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 29

How long is the Panamerican Highway?

Hi. In your article says it´s 40.000 Km long, but there are other sources (like [http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0837451.html this, based on The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright © 2007, Columbia University Press.) who says it´s 25.000. So, my question is, what data is wrong? Thanks. Sorry if this is not the right place to ask, but your help system is a labyrint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreateletrabajo (talk • contribs) 00:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Without lifting a finger to help you, or do any of my own research, my first reaction is "Hmmm, 25,000 miles equals 40,000 km." Might that be the issue? DaHorsesMouth (talk) 01:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Correct, good sir. :) 40 000 kilometers = 24 854.8477 miles. ^Avic_ennasis @ 02:14, 25 Nisan 5771 / 29 April 2011 (UTC)

But that is not the explanation. Pan-American Highway says "about 47,958 kilometres (29,800 mi) in total length". http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0837451.html says "c.16,000 mi (25,750 km) long". Without researching it, I notice the map in Pan-American Highway shows more than one route and includes "Unofficial Route". I guess it's not clearly defined what is considered part of the Pan-American Highway. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Considering the great circle distance from Prudhoe Bay to Ushuaia is 15,264 km according to this site, it seems the highway must do an awful lot of meandering to be nearly three times longer. Astronaut (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The Pan-American Highway article illustrates at least part of the measurement problem, where two major highways spanning the USA from north to south are both claimed to be the Pan-American Highway; and if I gather correctly, at one point somebody described the entire USA highway system as part of it. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I presume the distance of the Pan-American Highway doesn't include the Darien Gap? --TammyMoet (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I've also estimated the distance of the most direct route similar to that illustrated in File:PanAmericanHwy.png (using Google Maps route finding where possible). The distance from Prudhoe Bay to the Mexico-Guatamala border is 10,477 km. The distance from the Ecuador-Peru border to Ushuaia (via Santiago de Chile and Buenos Aires) is 8791 km. I had to estimate the distances in Central America, Ecuador and Venuzuela. I came up with a total a little over 22,500 km. The Darien Gap is a known break in the route but is actually quite small (<100 km). 40,000 km is looking increasingly improbable. In fact it is so improbably, I've requested a citation on the Pan-American Highway article and opened a new discussion on the talk page. Astronaut (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The Mississippi River is about 2,300 miles long, which is about twice the as-the-crow-flies distance would be. As noted above, it would take a lot more meandering for the Mississippi to be, say, 3,500 miles long. So the Pan-Am Highway could easily be twice the straight-line distance, but three times the distance? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Google Maps provides a pretty good driving directions tool that covers the entire route from Prudhoe Bay to the Guatemala border. You can even add intermediate points by dragging the purple line to your desired routing. That's what I did and got 10,477 km. I did the same thing in South America. Astronaut (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all for your answers. Sorry I wasn´t clear at the beginning. I change the info in es:WP with the reference I gave you. It seems that article was translated from this one. Cheers. --Andreateletrabajo (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG

If this is not the place I apologize and will accept suggestions for elsewhere. But I just got done reading through the day's WP:ANI board (for educational purposes, of course), and am curious about the term "boomerang," regarding filing an accusation that ultimately come back to the detriment of the accuser. Was this used in the same sense before WP? And also, what it the first instance in which this term was coined on WP? Thanks! Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 02:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting history, that. Formerly, the essay was at Wikipedia:Plaxico, a reference to the unfortunate Plaxico Burress, who literally did shoot himself in the foot (or leg, whatever). There was much ado about the name; was it appropriate to reference a living person in such a disparaging way internally? See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Plaxico and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Plaxico (2nd nomination). The essay was deleted, but most of the content subsequently copied and pasted into the current essay (probably violating the copyright of those who wrote the original essay, but whatever). For your specific question, the term Boomerang effect does enjoy some modest use outside of Wikipedia, generally in a way synonymous with Unintended consequences (which is by far the more common term. Buddy431 (talk) 02:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the "Plaxico" thing pretty much came to a halt after he got sent to prison, as it wasn't so funny anymore. The "boomerang" is a better reference anyway, since it's better known outside the USA than Plaxico was/is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The term "blowback" also comes to mind, it's military and security jargon for "unintended consequences". Roger (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Longest Snake

What is the type and size of world's longest snake found ever ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.242.178.158 (talk) 09:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see longest snake record.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Infinitely long because it forms a full circle. (Solution here.) – b_jonas 10:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Circles are not infinitely long. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No, they aren't, but the Koch curve is, and like a circle it contains a finite area. --Jayron32 19:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well, let's not get into the odd and frightening concept of fractal snakes. I want my snakes to be fully three dimensional, than-you-very-much. --Ludwigs2 00:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The snake will be fully three dimensional, it's only its skin that has a fractal dimension between 2 and 3. – b_jonas 13:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, it's not infinitely long, but is it at least worth a double score? – b_jonas 13:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Description of all the "stuff" on Prince William's wedding day suit

Is there anywhere on the Internet that describes what all those things like the blue sash, the wings-thing on it, the award just below, the stars on the shoulders, and every other "thing" are and how they were earned, or if not earned, what's the story on them? 20.137.18.50 (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The blue sash and the star on his left torso are for the Order of the Garter, in which he is a Royal Knight Companion. (As a member of the royal family, he is a supernumerary member of the Order.) Our article on Prince William has what looks to be a fairly complete list of his titles, styles, and honours. The 'wing-thing' is the wings of the Royal Air Force, where he is a flight lieutenant. The medal on the sash is the Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee Medal. The red uniform tunic is the formal dress attire of a colonel of the Irish Guards, an honorary appointment: [1]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting how one can simultaneously be a lieutenant in the air force and a colonel (even if honorary) in the army. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

He's not a lieutenant, he's a Flight Lieutenant. It's equivalent to a Captain in the British Army (which he also is, just to complicate matters!). --Tango (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The questioner seems to assume that Prince William has ever 'earned' anything. Huh. </rant> ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 13:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not watching the wedding, but I do hope his brother hasn't turned up in this --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying his military rank in the Royal Air Force, which he has been a member of for several years and for which he is trained, was not earned? 216.93.212.245 (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure that he was accepted into the RAF via fair and equal competition without being given even the slightest hint of preferential treatment from the military officers responsible for his training, if that's what you mean. ╟─TreasuryTag►District Collector─╢ 21:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It must be embarassing to have a bunch of honorary "achievements" pinned all over him. Seems it would make a guy feel like a fraud. AAhh but not if you're a prince I suppose.190.56.105.199 (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I gather that he's going to return to his current job of search-and-rescue in the RAF, and I gather there's nothing fraudulent about that - especially including the high element of risk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Good point!190.56.105.52 (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The honorary ranks aren't a perk, they're part of his job. I'm sure he'd much rather be relaxing in the officer's mess with a beer than inspecting the Irish Guards, but that's what he's there for. Although traditionally the heirs to the throne have been kept out of combat, other Royals have been in the very much in the firing line. King George VI was in command of a battleship gun turret at the Battle of Jutland, Prince Phillip came under kamikaze attack in the Pacific campaign and Prince Andrew had to use his helicopter as a missile decoy in the Falklands War. Alansplodge (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

His current job is as a search and rescue pilot, which isn't the safest of jobs! He has served in Afghanistan, helping to repatriate a body, and in the Caribbean where he took part in a drug bust. Prince_William,_Duke_of_Cambridge#Military_career --TammyMoet (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the reason he's allowed to be a search and rescue pilot but isn't allowed on the front line is that being on the front line would be more dangerous for him than for a regular officer. He would be specifically targeted because the enemy would get excellent PR by killing the 2nd in line to the throne. (That's why Prince Harry was only allowed to fight in Afghanistan if it was kept secret that he was there and he had to come home when the media blackout was breached.) --Tango (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It's actually because being in a war zone puts the soldiers around him at greater risk. This isn't a problem with search and rescue, where the risks are mainly related to the difficulties of the job itself. Royals are not prevented from risking their own lives; many participate in extreme sports, for instance. --NellieBly (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, polo is quite extreme. Googlemeister (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Jeep backpacks

I would like to know the phone number for the UK Jeep backpack? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 16:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

They are distributed by BagMan Ltd, contact details are on the website. Peter E. James (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Draft policies World War 2

A distant relative of ours, in America, served in the Great War and was then drafted in World War 2. The birth record we have for him gives a birthdate of 1896, which would have made him 46 when drafted in WW2. The question is, isn't this a little old for active service in WW2? I'm pretty sure men of that age weren't conscripted in the UK at that time. Would he have been more likely to have volunteered? The record we have for his service in WW2 is a "Draft Enlistment and Service Record". Would this have applied to volunteers too? --TammyMoet (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Conscription in the United States#World War II says that registration for the draft went up to age 64, and they actually drafted men up to age 45. Possibly you could double-check his birthdate to see whether he could have been 45 and 11 months, or something, on the date of his selection? Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the swift response CT. His birthdate was 10 June 1896 but we don't know the date of conscription. Looks like he was a little unlucky then. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless, of course, he personally killed Hitler and twelve of his deputies and successfully escaped the bunker, and this knowledge has been lost to time and distance; in which case I would call him pretty lucky. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

warning on my medical history

gidday mate i was just wanting to know what this reference number 721.723. 17/1/2011 refers to as it's listed as a warning in my medical history. i've recently moved and need to transfer to a new doctor and i'd just like to know what they are warning anyone about. i'd appreciate any insight into this available and thank you now for the time you will spend finding out for me. regards name redacted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.152.241.122 (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of removing your name, as this is a very public forum; I hope you don't mind. People will reply here, rather than by email, anyway. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 17:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It may be an ICD-9 code. You should discuss it with either your old or new physician if you're at all concerned. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 17:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Well the 17/1/2011 is obviously a date (17 January 2011). The 721.723 could be anything. -- SGBailey (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Our article on dorsopathy gives the associated ICD9 codes as 720 to 724. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

ICD9 721.7 is Traumatic spondylopathy, also called Kümmell's disease - Term used for late post-traumatic collapse of a vertebral body. No idea if that's it or not, but perhaps it helps OP. ^Avic_ennasis @ 02:04, 30 Nisan 5771 / 4 May 2011 (UTC)

penguins in the usa

Can you legally keep a penguin as a pet in the USA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.113.225 (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That would likely depend on the laws of the specific state. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems like it --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you bother to actually read any of the pages you got from that search? None of them say you can legally own a penguin that I can see. The only thing more useless than just posting a Google search link is posting one that neither answers the question and is one that you have not bothered to read yourself. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Most probably not. Also why? Penguins would be very hard to take care as they typically live in cold climates. They also need very strict dietary requirements, etc. In addition, are you planning to keep one? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 17:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The IP emanates from Arizona. Penguins are built for extreme cold, so he'd have to keep his house air conditioning set to about 20 degrees or something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Extremely uneconomical. And shouldn't it be set to 0 or below or something? Also you forget to sign. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 17:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Gadzooks! Left out a tilde. Now fixed. Yes, maybe 0 or below would be better. Penguins are so well-adapted to the cold that they actually like to stand on ice so as to balance out their body heat. Maybe the OP would be better off moving to Antarctica, where he could be surrounded by all the penguins he could ever want. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I've heard that penguins are really quite friendly animals, so I think they would make good pets. This article and this article mention that others, including Wayne Newton, have tried in the past. Sounds like they're pretty expensive to keep though. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the myth that Penguins are all built for the extreme cold, the Galapagos Penguin lives in a place which is hardly "cold". --Jayron32 19:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, not all penguins live in extreme cold. Many zoos in the US keep (antarctic) penguins well above 0 C. I've even seen them kept in ambient air during the summer in the midwest (though I think their water must have been chilled). Just because some penguins have adapted to live in extreme cold doesn't necessarily mean they cannot survive in warmer temperatures. I agree it is likely a very expensive pet, but let's not make assumptions that they can only live at 0 C! SemanticMantis (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I'd call 0C "extreme cold", though. --NellieBly (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not just that they can "tolerate" warmer climates, the Galapagos Penguin is built for the tropics. It would likely find the Antarctic impossibly cold to survive in! Unrelated to the Galapagos Penguin, generally, animals which are built for cold-weather environments can tolerate warmer weather (most live in places which have short, temperate summers, or migrate to them), while the reverse is not necessarily true. --Jayron32 20:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

While the Galapagos is technically a "tropical" archipelago, the water there is hardly what one would call "tropical" in the usual sense of being extremely warm. The air stays relatively balmy at 22C - 25C, but the water is chilled by the Humboldt current, which brings cold water north from Antarctica. And, as the article mentions, what warmth there is is a major factor in the troubles of the little bird. Bluntly, it is definitely not "built for the tropics", though I agree it's better suited to a warmer climate than the antarctic species of penguins. Matt Deres (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Also there is an issue of GETTING a pengun in the first place!! --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You can make your own, apparently.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Quite apart from the obvious environmental problems, penguins are very gregarious during certain seasons and I doubt that you could provide that. A happy penguin is a wild penguin.190.56.16.156 (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the Blue Fairy Penguins live in Australia, at least as far as Melbourne which isn't exactly known for heavy snowfall. Googlemeister (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

How about a reference here on the Reference Desk? The first obstacle to obtaining a penguin in the US is the Endangered Species Act, a Federal law that, among many other things, makes it illegal to import or export endangered species. If you visit this page, type "penguin" in the field toward the top that says "Search Endangered Species Database", and hit Enter, you'll see that the Galapagos penguin and African penguin are endangered, and five more species are threatened. Aside from the Federal law, as Bugs wrote earlier, it depends on where you live. As stated at this link, most of these regulations are at the state and local levels — though this page from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service discusses federal regulations on importing commercial wildlife. I took the liberty of assuming the original poster's "geolocate" link was accurate, and browsed Arizona state law and this page of Yuma County ordinances and didn't see anything about keeping exotic animals. The lengthy Yuma City animal ordinances are here in Chapter 130 (under Title 13) and I didn't see anything there forbidding the keeping of penguins. Naturally, none of this thread is legal advice, and if you are considering obtaining a penguin, you should contact a lawyer who can advise you. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

PS: Here's a page on the Wild Bird Conservation Act, another US federal law that is relevant. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Wayne Newton lives outside Las Vegas and he has a pet penguin. Actually, a whole flock, as I understand.^Ref. Not sure what legal hoops he might have had to jump through for that, though. ^Avic_ennasis @ 01:25, 26 Nisan 5771 / 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he was singing at a gig where he was wearing his favourite tuxedo, and they all just followed him home.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 06:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

A traffic policeman stopped a driver who had 3 penguins on the back seat and demanded an explanation. "I don't know where they came from but it's no trouble to let them sit there" said the motorist. The policeman ordered "Take them to the zoo!". Next day the policeman stops the same car and driver because the three penguins are still in the car, but now the penguins are wearing sunglasses. "Didn't I tell you to take those penguins to the zoo?" "Yes and I did that yesterday. Today I am taking them to the beach." Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Outstanding. :) Sadly, the guy's old man was arrested at the zoo. He was collared for feeding squirrels. He was feeding them to the lions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Wayne Newton is a Vegas demigod. He can do whatever he wants as long as he says the magic words: "Danke Schoen, danke schoen very much." Clarityfiend (talk) 04:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

At the Turtle Back Zoo in West Orange NJ, there is a wall mural describing various penguin species and a section of it is devoted to debunking this myth that penguins are cold-weather habitatiers. Only the emperor and Adélie species live on Antarctica; the rest (chinstrap, blue fairy, king, rockhopper, gentoo and other varieties) live in Australia, South America and Africa (although the Wikipedia articles of some of these species contests this assertion, I'm just providing the Turtleback Zoo mural data). DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Pewter Pots

I saw this sign in a Wetherspoons in Huyton today, and I have a few questions about it (staff didn't have a clue). First one is, why are the 'standard pint' pots far smaller than the 'half pint' pots? Second one is, what does 'DOZ' mean? Is this a certain type of ounce? Dublin Ounces, maybe? Cheers! --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

From context, it looks like DOZ just means "dozen". So they'd charge 45 shillings for a dozen "standard pint" pots. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 17:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

As above. Doz is an abbreviation of dozen so the top line means £2 and 7shillings (£2-35p) for 12 pots. The reason why they mixed up the size of the pots is anybodies guess. Maybe it was a joke or maybe they were sort of pint size mugs. These signs are just modern reproductions. --Aspro (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah - cheers. You both make sense. I had mixed up the DOZ for meaning the amount the pot can hold, which wouldn't make sense as there are no numbers before that (besides the price in shillings). On a related note, when did beer glasses with handles disappear and get replaced by our standard pint glasses (and tulips for bitter)? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You can still get this kind of pint mug in Scotland, if you ask. I think there was a slow change from those to straight pint glasses over the 1970s-80s, with the mug being increasingly an old-man's pub thing. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 18:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You can get them in England too. When I worked in a pub in rural Sussex there were some older regulars that would ask for them (usually calling them "jugs" rather than "mugs"). --Tango (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, I think the size mismatch is an artefact of the wrong pots being glued to the board. There are indeed huge and comprehensive catalogs from which the dressings and furniture of faux-trad pubs can be bought: old adverts, engraved mirrors, stained glass, fake mahogany, ropey ironwork, distressed tables, expanded-polystyrene-backed plaster cornices and ceiling roses, and on, and on. Enough to turn any soulless concrete mall space into an unconvincing "oirish" pastiche. With the exception of the Temple Bar, the real Ireland is refreshingly free of such crap. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 18:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, there are pubs I go to where selected customers have their own metal mug kept behind the bar for them, and some pubs do still have a limited amount of handled glasses which are only used in times of shortage of the usual straights. And, yes, I do know about the fake ornaments, and with a chainstore like Wetherspoons, this can only be expected. And by the way, I only went to Temple Bar a couple of times, and it was alright. Maybe I'm just used to it. Cheers, anyway. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Step forwards the York bar in Broomhill, Sheffield, UK, where the real ale is still sold in a dimpled mug! --TammyMoet (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Those of you who remember the 1970s in the UK, when dimpled "jug" glasses were the usual recepticle for a pint will recall the etiquette; ALWAYS grip the whole glass with your fingers through the handle, NEVER ON ANY ACCOUNT hold the handle itself. Breaking that rule was (apparently) a sure indicator effiminacy, even in London. "The past is a foreign country..." Alansplodge (talk) 23:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Effeminacy? In London? Never! Not in the city that drinks babycham in Hello Kitty glasses! Never! :) --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 04:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is there a flattr.com icon on wikipedia statistics pages?

Are the statistics pages produced by Wikipedia (for example http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/User_talk:Henrik ) official? If so, why is there a little flattr icon (right hand bottom)? Did I miss an announcement somewhere? Ottawahitech (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No, they're not official. Domas has a script on the toolserver which produces this data and Henrik makes little graphs based on that on his site. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 18:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Does this mean that other links viewable in the "Revision history of Wikipedia:" (which readers can see when clicking on the View History link available on any Wikipedia page) such as

• Revision history statistics
• Contributors
• Revision history search
• Number of watchers

as well as

• Page view statistics

are also not official? Ottawahitech (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "official" a terribly meaningful term in this context. These are various scripts on the Toolserver, run by various people. The toolserver itself isn't owned by the Wikimedia foundation, but by Wikimedia Deutschland, a separate organisation. Toolserver accounts are given to people who have the skills and contribution history to suggest they're likely to use one constructively (see https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Account_approval_process). Those links on the article history page are there because some admin(s) added them there, and no-one has removed them. None of this has much to do with the Mediawiki Foundation, but then really very little of Wikipedia does. Beyond basic usefulness and competence, none of this has a huge rubber stamp of endorsement from Jimbo, the Foundation, or the community; if something was wrong or harmful in some way, it would get removed in much the same way bad article content would. So you should view these pages in much the way you'd view a good article: a decent work by conscientious people that's had some reasonable peer review. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 15:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Old stocks: finding out the basis and purchase date when your brokerage company is useless

One of the problems I ran into in filing my taxes this year is that I had sold an old stock and needed to know its basis and purchase date. In that particular case I was able to find out by rummaging around for a few hours in old statements but I'm afraid this will not work for many others I own. My brokerage company merged, merged again, and yet again and finally became Ameritrade without me ever transferring the stocks out. I am planning on selling a whole bunch of old stocks, bought from around the mid- to the late-nineties. So today I called up Ameritrade and was advised that they had no records on any purchases or cost bases going back more than six years. When I sell them this year, on April 15, 2012 I will then need to report my cost basis, date of purchase and number of shares (# of shares also change because of splits. etc.) to the IRS and my state taxing agency, not just to avoid cheating them out of long term capital gains, but myself out of long term capital losses. What can I do to find out the needed information?--108.46.109.70 (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you had an accountant who might still have that info.190.148.136.100 (talk) 06:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Or if you used a tax service, they might still have it.190.148.136.100 (talk) 06:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I hear you, 190.148.136.100. Wouldn't it be nice if Wikipedia could start collecting this type of information? Ottawahitech (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you could assume from the context of my question as a premises that there was no one like this available. If not, then I am confirming the same.--108.46.109.70 (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

If you have an estimate of the date, you can check Yahoo's listing of the stock for the price going back many years. Since the exact information is unavailable, the IRS will accept a good-faith estimate of the date of purchase and the price, as long as it isn't obviously cherry-picked. For example, you might find the average between the month-high and month-low for the month when you bought the stock -- that would be a good-faith estimate, in most circumstances. Of course, you would have to attach a letter explaining this with your tax return. 63.17.71.218 (talk) 03:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

[On the assumption that we're talking about the Internal Revenue Service of the United States Department of the Treasury and not some other tax system (such as a state's, dominion's or province's):]

IRS Publication 550, Investment Income and Expenses, Chapter 4 (as I found by browsing through http://www.irs.gov) has this to say about a related, though not identical issue at this link

Identification not possible. If you buy and sell securities at various times in varying quantities and you cannot adequately identify the shares you sell, the basis of the securities you sell is the basis of the securities you acquired first. Except for certain mutual fund shares, discussed later, you cannot use the average price per share to figure gain or loss on the sale of the shares.
Example.
You bought 100 shares of stock of XYZ Corporation in 1995 for $10 a share. In January 1996 you bought another 200 shares for $11 a share. In July 1996 you gave your son 50 shares. In December 1998 you bought 100 shares for $9 a share. In April 2010 you sold 130 shares. You cannot identify the shares you disposed of, so you must use the stock you acquired first to figure the basis. The shares of stock you gave your son had a basis of $500 (50 × $10). You figure the basis of the 130 shares of stock you sold in 2010 as follows:

50 shares (50 × $10) balance of stock bought in 1995 $ 500
80 shares (80 × $11) stock bought in January 1996 $ 880
Total basis of stock sold in 2010 $1,380

But more useful, perhaps, is this recent article from Smart Money: Lost Your Stock Statements? How to Figure Out Your Cost Basis. I found it by Googling "calculating capital gain basis stock missing records"; I'll let you rummage through the other 1.25 million hits or refine the search by adding other search terms. Happy May Day ! —— Shakescene (talk) 05:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

April 30

Stoplights

Are the some stoplights that are remotly controlled by a human?Accdude92 (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are some that can be controlled by a police officer who is directing traffic. Looie496 (talk) 02:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Well there are these ones with these cameras and they do not have the inductive loop sensors and the always change at the right time, is why I ask.Accdude92 (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

In large cities central traffic control offices can control both the cycle timing, cycle order, and in some cases, cause 4 way reds. In central Sydney the other weekend, for a diplomatic party, the lights went four way red across a number of blocks in sequence to time a few bus loads of ruling class individuals through the city I was trying to walk through. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

How do I know if thats happening?Accdude92 (talk) 03:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Where I live in Raleigh, NC (and I suspect many places in the U.S.) there is a control box near many intersections; I see police officers manually changing the lights via some sort of small keyboard or wired remote control inside of it. --Jayron32 05:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

In parts of the US, at least, ambulances are equipped with devices to change lights to allow them to go through a controlled intersection on a green light. 216.93.212.245 (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

A pelican crossing is a type of crossing where traffic lights can be controlled by a pedestrian.

—Wavelength (talk) 05:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

If you're in a large city and the central office is changing the lights for various purposes, there's no way for you to tell unless the lights are doing something really odd such as "all red" conditions. Dismas|^(talk) 06:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Portable temporary stop lights that are used during road mending usually have the possibility of manual control. Example. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

There is more than one kind of traffic detector used to control lights. Just because there is no inductive loop embedded into the pavement doesn't mean they're not sensing traffic. Sometimes the camera itself is the traffic detector. Nowadays computers can easily tell the difference between an image of a car compared with empty road-way. See Traffic_light_control_and_coordination#Non-intrusive_detectors.

APL (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

In San Francisco, the signals at the intersection of California and Powell are controlled by a person in a signal tower, because the cable car lines that cross there can't see well. I don't remember if there are auto lights there too, though... --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

In Bangkok a good number of traffic lights are manually controlled by traffic police. (I can't find much about this on the internet, but here is an op-ed criticizing the system. If I remember correctly, the police have little huts they sit in near traffic lights, and that is where they are controlling the changes of the lights. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Romanian s

How do I type the Romanian s with a thingy below it (like in Nicolae Ceausescu)? --75.40.204.106 (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

If you're working on an article, you can do it by clicking on the "Special characters" link above the edit box and then choose it from the selections offered. Dismas|^(talk) 04:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

See S-comma. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

See Romanian Computing Information (Penn State). -- Wavelength (talk) 06:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The unicode input article discusses how to do this in popular desktop computing environments. Following its prescription, in GNOME, hold down ctrl-shift and type u218 and then release ctrl-shift. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 13:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The character is also available as an insert option in the edit screen using 'Latin', it has all those unusual letters you are likely to need. Mikenorton (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Copy-and-paște alșo workș. ←Bașeball Bugș ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Note that the Romanian S-comma and T-comma (Șș Țț) are very widely substituted in typing with S-cedilla and T-cedilla (Şş Ţţ), which is technically incorrect. See Romanian alphabet for details. So the name Ceaușescu could also be seen as Ceauşescu or Ceausescu. --Theurgist (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Driving stick

There is conflicting advice all over the Internet regarding the best ways to drive stick (i.e. manual transmission). By 'best ways' I mean A) best for the transmission's health and life, and B) best for fuel efficiency. I've been trying to find online 'how to' advice from either a car manufacturer or consumer reports, or some reliable, reputable source. But all I am finding is advice written by self-described experts with unknown credentials. Can someone help me find advice written from a reliable source? Kingturtle = (talk) 12:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You can always trust Tom and Ray, the car talk guys. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 12:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you asking at what rpm you should change up? It's going to depend on the car. The driver's manual might give some guidance on the optimal rev range for your car. --Tango (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

No printed advice ia a substitute for learning to change gear by practice. A manual transmission will usually outlast the rest of a car unless it is badly treated. Bad treatment would include grating gears by incompetent use of the clutch, or changing down in gears to force the engine do the work of the brakes. There are two distinct styles of driving a manual transmission: 1) best for fuel efficiency. This is keeping in as high gear as possible without labouring; the engine probably gives best economy in the 1500 - 3000 rpm range (never accelerate hard), and 2) best for performance. This is changing as often as necessary to keep the engine in its maximum power range, probably 4000 - 7000 rpm. Some older British cars have marks on the speedometer that suggest maximum speeds in individual gears. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd dispute one point of this - engine braking is a perfectly normal way of controlling speed on long hills. Exxolon (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a normal (and strongly recommended) way to maintain a low speed, but it isn't a good way of reducing speed. That may be what Cuddlyable3 was talking about. --Tango (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Correct. A driving style of rapid gear down-changes at every bend that is common in race cars that are designed for it is not the way to treat an ordinary road car. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly why? This seems to an area where in my lifetime one piece of dogma has been replaced by another, neither ever properly explained. HiLo48 (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you are rapidly slowing down to go round the bend then you need to rapidly change down gears too. You should be using the breaks to slow down, but you should still be changing gear if you have slowed down enough that you need to. --Tango (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

BRAKES are good to have in a car, BREAKS less so. Racing cars generally have more gear ratios than road cars because the are meant to be driven within a smaller range of engine r.p.m. Their gearboxes are designed for rapid changes; paddles on the steering wheel of F1 cars facilitate quick gear changes. A road car's manual gearbox is simpler to save cost and its synchromesh is only expected to cope with granny's sedate changes. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

One small point if you want to find more sources. You might have more luck looking for British or similar sources, given the relatively popularity of manuals here. I'm guessing you've tried that, though, given the wording of the question. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

In normal UK driving conditions and in a medium-sized car, if you took it beyond 4,000 every time you changed gear, you would be driving like a total idiot. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

...of which the UK has plenty. I remember hearing George Mangoletsi distinguishing between the sporty driver "who never gets into top gear" and the elderly lady "who never gets out of it". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Very true. Wasn't there also a couple of American tourists who hired a Mini and drove it from London to Cornwall in first gear, thinking it was an automatic? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Would not surprise me a bit. On cars in America, manuals are the exception rather then the rule. Googlemeister (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There is not one best way to operate a manual transmission. There is a margin for flexibility inherent in manually changing gears. Even if one were told the best way, one would alter it to suit one's own predilections under a variety of imposing factors. These would include one's state of mind. In an impatient frame of mind, one would be more likely to forgo good gas mileage in favor of (relatively) rapid acceleration. Bus stop (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II and uniforms

Until 1987, Her Majesty used to ride a horse at Trooping the Colour and wore uniform. Since then, she has not risen a horse, but I'm not sure why she no longer wears uniform, does anyone know?

Also, at Royal weddings, Remembrance Day, etc, the male members of the Royal Family wear uniform, as indeed has Princess Anne on occasion. Why does the Queen wear not uniform on these occasions?

Regards, -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 14:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, she's getting on a bit and was never a professional member of the armed forces, unlike (say) Prince Phillip, who was a naval officer in his own right, and Princess Anne, who's quite a bit younger. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 14:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't necessarily mean now, but she was only (!) in her 60s when she stopped wearing it for Trooping the Colour! Also, she served in the Auxiliary Territorial Service in World War Two -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 14:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

...the ATS was a voluntary institution I believe? ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 14:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It started off that way, but became the women's branch of the Army, from what I understand -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 14:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

She wasn't conscripted into it, if that's what you mean. It was a paid job, though (our article says the women serving in the ATS got 2/3 the pay of equivalent men). "Voluntary" in a military context usually means non-conscripted rather than unpaid. --Tango (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You may find List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II#Military ranks useful. It doesn't answer your question, though. --Tango (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

She's the Queen and can wear what she likes! --TammyMoet (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

This page says: "The Queen first rode Burmese (the name of her horse) and continued to do so until 1986. Her Majesty then decided that rather than train another charger for this distinguished role she would be driven in a phaeton which had been build for Queen Victoria in 1842, and take the salutes on Horse Guards and at the Palace from a dais. The Queen no longer wears her uniforms which were essentially habits designed for wear on horseback." Alansplodge (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth joined the ATS as an honorary second subaltern in February 1945, when she was two months shy of 19. Our article notes that the service began as a volunteer organization (i.e., all members served voluntarily). The National Service Act of 1941 provided for conscription of unmarried women between 20 and 30 for service either in military bodies like the ATS, in industry, or in agriculture. The act was expanded later to cover ages 19 - 43, and to apply to married women. --- OtherDave (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Passing by the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior on the right side

At the wedding of William and Catherine, the procession passed by the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior on its right side. Why the right and not the left?BobF (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, in British ceremonial, the right hand side takes precedence over the left. The most senior British regiments occupy the "right of the line" on parade - see British Army order of precedence. When both a battalion's colours are carried, the Queens Colour is on the right and the Regimental colour is on the left. Alansplodge (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

In England, generally speaking, do carriages drive on the left side of the street as cars do, or do they drive on the right side? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Not to be confused with The Cenotaph in Whitehall, London. Richard Avery (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

On the left. However the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior is set in the floor of Westminster Abbey by the west door. BobF means the procession of royalty, choir and clergy rather than the carriage procession. Alansplodge (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

As the top of the tomb is towards the door (well at least the writing is the right way up when leaving the abbey) did they in fact go round the left hand side! MilborneOne (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You can see the bridal procession (or more correctly "recession" as they're on the way out) going to the right of the tomb here at 1:07:10. Alansplodge (talk) 21:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, that had to pass it on one side or the other. There isn't necessarily a reason. (Although, knowing that kind of event, there probably is one...) --Tango (talk) 22:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Ther real reason is probably that someone did it that way once and its been done the same way ever since. It's hard-wired into the British mind-set to create traditions out of the most minor events; King George II once stood up by accident at the start of the Hallelujah Chorus and we've been doing the same ever since. Alansplodge (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The Spanish changed their whole way of talking, forever, because of the lisp one of their monarchs of yesteryear had. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Our article on ceceo, citing a pretty authoritative-looking discussion at Linguist List, is sceptical about the king's lisp story. --Antiquary (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, so is QI. And that's like Stephen Fry, so it must be right. Seriously though, it would be a bit weird if it were true because it's not a lisp; a long list of words aren't affected at all. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 11:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Image production questions

I have seen pictures composed of many smaller pictures, such that these are almost like pixels—but not actually pixels as the small pictures are identifiable as figures if looked at closely. I have two questions about this technique: (i) Is there a name for this technique? and (ii) Is there any software to allow me to achieve this effect easily? Thanks.--Leon (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

See Photographic mosaic. Exxolon (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Comparison of photo mosaic applications and Mosaic Creator download with video tutorial (not tested). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

May 1

Analogue Signals

Why are they turning off the analogue signals? jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 09:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to the change over from analog to digital TV in Australia, and the subsequent removal of the analog transmissions? Mitch Ames (talk) 09:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 11:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a waste of resources to have the same things transmitted on both digital and analogue, so you need to choose one or the other, and digital TV has several advantages over analogue TV (the biggest one being that you can fit more channels in the same amount of the radio spectrum). See Digital television#Conversion from analog to digital for some more information. --Tango (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't checked the situation in Australia, but in the UK we were told it was also so some frequencies could be released for other uses. It would be nice if I could find a frequency usage chart. Astronaut (talk) 14:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

... and in some parts of the UK, turning off the analogue signal means that we now have no signal at all except from a satellite (at twice the cost for reception and recording). I hope others are seeing some benefit. apologies for the grouse! Dbfirs 17:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem with the grouse - they're delicious. But I wish you'd keep your damn capercaillies off the lawn! 90.201.110.85 (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Bits of radio spectrum is one of the resources I was talking about. --Tango (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Crossword creation

How are crosswords made? I know someone thinks up the clues but how does it get from there to the grid? How much is computer generated? Does the creator give a computer twice as many clues as a puzzle needs (so that it can find at least one set that all meshes together) and then the computer works out how to fit them all together to get one puzzle? Dismas|^(talk) 10:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Two commonly-used applications, at least for UK setters, are Sympathy and Crossword Compiler. These can either generate a complete grid from scratch, or setters can ask for certain words to be included. for example if they have a particularly good clue for a word, or of they want to include a number of words based around a theme. I believe some setters still work entirely by hand, using trial and error, but this is rare nowadays. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Working by hand is probably more common than you think, especially for compilers of cryptic puzzles. A limited range of standard 15x15 grids is used, each with their own merits. The compiler will first select one of these and fill it with words, starting with any that s/he particularly wants to include as part of a theme, also making use of homographs and homophones where appropriate (which a computerized compiler will not favour). Only then are most of the clues written.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

My comment wasn't entirely guesswork: it's partly based on conversations with some setters of cryptics in UK national newspapers. For example, in his "Crossword Manual" (2006 edition), Don Manley says: 'Although I still occasionally use pencil and paper ... I now use a computer to help me with grids and clues". Crossword setting is not a well-paid occupation, and many setters prefer to use software to help with the time-consuming and sometimes tedious job of filling in the grid, leaving more time for the more creative business of clue-writing. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a great documentary on crossword culture, history, and making, called Wordplay, which is really worth looking at. It shows the creation of at least one New York Times crossword from scratch by a master creator (Merl Reagle). In the documentary, he starts with the long words, and then starts to work out the smaller bits and the overall structure from there. It looks laborious and difficult, but the guy in question is also just incredibly gifted at wordplay. I wouldn't be surprised if the Times crosswords are all hand-created, though I also wouldn't be surprised if lesser crosswords (for the Times is really the best at this) are computer generated. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You may find the John Galbraith Graham article enlightening. I have wrestled with his puzzles for years and find them most enjoyable. And he is most definitely not a computer! --TammyMoet (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure whether machine/person made but some crosswords but a lot of crosswords have a symmetrical design/some form of symmetry going or at least the Guardian does - oh and guardian.co.uk/crosswords is brilliant for all types of crossword, especially for learning cryptic ones as you can 'cheat' and half-start the grid to get yourself going (i'm terrible at cryptics but love trying them).

New York Times crosswords are indeed created completely by hand, and the creator is always credited both in the newspaper and in later compilations. It was once estimated that the crossword earned the Times more money per square inch than any other feature: something like 15% of NYT subscribers claimed that the crossword was the main or only reason they subscribed, and compilations of NYT crosswords often top the non-fiction paperback best-seller lists. One crossword creator claims to use only three tools - paper, pencil, and dictionary. --NellieBly (talk) 05:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

And they also published a crossword dictionary, so it's the cash cow that keeps on giving. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Calligraphy

Is there a website where you write your name in English and it form your name in Arabic calligraphy and in any shape like fruit, animal or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.155.226 (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

[Link Redacted] are fonts and programs for arabic calligraphy, learning, typing and editing. (None tested). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed the link, because it has been identified by Web of Trust as being a phishing/spam/malware site (see report at Web of Trust website). Redacted link may be found here: [2] Proceed at your own risk! Falconus^{p t c} 00:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that precaution. I visited the link with no observed ill effect. However it contains a large number of further links, which is where the danger lies. As stated, I did not test them. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You may find Samples of simulation typefaces helpful, I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

communism

why do british people say that "communism was a red herring"?? Sally james langley (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Do they? In what context have you heard or read this? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

We don't, as far as I'm aware. A British person may well have said it (it's a rather bad pun and we are good at bad puns!) but it isn't a standard saying. --Tango (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It's an idiomatic phrase meaning misguidance, false clue, Wrong info. See Red herring the 'red' also applying to the communistic symbolic red. Red square ,redflag etc.190.56.17.105 (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Red Square was 'red' before the communists got there - the idea that they were responsible for its name is a red herring! AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Much appreciated! I like it. 17.105.Phalcor (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, a British person said it in a movie (several times, IIRC) and it may have become a minor meme of some sort. The person was the actor Tim Curry and the movie was Clue (film). I am not aware of the line being used prior to that film, and it quite likely became a minor catch phrase after it. --Jayron32 00:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2

Oldest BLP?

Other than supercentenarians notable solely because of their great age, who is currently the oldest subject of a BLP on Wikipedia? —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 05:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The oldest living person is notable, so the answer should always be at the top of List of living supercentenarians. Dismas|^(talk) 05:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Sorry, I misunderstood the question. So you're looking for someone who is old but not notable only for being old, right? Dismas|^(talk) 05:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I googled [oldest living actors 2011] and the answer for that profession, at least appears to be Frederica Sagor Maas, who's 110 going on 111. She's number 71 on List of living supercentenarians, of which only a few actually have articles, so the answer should be easy to determine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Dismas, yes, I was wondering last night who was the oldest notable living person on Wikipedia was, then I realised that supercentenarians would automatically be notable, so decided to exclude them (unless they were notable for other reasons). Bugs - Freerica Dagor Maas is going to take some beating, thanks! Unless anyone can do better...

Incidentally, looking at category:2011 births, the youngest BLP is currently Princess Josephine of Denmark, by 26 minutes from her twin brother. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 05:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Given the list of the super-elderly, would it make sense to create an article with the "super-young", i.e. notable living individuals under some arbitrary age, such as 5 or 10? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly there could be a list of children who are notable for their own achievements rather than just being born into the right family (i.e. notable from birth), such as Shirley Temple would have been if WP had been around in the early 1930s. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 06:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Mutya Orquia seems to be the youngest meeting that criteria at present. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 06:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

"...those criteria" or "...that criterion". Caesar's Daddy (talk) 06:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Oops, yes :-) —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 07:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Or "them criterions". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

^{As in "Them dang criterions have been diggin' up the lawn again"? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.208 (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)}

It appears the answer would be Leila Denmark, who's 113, and was co-developer of a whooping cough vaccine in the 1920s or so. Hence she might be notable for something besides just being old. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Is the Abbotabad compound on google earth?

Is the Abbotabad compound on google earth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.190.133 (talk) 12:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried looking for it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Just Google it![3] The satellite photo on Google Maps shows little detail beyond a rectangular compound.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That rectangular thing apparently is the Military Academy. Precisely where the bin Laden compound was in relation to the PMA is currently unclear. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)The PMA and Kakul Road show up on Google Maps fairly clearly. Not knowing exactly where the bin Laden refuge was in relation to that, it's hard to say. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

We had a map on the "Death of..." article last night. No idea where it's gone to now though. Dismas|^(talk) 19:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This morning's news reports were saying the compound was "100 yards" from the Military Academy, although I would imagine that was 100 meters. 216.93.212.245 (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

BBC use Google here DuncanHill (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Using that BBC link and Google Maps, I was able to locate it quickly. There's a marker on it as well once you zoom in enough. Dismas|^(talk) 03:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, within the last 24 hours, the OBL hideout has been labeled. (I'm assuming it wasn't labeled previously. If it was, the "deathers" might have a point.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

And I was thinking that if that marker had been there all the time, why did it take 8 years of military intelligence when they could have just looked it up on Google maps? Astronaut (talk) 11:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't exactly jump out at you unless you know what you're looking for. And with OBL, the Pakistani secret service kept tipping him off when there was any risk, so although they knew about it for some time, making sure he was physically there and wouldn't get clued in was the tricky part. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, Citation Needed. My God, do you have any evidence for any of your assertions? While it's generally agreed that there are Al-Qaeda sympythisers in the Pakistani military, has there been any evidence that they ever knew where Bin-Laden was? I didn't think so. Buddy431 (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Try reading some of the coverage,[4] and otherwise try to confine your personal attacks to the talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

What personal attacks? Buddy431 is quite correctly asking you to provide references for your assertions, because you hardly ever do so. If you see that as a personal attack, you need to stop being so defensive. One way is stop treating the ref desks as your own personal chat room with the rest of the world. You having a dozen or more bites at the cherry in a single thread is far from uncommon. Thread after thread after thread ..... If you had less to say about every damn topic under the sun, and nothing to say about the majority of them, you wouldn't expose yourself to the reactions you seem to thrive on. A couple of years ago I characterised your approach as "attention-seeking" and I've never had any reason to change my mind. And before you go off the deep end about that, it was not a personal attack; it was a label I applied to your behaviour. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't see the stupid comment he made on my talk page, nor the citation I added to show y'all my source and which proves what a stupid comment it was - a source which, by the way, was pointed out to me by another wikipedia editor. And by the way, "stupid comment" isn't a personal attack, it's about behavior. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. But why would you bring issues from your talk page here? And why would I know what goes on there anyway? Believe it or not, not everybody craves checking out your talk page 50 times a day - or ever - no matter how much attention you might seek. So anyway, you now agree that Buddy431 did not personally attack you in this thread, as you claimed he did. A retraction might be in order. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. Just that the comment on my talk page was worse than the one above. He attacked without any facts to back himself up, which is ironic given his gripes about citations. Oh, and one more thing, sir... stop already with the dime store psychological evaluations. You have no clue. And besides that, medical advice is against the rules here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the source Bugs, I appreciate it. I encourage you to provide more sources for your assertions in the future. In any case, which comment did you see as a personal attack: [5], [6], or [7]? I really didn't mean to offend you personally, and if I did, I'm sorry. Buddy431 (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

And I'm sorry for getting cross, and I will try and do better with sourcing. The thing is, oftentimes I'm stating summaries of different stuff I've read in different places, and it can be hard to go back and come up with the sources. It took me awhile to find the source I had bookmarked about the duplicity of the Pakistan security service. I should say the "alleged" duplicity. Anyway, I've got a hunch we're going to learn a lot more about that over time, as Pakistan's got some serious 'splainin' to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Airplane

Can anyone tell me why we are told to switch off our cell phones in airplanes especially during take off and landing??? THANK YOU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.236.129 (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

See mobile phones on aircraft. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 16:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I see it mentions social issues as a secondary reason. I suspect it's the primary reason. They don't want fistfights breaking out. Some airlines used to have in-flight phone service. You would slide your credit card into a slot and the phone would release. It cost like 2 dollars a minute, which tended to keep the calls short. I haven't seen one of those for awhile, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised that article doesn't mention interference with the cel network. An engineer with a cel-phone company told me that if you're in the air (or even in a boat in certain places) you have good line-of-sight reception to an unusually large number of cels. This inevitably means that you're within range of multiple cels working on the same frequencies, potentially causing interference and dropped calls.

I assume the guy knew what he was talking about, but this was years ago, perhaps the system works differently now. APL (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't heard of any prohibition on making calls from the top of a hill, so I'm sure the technology now automatically connects to the strongest signal (or the best one that has spare bandwidth). There might be a problem for the network with rapidly moving phones because of the reuse of the same channels in alternate cells, but then why isn't there a ban on phones in trains and fast cars? Planes with a picocell should have no restriction on phones. Dbfirs 18:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

My expereinces show that leaving your cell on is a bad idea because the plane is moving so fast your phone is finding a new cell tower every few seconds, and that drains the battery very quickly. Googlemeister (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm doubtful 'fast cars' are really as much of a problem to the network even on say the parts of the German Autobahnen without speed limits, as planes Nil Einne (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Find me a car that does mach .85 and I might agree with you. Besides, just because there is no speed limit on parts of the autobahn doesn't mean you can drive your car flat out. There is other traffic. And a long road trip at 60 mph will also drain your battery, just that the impact will be spread out over a 10x longer time frame. Googlemeister (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused by your statement. I pointed out that contrary to what Dbfirs said (and my statement was in reply to him/her hence the indenting) even on the parts of German Autobahnen's without speed limits it seems quite unlikely cars are as much as a problem to networks as planes. (I choose the parts of the German Autobahnen without speed limits because that's one of the places you're most likely to find very fast cars moving between mobile phone towers so one of the best places to address Dbfirs point. In a race track cars tend to go around in circles so don't tend to see so many towers and speed trials and record attempts like the Bonneville Salt Flats and Black Rock Desert there probably aren't many towers period. And in any case the number of vehicles involved races and speed trials tends to be miniscule.) And you seem to be saying the same thing. So I'm not really sure why you need more evidence to agree with me. But anyway since you do need more evidence the maximum recorded speed by any car in recent times on the German Autobahnen is around 330km/h [8] (I checked before posting but decided not to bother including as the speed was higher then I thought so the point wasn't as obvious) which is likely to be around 3 times lower then the ground speed of most commercial aircraft. And the average speed of cars even on the parts of the German Autobahnen without speed limits is as you pointed out likely to be much lower. Other then the differences in speeds, fast moving cars also don't have the clear line of sight planes have (sometime I forgot early and came back to add only to find the confusing response). Nil Einne (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I've never seen a commercial flight take off or land at anywhere near to the speed of sound, though I agree that the approach might, in some cases, be faster than Autobahn speed. Dbfirs 08:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Or a military flight either, but the take off and landing bits are a small portion of the total journey. Googlemeister (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

If you're trying to set a land speed record at the Bonneville Salt Flats, hopefully you're not going to be using your cellphone while you drive. :) Franamax (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

technological problems are an excuse, nothing more. Mobile phones are prohibited because someone in the Bush administration got paranoid that terrorists would use them to coordinate a 9/11 style attack. Since there's no actual teeth to the proscription (there's nothing that blocks cell phones, and terrorists are not likely to be cowed by the stewardess' firm request), it doesn't really do anything except inconvenience reasonable passengers. such is life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs)

By my statement above, it is actually more inconvinient to have a dead battery after a short flight then to be denied the use of my phone during said short flight (cell reception at 7 miles up is far from great BTW) Googlemeister (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

true as stated, but phones are not banned because of short battery life, and the government did not pass this rule to keep your cell phone from dying. --Ludwigs2 19:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

"The government": you all talk as if Bush ruled the world. Dream on. They're also banned on Australian domestic flights, the international flights I've been on, and I would assume pretty much world-wide. The Mobile phones on aircraft article, apart from a token nod to other countries, is written as if the US was the only country that exists, or matters. It needs substantial improvement. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Hmm the Bush administration is the reason the British Civil Aviation Authority recommended in May 2000 the portable phones continue to be prohibited? Interesting I never knew the British (or is it the Americans?) invented time travel Nil Einne (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting theory, Ludwigs2, except that for U.S. flights the ban on airborne cellular phone usage under 47 C.F.R. § 22.925 was implemented in 1991—a full decade before the September 11th attacks. Heck, it was three years before Tom Clancy's Debt of Honor broached the subject of flying jets into U.S. landmarks in bestselling fiction form. The regulation was – and still remains – the responsibility of the Federal Communications Commission (charged with managing radio traffic), not the Federal Aviation Administration.

As for why the rule might be more stringently enforced on takeoff and landing—those are the times when things are most likely to go wrong. Aircrew want to have passengers who will hear instructions on the first announcement, they want to have passengers alert to their surroundings (as much as possible), and they don't want small, hard projectiles launched from head height and flying about the cabin in the event of a survivable crash. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

ALright, I withdraw my cynical theory. --Ludwigs2 21:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

On 9/11/01, cellphones were used in violation of the rules, on United Airlines Flight 93. Of course, the flight's rules had already been breached by the hijackers. As far as we know, (1) the cellphones worked fine; and (2) the cellphones didn't cause the plane to crash. The crash was done "manually". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The use of mobile phones on planes has been the subject of ongoing review in Europe. However, it seems many people would rather see the ban continue for a variety of reasons including 'better safe then sorry' and for the sake of a quiet time aboard the plane.

In my own opinion, I regularly fly on Friday evening and I am often amazed by the number of people who feel the need to carry on dealing with emails on their Blackberry/iPhone even though it is the end of the working week; they grudgingly turn them off while flying, then hurriedly turn them on again as soon as we've landed and carry on chasing up their emails. Geez, give it a rest! Astronaut (talk) 11:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

We invent technology for our convenience, and then become slaves to it. I wonder how Americans ever got anything accomplished before, say, the telegraph was invented. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

section on arnold school blackpool famous old boys.

surely bob hesford was not born in 1916? as he would have been playing top class rugby as an OAP - impossible. who was the idiot who could not be bothered to check his facts. Let me guess that the date shown was in fact possibly his FATHERS birth date and he did not go to arnold school but was a famous football goal keeper for Huddersfield town.!!!!! Am i right? tony fawley —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony fawley (talk • contribs) 17:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I made an alteration after reading your comment, but now I see that there are two Bob Hesfords. The rugby player was born on March 26th 1951. Do we have an article for him? Dbfirs 18:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

May 3

What is the purpose of pennies

This question is a spin-off of another question I asked on the Mathematics desk regarding coin counting. Why do we (in the U.S.) still use pennies? They're not worth the metal they're made from, and are (IMHO) an unnecessary hindrance on every-day transactions. In the extreme, I've seen car dealerships advertise vehicles for sale as "only 16,999.99." What the hell does 1 penny matter when they could've easily, and more accurately, said "$17,000." In the less extreme, there are adult beverages that sell by the six-pack as $5.99", resulting in extra time spent (after tax and all) by the cashier making change for an odd number. Why not round everything up to $0.05 or $0.10? Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 04:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't answer the first one (inertia and tradition, I guess), but advertising items for $16,999.99 instead of $17,000 is done because it works. People may know intellectually that $16,999.99 is the same as $17,000, but give them the choice and they're still more likely to buy the $16,999.99 car than the $17,000 car. Lest you snicker at those old fogies who get suckered into this, keep in mind that the most likely demographic to be bamboozled by this type of numeric nonsense is young males 16-29. In fact, all advertising works better on young men than on any other group. Marketing analysts say it's the combination of a lack of inherited brand preferences; sexual insecurity; and overconfidence in their own intelligence and ability to be influenced, which causes them to let their guard down. That's why there are so many shows specifically targeted to that demographic these days: advertisers are more interested in susceptible viewers than general numbers. A show that gets 600,000 viewers but 500,000 in the target demographic can sell more product than one that gets 1,000,000 viewers but only 300,000 in the target. --NellieBly (talk) 04:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

There's the page Penny debate in the United States. Not sure if we have equivalent pages for other countries. Pfly (talk) 05:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

A further reason for pricing (low-cost) items at X.99 (in jurisdictions like the UK where advertised prices include any sales tax so are the actual amounts to be paid) is that it usually requires the cashier to ring up the price and offer the .01 change, and subsequently to put the money received in the till so that its content matches the internal till record. If prices were rounded up to X+1.00, many more customers would proffer the exact amount, and any who did not wait for a receipt would enable a dishonest cashier to refrain from ringing up the sale and then to undetectably pocket the money. A relative who works voluntarily in (UK) retail shops has been explicitly advised of this more than once. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.85 (talk) 05:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

In other words, the math is intentionally obfuscated, just so the cashier is required to open the till in front of the customer and give them some amount of change back? Interesting theory. Any sources to back that up beyond "A guy I know once had a boss who I think told them something like this". --Jayron32 05:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

(EC with following post) Well, rather than your humorously exaggerated scenario, the specific source is in fact my elderly mother, who has worked in various charity shops for a couple of decades or so. Since she has sometimes had the responsibility of pricing (donated) stock, she necessarily has had to be taught the shops' pricing policies, and since I too have worked in retail shops (though bookshops, in an era when book prices were always determined by the publishers), our multiple conversations on the subject have been quite specific, but as I've tried and failed to find online corroboration on past occasions this subject has come up here, you'll just have to judge my trustworthiness on the basis of my past record :-) .

Incidentally, prices of £N.99 are extremely common in the UK, and one increasingly popular chain prices nearly all its stock at £0.99, which is reflected in its name. That chain posts notices offering customers a £5.00 reward for reporting to the management any instance when they are not offered a receipt. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.85 (talk) 06:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like BS to me. I have to say, traveling in Germany a couple of years ago, I was amazed at how many of their prices are rounded to convenient values. It honestly took me a couple of days before I even realized there was a 1 eurocent piece. It made life so much easier when an item that cost five euros was actually priced at exactly five euros and not 4.99. It made me realize how insane the American system of using pennies in every cash transaction of any size really is. APL (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

So, you dismiss observations explicitly specified as about the UK, made by someone who has resided there for half a century, as bullshit, on the basis of your recent brief visit to a completely different country. How refreshingly . . . self-confident of you. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.208 (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

There is an interesting article here, which suggests that the practice originated in the 1880s with the growth of advertising in newspapers. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

In my limited overseas experience, the Value Added Tax (i.e. sales tax) was built into the price, which made for a nice round number - with the downside that you didn't know what percentage of your purchase was going for the item, and what percentage for taxation. Americans don't much care for that. They want to know what the tax is. The only exception I can think of is at concession stands at ball games or movies, where the tax is built in and the amounts are usually in multiples of 25 cents. There, speed is of the essence. The .99 thing is quite old, and it's not really fooling anyone. If I'm paying 3.99 and 9/10 for a gallon of gas, I'm paying 4 dollars a gallon. But the 3 just sounds so much better somehow, even though it means that I'm simply paying 39.99 for 10 gallons vs. 40 dollars. 1 cent difference. And as for getting rid of the penny, obviously for credit card transactions it doesn't matter, as there are no coins involved - and for cash transactions, I'm sure people wouldn't mind if 98 cents were rounded DOWN to 95 cents, but rounding UP to a dollar would be objected to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Americans don't "want to know what the tax is". Most people don't give a care, and those that do already know the tax rate in their state. (I think it's 6% here.) And in any-case, all those numbers show up on your receipt. Retailers choose to advertise their pre-tax numbers so that they look lower. Especially compared to online sales, and sales in neighboring tax-free states.

I'm also not convinced that rounding prices from 0.99 to 1.00 would be a big deal. Prices go up all the time. If the penny disappeared, some retailers would just roll it into their normal price increases and others would take is as a great opportunity to advertise how they were "not cheating their customers" by rounding down. Sure people would write angry letters to the newspapers for a couple of weeks, but they do that for everything.

Or they could do it like gas stations already do it, and list the prices with penny's included, then simply round up the total.

Give people a couple weeks without pennies and they'll be happier. Some other countries have already made this plunge and (despite the fact that before it happened they made all the same arguments you just did) they think we're crazy for still sticking with the penny. APL (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Since decimal currency was introduced in Australia in 1966, the one and two cent coins have been abolished because their existence became pointless, and there is now some discussion of abolishing the five cent coin. It seems the sensible thing to have done. We still have items with price tags of $3.99, etc. If one pays cash, the transaction is rounded to the nearest five cents. Because one rarely buys such small items alone, it's usually a total of several items that's rounded, so it all balances out. No-one is ripping anyone off with it. No-one is complaining. So, as the OP asks, why DOES the USA allow the inefficiency of pennies to continue? HiLo48 (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Because we are not always lemmings who just stand by silently and let the government (and merchants) rip us off. The argument "it balances out" may be theoretically true, but it doesn't wash for the average citizen. We want our 1 or 2 cents change back. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you, really? What do you do with it? You can collect it and take it to one of those coin-counting machines they have in grocery stores, but in my experience most of the money when you do that comes from quarters and dimes. Cent coins are little more than metal trash. And because that "see a penny, pick it up" poem has been drilled into our heads, we feel bad about getting rid of it, which makes it even more of a nuisance. And we're not even allowed to melt it down for the metal. --Trovatore (talk) 07:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, "it balances out" wasn't meant as an argument. It was a statement of logic. The next bit, where I said "No-one is complaining.", is simply true. As the self appointment spokesman for "the average (American) citizen", can you tell us how much that hypothetical person has really thought about this stuff? Obviously the OP has. Maybe he isn't very average. HiLo48 (talk) 08:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

They would raise holy hell if it was suggested that they would have to pay more money for something just because their government decided to do away with the penny. Now, if ALL such items were "rounded down", I'm sure the citizenry would be happy with it. I'm not saying that's logical. But while there's been a lot of talk about it, there's been no action. A politician openly endorsing it would probably need to start working on his resume for his next job after he gets voted out at the next election. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Very often I put the odd penny straight into the charity box that many shops have on the counter. Otherwise I put it in my pocket and then into a jar at home that I take to a Coinstar machine a couple of times a year. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and that's your choice. Americans don't like having their choices taken away by bureaucrats. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Google [do away with pennies] and you'll see plenty of opinions. Near the top is the one I had thought of mentioning specifically: That people assume the businesses will figure out a way to ALWAYS have it "round up". That may not be logical either, but it's a good example of American skepticism, about not being "lemmings" where their money is concerned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually it seems you are since I'm pretty sure you are wasting more money by keeping the penny thereby raising costs for your government and stores and you usually don't actually know what you're going to pay for something until you get to the cashier (since lets face it whether Americans or anyone else trying to work out the price by adding tax mentally just takes too long to be worth it for most people)... Nil Einne (talk) 06:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The way our brains work, we remember 16,999.99 as "16 and something", not as "17". So, we remember it as being far cheaper, not just a penny cheaper. As for why governments don't eliminate pennies, the fear is that grocery stores and such would all round up, and that this would drive a round of inflation. (Besides, without pennies, what would rednecks use when they run out of fuses ?) StuRat (talk) 08:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Precisely, as I just noted above, after you. Americans don't automatically trust businesses or the government, or any particular special interest. Nor should they! The 9-stuff gets especially silly if something is priced at 999.99 instead of 1000.00. Psychologically they're trying to make you think you're saving a hundred dollars, when you're only saving one cent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

But, as I already said above, in Australia we've eliminated one and two cent coins, but still have prices like $3.99. Eliminating the small coin doesn't stop the use of the unit as a marketing tool. HiLo48 (talk) 08:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure. In America that's not an issue. The issue is liable to be the perception that the businesses are stealing pennies from us, that they'll figure out a way to make everything round up instead of down. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The simple solution if you really don't trust your businesses is to include it in any legislation dealing with eliminating the penny. Sadly that's too logical and/or involves government being evil even if it's saving everyone including the stores money so isn't acceptable to Americans. Nil Einne (talk) 06:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Please do not claim to know how brains work, especially mine. The 9s in 16,999.99 are there to make the 16 look small in comparison. A demonstration: which digit do you notice first here: 99999979999 ?. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Which digit do you notice first here? 77777797777 ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Which digit do you notice first here: 11111181111? It's the odd man out that we notice, and things don't have to be smaller per se to be the odd man out. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No, they just have to stand out. Whether 16,999.99 or 61,999.99, the "61" stands out. For 99,999.99, the absence of a leading "100" stands out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I should have warned you that my demonstrations never work. It's my Michelson-Morley syndrome. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

For change, and to pay for small chains. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time!  11:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

At least we got rid of the half cent 150 years ago. Googlemeister (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention 2 cent and 3 cent coins, and 3 cent paper money. $3 bills, and $2.50, $3 and $4 coins. And a dollar which was not a dollar. Collect (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

People kept getting cut by that diametric edge. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

We got rid of the decimal halfpenny in 1984 (when it was worth about what the penny is worth now in real terms), and I don't remember there being many complaints at the time. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

In the United States, highly visible policy decisions tend to be made on an emotional rather than a rational basis, and the prevalent emotions when it comes to government decisions are anger on the part of the electorate (urged on by the media) and fear on the part of the policymakers. So, in essence, policymakers are afraid to abolish the penny, so it persists. Marco polo (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The government should fear the people. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You have no idea how your political system works in practice ,only having an idealised ,sanitised version in your head taught at primary school level ,so your argument .is invalid.Hotclaws (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoever you're talking to, a lot of these guys got fired this past November. Another thing we learned in primary school was how to type a legible sentence. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no "the people". There are groups of people, who have interests which may be in conflict with other groups of people, or with the well being of the Republic, or with their own well being (i.e. they think they know what they want, but in the end if they got it they would be worse off). Read Federalist No. 10 (both the Wikipedia article and the original) for a good perspective on this. Perhaps you are correct if you mean "The government should fear that the people, if given to their own devices, would screw everything up." If however, you meant "The government should fear the people because the people elected them, and so the government should do whatever the people want", then I'm not sure that makes for an effective, beneficial government, for any given definition of "people", which usually means "Whatever group shouts the loudest" in the political sphere, and not "everybody", which doesn't exist as a political voice. --Jayron32 15:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

In the US, at least, the government reports to us. Once they stop fearing the electorate, we're in hugely serious trouble. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

They don't fear the electorate. They fear the people who fund their campaigns. Don't be confused about who the politicians answer to... --Jayron32 19:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

We elect them to do a job. If we don't like the job they're doing, we fire them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No, their job is to return money and political favors to people who fund their election campaigns. They get elected by preaching empty demagoguery and demonizing their opponents; people vote for them because the candidate tells them exactly what they want to hear, preferably speaking in vague terms with no specific plans of action. The only reason they get elected is because their empty demagoguery reaches enough of the people who agree with it, and thus they are beholden to the people who pay for the TV commercials to push the empty demagoguery. I'm quite shocked you believe that politicians fear upsetting the individual voter... We don't fire them; the moneyed interests that funded them previously simply stop giving them money, so they can't get their message of empty, vague promises to the ears of enough of the people. That's how they lose elections. You don't honestly think that enough people sit down and scour through the voting records of their congressmen before deciding to re-elect them, do you? I'm sure some tiny, insignificant portion of the people do that, but most people just want to vote for someone who spouts platitudes regarding a few key touchstone issues, and aren't really interested in who does the best job of actually governing. --Jayron32 20:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That's excessively negative. While I agree that money plays too much role in US politics, it's not the only factor. If it was, then self-funded candidates like Ross Perot would be unstoppable. And well-funded candidates do get voted out of office, if they do a poor enough job to become conspicuous. Still, direct democracy (where we all vote directly rather than have "representatives" vote on our behalf) would do away with the bribery aspect prevalent throughout US politics. StuRat (talk) 06:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is really sure why .99 cent pricing works better than whole numbers. It's been shown to be true, but nobody's sure why. I'm not sure throwing out our own theories is worth anything at all. Bickering over them is surely pointless, since not one of you have a real leg to stand on in this case! In any case, the relevant article is Psychological pricing. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

HiLo asks why America sticks with our outdated system that costs taxpayers money.

Bugs is answering the question here. If you image that everything he says is prefaced with "Many Americans Believe..."

While I know I just did above, there's no point debating here. The Reference desk does not control US policy. Whether Buggs is right or wrong, it doesn't matter. Just take him as an example of a large segment of our population.

To take it one step farther, and speaking in general (I don't want to put words in Bug's mouth.) improvements for the common good will be disregarded as "Big Government", fascist, and assumed to have huge hidden costs for the middle-class individual. (Even if the same plan has been deployed in other countries with an over-all cost savings to the middle-class.) In fact, to a surprisingly large segment of our population, any suggestion that USA isn't already in a state of god-like perfection will be met with a demand that you "Love it or leave it."

A large part of American politics (and by extension TV news) involves tweaking people with this sensibility.

With an atmosphere like that, you can see why a politician might hesitate to introduce any change in policy that is so very visible to the average voter. It costs us money, but four more years minting pennies and printing single dollars isn't going to bankrupt us, so they don't kick up a fuss and let the next guy worry about it. APL (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You implicitly brought up the dollar coin, and that's another sore subject. Typically when Americans get one in their change, they dump it as soon as possible. Bills are much more convenient, and unlike our European lemming counterparts, American males don't like the idea of having to carry a purse just to handle dollar coins that bureacrats have imposed on us. Hence, the dollar bill stays. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Well us Canadian males seem to have adapted to one- and two-dollar coins just fine. We use an innovation called "pockets" to carry coins. Aren't lemmings the animals who refuse to change direction, and end up running over cliffs? Franamax (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Are suspenders still in fashion in Canada? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't tell ya. I wear my clothes over decadal timescales, so probably sometimes yes, sometimes no. If I spend $200 on a pair of dress pants and suspenders are the best way to hold them up, then suspenders it is. I define teh cool, I don't chase it. :) I do hope you're not implying that American men have decided there is no need for pockets in clothing, that seems a rather alarming development, which fashion I'll likely not follow. :) Franamax (talk) 01:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If you eliminated the penny and replaced the dollar with a coin, I would, on average, carry less coins total by count, and probably about the same by weight. Which is why I brought it up. Perhaps I'm not rich enough to be stuck carrying around dozens and dozens of dollar bills that would be unwieldy if converted to coinage?

Also, I'm not sure where Bugs got this idea that European (or Canadian, or Australian, British presumably) males carry purses or change purses. I've been to Germany, UK, and Australia, and I never noticed men using a change-purse. And why would they? Right now my wallet has a grand total of four singles in it. That's about typical for me. I think I could somehow manage to carry four coins without some sort of special coin-carrying contrivance.

Perhaps Bugs needs lots of singles in case he finds himself in a ... gentleman's ... club? :-) APL (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

In fact in Australia and particularly New Zealand a very large percentage of transactions aren't even in cash so many people probably deal with less coins then Americans. BTW more generally in reply to several points but I'm not sure where to fit this in, in New Zealand and I strongly suspect most countries which eliminated 1 cent or equivalent valued coins there was opposition and claims of how the stores were going to rip people off, raise prices etc. However the politicians did their job properly and ignored the knee jerk reactions, everyone got used to the changes and most are now probably happier for it and most of the complainers have long since shut up. My gut-feeling is despite all the nay-sayers above, if anyone actually had the courage in the US the same thing would happen and no one will lose the job but perhaps I'm overestimating the American people. Nil Einne (talk) 06:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Fun fact : According to the chart at United_States_dollar#Historical_exchange_rates and a little math, when the U.S. Half-Penny was discontinued it was worth the 2010 equivalent of 16 cents. (The quarter was worth about eight modern bucks.) APL (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

OP here-I've been doing some further digging around the Interwebs (as my dad calls it), and stumbled across some hotel brands that have an actual "rule" about adding .99 to their rates. The idea being that if your hotel's rate is $125 per night- the same as your closest competitor- making it $125.99 is not likely to drive many customers away. And if you sell, say, 5,000 hotel rooms in a year, then that's an extra ~$5,000 in revenue with no effort. Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 15:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Imperialists?

One accusation I hear many times is that the USA and to a lesser extent the UK and other European allies are pursuing an imperialist/crusader agenda in the Middle East and elsewhere (see here, here and here for example). I see no evidence of this supposed agenda from the western governments or in the western media. Do those making the accusations have any evidence (in reliable sources please) to back up their claims? Astronaut (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see, your second link doesn't use the words imperial or crusade. The third link mentions a Libyan government spokesman using the phrase 'crusader aggression'. The first link has a use of the word 'imperialistic' in a Libyan newspaper. I would think that the use of these terms is metaphorical - presumably nobody thinks the US is literally building an empire in the middle East? 130.88.73.71 (talk) 14:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

What this is about, to no small extent, is what could be called a Christian empire clashing with a Muslim empire. Read about the Crusades, and that will give you a start on it. This stuff has been going on for a thousand years or so, and isn't likely to end until one side destroys the other or they decide to live in harmony and agree to disagree about their religions. If you think I'm making this up, check out Armageddon and google statements from guys like Franklin Graham who are convinced that Christianity vs. Islam will inevitably lead to the "last days". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

As for the "crusader" charge, I don't think that there is any serious evidence that US and other Western powers' actions in the Middle East have a religious basis. Some Muslims notice that Western overseas military interventions in recent years have mainly taken place in Muslim countries. They then conclude that those interventions are hostile to Islam and have a religious motivation. What seems more probable, based on the evidence, is that Muslim countries happen to sit on a disproportionate share of the world's most important resource, oil. There isn't much oil in Afghanistan, but there is plenty of oil in nearby countries, such as Iran and Kazakhstan, and in the home countries of many jihadists who had gathered in Afghanistan (such as Saudi Arabia), so there is a concern that Afghanistan, as a "breeding ground for terrorism", could threaten Western interests in the free flow of oil. So, the "crusader" charge appears to rest on a cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. (See Correlation does not imply causation.)

However, I think that there is some basis, even in Western media, for a charge of imperialism, though not the old-fashioned empire-building variety of imperialism that prevailed in the 19th century. Instead, this is a "new imperialism" based on the projection of Western (and mainly U.S.) military power overseas, largely in the interest of Western corporations, especially oil corporations. See American imperialism. Support for charges of this kind of imperialism has appeared in Western media. See this article from a mainstream media source. However, Western mainstream media are often reluctant to connect the military actions of their own governments with a pro-corporate agenda, partly because those media are in many ways beholden to governments and corporations that would be embarrassed or discredited by such reporting. Noam Chomsky and others have argued that Western (and especially U.S.) media are involved in a project of manufacturing consent for neo-imperialist policies. Still, alternative Western media such as this source do present evidence of Western imperialism. Marco polo (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

War against Islam isn't a perfect article, but may be useful. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Tenth Crusade has more discussion, including on whether George W Bush called for a crusade against Islam, and references from Western writers calling the war on terror a crusade. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Your posts raise the interesting and indisputable point that many Westerners are prejudiced against and/or disrespectful toward Islam, partly for historical reasons, partly due to the inaccurate association of all Muslims with jihadist terrorists. Still, I don't think there is evidence that decisions to go to war have been made on the basis of that prejudice or disrespect. While George W. Bush did use the word crusade, I think that it's clear that he was using the word metaphorically to mean "struggle for a righteous cause" rather than in the historical sense of "Christian holy war against Islam". (Bush later expressed regret for his choice of wording.) The tricky thing is that the word crusade in English has a similar range of meanings to jihad in Arabic. It can mean either "holy war" or "righteous struggle". And, oddly, the relationship between the two religions has a mirror-image quality. A handful of (not representative and mostly not very influential) westerners have in fact called for a religious conflict with Muslims, just as a handful of (not representative and marginally influential) Muslims have called for a war of jihad against the West. Just as most Muslims don't want a religious conflict with the West, most Westerners (including, I think, the most powerful Westerners) don't want a religious conflict with Islam. However, powerful Westerners do want oil. Marco polo (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The OP's post did not mention religion, only geography. The answer is in Marco polo's last sentence. There has been imperial behaviour, all to control oil resources. HiLo48 (talk) 20:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't buy it. The reason the US and allies keep attacking Muslim nations is that they pose a threat, as when:

• Libya did the Lockerbie bombing
• Iraq invaded Kuwait
• Afghanistan and Pakistan "hosted" bin Laden
• Iran provided support for Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists, etc.

When non-Muslim nations, like Serbia, do such things, then we also go after them. It just happens that the rest of world is generally better behaved than Muslim nations (with the exception of North Korea, although, even then, they have only made threats, not actually attacked outside of Korea).

For an example of a non-Muslim nation with oil and an anti-American government, we have Venezuela. They haven't been attacked because they haven't launched waves of terrorists, invaded their neighbors, etc. StuRat (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure the US supporting a coup in Venezuela was just a bit of harmless fun. P.S. Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. Even Bush didn't say the invasion of Kuwait was a significant factor. Nil Einne (talk) 06:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

poopholding

I was recently reading a thread on another forum about so called "poopholding", the practice of holding in ones numbers 2s in for pleasure. Apparently these people do this for days at a time and get some kind of kick from it. I googled the term and a few related hits came up, but nothing authoritative or reliable. I searched wikipedia but couldn't find anything related, only the encopresis article which doesn't really deal with the for pleasure aspect. Does Wikipedia have an article about this practice? 78.119.58.140 (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Might merit a brief mention under Constipation#Psychological. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.208 (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The vulgar and unreliable Urban dictionary defines Poopholder as a butt. Poopholding describes one of the skills to be acquired by a child in Toilet training. One supposes the lesson is easiest to learn if successful poopholding is rewarded by positive parental Reinforcement, but after age 3 people are expected to get their kicks in other ways. BTW you are allowed to use the normal term stool for Human feces here. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Why am I hated?

moved to wt:Reference desk#Why am I hated? --Ludwigs2 23:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Page on Martin Seligman

Hello,

In your reporting on Martin Seligman when he was working at the University of PA you noted that he "enjoyed torturing dogs". Can this be true? And where do you base this fact?

Thank you in advance for your help in resolving this for me.

Sincerely,

Victoria Molcsany —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.161.192.16 (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It was just petty vandalism of the article. It has been reverted. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Einstein at the wheel

Is there any record that Albert Einstein was able to drive a car, or that he had a driver's license at any time? Edison (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I googled [albert einstein car], and one of the first things that came up was this Amazon reference[9] which states that Einstein never drove a car because he was "confused by mechanical things". He did ride a bicycle, although that's a bit less complicated of a machine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

(EC) So how did he get places beyond bicycle range? Cabs? Did his Cousin/Wife Elsa drive? (Sounds so southern/US) Edison (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This quotes a section of a book by Harald Fritzsch which says "...Einstein had insisted on driving. Haller asked Einstein for his driving license, and Einstein really had one!" (Haller seems to be physicist Kurt Haller). If you plan on citing that book as a reference in an article, you should probably confirm from the actual book that this summary is accurate. In addition, various places also talk about this incident, but I can find no evidence that it's anything more than a joke. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 23:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

For Einstein to get a California drivers license, he would have had to be a legal resident of the state. Was he not always a resident of New Jersey after he moved to the US? Edison (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"Einstein was a visiting professor at Caltech for three winter terms only—1931, 1932, and 1933", says Caltech -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 23:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, on reading a scrap of that book online, it seems "Haller" is a fictional (or at least a composite) character (named Adrian Haller, not Kurt), who the author uses as an agent to have physics discussions with Newton etc. Unless someone can get hold of the whole book, you should discount it as a reference. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 23:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

May 4

Question on date

It is not May 4 yet .

184.163.238.18 (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is in Wikipedia time. Wikipedia, being a worldwide website, uses Coordinated Universal Time, (or UTC), which is an agreed upon standard for this express purpose. As of about 50 minutes ago, it is May 4th in UTC. --Jayron32 00:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Your edit summary on this item is too good to just sit there in the history:

"May the 4th be with you."

Very inspired! :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Myself, I prefer a fifth. :-) StuRat (talk) 05:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

After the Fourth, you have a fifth, and then turn to the Sith?—msh210℠ 05:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

And of course, Coordinated Universal Time is Greenwich Mean Time for most practical purposes, since God is clearly an Englishman ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

All your date are belong to us. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Which is of course a reference to Star Wars Day. Buddy431 (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

president stumping

When a sitting U.S. president goes on a trip whose primary purpose is to stump for one or more candidates in upcoming elections, who pays for the trip (expense of flying, extra security for the trip, somewhere to stay, etc., etc.)?—msh210℠ 05:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe tax-payer dollars do cover that. It might be nice if they could pay for it on their own, but, if you need to fly on Air Force One and have a team of Secret Service agents protecting you at all times, it's difficult to pay for all that out of pocket. And, of course, the President is always "on duty" in that he's available as emergencies come up, even if campaigning at the time. StuRat (talk) 05:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, "it's difficult" is not much of an argument (after all, they can find other supporters). But thanks for the info. Any source, by any chance?—msh210℠ 05:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia - most viewed one-day article

Did Osama bin Laden set the one-day record (4.8M) for most article views (excluding pages like the Main Page), or is there an article with more views in a day? To my knowledge, the prior record was Sarah Palin with 2.5M. Ral315 (talk) 06:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)