could out scource xyz to Bob in personel as he has expressed an interest in this field. Remember at the start of the meeting to relax every one by asking, how their weekend was or hows the wife, etc. above all keep calm, especially if they do not, and be proffesional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Start here:How to Deal with Difficult People at Work --Aspro (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

If you are a union member, try speaking to them for advice. If you work for a large company with an HR department, they may be able to give assistance, if you can't work things out between the two of you. Warofdreams talk 18:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Realistically - the only difference between a slave and an employee is that the employee gets paid and can leave at any time. So you aren't really being treated like a slave. The distinction is a significant one - as an employee, you can choose to leave. In the limit, that's your only guaranteed way out. However, once you've realized that - you really don't have much else to lose. That's an empowering thing. Once you've decided that the situation is intolerable (ie the hassle is not worth the pay), your choices become very simple: Either resign - or to make a fuss and thereby either improve the situation or end up losing the job anyway. That seems like a no-brainer - you might as well make a fuss, at least that way you have a chance to improve the situation. Now it's just a matter of how you complain. Step one is to gather evidence - find memos, emails - anything you can bring to the table to show your case. If there are things that you are aware of (or your manager has complained about you) then you have to have solid reasons why you did what you did in these cases. Remember - you are trying to show why the company is worse off because of this behavior - not why you, personally are worse off. When you have that evidence, you need to go to the HR department and find out what the official route to bringing a complaint it. There may be a specific person in HR - or the boss of your boss - or a union or some other route. Whatever it is, follow the guidelines to the letter. The last thing you want is for there to turn out to be an error on your behalf. SteveBaker (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Important point to remember: Trying to "teach someone a lesson" generally doesn't work. Getting your ducks in a row and dealing with it in an adult way, as Baker suggests, has a possibility of positive results. A boss needs to be able to save face a little bit. Something else to consider: Is it strictly a personality clash, or is there a possibility the boss has violated the company's Code of Conduct in some way? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

If she's asking you to do things that are reasonably part of your job description, you should simply do them cheerfully - taking orders from a boss is not slavery, but just part of being a working person. If she's asking you to do things that are not reasonably part of your job description, politely tell her that you're confused about what your job responsibilities are, and ask her to clarify what your job is- then you can go to her boss if she's asking you to do unreasonable things. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I see receipts at work and am sure that a senior member of the work force is putting his private expenses through the company accounts. Should I inform his boss? We are a small group of workers and I would be implicated as the whistle blower. In these time of job scarcity I am reluctant to put mine into jeopardy. What does anyone advise please?--Artjo (talk) 10:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

In some companies it is common and accepted for senior executives to charge personal expenses to the company (even extending to personal use of the company's private jet) and it is just considered part of their compensation package, so he may not actually be doing anything wrong. If he isn't supposed to be charging personal expenses to the company then it will be somebody's job to check those receipts are valid expenses and you should probably just leave it to them. --Tango (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

One strategy, to be considered, is to turn that which is offensive, to your advantage, if possible. If work is being piled upon you, a common tactic of those trying to establish status hierarchies that flatter their egos, and if it is possible for you to easily do that work, then try, over the short term anyway, to just do it. Accomplishing work makes you valuable, and even relatively menial activities can be learning experiences in unexpected ways. There is a degree of empowerment that derives from contributing to a project. And you both work for the same company. Bus stop (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The easiest way to get an oppressor off your back is just to surrender, with no reservations. Vranak (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It may also help to be very polite to your boss (lots of please and thank yous) which may a) signify to your boss that you think politeness is important, and b) serve as a role model for your bosses own behaviour. 92.24.75.193 (talk) 11:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The Ownership society or the Loanership society? (in 2004 election)

Did Karl Rove win the 2004 elections by revving up home loans at Fannie Mae? Wasn't there some kind of email trail reported on in the New York Times or maybe elsewhere? Thanks, Rich (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis is probably our most useful article when looking into this type of claim. The causes were many and complicated, as can be seen from the fact that the above article is a sort of subarticle of Causes of the financial crisis of 2007–2010, which in turn is a subarticle of our Subprime mortgage crisis article. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks informative, i'll check it out.Rich (talk) 02:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

What is the most common NBA rotation?

What is the most common NBA rotation? Are players in certain positions usually rested first, or is the order of the rotation usually based on resting players of a certain skill level first? When are the starters usually rested? (At the end of the first quarter and beginning of the second quarter during each half, or at the end of the first quarter and the end of the second quarter, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rod700 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The team's most important players will be rested, if they're rested at all, at the end of the first quarter/beginning of the second so they get the most rest possible in the least amount of game time. They will often be taken out of the game when there is little time left in any quarter (less than a minute), to avoid fouls. The less important players will usually be rested before the stars, but it's based more on other factors (matchups/fouls/etc). I haven't noticed any trends as far as position goes. Recury (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe centers tend to have less stamina than do other players and are often in foul trouble, so big men are often rotated. However, the sixth man is rarely a center and is more often a shooting guard or forward. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It's also important to make sure there are enough players to rotate in and out Hemoroid Agastordoff (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Accounting: Corporation tax on the balance sheet

In accounting you defer payment of corporation tax to the next financial year.

Since assets = equity + liability. If I pay my corporation tax from the previous year, my assets (cash) will go down. How do I represent the change on the other side of the equation to make my balance sheet balance.

You can't represent it as a loss in your profit/loss as each year is independent of the next according to tax rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.253.249 (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not an accountant, but surely on the balance sheet it shows up initially as a future liability and cash in the bank, and when paid becomes an absence of future liability and absence of cash at the bank. Presumably a profit & loss account for the year (or some post processing afterwards to show profit after tax) would show the tax liability as a deduction from profits in the year the profits were made? --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

To add on that, on the income statement, there is usually a profit before interest and income taxes and below that, net profit after interest and income taxes. The "future liability" (actually called provision for income tax, or something like that) would be deducted from net profit and thus, from equity.
That is, the adjusting entries would be:
Debit Equity xxx
Credit income tax liability xxx
SYSS Mouse (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

If the tax is paid the next year, then in the year it's incurred, it increases liabilities (deferred tax liability) while reducing owner's equity (tax expense). In the year that it's paid, it reduces liabilities (deferred tax liability) while also decreasing assets (cash). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Crimes which shook the world: Ipswich murders?

Five have got a programme in the series Crimes which shook the world on the Ipswich 2006 serial murders. My question is simple: whilst they were big news here in the UK, were they reported in other parts of the world, and to what extent? - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 21:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll expand the question: Is there a process for determining this question for any particular news event? A system of googling and dividing up the results by country would result in garbage, presumably, because the web is a big echo chamber. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I will say that I never heard of the 2006 Ipswich murders in the US, but that just means that it was not treated as earthshattering news since I was not looking for it. Googlemeister (talk) 21:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it wasn't big news in the US. 5 murdered prostitutes in another country wouldn't qualify as news here unless there was video or at least audio to play. StuRat (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I am almost certain the major news organizations -- ABC News, CBS News, and NBC News -- did not cover it at great length (if they even did at all), because the only reason I know about this story is because I read the BBC's website quite frequently. I would not be surprised if the 24/7 "soft news" channels, such as Fox News and Headline News -- organizations that have a reputation for blowing minor stories, such as car chases and missing children, way too far out of proportion -- ran some coverage, although since I don't patronize those awful cable channels I can't tell you for sure. Xenon54 / talk / 22:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I like to think of myself as a fairly well informed American when it comes to the news but I never heard of this until I found myself reading a bunch of serial murder articles on WP one day. Dismas|^(talk) 02:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

From memory they were reported on here in NZ well enough for people to notice. A lot of big UK news is of course Nil Einne (talk) 06:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Per Google News Archive, the story made the Associated Press wires and was covered in US and other world newspapers outside the UK on December 18-22, 2006, when the police announced they had arrested him for the series of killings. The trial in Jan-Feb 2008 received very scattered and sparse coverage outside the UK. I follow the world news pretty closely (from the U.S.) and do not recall hearing of the matter. Edison (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone was murdered by someone called Ipswich ? Didn't make the papers in Asia. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I assume this last comment is a joke? Either that or your haven't read the link to see what it's about... Gazhiley (talk) 07:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The former. Can't imagine a simple murder -- I assume no one famouse -- having such earth-shattering effects on the entire world. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but the point is this wasn't a "simple murder" but a calous and pre-meditated serial murder of vunerable women... This may or may not have an effect on people throughout the world due to its nature, but either way, not the right topic to be making a joke about please... Gazhiley (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

How to assist extremely shy and paranoid friend?

Alright I'm 17 and recently I've got to know this really really shy guy at school who just hangs out in the locker room during every break. He just waits in the locker room all break until classes start again, talking to noone. Noone else ever hangs around the locker room, the only time you ever see people in there are about 5 mins after the start and 5 mins before the end of breaktime. One day I saw him writing "my life is fucked" on the shelves where we leave our schoolbags. In class he sits alone, usually way up the front to one side. He never does his homework and the teachers are always giving him detention because of it, and he's being doing really badly in tests. Yet he's actually quite bright. He has no friends at all, except a few of my closest friends and me. We've been trying to help him, we've been talking to him, saying hello and stuff, trying to get him to come and talk to our other friends, but he's extremely shy and I think he's slightly intimadated by us - particularly as the "other friends" I reffered to are probably the most popular bunch in the school. One of my friends sat beside him in a class the other day and he started asking my friend "what are you doing?" "why are you sitting there?". We managed to get him outside to where we hang around, and a few people said hello, they all know he's like this and they wanted to be nice, but after about 2 mins he went back inside to the locker room - again these are quite a popular bunch and I think he was a bit intimidated.

Sorry, the paragraph above might be hard to read, but how can we help him? If he stays like this his life obviously is fucked.--92.251.250.146 (talk) 22:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I'm impressed that you make such an effort. I'd just keep doing what you're doing. He probably thinks you're setting him up for something, but, when that doesn't come true, he may start to trust you more. Try to find out what he likes; a band, a movie, a sport, etc., and get him to talk about that. Then maybe go to see that with him. StuRat (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah forgot to mention he's into sport but the team he plays for is crap so he gets bullied by these other dickheads.--92.251.250.146 (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I would ask about his home life, too; make sure you ask ope-ended questions. Even if you can't find something to admire, that person still has the potential for greatness, even if they can't see it.

One other thing; I don't want to scare you. But, just as a warning...just make sure you know the signs that a person might be ready to end it all; at that time, you would need to make sure that that person isn't left alone, and that professional help is sought.

That said, it may just be extreme shyness, but with this person not doing any homework, writing what they wrote, I just worry.

So, try to get him to open up, like you're doing, and show him he can tell you about any problems. Because, people don't usually write that about their lives unless there's something behind it. it could be short-term, it could be a long-term problem.209.244.187.155 (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Gently continue doing what you're doing - which is truly admirable. The self imposed isolation is a bit concerning and you may have inadvertently used the word paranoid in its correct, original meaning, an unfounded fear that someone is intending harm to the individual, this may be indicative of an underlying mental illness. Adolescence can be a hard time for some people especially if they do not have a supportive family or social life. I remember some odd guys when I was at school (several decades ago) and they turned out to be OK, and one became pretty successful. The kind of support you are showing him is the right thing to be doing in the short term but if he has not shown any positive change over the next few months you need to consider how you might alert professional help. You and your friends are to be hugely commended for your concern. I hope your efforts pay off and you have something positive to remember all your life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesar's Daddy (talk • contribs) 07:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeh I think you're doing the right thing by trying to befriend him, trying to include him in your plans would be good. If he's really feeling out of it even limited social interaction could feel threatening, which is why he would go back in to where he feels safe. What I really wanted to say was don't ask him threatening questions like "why are you sitting here". Just try and talk normally to him like you would any of your other friends. Maybe just hanging out with him would be good - not really saying anything, just being with him. Good luck. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

_{No, it was the other way round, the shy guy asked the friend.} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.186.107 (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes I was asking you not to ask the shy guy such questions. "Why" is the hardest question to answer and most people will find it intimidating. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to add my encouragement, and my good wishes. School can be a truly wretched experience for a person labelled "different", or one who is shy and finds friendships hard to make. At best, those who are lucky enough to have a social circle often don't think of reaching out; at worst, there can be campaigns of sustained and horrible cruelty, with dreadful results. You and your friends are observant enough to see a problem, and kind and imaginative enough to try to help - there are plenty of adults who never reach this stage of maturity. If you do as Tammy says: no pressure, just ordinary friendly interaction, so he knows you regard him as one of your group, then with any luck he'll start to feel safer with you and may include himself in group life. You say he's quite bright - is there some way in which you or a friend could tap into that? Maybe ask for help with a project or assignment in a subject you know he's good at, or a favour connected with his sports skills? It sounds like his self-esteem has taken a battering, so offering him the chance to be useful and needed could be a step in the right direction. I endorse all the advice about being aware of his mental wellbeing (don't be afraid to alert a sympathetic teacher or other adult if you are concerned there's more going on than you can cope with) but helping him to make some genuine friends that he can trust can do him nothing but good. Karenjc 15:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Plug his birthday into this to gain some insight into how he works. Vranak (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Or don't. Either way you'll get nothing out of it. Vimescarrot (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That depends on how literate he is or could become. Vranak (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the advice I'll just keep doign what I'm doing. He was in our group in chemistry today and we let him do most of the work carrying out a titration, he seemed rather chuffed although slightly embarrased and he tried to decline at first.--92.251.188.7 (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I was like that myself at school, and I can't think of much that some random person could have done to help, I simply didn't much like talking, found it difficult and never really had much to say. though I think maybe had I gotten to know some people gradually over a year or two, that may have changed, I certainly find talking to my brother and sister a lot easier than anyone else even now, having known them for so much longer. But of course, the person you are trying to help may be nothing like me. maybe you could try getting them to play chess, perhaps, or some other game that doesn't involve too much talking or running around. 148.197.115.54 (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh there are plenty of quiet people around, but this guy meets essentially all the criteria listed at Borderline personality disorder--92.251.188.7 (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

If you think your friend may be suicidal, you might want to try this: Prevent a suicide - WikiHow (yeah, whatever, I've done that myself). But don't be intrusive, and don't give away what you think in this case because that would lower his self-esteem even farther. Falling grades may be the result of poor focus, or even reading too much FuckMyLife (see what the psychologist's point of view is on that). In the case of professional help, recommend this only if you're a good friend with the other person, because again this may be perceived as intrusive, and some people simply dislike professional help and psychatrical therapists and all that. If you want to go any further, try introducing him to your other friends. Social alienation prior in school can also be a big factor for how a person interacts with others later in life and also how others think of that person socially. Also, for some inspiration, you might want to read this. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Used car resale value

Is the market value for a used car (according to Kelley Blue Book or any other generic "blue book") any higher or lower for

• a) Models that are immensely popular and/or long lived like the Honda Civic or Dodge Caravan (in North America)
• b) Models made by major automakers (major as in big players domestically) but were sold in much smaller numbers and/or not produced for many years
• c) Models that are rarely found in the local country but at least somewhat common in another major market (that drives on the same side as the local country) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.148.206.90 (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

In the United States, KBB and NADA listings are based on reported resale values from actual transactions. The listings are driven by actual consumer demand, so they should take all the factors you mentioned. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 05:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

April 20

Japanese money

Me and my girlfriend have invented the term "Japanese Dollar" to mean 100 Yen, an amount very roughly comperable to dollars of other countries (namely, us, canada, australia). My question is, why doesnt Japan seriously invent a new Japanese Dollar (or call it anything else) and make it worth 100 Yen, effectively making the Yen like a penny for their new currency. The big obvious advantage is to make the currency comparable in value (or at least order of magnitude) as other major currencies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.148.206.90 (talk) 01:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Needing a new currency symbol would be a problem. Then there's the need for a new name, which sounds similar to "yen" and has a similar meaning. How about "ken" ? StuRat (talk) 01:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure they would gain much by doing that. It is really not that difficult for people to deal with large exchange rates. --Tango (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Japanese Dollar would be a good name.. the symbol can be the same $ used by other dollars. Or the Hello Kitty face... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.148.206.90 (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What you're describing is called redenomination. It has been done for other currencies, but the costs and complexity of the change make it something that most countries would want to avoid without a very good reason. (In most cases, governments don't even begin to consider the hassle unless they're looking at a 1000:1 change or more.) Besides, perhaps the Japanese are happy not having to deal with decimals in their currency calculations; if I were Japanese, I might be tempted to ask why Americans insist on a currency confusingly denominated in both 'dollars' and 'cents'.

As for changing the name, you're borrowing trouble. Call it the 'new yen', and then drop the word 'new' after a few years once all the old currency is out of circulation. (See Turkish lira for a similar case.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Ten, I think you misread the Q. They don't want to retire the current yen, they want to introduce a 100-yen unit in addition to retaining the current yen. StuRat (talk) 05:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear to my why they would want to add the complexity. If they need a term for a hundred yen, they have one: 'one hundred yen'. (As an aside, I note that the hundred-yen coin has cherry blossoms on its face, so why not call hundred-yen units sakura? Compare the U.S. informal description of hundred-dollar bills as Benjamins, or even the Canadian dollar coins called loonies. For the prosaic, just call a hundred Japanese yen a 'hundred'; it should be obvious from context that currency is being discussed.) If the Japanese wanted to create a term for a certain-sized chunk of currency, they could — we should be asking why they haven't, not how we can impose Western-style denominations on them. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

'One hundred yen' in Japanese is 'hyakuen'; it's hardly a mouthful. As 206.90 pointed out, as a westerner making sense of Japanese prices, you can easily think of 100 yen as $1, 1000 as $10, 10000 as $100. So what needs changing? BTW, 206.90, "My girlfriend and I". FiggyBee (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why should Japan bother? So some people have to deal with extra decimal points in the exchange. Big deal. Meanwhile, most of the population of Japan never notices since they aren't dealing with (or even thinking about) the exchange rate on a day to day basis. Dismas|^(talk) 02:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Ten is right. Dismas, you are wrong. There are lots of people, not only importers and exporters, who are watchful over foreign-exchange rate on a day to day basis. The rate is important in everyday life. Because the gas price depends on it. Japan has a subunit "sen". It was taken out of circulation at the end of 1953 but is still used at the foreign exchange market and stock exchanges like Nikkei 225. See Japanese yen. Oda Mari (talk) 06:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see some figures as to how many Japanese are in a financial career where they have to concern themselves with the exchange rate then. I doubt it's at least 64M of Japan's 127M people which it would need to be in order to fit my comment of "most of the population". Dismas|^(talk) 06:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

While I somewhat agree with you're point and suspect a majority don't, I think Oda Mari's main point was that it isn't just people in a financial career who concern themselves with the exchange rate because it affects prices and other such things, so it matters even if you aren't dealing directly in currency exchange (like an importer/exporter or in the finance industry/currency trader or sending/receiving money from other countries) so it does matter to ordinary consumers (although IMHO many of them probably not enough that they observe it on a day to day basis). As an aside, plenty of Japanese seem to or did invest money in NZ because of our high interest rate a few years ago although likely still a small minority of Japanese. Nil Einne (talk) 06:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The exchange rate is a household topic, not all households though. Crude oil price affects almost all industries in Japan, including the payment to workers. And TV news programs announce the rate everyday along with the stock trading volume of the day. When yen is high, I'd prefer to order things like cloths and books to foreign mail-order companies instead of buying their stores in Japan because, even though I have to pay the shipment to foreign countries, sometimes the merchandises are cheaper. Oda Mari (talk) 07:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

See the translation of 2000s oil price impact. Oda Mari (talk) 08:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

If it's really a problem for them, I'm sure the Japonese people are quite capable of sorting it out themselves. We do get quite attached to our money; here in the UK, there was a great deal of anguish when we Decimalised (first proposed in 1824 - actually implemented 1971). The Euro was a step too far. Alansplodge (talk) 09:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"We do get quite attached to our money" is exactly the reason why the question was asked. When I was in Japan on a scholarship for a year, there were Americans who even after 9 or 10 months still told you they bought this or that for ten dollars, when talking about something they'd spent a thousand yen for. I found this baffling - I started thinking in yen pretty much the moment I got my first scholarship - after all, I was to live for thirty days with what I was given every month, and I saw no reason to complicate this by converting prices and comparing with those back home - dividing by thirty made much more sense. But some people obviously just have more difficulty adjusting. And the really obstinate ones wish others to adjust to them, even when abroad. Oh well. TomorrowTime (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Not everyone thinks in 100 / 1,000 units. In Asia, it is common to see statistics in units of 10,000 (tons produced, for example), rather than 100,000 or 1 million. In this case, the yen comes in a denomination of 10,000. So, what's my point? Don't assume that the way things are done in one part of the world is going to be readily accepted elsewhere. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

In countries like Chile, where denominations in the hundreds and thousands are not uncommon, there are unofficial nicknames for larger denominations. I wouldn't be surprised to know that Japanese had some of these. Anyone able to comment on that? Steewi (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Japanese for "hundred", "thousand" and "ten thousand" are all one-syllable names, thus obviating the need for a nickname to replace the clumsily long names of such units in European languages. I can't imagine a nickname for "ten thousand" that would be shorter or more convenient to use than the actual word man. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

For another example, there are denomination nicknames in Polish which may have different meanings depending on the context (e.g. grocery shopping versus purchasing real estate). The word dycha can mean either 10 zł or 10,000 zł; bańka can mean either 100 zł or 1,000,000 zł. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The French did exactly what you are suggesting for the Japanese currency, back in 1958. The result was that people still thought in terms of the old money, and in everyday life they always talked in old money terms. It was very confusing for foreigners. It went on right up to the introduction of the Euro. The logic was that a strong country had to have a strong currency. But no-one bases their opinion of Japan on whether the yen is a strong or weak currency. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Ice hockey

In ice hockey, own goals are credited to the last player from the attacking team to touch the puck. What if none of them did? Like a team scoring an own goal after gaining puck possession on the opening face off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.148.206.90 (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, if I'm following what our article has to say about it, which is "Occasionally, it is also credited to the closest player to the goal from the other team if he is determined to have caused the opposing player to shoot it into the wrong net.", then the offensive player at the face off would get credit. They would be the "closest player" who caused the defensive player to hit the puck in such a way as to score an own goal. Dismas|^(talk) 02:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The second paragraph of section 78.4 in the NHL rule book. discusses "own goals" but doesn't specifically state this particular case. I suspect that they would consider whoever took the face-off to be the last attacking player to have played the puck. Aaronite (talk) 04:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

And immediately put the video on YouTube. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's say the center for Chicago, Jonathan Toews, pulls the puck back towards his goal and Antii Niemi is oblivious, and it goes in. The goal would go to the opposing centericeman, Steve Sullivan or what have you. If Toews wins it back to another player and that player is harangued into putting the puck in his own net, then the goal would go to whoever was haranguing him the most directly. And if a Chicago player just pots it in his own net independently, then whoever was nearest to him when he took the shot will be accredited the goal. Vranak (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

How does international mailing work?

I recently got to talking with a friend about something that it turns out we've both been curious about all our lives. She had just sent a letter a friend who is staying in Thailand, and that brought up the issue of the finances of international mail (we're in Sweden). If I want to send a letter to Thailand, I go to a post-office and buy a bunch of stamps, which I put on the letter. Those stamps are supposed to pay for handling and the money goes to the Swedish Postal Service. But as soon as that letter lands in Thailand, it's not the Swedish Postal Service that has to deliver it, it's the Thai Postal Service. But I never payed them a dime in stamps. So how do they get paid?

I mean, it's not like it's all going to even out in the end, some countries are going to be sending waaaay more international mail than they are going to receive (Thailand is a good example; many Swedes go there for holiday, and therefore send many more postcards and things from there than the other way around). An extreme example would perhaps be a country like The Seychelles. They have to be sending out orders of magnitude more mail than they are receiving.

And I seriously doubt that the countries just eat the cost of delivering the mail. Why would they? If the Seychelles don't pay the Swedish Postal Service anything to deliver mail, why should the Swedish Postal Service do that for free? That doesn't make much sense. It the Seychelles want their mail delivered, they can use FedEx.

So the only possibility I see is that all the different postal services around the world actually pay each other for delivering all the mail. But how does that work? Do they all get together at the end of the year and pay each other? And how do they know what to pay each other? Do they count every single international piece of mail they carry? Or do they do some sort of statistical approximation? And do they count it on both ends, so the Seychelles can't underpay Sweden? Is there some sort of international convention about this?

And how much do they pay, exactly? Do every country pay every other country the same rate to deliver mail? That wouldn't really work, since labor costs of delivering that mail would vary wildly across different nations. It's vastly more expensive in real terms to deliver a package in the US than it is in Kenya, so it would seem fair that the different countries can set their own rates. But then how does that work? If the rate is too high, can another country simply say that they wont pay it? Or is it, like, tied to purchasing power or something?

As you might have noticed, I have thought a great deal about this and would be delighted to be enlightened on any of these points. 83.250.239.198 (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

From the Universal Postal Union article:

In 1969 the UPU introduced a new system of payment by which fees were payable between countries according to the difference in the total weight of mail between the respective countries. These fees were called terminal dues. The new system was fairer when traffic was heavier in one direction than the other. As this affected the cost of the delivery of periodicals, the UPU devised a new "threshold" system, which was implemented in 1991.

The system sets separate letter and periodical rates for countries which receive at least 150 tonnes of mail annually. For countries with less mail, the original flat rate has been maintained. The United States has negotiated a separate terminal dues formula with thirteen European countries that includes a rate per piece plus a rate per kilogram, and has a similar arrangement with Canada.--Tagishsimon (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

See more at http://www.upu.int/terminal_dues/en/index.shtml, for example the link to http://www.upu.int/terminal_dues/en/history_composition.html. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Cecil covered this some years ago. --Sean 18:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Great Trek

While reading the article on the National Party in South Africa there is a line that states that nationalism was increased as a feeling due to the celebrations of the centenay of the great trek, when or on what date is this celebrated, being a boer, I would like to go home for these celebrations, but have never heard of any specific date as the Great Trek was over a long period. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.59.90 (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Appears to have been a re-enactment starting on 8 August 1938, according to this source. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What toyline is this?

In her childhood, my sister was a devoted fan of this toyline. It's called "Pikkaraiset", translating to something like "the little ones", in Finnish. It's an import of some foreign toyline, but I have never been able to find out what it was. Some sources claim it was originally called "Forest Families". But neither the Finnish Wikipedia or the English Wikipedia seem to have an article about "Pikkaraiset" or "Forest Families". It's pretty similar to the TV show "Sylvanian Families" but I'm pretty sure it's not based on the TV show. Can anyone identify this exact toyline? JIP | Talk 21:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Not many pics of the toys on our Sylvanian Families, but they don't look the sam from what I can see. DuncanHill (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I found a couple of online auction-type listings for "Forest Families toys", this one says they were not Sylvanian Families [10] DuncanHill (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

And this DVD says they were. Go figure. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I remember seeing those things recently, in Canada they're called Cloverleaf corners dolls. Library Seraph (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Oops, that would be calico critters of cloverleaf cornersLibrary Seraph (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's a link to Calico Critters. Bielle (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I played with "Maple Town" toys when I was a kid. This website says that Sylvanian Families (a.k.a. Calico Critters of Cloverleaf Corners), Maple Town, and Forest Families were similar but distinct toy lines. From the pictures, the type the OP linked to are definitely Forest Families. — jwillbur 17:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I have to ask my sister if she still has any of the toys left. If she has, I can borrow some and compare them to the pictures on that site. I tried to look at the official website of Calico Critters, but when I found out that it was yet another of those countless commercial websites that requires you to watch a ten-minute Flash animation before you can even get to see the basic info, I simply couldn't be bothered to pursue further. JIP | Talk 20:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Religious Order

Hi! Last night i was flying from Buenos Aires to Miami, and the guy ahead of me in line to Immigration check was wearing some kind of religious garb: white shirt, thick ornate top with the Fleur the lis in front , but what was unusal was that he was wearing tall, black horse back riding boots.... never seen a monk in such a uniform.... was going to get him and talk to him, but he dissapeared... Do you have any info on the order, monks, etc, Would appreciate any feedback.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc stetz (talk • contribs) 23:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Email address removed. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the boots were being worn for functional reasons then for religious ones? Nil Einne (talk) 09:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure he was wearing it for religious reasons? What you describe sounds like the kind of clothing worn by gauchos. Or, thinking of the Fleur de Lys symbol, maybe he was into jousting. Maybe, he was going to pick up his horse from the freight terminal later that day? - horses are carried by air-freight, right? Astronaut (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The fleur-de-lis is a symbol of the Trinity, so that would make him a Christian monk of some denomination. You could also assume that they would be either Catholic or one of the Protestant sects which remain closer to Catholocism, as many other Protestant sects deemphasize the Trinity. However, the fleur-de-lis also symbolizes many other things, such as French nationalism, so he might just be a member of the Bloc Québécois. StuRat (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

April 21

Civil war

With all the polarization and rising tension in the USA, is a civil war or bloody revolution inevitable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.16.74.242 (talk) 01:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Marco polo (talk) 01:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is inevitable. Even the original Civil War wasn't "inevitable." The US has been through plenty of polarization and "rising tension" in the past without it resorting to anything organized. (What is going on today pales in comparison to what was going on over segregation and civil rights in the 1960s. Remember that people were being regularly lynched then and they had to send in the national guard and etc. to enforce even the most basic peace. We aren't anywhere near that. Don't believe the hype.) My guess is certainly no civil war, and certainly no "bloody revolution." Violent nuts like Timothy McVeigh or the Weather Underground seem more likely. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Several Oklahoma state legislators are proposing a state militia to fight attempts by the federal government to enforce federal laws. Woogee (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, watch out for heavily armed gun control advocates. Googlemeister (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

State legislators say a lot of junk. None of it comes to pass. For all of their grandstanding, Oklahoma receives billions of federal aid each year. This is not the stuff of civil wars. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

There's thought that revoking the Fairness Doctrine (the law that required US broadcasters to provide equal time to opposing opinions) in 1985 has led to polarization of the US electorate. Prior to that, voters heard both sides of any issue. Now the conservatives listen to conservative TV and radio, which demonizes liberals, and vice-versa. If this is the case, then reinstating the Fairness Doctrine should help to heal the nation. StuRat (talk) 13:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Another thought is that there may actually be room for a centrist political party in the US, as neither the liberal "tax and spend" values or the new conservative value of "don't tax, but still spend (on wars, Social Security, Medicare, etc.)" reflect the majority view. Neither party seems interested in regulating Wall Street properly, either. A centrist party could also bring the other two parties back toward the center, and hopefully bring the more extreme elements of the electorate with them. StuRat (talk) 14:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be a good idea to bring the Democratic Party toward the center from its current center-right orientation. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

When StuRat says "centrist", he means relative to US politics, ie. between the Republicans and Democrats. The fact that both parties are well to the right of European politics is irrelevant to his point. --Tango (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

At least, I think he does. On a second reading, I'm less sure. StuRat, can you clarify? --Tango (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, Tango. StuRat (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

McCain was seen by many as being a centrist, and he got savaged by both parties, so there ya are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

They ought to move towards the centre anyway, by Duverger's law, although the law is far from perfect (as the UK is demonstrating very well as I type). If there is a gap between the parties then either party can get more votes by moving into that gap (they would only lose votes if there is an extreme party that they are moving away from, but in US federal elections, third parties are almost completely irrelevant, so they wouldn't lose many votes to one). I think the reason there seems to be a gap between the parties is that each party is actually quite spread out. There is a big gap between Obama and the Republicans, but that is because Obama is on the left-hand side of the Democrats. The right-hand side of the Democrats is very close to the left-hand side of the Republicans (arguably, there is even an overlap). (The usual disclaimers about the limitations of a one-dimensional political model apply to all the foregoing.) --Tango (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Neither party seems committed to reducing the deficit, regulating Wall Street, applying price controls to medicine, etc. Instead they argue over trivialities, like whether your $20 aspirin is paid for by insurance or taxpayers, rather than why it costs $20 in the first place. StuRat (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The polarization is fueled by various media taking Point-Counterpoit stances on everything, which may be bad for America but it's good for ratings. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If each media outlet covered both the point and counter-point, that would be fine. It's when each only covers one side that the issue occurs. Thus, we're back to my argument to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. StuRat (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Price controls aren't necessary to bring down medicine prices. Britain doesn't have price controls, it keeps prices low by the NHS being a near-monopsony. Governments running large deficits is a risk with democracies: voters like low taxes and high spending and don't really understand the risks of large deficits. --Tango (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but that solution would be unacceptable to US voters, while medical price controls might fly with them, since the immediate benefits are readily apparent. StuRat (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Price controls often trigger shortages. Meanwhile, the Fairness Doctrine is said to be a violation of the First Amendment. Arguably, any governmental control of public media is a violation of the First Amendment, but that's another story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a risk of shortages, yes. At the moment, I think the US is subsidising the world's pharmaceutical research and development, so I'm not sure what would happened if prices did come down in the US. Prices would probably have to go up a bit elsewhere. --Tango (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Price controls are manifestly against the free market, which Americans are usually very keen on, so I wouldn't expect it to be very popular. --Tango (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

With price controls, you do need to be careful not to set prices so low that nobody can make a profit, but there's a huge range between the current prices charged and the minimum required for profitability, especially once price-structures are reduced.

As for the Fairness Doctrine, it wasn't found by the Supreme Court to be a violation of the First Amendment, and the US government has a long history of controlling broadcasts over the air waves, so that's not really an issue. StuRat (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No, but even so the Free Speech complaint is what killed it. Meanwhile, I recall when that bastion of liberalism and socialism, Richard Nixon, imposed gasoline price controls in the early 70s, leading to shortages of gas and long lines at the stations. You can argue that the gas companies cut production as a "protest", but nonetheless there were shortages. And Tango is right, the drug companies charge high prices in the USA partly as a way of balancing lower prices elsewhere. If you lower prices substantially in the US also, with no compensatory price increase elsewhere, something's got to give, and it would probably be reflected in cutbacks in drug research and development. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The "free speech" argument, which wouldn't hold up in court, was used as an excuse by those who wanted to kill it for other reasons, since "we are opposed to fairness" doesn't go over very well. StuRat (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the conservatives felt like the media (as well as the High Court) was largely controlled by liberals, and that this would give them a chance to level the playing field a bit. Why the courts ever upheld the right of the federal government to regulate broadcast media is a mystery, as they are basically saying that regulation of interstate commerce overrides the first amendment, which is a dangerous concept in a country that likes to think of itself as "free". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe the reason is that you can't possibly allow anyone to broadcast anything, without regulation, as the air waves can only support a limited number of stations. Thus the need for an FCC to regulate broadcasters. StuRat (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be a reasonable argument for regulating the frequencies. The slippery slope is in also trying to regulate the content. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

(unindenting) Well, if you only have a small number of stations, you also want to ensure that they provide content suitable for all, unlike the Internet, where there's enough sites that it doesn't matter if any one provides useless content, since there are plenty of others. StuRat (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

As for medical price controls, there's more wiggle room than in other areas, since a lack of competition has allowed prices to skyrocket (after all, who is going to buy an artificial heart from "Bob's Discount Hearts" ?). Thus, when Japan instituted medical price controls, they were able to keep prices down, without causing severe shortages. StuRat (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

What you have in the drug industry is what we called "monopolistic competition" in Econ 101. The problem with a place like "Bob's Discount Hearts" would be, where did they get them from? Did they develop them themselves? And if so, what with? It takes a lot of money to develop these things. That tends to isolate development into a few large firms. How did they handle it in Japan? Did they cut into the company's profits? And if so, isn't there a smaller amount left over for R&D? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

(unindenting) Profit margins are reduced, yes, but more basically there are ways to do things which cost far less, but they currently have little incentive to cut costs, due to a lack of competition. It's similar to the thousand dollar toilet seats bought by NASA. If they needed to, due to budget constraints, they could have bought one at a hardware store for $20. But, if you give them an unlimited budget, the price will inevitably skyrocket. As for R&D, there are cheaper ways to do that, too, like having competitors work together, and using graduate students at colleges to do much of the work. In Japan's case, they were able to bring the costs of MRIs way down by sharing machines and by developing much smaller machines. StuRat (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Cheaper labor? I'm not so sure I like that idea. I want my drugs developed by people that are well-paid and happy. And companies do have joint ventures in the U.S. but they have to be careful, lest they be accused of forming a trust. P.S. I recommend bookmarking this friendly debate, to present the next time some idiot drive-by accuses the two of us of being just one guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Even if the drugs companies are making massive profits they will still want to make even bigger profits, so there is always an incentive to do things the cheapest way they can without reducing sales. --Tango (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

That may be true in a normal business, but not when under the threat of regulatory action. If they developed a drug for $100 million, and sold it for $200 million, the would-be regulators might grumble. But, if they developed it for $10 million, and sold it for $200 million, the regulators would call for action against them for gouging customers. Also, having a company with ten times the R&D budget, tens times the number of employees, etc., makes the CEO's demand for an outrageous salary seem more reasonable. Then there's the principle that a company simply can't cut costs until their survival depends on it. Cost-cutting is just too low of a priority, compared with other concerns, prior to that. StuRat (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

What regulatory action? We're discussing imposing price controls because there aren't any now. Incidentally, selling a drug for 20 times the development costs is fairly typical since you have to cover the development costs of the 19 drugs that never made it to market. --Tango (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The $10 or $100 million to develop a drug, in my example, includes the cost of other failed drugs. And, to convince the public that prices shouldn't be controlled, they need to be able to show that they blow a lot of money on R&D. So, improving their cost efficiency wouldn't be good business. StuRat (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Purely on a point of information, StuRat and Tango, your example may be misleading. When I started a job at a (US-owned) pharmaceuticals manufacturing, etc, site 10½ years ago, I was told that the total cost (in 1999) of getting one 'candidate molecule' from identification successfully to market (a 5 to 10 year process) averaged around $500 million, and the costs of the other candidates that failed along the way (which its revenues also had to cover) averaged in total around $400 million, making around $900 million that it had to earn back before the company made any profit to plough into further R&D, etc. Current figures will obviously be somewhat higher. Regulatory requirements cause of good deal of these very high figures. Price regulation varies greatly from country to country, but a limiting factor is that nearly all drugs have competitors marketed by their rivals in the same markets so the usual effects of competition apply. (Cross-company price fixing cartels are illegal almost everywhere, and are jumped on very heavily.) 87.81.230.195 (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The actual numbers aren't particular relevant to my point, although spending $900 million then, and likely over a billion now, certainly suggests that there's a lot of room to cut costs, if the incentives were there to do so. And prices don't seem to drop dramatically as long as a drug remains under patent protection, but plummets once generic equivalents are allowed. This suggests that drug companies do engage in price fixing. It's probably not men in a room coming to a secret agreement, but just companies each being unwilling to lower the price first. This type of price fixing can only happen with a small number of "competitors" and is impossible to stop. StuRat (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Short answer no. Long answer: there's nothing seriously worth fighting over. Vranak (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a huge rift between the Conservatives and Liberals of the US, and their preceptions on public policy. To avoid conflict there would need to be communication and more understanding. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

What is insurance for if they avoid covering you when it goes wrong?

With the news that the restrictions on air travel in Europe are being lifted, I read that some people are finding their travel insurance doesn't cover them for their extended hotel stays and expensive alternative travel arrangements home. Some companies claim that "acts of god" are not covered by their policy. But surely, isn't this just the kind of thing that people would reasonably expect their travel insurance to cover? Is the failure to cover "acts of god" a common feature of insurance policies in general? Astronaut (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

To make a profit for insurance companies, and yes. 131.111.248.99 (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The short answer is 'it depends on your policy'. Travel insurance may cover 'trip cacellation', 'trip interruption', 'missed connections', and/or 'travel delay', which are all subtly different. Some will cover trip cancellations/interruptions primarily for medical reasons (you, a travelling companion, or a close relative becomes ill, is injured, or dies), for example, but not for other purposes. Other policies offer broader coverage. (In general, more coverage costs more money.) If you go to Google News and query "travel insurance" "Acts of God" then you'll find a lot of recent articles on this topic. (Here are a few: [11], [12], [13].) Ultimately, the answer is 'Read your policy and ask any questions about coverage before you go.' TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of "acts of war" and "acts of God" exclusions in insurance policies is to avoid bankrupting the insurer due to extraodinarily high claim volume when a calamity occurs. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Insurance is a transfer of risk. The cost of the insurance premiums depends on the amount of risk transferred. If you want the insurance company to take on the risk of natural disasters, you would have to pay greater premiums (particularly because, as The Hero says, natural disasters result in lots of people claiming at once, which means the general principle of insurance, ie. if you sell enough insurance policies all the unpredicatableness will average out and you will have a reliable business model, doesn't apply). --Tango (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

There are other ways around that problem, though. One is to sell policies over a wide range of geographic areas. The other is for the insurance company to purchase reinsurance, which may come from larger companies or governments which can cover the disaster. StuRat (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Which is why national insurers have survived disasters like hurricanes, albeit with a gash in their reserve, while local insurers have gone bust in those circumstances. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you give an example of a local insurer going bust in such circumstances? Usually they have reinsurance with national companies. --Tango (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking specifically of whatever hurricane it was that destroyed Homestead, Florida a couple of decades or so back. I'll see what I can find. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hurricane Andrew. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Selling policies over a wide geographic range doesn't help with global disruption like we've seen here (while the flight ban was only over part of Europe, the knock-on effects are global). The reinsurance companies are in the same position as the insurance companies, since all the insurance companies will be in trouble at once. Governments compensating people is an option, since governments aren't expected to make a profit on every deal. --Tango (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the current disruption comes close to a level which would bankrupt worldwide reinsurers. StuRat (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I would think you're on the mark with that. This is mostly a loss of convenience, not the destruction of one's homes. That doesn't mean the insured should be happy about it, though, and I expect some of the affected persons will switch companies as a result. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but Act of God clauses talk about types of losses, not the sizes of them. --Tango (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Three points:

1. A lot of insurance doesn't cover Acts of God
2. Yes, insurance companies are interested in profit (i.e. living) and don't want to give many pay-outs
3. If the Iceland eruption isn't an Act of God, I don't know what is.

Vranak (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a conspiracy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it's unilateral action by Iceland to get their own back on the rest of Europe for demanding that Iceland refund it for reimbursing depositors in Icelandic banks. --Tango (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it's solely a result of global warming/climate change/CFCs/acid rain/decreasing morality among our children.- Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 21:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"When the time comes," said Iceland, "please scatter my ashes over Europe." --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Has there ever been a court case where the insurance company was asked to prove the existence of God in order to determine if a natural disaster actually was an act of God? Googlemeister (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

See The Man Who Sued God; although I didn't. As for the volcano, it wasn't global warming or morality; it was Top Gear. Obviously. Vimescarrot (talk) 21:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

There have been a lot of strange court cases, so quite possibly. It wouldn't have gone far, though. It's just a term of art, it isn't supposed to be interpreted literally. --Tango (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

1. If you travel as a group with a group-ticket and arrangement, then all is covered!

2. Yes, they are all after profit. Did you view: "Mister Incredible"?

3. The Islandic eruption was not an Act of God, I think, but caused by under-sea plates moving apart and allowing magma to come to the surface.

MacOfJesus (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Item 3 is, by definition, an act of God, if you take God to equate to Nature. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Mac, The phrase "Act of God" has a defined legal meaning. It does not necessarily mean that the volcano was specifically caused by a a man in a white robe who invented the universe. (You might as well argue that "Prairie Dogs" are not dogs. True, but that doesn't change what they're called.)APL (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

So where does this leave those individuals who might reasonably expect their insurance to cover the highly unlikely and unexpected events during their travels? The UK's Foreign Office regularly runs adverts reminding the more independently minded tourist to take travel insurance, citing all kinds of situations you might find yourself in through no fault of your own; then it seems the insurance company is only too ready to ditch you under the "Act of God" clause buried in the small print. Astronaut (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't automatically expect my insurance to pay for something like that: "Acts of God" exceptions are quite common, and I would think that a person could reasonably be expected to know that. Although I never really got the point of travel insurance that covers delays or lost bags anyways. Is it really worth paying for a policy that's only going to cover $2,500 or so tops, and in most cases will probably be a couple hundred bucks for a couple nights in a hotel? It seems like nearly everyone would be better off "Insuring themselves" and pocketing what would have gone towards the insurance company's profits. Buddy431 (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

When you buy insurance you should read the fine print—it's not like reading the fine print in the documents that come with a physical object, the fine print is all you get for your money. Yes, Buddy, most people would be better off not buying travel insurance. That's how insurance works. If people typically got more return from their insurance than they paid in, then the insurance companies wouldn't make any money. On the other hand, most travellers can afford a hundred dollars in insurance premiums, but not all could afford thousands of dollars in hospital bills if they go and break their leg in a foreign country. FiggyBee (talk) 03:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I can certainly understand insurance for medical care, as that has the potential to run into the thousands of dollars. Getting stranded a couple days (by an "Act of God" or otherwise) usually doesn't. I'm saying that for most people, it's probably better to eat the costs of shelling out for an extra night in a hotel once in a while than buy a more expensive travel insurance policy that would cover that sort of thing. Buddy431 (talk) 04:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The answer; go as a group, and bring God, and lots of money! (Should we put God on trial, to ask a few questions with the emphesis on "why?"). (Maybe we should ask Him to be Pilot, and we take a back seat).

MacOfJesus (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

So, is insurance worth it, you ask. Let's look at the advantages and disadvantages of all insurance types:

Advantages:

A) It can spread the risk, and thus cover costs that no single member could bear. Having "predictable risks" is particularly important in business.

B) It may be required by law (not so much an advantage, but it is a reason to get it).

Disadvantages:

1) Profit margins. Since the insurance company wants to make a profit, they will charge more for the premiums than they pay out, on average. This means the insured will lose money, on average. Exceptions exist for government subsidized insurance (such as for those who build their houses in foolish places) or if you somehow know you're a worse risk than the insurance company thinks.

2) Bother. They have numerous complicated forms and possibly appeals processes to go through if you're denied a claim. That's an annoyance and can even be more expensive than the claim, if you need to hire a lawyer and take days off work.

3) Legal threats. You may be threatened with insurance fraud charges to convince you to drop a claim.

4) Inefficient behavior, like taking risks while driving "because the insurance will cover it if we crash".

5) Rates increase if you make a claim, for some types of insurance.

6) Privacy concerns. They ask a lot of private questions, especially for medical insurance, and you can't count on them keeping it all confidential. Maybe they will, maybe they won't (even if required to by law).

7) You can't count on it. That is, they can deny claims due to "acts of God" or numerous other exclusions in the fine print. They can also just deny a payment to which you are clearly legally entitled and hope you will die or run out of money before you can force them to pay through the courts. StuRat (talk) 12:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

US Supreme Court

How many, and which of the US Supreme Court of 9 Justices, if any, have, during their judicial careers, handed down a death sentence, by whatever means of execution? 92.30.0.166 (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

None of them, as far as I can tell; most of them started as federal appeals judges, if I'm reading the articles correctly, except for Sotomayor; she's the only one who was in a position to "hand down" a sentence of any kind. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

[removed-BB]

Baseball, I usually respect and admire and welcome your responses to questions here - but on re-reading my original question, I did say, "during their judicial careers". I am offended that you thought it necessary to instruct me that "The Supreme Court itself doesn't really "hand down" sentences". I may not be a US citizen but we lesser mortals outside wonderland do know something about the US legal system, you may be surprised to know. Which is what inspired my question as it so happens. But thanks for your response anyway. And thanks to the other, more helpful respondents here. Thanks folks. Jeez..........92.30.0.166 (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

[removed-BB]

Theoretically, yes; but as our SCOTUS article states, in practice the only original jurisdiction cases the Court takes are State X vs. State Y. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

[removed-BB]

Jpgordon says above that most of them started off as federal appeals judges. This sounds impressive to an English Law student like me - do lawyers in the US not have to start on the 'bottom rung' of the judiciary? --Joe^Talk_Work 21:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

To take some bio history from today's featured article, Antonin Scalia, as an example:

He attended Georgetown University as an undergraduate, and obtained his Bachelor of Laws degree from Harvard Law School. After spending six years in a Cleveland law firm, he became a law school professor. In the early 1970s, he served in the Nixon and Ford administrations, first at minor administrative agencies, and then as an assistant attorney general. He spent most of the Carter years teaching at the University of Chicago, where he became one of the first faculty advisers of the fledgling Federalist Society. In 1982, he was appointed as a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by President Ronald Reagan.

Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The point is that many appellate judges in the U.S. can and do come directly from private practice or academia (if they have had outstanding careers in either sphere), without having to first spend time as a trial judge. But many trial judges do get promoted to the appellate courts as well. And then we also have this strange policy of electing judges in some states, which occasionally results in nonlawyer wackos being elected to state courts and wreaking havoc because they have no idea what they are doing. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

April 22

Women's stance

This bugs me but I was reading this article and noticed that Kimora Lee Simmons posed her legs in a certain fashion. I've also seen it in other places, such as the poster for the movie Mean Girls. Why do women do this? Is this common? --Blue387 (talk) 01:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the question you mean to ask is not, "Why do women do this?" but "Why do photographers request this pose?" It isn't something that would be a comfortable way to stand for an ordinary person. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Okey, so why do photographers do this? --Blue387 (talk) 02:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Because the photographers think it looks more attractive for the camera? I'm just taking a stab at a guess here, but that answer could easily apply to "Why do photographers use unreasonable amounts of Photoshop?" or "Why do modeling agencies require the models to look anorexic?". Obviously the advertisers think that it sells the product better, regardless of how ugly it looks. And no matter how many people complain, it won't matter as long as the product sells, which in most cases, it usually does. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 03:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

(Edit confict with above) It looks like they're essentially resting their weight on one foot and sticking the other one out sideways. I've been known to do that sometimes, just because, and it's not too bad (never in that type of showy, staged manner though). But I think it's relevant that they're in heels, that seems like the only way to get a bend in their knee (of the leg sticking out to the side) like that. FisherQueen's right that it certainly doesn't look terribly comfortable, but to my guy eyes, wearing heels in general (especially ones that high) doesn't look comfortable. I'm not sure that that pose looks a ton less comfortable than any other standing pose in heels. Buddy431 (talk) 03:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the reason is to show one leg in profile. Bus stop (talk) 03:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

How about product placement? --Blue387 (talk) 05:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

One of the basics of posing in drawing and photography is that angling the hips and shoulders creates a more dynamic "action line". The exaggerated pose Kimora's doing there has become such a cliche of fashion photography that it's become a standard "strike-a-pose" pose amongst young women. Also, check out Hip#Sexual_dimorphism_and_cultural_significance, and compare the painting and sculpture there to your examples. FiggyBee (talk) 04:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

That pose may be a cliche, but it's a lot more attractive and dynamic than just standing there at attention like you were posing for a group picture for a high school yearbook. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking also that it's a posture that would cause the muscles in the leg to tense a bit, which might make the leg a bit more attractive- it's the same principle that makes high heels work. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Contrapposto combined with the ability to "show some leg". (I'd link to the article describing the erotic connotation of the female leg, but the article human leg is oddly silent on the issue, although there is a request (dated 2006) on the Talk Page for a section on it.) -- 174.24.208.192 (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for Contrapposto and S Curve, 208.192, I was looking for those articles for my answer. :) FiggyBee (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The basic issue here seems to be one of confident, self-assured feminine sexuality. So... the question is resolved I take it. Vranak (talk)

Why do Americans hate the French? [and vice versa?]

Why do many Americans hate the French? - Vikramkr (talk) 04:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The French have good food, good wine, and civilization. It's jealousy. DuncanHill (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

'Many Americans' don't hate the French. Can you give an example of Americans who hate the French? FiggyBee (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There is an unflattering stereotype of the French which is used for comedic effect in American humor. They are often called "cheese eating surrender monkeys. Why? I have no idea. Dismas|^(talk) 05:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The French and Americans both have highly individualistic societies, and two similar entities have a tendency to clash. Also, individuals filled with pride often spare with others who likewise feel self-important. Therefore, it is easy to dislike someone for this reason (especially when the feeling is mutual), and it likely is heightened when there is such an obvious difference as nationality.--William Saturn (talk) 05:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There is an article on Anti-French sentiment in the United States - not to mention Cheese-eating surrender monkeys and, more seriously, France – United States relations. Ghmyrtle (talk) 05:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The <cheese eating surrender monkeys> insult is derived from the fact that France surrendered in 1940 rather than have their country ravaged with hundreds of thousands of lives lost. What would any other country have done ? Britain escaped through Dunkirk, a massive defeat that is hailed in Britain as a victory. So how do Britain and France in 1940, faced with the might of Nazi Germany, differ ? One had a Channel to cross. The other didn't,Froggie34 (talk) 07:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought the stereotype was built up from the beliefs that the French love their cheese (which they do, in fairness), that France has a terrible military history (hence the 'French Military Victories' joke) and that they are meant to be very hairy. Cheese, Surrender, Monkeys. 130.88.162.46 (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

France has "a terrible military history"? It has dominated western Europe for about as long as nation states exist. It took all of Europe 20 years to put down Napoleon. The French bore the brunt of WWI (and won), and the US would still bow to Westminster 5 times a day if it hadn't been for Lafayette and the Comte de Grasse. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

130.88 is referring to this page. It is the first result on a google search for "French Military Victories", so if you go to google.com and type "French Military Victories", then "I Feel Lucky" it will take you to this page. I think it is a bit of an exaggeration to say France dominated Western Europe, with the exception of the Napoleonic era, France has suffered a series of pretty rough military defeats (Franco Prussian, WWI, WWII, Indochina and Algeria). TastyCakes (talk) 00:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The Americans are Johnnies-come-lately at pretending to dislike the French. The English have been doing it for centuries. Actually, we grudgingly admire and copy each other, but don't tell anyone. Alansplodge (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Monty Python bit about "a man with a tape recorder up his nose", which plays the French national anthem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The UK comedy show "Yes, Minister" has information on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wltv12Hx9Bo --Phil Holmes (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The "cheese eating surrender monkeys" quote comes, I believe, from a Simpsons character with a dodgey Scottish accent. There is a monkey / French connection in the UK, because in the Napoleonic Wars, a French ship sank on the coast at Hartlepool. The only survivor was the ship's pet monkey, whom the local inhabitants allegedly mistook for a Frenchman; the unfortunate beast was put on trial and hanged as a spy. The joke is more on the inhabitants of Hartlepool, who have suffered the nickname of Monkey hangers ever since. Alansplodge (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This is also the reason behind the Hartlepool United mascot, H'Angus the monkey, who, incidentally, is now the mayor. TastyCakes (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

France has a tendency to be a difficult ally of the U.S. On the one hand, yes, they helped us out during the Revolutionary War, we helped them out during World War II (and World War I, and Vietnam), and we share a fairly common culture that has deep ties and links. On the other hand, France, unlike the United Kingdom, feels fine to spurn American interests if they do not align with French interests (see the article linked to by Ghmyrtyle for a long discussion of some of these instances). Put another way, the French are fiercely and proudly independent, politically and culturally, and that does not really jibe with the US idea of being the world's policeman and primary provider of culture and civilization. The French do not think that being bailed out of a war (or two) makes them need to endlessly cow-tow to an idea of US supremacy. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

They're probably also a bit annoyed that English has fairly much displaced French as the "international" language. Then there's the cultural difference, which someone once described to me as, "The only thing the French know how to organize is a party." Also, this quote, allegedly from Mark Twain, as per Hal Holbrook's one-man show about Twain, in reference to some sort of outrageous behavior: "That is un-English! It is un-American! It is French!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

The French have set values and strived for them. Americans have not been able to compete in this game. Americans are resentful of the French for this. This has traditionally applied to food and art. Bus stop (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This illustration[14] not too long after 9/11 satirizes the American attitude toward the French. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There is an element of class hatred involved. As in most societies, lower and middle-class Americans resent upper-class Americans. Since the upper-class Americans are often associated with the French, from drinking French wine, eating at French restaurants, going to Paris, buying French art, perfume and fashions, etc., much of this resentment transfers to the French. StuRat (talk) 12:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

That might be a carryover from a millennium ago, when the Norman French ruled England, and spoke French of course, while the peasants spoke some version of English. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think there's an element of puritanism involved. Puritanism was a major influence in American society, while the French seem happily free from its influence. Americans have the uneasy feeling that the French are enjoying themselves. DuncanHill (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Part of the culture clash. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

And then there's the French reputation for not bathing any more often than absolutely necessary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The tricky part here is the encompassing term "The French". I happen to admire France (the country) because it's mostly very beautiful, it has great culture, it has good food, fantastic wines, superb high speed trains, cheap cost-of-living coupled with high standards-of-living - and has gone a long way to fixing their contribution to to greenhouse gas emissions. There is much to love. I also like individual french people (I'm married to one!) and I've never met an individual French person whom I have not hit it off with. My problem is with medium-to-large sized groups of French people - who somehow manage to be obnoxious, arrogant and generally awful to deal with. My wife comes from a gigantic family (she has 13 brothers & sisters a dozen in-laws and maybe 50 nieces & nephews, etc) - and I like every one of her relatives. But when they get together in a big group...urgh! I can't explain why that is. SteveBaker (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It is truly amazing how much crap can be spouted when (not you Steve!) (presumed)xenophobia rears its head. I thought 'Americans' hated everybody. This of course is a personal viewpoint - as was the OP's question. The corollary of course is that many, many nations dislike 'Americans'. And all this started from a line from the Simpsons spoken by a Scotsman. But hey, lets continue and see if we can work this whole thing up to an international incident. I doubt that will happen though because the French (whoever that refers to)really don't give a flying f,f,f,..fig about 'Americans' (whoever that refers to). Stereotype doesn't get close, but hang on, wasn't France the first country to recognise American Independance?? there's gratitude for you!! Richard Avery (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

1. They don't, not really.
2. If there is any basis to this perception, it's because the French are regarded as snooty, arrogant, and aloof. It's kind of the bane of the stereotypical flag-waving beer-guzzling patriot. They don't want to live in a world where anyone would regard them as crass and depraved. Vranak (talk)

For a contrary point of view, there's the line (attributed to Thomas Gold Appleton by Oliver Wendell Holmes) "Good Americans, when they die, go to Paris." I'm hoping that this may turn out to be correct. Deor (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it is only natural that there should be animosity between the Americans and the French. The Americans let the air out of the French hot air balloon. And the French are proof that there is such a thing as "quality," Freedom Fries notwithstanding. Bus stop (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

To which Oscar Wilde quipped: ... and when bad Americans die, they go to ... America. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe this arose because the French would not join in with other European countries in invading Iraq - or was it Kuwait? I also have the impression that Americans see Europeans as being culturally superior (better food, dress sense, architecture, etc), and due to cognitive dissonance this becomes dislike. 78.149.175.91 (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Beware of generalizations. I have seen many a French restaurant in America, but the number of British restaurants is rather small. There's just not that much of a market for kidney pie. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

"The <cheese eating surrender monkeys> insult is derived from the fact that France surrendered in 1940 rather than have their country ravaged with hundreds of thousands of lives lost. What would any other country have done?" Poland didn't surrender. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Reminds me of a quip about the Israel 6-day war in 1967 or so: "As soon as France heard there was a war somewhere, they surrendered." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Poland should have surrendered. France certainly came out better in the end. Maybe Poland was also used to being fucked over by their neighbours no matter what they did. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Poland did surrender, and quite quickly after the German/Russian invasion began, the same as France/Belgium/Holland. Their cavalry fought bravely, but they lacked a modern air force and armored forces and tried to defend a very wide front against better equipped forces. Edison (talk) 05:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Not according to our articles, History of Poland (1939–1945) and Polish government-in-exile. Polish forces retreated to Romania and Hungry, and set up a government in exile in France. When France surrendered, the Polish government relocated to London. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that had more to do with geographical proximity to the USSR than anything. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Before the invasion of Iraq, while the US was trying to get the UN Security Council support for another resolution, I heard more than one American express the view that the French refusal to support the US, demonstrated a "lack of gratitude" considering the USA "had to come and save your asses in WWII". Astronaut (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There were people in the USA who thought that Hitler running Europe was the lesser of two evils, compared with Stalin potentially running Europe if Hitler were defeated. In other words, there was a fair amount of opposition to even lifting a finger to help Europe. Maybe the American isolationists were right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Edison made only one commercial recording. It was called "Lest we forget" and was about World War 1, in which he highly praised the bravery of the French and other Europeans who gave many lives fighting the Germans and their allies before the U.S. even entered the war. In World War 2, the French failed to live up to commitments to Poland after the 1939 German invasion of Poland by failing to attack Germany promptly with at least air strikes against industrial areas near France. This torpitude surprised even the Germans. The speedy 1940 defeat of the British, French and Belgians was pretty appalling, with the Dunkirk evacuation being claimed as a "victory" but the British still doing a better job than the French in fighting the German invaders. The popular image of France in early WW2 is the famous movie/photo (which I recall from my high school history book) of the "Frenchman crying." (Apparently the man was overcome with passion watching military colors being expatriated to colonies in 1940 before the surrender. It was likely in a port city rather than Paris, as shown by the motion picture footage of colors embarking).They naively believed that the Maginot Line would stop a German attack, while the wily Germans attacked through Belgium as in the first World War. The Vichy France government then became enthusiastic collaborators with the Nazis. Post WW2, along with abusing their colonials in Algeria, and being defeated soundly in Vietnam in the 1950's while trying to reassert colonial domination, the French did not show much gravitas in maintaining world peace since World War 2 compared to many other countries. Their Korean War dead totalled 300 compared to 36,000 U.S. and 1100 U.K. The French did not strongly support NATO. They have a reputation in the U.S. of being abusive in general toward tourists, such as pretending not to be able to understand the attempts of foreigners to speak French, however fluent the foreigner may be. But they make wonderful wine and have fine culture. Students of U.S. history will always be grateful to France for the military assistance in the American Revolution, which might have ended differently otherwise. This led to Americans being proud to go to France in WW1, as in the saying "Lafayette, we are here." Edison (talk) 05:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Is not the Statue of Liberty a gift from the people of France? Did not America and Britan on D-day rescue France? And was not French troups in first to Paris to rescue Paris, while the other Allies remained behind, proving a point? Do you blame the French for not going to war over Iraq? After all they were proved right! Viva la France, Viva Libertie! Viva la Reason! The French do expect you to try to speak their language when you come to France and are appreciative when you try. Do remember that many of our fore-fathers lost their lives in the fields of France.

MacOfJesus (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen that weeping Parisen photo before, but I'm curious if Edison has some source for thinking the image description (the same as that held at the National Archives) is incorrect? Astronaut (talk) 12:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The views expressed above are just the kind of thing that reinforce the French dislike of the US. For example, simply saying "The Vichy France government then became enthusiastic collaborators with the Nazis", ignores the contribution of the French Resistance who, without the support of a military-industrial complex, fought and died for four long years before the Normandy landings in 1944; and the contrast in Korean war dead looks dramatic, but while the US lost 7.6% of 480,000 troops deployed, the French lost 8.7% of 3421 troops deployed. Astronaut (talk) 12:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

So why did they only send 3421? Edison (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

On why the French hate the Americans, one reason they dislike the British is for saving them. At least that's how it looks to someone in Britain. They're disappointed with having thousands of soldiers use their country to fight each other. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 16:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the photo of the "weeping Frenchman", this came up here at least once before. There's a strong possibility that the the photo was staged, made for an American propaganda film. We were never able to get to the bottom of it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

For history of discussions about the context of the photo/newsreel, see [15]. For the actual footage, see [16] at 54 minutes and 40 seconds in. The "weeping Frenchman" photo was from a newsreel, which was pretty clearly filmed in France, not a Hollywood staging. It showed French troops in a port city apparently carrying their military standards down toward the ships waiting to carry them to overseas colonies. This may have been Marseilles in 1940 (or 1941?). The man wept, some in the crowd clapped. This fits with the "retiring the colors" scenario. Maybe the man was a veteran of WW1. If it were Nazis entering Paris, as is sometimes claimed, some of the "clappers' would have been waving Swastikas or giving Hitler salutes, and the carrying of the French military colors would have made less sense. The French resistance fighting Nazis does not mean that the Vichy government and the police system were not enthusiastic collaborators, [17] Petain's government embraced collaboration from 1940. The claims of French not to be able to understand a word from tourists speaking French is from persons who were fluent in French and visited there. (You have a recognizable accent, so I will roll my eyes and pretend I cannot understand what you are saying). [18]. In contrast, natives of Hispanic countries, China or Japan are said to be quite appreciative of efforts of visitors to speak their language. There may be some understandable resentment on the part of the French that English has displaced French to such an extent as an international language, with the decline of French colonialism and international military and political power. Edison (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding French accents and culture, I'm under the impression that there is a great deal of condescension from French people regarding the Quebec accent, and perhaps the Quebecois in general, which I find quite sad... Or maybe this has been overblown? TastyCakes (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Eurostar Not Working?

With the recent fun and games with people being stranded in France because Europe had a flying ban (due to the volcano in Iceland), I have wondered why people had to hitch rides (and spend thousands of £££) on Royal Navy warships just to get back to the UK. What happened to the Eurostar? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Strict answer - I don't personally know. However, it normally runs fairly full, and so would not be able to provide enough extra capacity to carry all those stranded. Many were also stranded in countries that the Eurostar does not run to. --Phil Holmes (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that people were all over the world at the time. I was specifically referring to people in France, and the many people who made the journey to the north coast - not only for the warships, but also for the failed attempt by a BBC reporter to evacuate people - likening it to the Dunkirk evacuations at the start of WW2 (completely inappropriate and over the top analogy, IMHO). I guess it may have been 'full', but would this not be an opportunity to put more services on, considering they had at least a week to organize this? Or maybe some people did get on the Eurostar, and the news agencies don't think those stories are interesting enough? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't source any links at the moment but Eurostar has been running extra trains to help with the backlog of returning travellers. Of course you won't have read about it because it is not a really newsy story. To get some serious Brownie points you need to own a large cruise ship and go and pick up a few of the stragglers.[19] But, hey, it's history already!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.186.107 (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Dominic Burn from the Chris Moyles Show got back from Paris via the Eurostar, if you've been listening to it... Chevymontecarlo. 18:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

If you search Google News for "eurostar" you'll find a bunch of stories about increased Eurostar ridership and bookings. This Telegraph story says they've handled 50,000 more trips, with their demand pricing structure pushing the fairs up pretty high. This Eurostar press release says they're capping 30,000 seats at a fairly sensible price, and that they've run an extra 33 trains. Really they only have so many spare trains (and you can't run regular trains through the chunnel). Albion was something of a one-off: she was really there to collect British soldiers returning from Afghanistan - a field squadron of the RAF Regiment, 33 Medical Regiment (a field hospital unit), and elements of the Royal Anglian Regiment; that left a bunch of spaces on Albion, so I guess they decided to fill those with needy civvies (I believe they were selecting those who had an outstanding need to return, such as the elderly and people with kids) rather than sail with a third of the space free. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 19:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, excellent, cheers. So all the news stories on TV with teary eyed Brits stranded in France, the Royal Navy coming along to save the day, and people lacking any sort of individual ingenuity or common sense to get on a train were just news-hype stories, then, and in fact, people were using their nuggets. Cheers! That's what I wanted to know. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I was stuck in Amsterdam, trying to get to a wedding in Edinburgh, and we'd hoped to get the train, but it was booked solid for several days. We took a bus that crossed at Calais on Friday instead. Calais was busy, but it didn't look like it was more than a one or two ferry wait for cars when we got on (we got the first ferry but I don't know if the bus had a booking or something). I think most people that could get themselves to a ferry landing in France, the Netherlands or Belgium could get back to Britain relatively quickly, but I think the Spanish ferries may have been more backed up... TastyCakes (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

internal links for article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lasana_M._Sekou

Hello Wikipedia,

House of Nehesi Publishers would like your expert assistance to further wikify following article: Lasana_M._Sekou

Please help by adding relevant internal links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lasana_M._Sekou to meet Wikipedia's quality standards

Sincerely,

House of Nehesi Publishers —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaribbeanTongue (talk • contribs) 18:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you have reached the Wikipedia Reference Desk. We answer questions here. We don't do your work for you. You know, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anybody, even you, can edit. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Deodarant

What is in a deodarant can? What sorts of things can be found in them? I don't understand what the stuff is on the ingredients list, so if someone could simplify it it would be much appreciated. Chevymontecarlo. 19:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

A brief skim of the back of one here suggests that it's essentially broken down into propellants (gases which will expand and carry the rest as they leave the canister), dessicants and scent. 131.111.248.99 (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Aluminium chlorohydrate apparently blocks the pores to prevent perspiring in deoderants that include an antiperspirant. I don't know how many deoderants are combined with antiperspirants, though - and our article does not confirm this - so it's possible it's just some sort of urban legend. Vimescarrot (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

In the US, if it's labeled just as "deodorant", it doesn't contain any antiperspirant. StuRat (talk) 12:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article Deoderant. After a number of accidents the manufacturer of a stick deoderant withdrew its product that was labelled "Push up bottom before use". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it could just possibly have something to do with getting rid of odor (or odour)? Hmm? Hence deodorant. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Sweets

Hi. I'm looking for sweets that can be identified by a two-letter (or, at a stretch, three-letter) combination. The idea is to have an obscure-seeming pair of letters, then I want the penny to drop and the reader says "Doh! Of course!". I would like "classic" sweets familiar to older folk if possible. So far I have JB and MM but I need others. Anyone? Robinh (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Is MM for marshmallow or for M&Ms? Googlemeister (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

And is JB for jawbreakers or for jelly beans or for jelly babies? It might help if we knew whether your interest is in U.S. or U.K. nomenclature. Deor (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Cola Bottles? 131.111.248.99 (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Although I'm only familiar with American candy, I can think of Baby Ruth, Kit Kat, Pay Day, Oh Henry!, Almond Joy, Milky Way, 3 Musketeers, Hershey's Kisses and of course the good old Hershey bar (although that one technically doesn't have initials). Most come from the 1920s and 30s, with the Hershey bar (originating in 1900) being the oldest. You can tell I'm a chocolate fiend! =P Xenon54 / talk / 20:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello everybody. Thanks for these; it never occurred to me that there would be a UK/US difference; I'd prefer UK ceteris paribus. Also, it didn't occur to me that "MM" would be anything other than "M&M", or that "JB" would be anything other than "jelly baby". Thanks everyone. I really want three or four familiar, small, indivisble sweets of comparable value; I would say an M&M is swappable for a jelly baby. The reason I need these is that I'm writing a statistical paper about choice systems, and at one point I have a synthetic dataset and want a nice succinct legend on my graph. Robinh (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I love it. Choosing a methodology for a research project by "what will look nice in the legend of my graph"... LOL. Thanks for the chuckle. --Jayron32 00:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jayron. It's not quite as bad as it looks, honest! I noticed (just before submission) that one of my formulas generalizes very nicely to matrices. It's too nice to leave out, but OTOH it's too late to actually use the formula. So I made up a dataset ("synthetic") and have just included a very brief proof-of-concept of the new formula, buried in a footnote (hence the need for brevity). But I need a backstory to make the footnote remotely plausible. And the only backstory I could invent involved letting (my) children choose different sweets. It does seem odd, now you mention it. Maybe I ought to get out more. Robinh (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Howabout: LA = Liquorish Allsorts / PM = Polo Mints / FP = Fruit Pastills / CB = Cola Bottles / FS = Flying Saucers (do they still make those?) / CC = Cola Cubes / MH = Mint Humbugs / WO - Wurther's Originals Alansplodge (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they still make FS. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Perfect! thank you all very much! Lots of options here! Best wishes, Robinh (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

PB&J —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.148.206.90 (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Racism in USMC

I am an Asian-American looking to enlist in the USMC right out of high school. Will I get hazed/bullied/shat on more than my white or black trainees because I am Asian? Essentially, is there a lot of racism towards Asians in the USMC? If so, will it be less in the Army? 128.253.97.15 (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You might ask General Eric Shinseki. Woogee (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, Shinseki was in the Army. I would guess (this is based on movies and such) that a lot less hazing takes place in the Army than in the USMC. With harder training comes more bullying, I would guess. Then again, as I said, I don't know. I tend to recommend the Army because it's not as hard (except if you become a Ranger or something). Rimush (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This (from 2005) shows that the USMC has the highest proportion of "white" members of any branch (although I don't know if they count hispanics as white). This shows suicide rates for different services, broken down by age, gender, and ethnicity - it suggests asians/pacific-islanders (it doesn't differentiate the two) have a comparatively high suicide rate in the USMC, but a comparatively low one in the USN. Informally (which means I don't have references beyond a guy I know) I believe recruits at San Diego (those recruited west of the Mississippi) skew demographically hispanic, those at Parris Island skew demographically african american; given that matches the rough racial distribution of the US, and as the distribution of asians seems similarly biased to the west, that would suggest that there would be a higher proportion of asian american recruits at San Diego. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Honestly this probably isn't the best place to ask that sort of question. You might try seeking out some friends of friends who have been in the area you're considering. I would imagine that your personality has enormously more to do with anything than your race, but it's unfortunately still relevant in some cases, so find someone you trust, and go from there. But I doubt anyone here can truly assuage your concerns online. Shadowjams (talk) 09:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Asians (especially South Korean and Japanese) usually have higher suicide rates, even if not in the military. Rimush (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That's due to the Japanese culture, which historically considers suicide an "honorable way out", while we in the US generally consider it "the coward's way out" and a "mortal sin". So, are the people in the US armed forces cultural Japanese or culturally American ? StuRat (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know. I would guess the US military would instill some American values in a person. Rimush (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would be interested to know now. :-) StuRat (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. It was just a typo, y'know. Rimush (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That's what I figured. StuRat (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

One other thing to consider is that there will be an extra helping of discrimination and racism aimed at any minority from a nation where we are currently at war (or who just happens to look like it, so Sikhs could be in trouble, for instance). StuRat (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

April 23

UK Act of Settlement

The above law was enacted to ensure that no Roman Catholic, nor any person married to a Roman Catholic, would ever be allowed to occupy the British Throne as Monarch. No mention was made in that Act of any other faith group such as Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Scientology et al. So my question in this time of multiculturalism and anti-discrimination and religious tolerance and inclusivity in the UK and the rest of the European Community is simply, would the European Court of Human Rights find the UK guilty of blatant religious discrimination and persecution by its persistence in maintaing that law on its statute book? And has any such action ever been raised in the ECHR in the past? Thanks. I expect that someone will reply that Wikipedia cannot give legal advice and I won't therefore be surprised when and if that happens. But I am not actually intending marrying into the British Royal Family - just curious. 92.30.75.103 (talk) 11:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The Scottish main Catholic Bishop, last year, called for a change of this law[20], and again cited the reasons of European Law, as you give. He did not succeed, we believe. Catholics in the UK generally have not been forward in this argument as perhaps they are worried.

MacOfJesus (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I took the liberty of adding a link to the news item you refer to. Alansplodge (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

How is it religious discrimination – both heads of church are Christians (?). It was the popes straying into the political affair of state that got Europe upset.--Aspro (talk) 12:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This law probably won't last all that long as plans are afoot to reform it, with cross-party support[21]. The purpose of the Act was to prevent a repeat of the reign of James II of England, which led to all kinds of mayhem and bloodshed. However, the only fly in the ointment is that this could lead, many years hence, to having a Roman Catholic as Head of the Church of England, being that those who marry into the Catholic faith have (I believe) to promise to bring-up their offspring as Catholics. However, there are a great many glitches like this in the British Constitution, and they usually get sorted out by some amicable compromise in the end. Alansplodge (talk) 12:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Alan. The way attitudes are at the moment, it is likely the law will be quickly revised if and when a heir to the throne has a successful relationship with a catholic. Astronaut (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It is blatant religious discrimination Aspro, because whilst it is currently illegal for say Prince William to one day ascend to the throne if he marries a Catholic girl (unless she changes to ANY other religion first), it would NOT disbar him from becoming the Monarch should he marry a girl of ANY other religion, and she chooses to remain a practising member of her (even non-Christian) faith. 92.30.75.103 (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes but don't get stressed about it - this is not a law that is going to be invoked and will be gone soon, whoever wins the election, unless it's the British National Party. Alansplodge (talk) 12:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Catholics do have very clear rules on Abortion and Euthanasia and on Birth Controle, to mention just a few. So the issue is far-reaching. Catholics may have something to say if the law is changed.

MacOfJesus (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, while the Act of Settlement explicitly bars only Roman Catholics or their offspring from the line of succession, in practice the bar is against other religions or religious variants too. Prince Philip was Greek Orthodox, but they made sure he was received into the Church of England (and became a British national) before he married, in order to avoid any possible difficulties. Times may have moved on since then, but I'd bet good money that, even now, if the monarch or an heir with a realistic prospect of succeeding did decide to marry a Muslim, Hindu, Scientologist, Buddhist or whatever, there would be a lot of behind-the-scenes kerfuffle and a sudden conversion to C of E before the wedding. Karenjc 17:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Consider it from this point of view: if you're the young lady in question, would you rather be a Catholic commoner, or the Queen of England? I have no actual experience in this matter, but I'm pretty sure that if I had to choose one to the exclusion of the other, the Holy Father would be out the door in a heartbeat!

DaHorsesMouth (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The Undead

In both Christianity and Zoroastrianism, there is the concept that in the end, the world will be destroyed and all of those who have died will come back from the dead.

1. Why is this
2. Why would you want the dead to come back to life
3. I think the bible mentions that all flesh will be reserected, so this must mean the physical bodies, hence zombies
4. Why do beleivers asume that the world will end while mankind is still around atall, the sun will die and hence earth but not for billians of years, and so it is highly unlikely that man will be around at that time anyway
5. In antiquety, they did not know for scientific sure that the world would end eventually so why scare monger people with the end of the world and zombies coming back from the dead.
6. how could people in ancient time, let alone now days beleive this tripe? Dead coming back to life, Adam and Eve and talking snakes, and other animals, etc etc etc not to mention a big invisible guy in the sky that no one has ever seen or ever will who controls everything, sees everything and who, if you sin will punish you for all eternity in a burning lake of fire...until he brings you back from the dead. Who in the old testament smote the Israelites time and again, with barbaric ferosity, and will do it again when the messiah comes, yet you have to love him like you father. Do people really beleive this? Or is it an example of the bigger the lie the more likely people are to beleive it as expressed by Hitler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I've reformatted your questions, so they're easier to read and respond to (you had two No. 3's, but no 4. I assume that was just a typo). Incidentally, it sounds like you may be trying to start an argument with religious believers. While you may be succesful in that, it's not really what the reference desk is for. I exhort anyone who answers to stick to answering the questions as succinctly as possible, without other commontary, and preferably with references (i.e. papers by religious scholars, studies by anthropologists, etc.). Buddy431 (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Scripture, The New Testament and The Old Testament have very definite and precise revelations on this. The first such is found in The Book of Job. The Nicean Creed which all main-line-Christian-Churches adhere to, is very precise on this issue, as is the Apostles Creed. The Final Judgement in Saint Matthews Gospel spells it out, referred to in the other Synoptic Gospels. A percentage of the revealed prophicies in the Bible (I would say 20%), have still to happen. All of this is a question of belief.

References for all of these and others are readily available. However, I shall refrain from citing them here, as I fear that Buddy431 may be right in his assesment of your reasons.

Saint Catherine of Sienna said: "For those who do not believe no explination is possible, for those who do none is necessary".

MacOfJesus (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I offended any one, I just honestly want to know how people can beleive that this is reality? And why most organised religions seem to want to scare people? Specifically with the world ending. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe your questions assume the faulty premise that these religions believe that people will be walking the earth as zombies. While I can not speak for Zoroastrianism, I have never once heard of this belief within Christianity. When the New Testament refers to the dead in Christ rising, it is not stating that zombies will dig their way out of their graves to feast on the brains of the living. Googlemeister (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, not all major religions do believe that the world is going to end. I believe Hindus are somewhat well known for having a cyclic world-view, believing that the world is destroyed and recreated on a regular basis (does anyone have the Wikipedia article pertaining to this aspect of Hinduism? Because I can't find it, and navigating through all the Hinduism related articles is a pain). Buddy431 (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

See Yuga. It's also alluded to in Hindu units of measurement. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, Glorious Bodies is the word used. Please listen to Handel's Messiah. All the references are cited there.

MacOfJesus (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

My set of beliefs as a Latter-day Saint ("Mormon") teaches not that the world will be destroyed, but that it will be cleansed. It logically follows (for us) that those people and things not in harmony with God's commandments will be destroyed.

Latter-day Saints normally consider our spiritual existence to be like a three-act play, and that we are currently in Act Two. In other words, we came from a pre-existence without a physical body, we are now in mortality where we each gain one, and when we die, our spirits leave our bodies and enter the afterlife. We believe that the human spirit is immortal, and never dies. Our physical bodies do, however; and this is the part of the soul (for us, spirit + body = soul) that remains after death. So with this background, I can try to answer your questions, at least from my spiritual perspective:

1. We believe that the earth must be cleansed because it is to be inherited by the righteous. (See Matthew 5:5, for example.) We believe that those who have died will come back from the dead because for us, a righteous spirit reunited with a resurrected physical body is necessary for us to reach our eternal spiritual potential. (Or even more simply stated, we believe it because it's what our Scriptures teach.)

2. What we "want" is somewhat irrelevant, but Latter-day Saints believe that we all knew each other before birth, and this knowledge and these acquaintences have been veiled from our memories. I am really looking forward to visiting with my paternal grandparents, who both died before I was born. While it may be strange to say, I "miss" them, even though I never knew them.

3. Googlemeister above addressed this. Resurrection does not mean the random quickening of mindless dead bodies. For us, it means the reunion of a specific spirit with her/his specific body. Resurrected beings essentially retain their physical dimensions and personality.

4. There's not room here to delve into a "science v. religion" discussion here, but suffice it to say, for us, that given our belief in God, He can control the laws of nature, and perhaps even is aware of some that we aren't familiar with. We believe that the earth won't need billions of years to fulfill the purpose of its creation. Opinions (please note the word) vary greatly on this subject, and while Jesus himself did not know when he'd return (see Matt 24:36 or Mark 13:32), most Latter-day Saints likely feel that it will be within the next century or two.

5. Perhaps the simplest explanation, then, is to give the believers in antiquity the benefit of the doubt, and concede that they truly believed that at some point, the world (i.e. wickedness) would end. This end may be scary for some, but it is actually kind of comforting to those who feel that they are in harmony with God. Again, though, we don't believe in zombies.

6. Just as a belief in the things you list seems most illogical to you, a disbelief in them seems most illogical to us. It doesn't do to simply dismiss God as "a big invisible guy who no one has ever seen," because we don't accept this premise. Moses and several other prophets have seen Him, so the question becomes whether these prophets are truthful, deceptive, or insane. We tend to believe that they were truthful. You end a somewhat lengthy list of marginally accurate descriptions of God by asking, "Do people really believe this?" My answer, I guess, would be "No, not as stated." I do believe in God, though, because believing provides an explanation for this earthly existence that makes the most sense to me.

Sorry this is so long. Kingsfold (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to address the general nature of the questions posed by the OP. Despite all the specific differences, there is a common thread among many religions, namely the "belief" or "hope" that there is a life beyond this one. It's fair to say that, in general, religionists believe there is, and atheists do not. That kind of addresses points 1 and 2, specifically. Beyond that, the OP's questions reflect misunderstanding, to put it politely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I will address question #6. I am not a believer in the teachings that you mention (in some cases inaccurately), but I am sympathetic to believers. I think that this kind of belief starts from the experience, which I think most people share, of the vastness and complexity of the universe, which was completely mysterious in ancient times and much of which remains mysterious even to modern scientists. To make sense of this vastness and mystery, people accept the existence of one or more transcendent and possibly supernatural forces or beings, which may take the form of deities. Once people accept the existence of transcendent and supernatural forces or beings, it is easy to accept teachings about them that nonbelievers consider myths. Marco polo (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

Wikipedia has an article "Eschatology". The Greek word κόσμος can have different meanings. (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/κόσμος) It can mean "mankind". (http://mlbible.com/john/3-16.htm) It can mean "world". In the Bible, Jesus referred to his followers as being no part of the world. (http://mlbible.com/john/17-14.htm; http://mlbible.com/john/17-15.htm; http://mlbible.com/john/17-16.htm) In the Bible, James said that friendship with the world meant enmity with God. (http://mlbible.com/james/4-4.htm) In the Bible, John counseled Christians that they should not love the things of the world. (http://mlbible.com/1_john/2-15.htm; http://mlbible.com/1_john/2-16.htm; http://mlbible.com/1_john/2-17.htm.) See also http://mlbible.com/matthew/24-14.htm. The Bible says that the earth will remain forever. (http://mlbible.com/psalms/104-5.htm) The Bible says that the wicked people will be removed from the earth, but that the righteous people will live forever on it. (http://mlbible.com/psalms/37-10.htm; http://mlbible.com/psalms/37-11.htm) (http://mlbible.com/proverbs/2-21.htm; http://mlbible.com/proverbs/2-22.htm) The Bible says that people who destroy the Earth will be destroyed. (http://mlbible.com/revelation/11-18.htm) -- Wavelength (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Collapsed a lengthy list of Biblical citations that do not answer the original poster's questions. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Close to your questions are much of the film Religulous, which features Bill Maher asking various religious people how they can possibly believe that there was a talking snake, that Eve was fashioned from Adam's rib, that Jonah survived in the fish's belly for three days, and so on. This mostly lampoons Biblical literalism. Your "zombies" interpretation does, too. Note that many religious people are not literalists. As to "do people really believe this", well, yes, many people do, obviously. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that this has some relation to the idea of the eternal return. Vranak (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Messiah

What are the criteria that need to be filled to be the Jewish Messiah? in point form so its easy for me, and what are the criteria that Jesus met, and which did he not meet, hence the schism between Jewdaism and christianity. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, for starters, the Messiah is to be from the House of David. According to Jewish law, tribal affiliation is passed patrilinially, and although the Book of Matthew opens by tracing Jesus' lineage, it ends with Joseph, who was not Jesus' father. The various explanations of how it could be transferred to Jesus (adoption, via Mary, spiritual descendancy) are all incongruous with Jewish law, thus invalidating Jesus from being the Messiah. Moreover, the age of the Messiah will be one in which, as described by the Prophets, there will be peace, with no nation bringing war against another nation -- there has hardly been a day in the last 100 years in which there has not been war somewhere. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Jesus referred to this in the Gospels.

Begin with Saint Luke's Gospel regarding what Jesus said to the disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke: 24: 13-35).

Jesus was very clear in what He said to indicate He was fulfilling what was said of The Messiah.

MacOfJesus (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Was God part of the house of David? Googlemeister (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

God created all, not one thing had its being but through Him (The Word): St. John 1:+

He also answered this question: "David called Him Lord; so how can He be his Son?": (Lk 20: 41-47)

MacOfJesus (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Please listen to Handel's Messiah and follow the score for most of the references you seek are cited there.

MacOfJesus (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• There is actually a list of Messianic criteria, with Biblical references, at Jewish_eschatology#The_Messiah, though you should also bear in mind that the Liberal movement rejects the idea of an individual, personal Messiah, instead focussing on the arrival of a Messianic age. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 15:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

  Rabbi Jonathan Romain from the Reform movement in Britain (in practice near-identical to the Liberals mentioned above) has written, Reform subscribes to the idealised picture painted in the later books of the Bible of life in Messianic times. It is an era of peace in which justice and righteousness reign supreme and all live in harmony. In such a time swords will be beaten into ploughshares (Micah 4:3), while even in the animal world the wolf shall lie down with the lamb (Isaiah 11:6). The benefits will apply not only to Jews but to all people, and there will be universal tranquility and co-operation. (It is, of course, the absence of such world-wide peace that is one of the reasons why Christianity's claim that Jesus was the Messiah has never been accepted by Jews. Another factor is that in the Jewish understanding there is no hint that the Messiah will be an object of worship or divine, nor that the Torah will be abrogated by the Messiah's coming.) ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 15:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It's funny that you bring up what Romain states -- because he's certainly not an acceptable source of Jewish though or philosophy from an Orthodox or Conservative perspective, and according to Alvin Reines, Reform Judaism is a polydoxy, and the only thing able to be affirmed is each individual's right to decide what is true for them and what is not. That being said (however ridiculous from a non-Reform perspective), even Reform Jews are not bidden by it...so why bother quoting it? It's not like you're quoting the Rambam or Rabbi Moshe Feinstein. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Jesus, on the cross, quoted Psalm 22/21: "My God, my God, why have you deserted me?...". This a clear Messianic Criteria, and deliberately so by Jesus. (Mk: 15: 33-39), (Mt: 27: 45-50). To see it you need to read Psalm 22/21, all of it, the Psalm that begins with those words above. Oh, by the way, the end of the Psalm has yet to be fulfilled!

MacOfJesus (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That validity of that can be thoroughly called into question -- if Jesus was God, who was he talking to? If he was the Messiah, and he knew it, and this was the fate of the Messiah, why was he complaining? That was his destiny, by definition. And he did not say desert -- although that would have been the correct thing to have said. He rather misquoted the verse by saying zavachtani, which translates as "sacrifice me." DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Not everyone believes that Jesus was God. See Nontrinitarianism. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

See Jesus and Messianic prophecy. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Jesus' words are quoted exactly as he spoke them: Mt: 27, 46: "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" and again in Mk: 15, 34. He had to hawl Himself up to say them on the nails; painful. Psalm 22/21, v. 16 "...they tear holes in my hands and feet, I can count everyone of my bones..." (Written at least 600 years before Christ). If you read the Gospels with an open heart then all will be clear, if not they will remain shut.

MacOfJesus (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that latter advice, and all, but this preaching doesn't address the original poster's questions (or anyone else's, as far as I can see). Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does. It is a definite Criteria requeted. All set out in the article page mentioned above: Jesus and Messianic prophecy. Preaching would be expounding and applying these cited references.

MacOfJesus (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's what the Jewish Virtual Library says:

Most significantly, Jewish tradition affirms at least five things about the Messiah. He will: be a descendant of King David, gain sovereignty over the land of Israel, gather the Jews there from the four corners of the earth, restore them to full observance of Torah law, and, as a grand finale, bring peace to the whole world. Concerning the more difficult tasks some prophets assign him, such as Isaiah's vision of a messianic age in which the wolf shall dwell with the lamb and the calf with the young lion (Isaiah 11:6), Maimonides believes that Isaiah's language is metaphorical (for example, only that enemies of the Jews, likened to the wolf, will no longer oppress them). A century later, Nachmanides rejected Maimonides's rationalism and asserted that Isaiah meant precisely what he said: that in the messianic age even wild animals will become domesticated and sweet­tempered. A more recent Jewish "commentator," Woody Allen, has cautioned: "And the lamb and the wolf shall lie down together, but the lamb won't get any sleep."

The Jewish belief that the Messiah's reign lies in the future has long distinguished Jews from their Christian neighbors who believe, of course, that the Messiah came two thousand years ago in the person of Jesus. The most basic reason for the Jewish denial of the messianic claims made on Jesus' behalf is that he did not usher in world peace, as Isaiah had prophesied: "And nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore" (Isaiah 2:4). In addition, Jesus did not help bring about Jewish political sovereignty for the Jews or protection from their enemies. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

See http://mlbible.com/matthew/21-42.htm; http://mlbible.com/matthew/21-43.htm. -- Wavelength (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Carry a knife? I do.

I'm going to see Lewis Black tonight at the New York City Center. I've been to NYC a total of 2 times in my life and don't go into large cities very often, so I'm not sure if this is a concern... Will I be able to carry a pocket knife into the show? I always carry one and I don't know what to expect. (if it's the same as planes and federal buildings, etc.) Thanks, 24.151.16.55 (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd have thought your best option would be either to leave it at home if it's likely to cause a scene, or maybe call ahead? Their contact details are at: [22]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roydisco (talk • contribs) 15:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You probably won't need it for any protection. That theater is in Central Park South, basically in one of the most affluent part of New York, and I can't imagine you'll run into any trouble. Contrawise, theaters in nice areas don't often do searches for weapons, so you likely won't be stopped for carrying it (venues in bad parts of town often do). If you do have it on your person, and are caught with it, it could be seen as uncouth or inappropriate for the location, so my advice would be to leave it at home for this trip. --Jayron32 15:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

What type of pocket knife are we talking about? Is it a big old Switchblade used for self protection, or a Swiss Army knife used for cutting open bags of chips? Buddy431 (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the venue, but it is just possible that they have you pass through a metal detector. They probably don't, but they just might. Unless you are very attached to your knife, why risk trouble? You could phone and ask if they allow knives or screen for weapons, but that phone call just might alarm them enough to screen when they would not have done so otherwise. Incidentally, I grew up near New York City and have been there many dozens of times, and I have never experienced or even witnessed a violent attack. As others have said, the neighborhood of that theater is one of the safest in the city and well patrolled, so you really do not need your knife. Marco polo (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Why do people still believe the city is still dangerous and unsafe? Central Park south is not a bad area. Don't drive into the city unless you enjoy paying through the nose for parking at a garage. Take mass transit - or a Hertz rental car according to Google Maps - and keep your weapons at home. --Blue387 (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If you pass through Airport security with a Swiss Army knife, even the simplest one: The Spartan, you will lose it! The cost is £12 to £15 for the cheepest. Not worth it to lose it. A new one can be extreemly sharp! You may be allowed to bring it in boarding luggage, not hand-held.

MacOfJesus (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

At almost every concert I've ever been to, I have been frisked or had to pass through a metal detector. Usually they are looking for recording equipment or drugs, but weapons will raise alarm bells. If your knife is found it is certain to be conficated. What happens next will depend on the type of knife - a small swiss army type of penknife will be simply confiscated and you might get it back at the end of the concert if you ask nicely; carry a huge bush knife and you'll probably be held by a couple of big security guys until the police arrive. Best advice is leave it at home. Astronaut (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

OR here, but I went to a Lewis Black show, not in NYC, and there were no metal detectors and there was no frisking. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a cliche that carrying a weapon makes you more likely to be hurt, and I don't think it's a silly one. A willingness to hurt people will engender that same attitude in others, towards you. Vranak (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That's three people that have reacted to the prospect of the original poster carrying the pocketknife as a weapon, though there has been no indication that is the reason he or she carries it. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Whether intended as a weapon or not, many security guys consider even a pocketknife a potential weapon and will confiscate it anyway. Security guys see the worst in everything and everybody - for example, at the last football game I went to, the cap of my water bottle was confiscated for "security reasons"! Astronaut (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

difference

If a man is older than woman by 9 years does it look odd?? Means will it be acceptable?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.235.54.67 (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If the man is 18 it might look odd, yea. If they are both adults, probably not. StuRat (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It will look more odd at younger ages, and less odd at older ages. Googlemeister (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

See File:Half-age-plus-seven-relationship-rule.svg for one cultural take on the issue. Males-older-than-females is generally more acceptable in many societies. On a personal note, my parents married when she was 20 and he was 32; I don't think they've ever been "looked at oddly" for the age difference. FiggyBee (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Also culture plays a role. What flies in Saudi Arabia might not be viewed well in Canada or Mongolia and v.v. Googlemeister (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The term "cradle robber" is sometimes applied to a man who dates or marries a much younger woman. It may be a term of envy on the part of the man's contemporaries. The half age plus seven rule would say it is fine if he is 32 and she is 23. Or if he is older than that and she is 9 years younger (like he is 70 and she is 61). In general, it is no one's business but theirs, assuming she is legal age in the applicable jurisdiction. Edison (talk) 00:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Name for a type of pot lid

Is there a name for pots where the lid rests inside the basin? Most pot lids rest entirely on top of the pot, but I need to find a 2q pot whose lid rests on an interior lip within the pot basin, like the lid here. (its for mother's day and mom's real specific). 160.10.98.106 (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I reckon it is called a nested lid, there are not many references on google to support this, but somewhere in the recesses of my mind this emerged. Richard Avery (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a double boiler. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That's the only example of the type of lid I need I've been able to find. I need that lid on a two quart pot. 160.10.98.106 (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to buy her a pot lid, and claim I misunderstood. :-) StuRat (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Are these two people related?

Is Austrian mountaineer Gerlinde Kaltenbrunner related to WWII Nazi war criminal Ernst Kaltenbrunner? ˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontario54 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Kaltenbrunner is a common name in Austria (see for example soccer players Ernst, Günter, and Josef Kaltenbrunner, or writer Gerd-Klaus Kaltenbrunner), especially Upper Austria, where Nazi-Ernst (from Ried im Innkreis) and Gerlinde (from Kirchdorf an der Krems) are from. Politician Alois Kaltenbrunner (from Ottnang am Hausruck) and writer Carl Adam Kaltenbrunner (from Enns) hail from the same state. That's not to say that they weren't possibly (remotely) related, but I can't find any mention of it from a quick look (and I'm too lazy to look for more). Rimush (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

TV gimmicks

Many HDTV makers are offering refresh rates of more than 60 HZ. I've seen up to 240 HZ. Another weird thing is Sharp is now offering TVs with yellow pixels added to the RGB color model. What's the point of these features if the broadcast or source is only 60Hz RGB in the first place? Is this just a gimmick? Another thing that sounds kind of gimmicky to me is the upscale feature on some DVD players and receivers that outputs and HD signal from a standard definition source. It's basically resampling or stretching the image. Isn't that what the TV already does in order to fill the screen? Does it matter if it's done by the TV/monitor or the source player? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.148.206.90 (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Three phosphors, such as RGB, only allow reproduction of those colors which fall within the triangle encompassed by those three points in the CIE color space or some more modern equivalent. The transmitted color signals may include hues outside the triangle of the three phosphors. Color TVs in the early 1960's for instance, had poor reproduction of reds due to the lousy red phosphor then used. A cherry red in the televised scene would be reproduced on the screen as mere brick red, Today the same transmission would produce more vivid reds on today's sets withe better red phosphors. Adding some phosphor outside that triangle could in principle broaden the gamut of colors shown on the screen, with appropriate circuitry to drive the fourth phosphor.

Nonsense! Without changing the way color TV/DVD signals are encoded, there is absolutely no way for the TV to produce colors outside the RGB 'cube' meaningfully. There is simply not enough information in the incoming signals for the TV to do what you're claiming they do...and even if there was, our eyes literally cannot tell the difference between yellow light and a mixture of green and blue light.

The real reason for the gimmick (and I'm pretty sure it isn't much more than a gimmick or TV's would have been doing this for 20 years) is that each pixel in the TV's panel has to emit red, green and blue light - to match how our eyes work. So you have three tiny little glowing blobs - one for each color. But three is a very inconvenient number to pack into a nice dense square grid - so what to do with that fourth 'spot'? Some designs put a second green emitter there because our eyes are more sensitive to green than red or blue - and being able to emit more green light makes for a perceptually brighter picture. But our eyes are also more sensitive to red than to blue - so ideally you'd like to make some extra red light too. Hence, filling that slot with yellow is a way to make a somewhat brighter picture - but that's about all.

SteveBaker (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

April 24

NBA vs. NHL

Why are the highest/lowest number of wins/losses and longest winning/losing streaks by NBA teams more dramatic than in the NHL? I know in the past, the NHL had ties, but if you count the win percentage excluding the ties (instead of counting each tie as .500 wins, or 1 standings point, as they normally did) and count OT losses as regular losses, this pattern remains true. Also, in recent years with no ties, if you count all the losses as regular losses, this pattern also remains true. Does this mean there is more disparity between strong teams and weak teams in the the NBA than in the NHL? What would be the cause of that? Revenue differences? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.148.206.90 (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not American and don't know anything about the teams but a significant factor may be that basketball has much higher scores than ice hockey. This can lead to fewer "semi-random" results where a good team loses to a bad team which gets lucky in a few plays. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the initial premise is wrong. The worst ever NHL team was the 1992–93 San Jose Sharks at 11-71-2, while the worst ever NBA team was the 1972-73 Philadelphia 76ers at 9-73, certainly comparable in terms of shittiness. Longest NHL winless streak (losses and ties) is 30 games for the 1980-81 Winipeg Jets. The longest NBA losing streak is 24 games (over 2 seasons) or 23 games (over 1 season). The former was the 81-82 and 82-83 Cleveland Cavaliers and the latter was done by 2 teams: The 95-96 Vancouver Grizlies and 97-98 Denver Nuggets. Recently, the New Jersey Nets and Minnesota Timberwolves had an historically terrible year, which is why it seems like the worst NBA teams are worse, but that is only recentism, in that we had a rare year with TWO really horrible teams (12 wins for the former, 15 for the latter). The premise is simply wrong if applied over the history of the leagues. --Jayron32 01:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The worst NHL team was actually the Washington Capitals of '74-75, with 8 wins total, 21 points total. Take ties out of the mix over, and the totals would likely be more similar. 72.2.54.34 (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)