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

September 26

Term for a type of error in reasoning

Let me start with an example of this phenomenon:

"Bring me your biggest, cheapest beer."

It happens when someone assumes that there is one thing that satisfies two (or more) criteria, even though there probably isn't-- in the above example, maybe the biggest beer isn't the cheapest, and vice versa. I just read about this on Wikipedia like a week ago and I don't even know where to start looking. It's not really a cognitive bias or informal fallacy. I think the name has -ism in it, but that's about all I can remember. Attys (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

There are two variables. If neither one is given preference then there can be two possible answers (to such a request).

You could say bring me your biggest beer or bring me your cheapest beer—unless they happen to be one and the same.

What kind of beer, by the way? I'm a big fan of Budweiser. Bus stop (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't answer the question: It happens when someone assumes that there is one thing that satisfies two (or more) criteria, even though there probably isn't. The superlatives are key, I think. Another example might be: "I'm going to eat the healthiest and tastiest thing on the menu." Perhaps there is no item that is both the healthiest AND the tastiest. Attys (talk) 00:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

There are criteria being specified that do not necessarily coincide. But you have already said that, so I am just repeating it. There is a misassumption of commonality of factors when in fact, factors may not occur together. Bus stop (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It is the fallacy of compound question. μηδείς (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Attys (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If you remove the comma from "Bring me your biggest, cheapest beer," it technically wouldn't be a mistake. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 01:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

And, if you mean cheapest per pint or liter, then the largest size may very well also be the cheapest. StuRat (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Any mistake would be on the part of the wench whose job it is to accurately describe the tavern's fares to the customer were she not to correct any mistaken impressions. 01:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Related failure of logic: "The food at this place is really terrible." - "Yeah, I know, and such small portions." 81.131.53.43 (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No, there are two goals, enjoyable food and the satisfaction of hunger. If terrible means actually inedible, don't eat and refuse to pay. But if it just means bad enough that you wouldn't order it again (like my Dad's last meal at The Golden Lotus (which he finished in its entirety)) it can still fill you. μηδείς (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I often complain about the food, but am still aghast to see them throw it out. I will still eat it, but it would be nice to get a partial refund or another serving prepared correctly. I now eat most of it before I complain, so they can't toss it out. For example, I once ordered a Whopper, put all the toppings on it, and only then found there was no burger under the lettuce, tomatoes, and pickle. I complained, expecting them to give me the missing meat patty, but they tossed out the works, making me wait for them to assemble a new one and then I had to wait in line at the toppings bar again. StuRat (talk) 23:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Then there's "first in, best dressed". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Once the customer has touched the meal the restaurant is usually legally required to throw it out and start again. I had a problem with the Wendy's on Fulton Street always putting cheese on my burgers when I ordered them plain. I once waited five minutes for them to "fix" the problem by scraping the cheese off and giving me new buns--with cheese residue still on the patties. I then had to wait another 15 minutes for new ones. The next time it happened, I opened the burgers up and placed them on the counter, which resulted in the manager complaining that "Now I have to throw them out!" which was exactly my goal. After doing this a few times the manager told me to come directly to him to place my orders. μηδείς (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Central Bank

Continental One Third Dollar Note (obverse)

I wasn't sure where to ask this, but where did the American government get money to pay off services and goods (building transportation/public commodities) before the federal bank was made. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 00:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

From taxation, of course. Ah, but where did the money come from? Well, according to United States dollar, the US started minting coins in 1792. Also, states used to print their own currency. That article could be a good starting point. ←baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

So the federal bank is just a place to store money? because we still have taxes or what difference would it make if we removed it. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 01:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Prior to the USA the Continental government also minted money. I've added an image of the lovely $1/3 bill to the right, because I love the slogan. "MIND YOUR BUSINESS" is better than "In God We Trust" and "E pluribus unum" combined! APL (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You gotta love the concept of 1/3 of a dollar, too; the notes being hand-numbered; and how Congress "paffed" a resolution. :) Unfortunately, the "mind your business" slogan didn't last. It proved to be not worth a continental. ←baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the questioner is thinking of the Federal Reserve Bank, which is not really part of the government proper. The Fed is a central bank which is in charge of trying to regulate the money supply. That's entirely different from taxing and spending, which is what the government itself does. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The fed a private institution? And so when we say national dept, wouldn't that mean the money to whom, the fed? Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 02:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it's congressionally chartered, but independent from the federal executive by statute to prevent political manipulation of monetary policy. 69.171.160.56 (talk) 05:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

As to your original question, you might want to look at United States Note. Marco polo (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Knee down in American Football

I saw a playback of a play by the NE Patriots in which a player was running with the ball but was hit a few yards from the endzone. Although he made it into the endzone still with the ball, the instant replay showed that his knee touched the ground outside the endozone, so they didn't get the touchdown. Why is this -- is this considered a tackle or is it something else? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Once the player's knee hits the ground, they are considered "down" and play is stopped. They had to define some part of the body, so it might as well be the knee. You'll often see this on punt returns, like on the opening kick off. If the player catching the ball doesn't feel that he can get very far (maybe the ball spent quite a bit of time in the air which has given his opponents lots of time to get near him), he will kneel down. This indicates that he's down and not going anywhere. Dismas|^(talk) 03:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

A player is ruled down if contact with an opposing player causes any part of the body other than the hands or feet to touch the ground -- this can include the knee, elbow, rear end, or whatever. The ball is then placed at the position it had at the moment the body part touched the ground. Looie496 (talk) 03:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

But, as Dismas said in certain situations the player can take a knee without any contact and still be considered down. Kicks and the QB are two that I know of, otherwise the player can fall without contact, get up and not be considered down. --Daniel 04:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

A deliberate kneel down is allowed. Some players do that so they can run more time off the clock (for instance this). But in the play from Buffalo/NE game he was tackled. Hot Stop talk-contribs 06:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like he was merely hit and not tackled, but that hit was sufficient to put him "down by contact", so the play was dead and he couldn't get up and run. Note that this is on a running play in which someone has possession. In the NFL, at least, if two players jump for a pass, there may be contact and they might fall to the ground, but it's still possible for one of them to catch the ball, get up, and run. Or at least it used to be. I know this because the Packers did it to the Vikings some years ago, on a Monday night game. I can see it like it was yesterday. ←baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The defense must touch the ball carrier while he is down, otherwise he can get up and continue the play. So, when a punt returner or quarterback opts to take a knee, one of the defenders will jog by and slap his shoulder, to ensure that the play is over. Until that time, the play is still on-going. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about the current rule, but it used to be that in college football a player was down on such a play even if untouched, whereas the pros required a touch by a defender (except for the deliberate kneeldown). ←baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's review the rules. A player is down (in the NFL) if one of the following things occurs:

1. Any part of his body except his hands and/or feet touches the ground after contact with a defender
2. Any part of his body touches the ground "out of bounds"
3. A player willingly "gives himself up" by deliberately "going to the ground", he may be considered down without a defender touching him.
4. A player on a kick return or punt return declares a "fair catch", he is down when he catches the ball
5. A player may be ruled down when none of the above has occured if their "forward progress" has been stopped by a defender and it has been adjudged by the officials that the player stands no chance to continue forward. The ball is marked at the point of maximum forward progress if that occurs.

Wherever the ball is when the above event occurs, THAT is where the ball is spotted. Thus, when a player is touched by a defender, and his knee touches the ground, the ball is spotted at the exact spot it was at the moment his knee touched. If a player willingly goes down (usually by either "taking a knee" or by "sliding") the ball is marked at the point where the player decided to "give up". This comes into play especially on slides, as a player with momentum may continue to slide with the ball some distance; but the ball will be marked at the moment he hits the ground before the slide, if he was adjudged by the officials to have deliberately gone to the ground. In lower levels of football (NCAA (college) and NFHSAA (High School)) the main difference is that a player does not have to be touched by a defender to be considered "down". Otherwise, the rules are the same. Point 5 is important if a ball carrier is met "head on" by a defender and driven backwards before hitting the ground. In that case, the ball is spotted at the point of maximum forward progress and not where he hit the ground. --Jayron32 15:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Supposing a player is running with the ball near the sidelines at his own 35 yard line, and he's hit by a defender but not tackled, and lurches back a couple of yards and goes out of bounds. Is the new line of scrimmage the 35, or the 33? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

A player knocked backwards and out of bounds is marked at the point of maximum forward progress. The closest official ruling I can find is in the NCAA rulebook, Approved Ruling 5-1-3-IV seems to be very close (but not identical) to your specific scenario. The NFL does not publish its full rulebook, but a condensed "digest of rules" which does not address specific scenarios as you outline. I think, however, the NFL rule is likely to be similar here. The "maximum forward progress" rule is generally enforced based on the concept in football known as "impetus"; which is a nebulous (but still important) concept about who is providing the actual motion of the ball itself. If a ball carrier willingly runs backwards, and becomes down, the ball is spotted exactly where he went down, because he carried the ball backwards of his own impetus. If the ball carrier is driven backwards by an opponent, the ball is spotted at the point of maximum forward progress because the impetus for the backwards motion of the ball is the defender, NOT the ball carrier. Thus, a ball carrier driven backwards and out-of-bounds by an opponent would result in the ball being spotted at the point of maximum forward progress. Impetus doesn't require that the defender remain in contact throughout the tackle, merely that he supplied the "impetus" for the backward motion. You can see the NFL definition of impetus here. --Jayron32 04:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

How Much money to create best Saudi University?

Suppose if Saudi Arabia wanted to create the top university in the world (in terms of #1 place in published university ranking table), how much money would they need to pump into a new school (or into an existing university) in order to obtain all the necessary facilities and to "steal" the top faculties from around the world? Edit: More specifically, say if they wanted to have the world #1 science, engineering, medical, humanities, law programs in the world. How much money would they need to spend in order to hire all necessary faculties, pay for research grants and high-tech facilities, etc...? Acceptable (talk) 05:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

QS (one of a number of ranking systems) currently ranks Cambridge as number one internationally. Cambridge operates to a £4.1 billion endowment and a £600 million operating budget (according to our article). Cambridge was formed around 1209, but the nature of the university in British society has changed radically, and many times, since 1800. I'd suggest that your Saudi facility would need at least a 50 year lead time. While academics can be enticed to relocate by funding, they also have other demands. Many academics demand life in a secular society with rule of law, Saudi Arabia is unable to offer this. Many academics also require access to a peer group, and a student body, to replicate the university on a long term basis. A hypothetical university would need to grow into its stature. From a bad web search I can't evaluate, it was suggested that Umm al-Qura University is the number one university in Saudi Arabia at the moment, however, as a theological university it is unlikely to attract the diversity and depth of scholars required to cause it to be ranked number one, without changing its core nature. King Saud University seems to be better placed in the long run for these ends. However, as I noted, Cambridge has had and 800 year lead time in order to develop into what it is. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

[After Edit conflict] Can academics, and academic standards, be bought? There is no guarantee that any amount of money will attract all the best academics. And I suspect you would face some diplomatic/political issues getting the best Israeli academics into Saudi Arabia? HiLo48 (talk) 05:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Further barriers would be non-availability of alcohol (many western academics do like an occasional tipple), and censorship. A country that blocks Google and Wikipedia may not be seen as the best place to conduct research. Can this hypothetical large amount of money buy a way around that? HiLo48 (talk) 05:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You can say that again! Not having a morality police force which arrests and whips people who are seen with the opposite sex in public, or who deny that God is the creator of the universe, or have depictions of religious figures might help, too. 69.171.160.56 (talk) 06:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Some countries have given special privileges to Universities and staff members in the past. Some still currently do: Australia's censorship laws are negotiable for academic research purposes after jumping through a large number of appropriate hoops. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If the goal was to buy up all existing top academics, that would be a rather expensive fee indeed, and may not be possible, because intangibles matter quite a bit in the academic realm (which is obvious by the fact that even the top top top people aren't paid much more than $250K or so by their universities in direct salaries). However if the goal is to build up a top flight research institution, that can be done for a lot cheaper. Why? Because there's been a job glut in the American university system (at least) since 1970, and there are a lot of very top people who are quite desperate for jobs, respect, and money. Will they be willing to relocate to Saudi Arabia? It depends on how much money you're going to throw at them. I know American academics (from top-flight universities) who've seriously considered (even interviewed with) schools in the UAE (who is currently throwing a lot of money at building up one of their universities), and I know someone who decided in the end to take a job in Singapore for the same reason. When you've been an adjunct professor for three years (the lowest of the low of the academic hierarchy), and someone is willing to throw a lot of dough at you, your interest in any job is pretty improved. I'm not sure that those who are not actually on the academic job market realize how bad it is, at the moment. In some fields (err, my field), you're lucky if there are more than 6 jobs in the entire United States that are tenure track — and each of those jobs gets 100+ applications, no sweat. It's an especially bad time right now because of the economic collapse, but even in slightly more flush times (e.g. before 2008) it was a pretty unpleasant scenario, and there were plenty of people who got pretty desperate. You don't need all of those people to start a great university — just enough of them, and the facilities and students to really make the whole thing work. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If you're wanting to get #1 in the list, then you need to understand how these lists work (see College and university rankings). Metrics like good staff-student ratios and library size are easy to achieve with enough money. Some of it is based on impact ratings and similar measures of publications, citations, etc, which is a lot easier if you do your work in English than in Arabic, and there are ways to encourage academics to publish more; buying some academic publishers would probably help as well. Some of it is based on reputation among academics and recruiters: this would be hard for a new institution regarded with suspicion, but you could advertise, entice academics to conferences, etc. The final metric often used is the employment success of graduates - there must be ways to game this, e.g. careful selection of students, agreements with recruiters, paying companies to give internships. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If I were tasked with trying to raise the rankings, I would first splash out on some consultancy from Asian universities that have already had some success in that area. And get the marketing people in. Perhaps they can find a way to suggest that students will enjoy the lively local clubbing scene. (See marketing materials of UK unis.) Itsmejudith (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

We could always combine that with an attempt to eliminate the BA while restricting academic salaries to below cost of living increases and below capital growth; then we can triple student fees… I see your point about asking Chinese academic system consultants. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and they could also enter into partnership arrangements with one of the big American for-profit unis. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You'll also need some help from the film industry, to produce films like Love Story or The Paper Chase. It always help, when it comes to convince others of your iconic value on academics. Quest09 (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Store Inventory: SKU Per Option Combination of a Particular Model

I am helping a company that sells apparel and other branded trinkets. They currently use one SKU for each combination of a any given product. So, if they have a smiley face shirt that comes in 5 colors and 4 sizes, that results in 20 different SKUS. I am pretty new to inventory tracking/ordering, but to me that just doesn’t seem efficient. While this makes it easy to track trends in colors and size, it is more difficult to determine the popularity of a particular 'model'.

The company currently uses Quickbooks to track their inventory, and I can’t help but think that either there is a better way to do it in Quickbooks, or by using different software. Any advice or insight from people who have worked with similar situations?. Thanks, TheGrimme (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Facebook Notification

Everytime I added new friends to my list, there used to be an update on my wall that "Aanusha Ghosh is now friends with so and so". A couple of weeks back, I was tweaking my settings, and did something that disabled those updates on my wall. I've tried to figure out where I went and what option I clicked, but I can't recall anything. How can I revert the change? Please help. Thanks in advance. 223.187.4.231 (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Facebook has made some major changes in the last couple of weeks. It might be those changes which have changed what you see, and not anything you did. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

big brother?

Recently our grocery store installed a few new cameras that are rumored to be hooked up to the local police that are in turn hooked up to Homeland Security. The county buses now have new cameras also, which are also said to be hooked up to Homeland Security either directly or through the local Sheriff. Could the rumored conspiracy of 9/11 be to justify such surveillance capability at the expense of what was said to make America a cut above the rest? --DeeperQA (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

We have an article on 9/11 conspiracy theories. The USA PATRIOT Act has undeniably increased the power of the government to gather information on things within the US. I'm not sure what further answer can be provided, though, as your statement is otherwise heavily loaded with vague hearsay, rumor, and generalities, all of which are unverifiable. — Lomn 17:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ask yourself: why would the Department of Homeland Security want to monitor a grocery store or a bus? How could they possibly come up with the manpower to do so? While it is true that many businesses now have webcams as opposed to Closed circuit television systems, there is no homeland security issue involved with shoplifting or fighting on a bus. Evidence gathered through such means could be passed on to them if it were found to be relevant, but the idea that they are actively monitoring such places is ludicrous. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Haha. With enough computer processing they wouldn't have to have much manpower at all. Individuals could be tracked from location to location, and identified by facial recognition whenever they happened to glance towards a camera. A sufficiently clever computer could create a map of where you've been all day, and link that map to your identity by comparing your face to DMV records.

This database could then be data-mined to flag people who fit a profile, or who simply do unusual things. (Do you photograph government buildings and landmarks for business or pleasure?)

This database could then also be searched by any unscrupulous individuals who have access to it so that they could apply pressure to citizens by threatening to anonymously publish the data. (Did you go out to dinner with a woman who isn't your wife?)

You don't have to think too hard to think of other people who would love to get their hands on such a database when it inevitably is leaked. Everybody from political candidates, to advertisers, to the terrorists themselves would have use for such a database.

I'm not suggesting that this is being done currently, or that this technology is sufficiently reliable yet, but they are definitely working to solve the manpower issue you mention. APL (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean this to be rude, but it is doubtful that our government, even though it is run by incompetent people that behave like baboons, would waste money on installing security cameras where you are to moniter you when they have more important terrorist threats to worry about. Bottles of breast milk being taken on plane is a much higher priority than the cameras at the grocery store (which are probably there to prevent shoplifting). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 27 Elul 5771 18:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Makes me wonder just how many people are needed to watch images from thousands of grocery stores and thousands of buses and thousands of other locations around the USA. And where do they store it all? I can't even get round to watching one series on a DVD box set because I have better things to do. To say these are hooked up to the local police is a slight possibility, but to suggest they are in turn linked up to the DHS is highly improbable. It is more likely that there is a requirement that if video still exists, it must be turned over to DHS agents if requested as part of an ongoing investigation. Astronaut (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I think a lot of this comes down how many people who aren't actually doing anything the government would be interested in are nonetheless convinced they are being spied on. The government simply does not have the resources, or the desire, to spy on every last person in the United States, which as of the last census was well over 308 million people. To monitor everyone would require millions of people in huge data centers staring at monitors all day. I think we would know if there were several million people employed in such an enterprise. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Although I, also, dismiss DeeperQA's rumors as unverifiable, I am disappointed that no fewer than three editors in this thread referred to manpower as a mass-surveillance problem, when they should know that computerized facial recognition systems already exist and are undergoing continuous improvement. As noted in that article, these systems have already been used to notice people "of concern", and once that's successful, the systems could of course be used to track them. The police state of 1984 will be easier from a technical viewpoint to implement than Orwell ever dreamed because of our fancy networked computers. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It's also not the case that these sorts of things are intended for live monitoring. In the UK the proliferation of cameras has been immense; your odds of being live monitored are very low. However they are often used in retroactively tracking down people, after crimes have occurred. They may have a panoptic effect though I'm unaware if studies have been done as to whether people actually internalize the watching. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

See:Surveillance state, Mass surveillance COINTELPRO, and NSA warrantless surveillance controversy. Though I don't think the cameras are directly hooked to HLS, if HLS wanted the feed, they could get it. Public awareness (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

One of the key aspects of conspiracy theories is the ego boost that it gives to its believers. It's more fun to fantasize that the government is spying on you, than to face the sobering likelihood that the government couldn't care less what you're doing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's the nice thing about computer based surveillance. It theoretically can become so cheap that you can keep track of things you don't care about. I doubt it's there yet, but in our lifetimes probably. APL (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

While that may be true for the average no body, its not true for all Bugs. While it has long ended, COINTELPRO, was a program for watching and/or subverting non-criminal citizens, like Fred Hampton or David Halberstam, and many others who irked the government. To believe that some non-criminal environmental, far right, far left, anarchist, totalitarian, white power, black power, radically religious, abortion rights, gay rights, Native American groups are being watched, and not just in the US, is far from a conspiracy theory, see Mark Kennedy (police officer).

Actually there are probably even government agents watching my wikipedia edits >.> I think Bugs is an agent and he's trying to convince us he doesn't exist! <.< *turns off computer* Public awareness (talk) 08:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm the Urban Spaceman. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Better yet, read the intro to Information Awareness Office. The mass surveillance program many of you said couldn't exist or said was a conspiracy theory, well it was already running in 2002, and some parts may still be being run, so the OP might be correct about the cameras being accessed by the government regularly. Public awareness (talk) 09:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

As Will Rogers said, "Live your life so's you wouldn't be ashamed to sell your parrot to the town gossip." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

They're watching Native American groups in the UK? Nil Einne (talk) 11:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure. At Indian restaurants, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hyperbole aside, the NSA is capable of monitoring gobs of information. This has been made public by a number of people well-connected with it. See, e.g. Trailblazer Project and ThinThread. It's pretty amazing stuff. This is warrantless interception of essentially all internet traffic. This is not tin-hat stuff — this is the sort of thing that comes out in Congressional committees. Those two are technically cancelled now, but there's no reason to believe that there aren't similar capabilities out there. It's disturbing. Some recommended reading: "The Secret Sharer", New Yorker, May 2011.

The tired "why do you mind, if you don't have something to hide?" argument is as pathetically false as it is dangerous. (It is a rare person who does not have something they'd like to be kept out of public knowledge.) Privacy is a key component to developing a well-rounded, stable civil society. Societies without privacy tend to be despotic and oppressive. The founders of the United States were well aware of this and the dangers caused by unwarranted abridgment of privacy; this is the point of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The abuse of privacy is easy to document historically; the security advantages gained from its abridgment are much harder to document.

One does not have to be a Michael Moore-style lefty to see this sort of thing, and this sort of attitude, as distressing. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

That totally misses the point, Buggsy. It's about whether nameless others have a right to be looking, not whether we have anything to be ashamed about. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't have the right to tell someone on the street not to look at me. If I don't want to be looked at, I shouldn't go out in public. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, do you know what privacy means? It has nothing to do with people looking at you in public. Nothing! That's a total non sequitur in this conversation. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you understand why we have WP:OUTING? *edited to make simplier to understand* Public awareness (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The notion of the government being "all-knowing" is wishful thinking. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep thinking wishfully, Bugs. Read the articles I cited and see how you feel about it. The notion of the government only using these kinds of tools for ends you would approve of is wishful thinking. There is absolutely no reason to believe that, and no evidence to back it up. The list of false positives and outright abuses vastly, vastly outweighs the cases of actual plots or crimes that wouldn't have been discovered via other methods. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, maybe your government is "all-knowing". Mine certainly isn't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

About the only thing they seem to know how to do properly is get re-elected. Googlemeister (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yup. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, you seem to seriously underestimate how much knowledge of you they collect on a regular basis. Not terrorists. Not criminals. You. Anyway, Bugs, I think this thing has run its run. For someone so jingoistically proud to be an American, you seem to have no regard whatsoever for the reasoning behind the Fourth Amendment. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe I just don't buy into such paranoia. In any case, it's perfectly reasonable and proper for customs officials to search folks coming into the country. The federal government has a responsibility to guard its borders and protect its citizenry. Considering how incompetent they are at doing that relatively simple task, I have complete faith that they are incompetent at spying on me as well. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I am a laissez-faire minarchist, but I grant that it may be of some relevance that nowadays just one person crossing the border may import "WMD"s on his person. While I oppose customs laws regarding import of trade goods, or such things as searching hard drives for data which could be transmitted by phone but which pose no immediate physical threat, I do see a legitimate reason to protect the boarder militarily. I won't speculate on how best that would be done, it's technical and I have no expertise. But I grant that arguments can be made for screening all entrants for actual weapons or weaponizable materials. μηδείς (talk) 02:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

paradox

Do paradox have solutions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.128 (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes. That's an extremely vague question, so that's the best answer you are going to get unless you specify the paradox. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

i mean, if paradoxes do have a solution, because i read somewhere that an actual paradox cannot exist because if it does, the universe as wouldnt exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.129 (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Paradoxes don't necessarily have to be true contradictions, only apparent contradiction. Many so called paradoxes have well understood answers, Olber's Paradox comes to mind. Generally scientific paradoxes are just gaps in our understanding. --Daniel 19:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

what is the oldest paradox that is not yet fully understood? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.2 (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Impossible to answer with certainty, but Zeno's paradoxes are pretty old and haven't been answered completely. --Daniel 19:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is a List of paradoxes. You can go through it and determine which you think is the oldest unanswered one. --Daniel 19:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x2 I'm not sure what you mean by "not understood". Most apparent "paradoxes" represent a faulty initial conclusion, like Zeno's paradoxes. Modern paradoxes represent thought experiments designed to probe the limits of scientific theories, or demonstrate such limitations, especially in applicability to real situations. Schroedinger's Cat was designed specifically by Schroedinger to show the limits of quantum theory, while the EPR paradox was designed to show the limitations of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Its not that such paradoxes are supposed to be literally true experiments one could perform; rather they are a form of Reductio ad absurdum whereby the limitations of scientific models are explored. It should be noted that the existance of these limitations does not render the models invalid; science is not a set of binary "true/false" conditions, or mathematical proofs whereby a single negative result or inconsistancy invalidates the entire body of work. What these paradoxes show is not the complete falseness of the models, but rather the limitations of them when they are overextended into realms where they may not apply. Such paradoxes may not be meant to be "solved" in a literal sense. --Jayron32 19:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Mathematicians declare Zeno's paradoxes to have been resolved by calculus. "If the paradoxes are thus stated in the precise mathematical terminology of continuous variables (...) the seeming contradictions resolve themselves." see Zeno's paradoxes. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Green Card Marriage

I am editing a wikipedia page on United States marriages. I am specifically looking on green card marriages. I am trying to find a case to help with my research and to act as a reference, but all the websites I found on this topic were all similar to this [1]. I want to find something that is not based on a government agency, but is real life cases that may help make my research more credible. Thank you for your help.

Bed28 (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Try searching in Google Scholar for studies or Google Books.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 20:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

magic

im here in the philippines, is there a magic club here that teaches no experience students to be a magician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.2 (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried joining online forums for amateur magicians? There seems to be a lot. I don't think professionals will willingly teach you anything without even the most basic knowledge first, baka kokontra LOL. I only found one called the 'Inner Magic Club' (the only one from the Philippines listed as a member of the Fédération Internationale des Sociétés Magiques), but they're rather... elite. You can always try hanging out at the local carnaval though. :P -- Obsidi♠n Soul 23:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

are there universities that teaches magic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.128 (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No. Though the University of Kerala in India apparently offered magic as a vocational course for adults.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 01:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Successful magicians invent their own tricks. You can learn a few techniques like sleight of hand and misdirection from others, but ultimately it comes down to your own inventiveness.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

If you have internet access, as you seem to do, there are lots of free online resources, especially videos on sites like Youtube. --Dweller (talk) 10:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Pick a card, any card you like. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

September 27

Tipping your server (US only)

Along the lines of the tipping question above, I read the Tip (gratuity) article and found it quite interesting. In the article under "Unites States" it mentions that sometimes dissatisfied customers may leave a penny tip. Is this kind of thing common? Also, just say you were cheap - what's to stop you not tipping *at all*? What's the worst that can happen? Can they refuse to serve you next time you come in?? I have some really cheap friends and I can't imagine much would force them to tip! BTW I live in Australia, where tipping in restaurants does happen but nowhere to the extent it occurs in the states. 121.44.156.164 (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Leaving a penny as a tip in the United States would be more insulting, in my opinion, than leaving nothing at all. Leaving nothing at all is, already, a pretty strong signal of displeasure. Leaving a penny suggests a kind of extreme condescension in addition to displeasure. There is nothing to stop a person in the United States from leaving no tip. If that person is an obvious foreigner, the waitstaff, while unhappy about the lack of a tip, might recognize that tipping works differently in other countries and might therefore forgive the non-tipper. That said, if the foreign non-tipper ever returned to the premises, they would probably get very slow and unenthusiastic service. However, if a person with an American accent leaves no tip, he or she would be well advised never to return to the premises (or at least not before the waitstaff are likely to have forgotten the non-tip). Leaving no tip, or a penny tip, is a kind of breach of an unwritten contract. If the non-tipper returned and was recognized, he or she might face a hostile attitude, might expect that saliva would be added to his or her food before it was served, and so on. An American would normally leave no tip, or a penny tip, only if he or she was so offended and dissatisfied that he or she never expected to return. A less drastic way of expressing displeasure would be to leave a meager tip: say, a little less than 10% of the pre-tax bill. Marco polo (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

If "saliva would be added to … food " let us hope that there would be legal repercussions if that were seen by someone else and reported to appropriate authorities. I don't believe tipping has risen to the level of that which is mandatory but standards of hygiene, not to mention standards of treating others with dignity, are expected to be maintained even if a "tip" is not received. There are two sides to this story. Employees should be paid by their employer. "Tips" may or may not be considered a part of an employee's remuneration depending on a variety of ill-defined factors. The expectation of a "tip" can carry with it its own set of obnoxious attitudes on the part of employees—so I'm not entirely sympathetic with the poor downtrodden worker. Bus stop (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

From what I've read and heard, the expectation of a tip in places like the US is less to do with obnoxious attitudes on the part of employees but more to do with a strange (at least to those not used to it) system that has developed whereby the employees are underpaid based on the expectation they will be tiped, sometimes even with reductions to the minimum wage. I do agree spitting in someone's food is taking it too far. Nil Einne (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The employer is basically passing along the defects in his business model to the employees who in turn pass the "problem" along to the customer. The person in the middle is the employee. It is upon the employee that the burden rests to remedy or at least optimally cope with the situation. The employees are beholden to two human entities. They can quit the job, they can ask for an increase in pay (from their employer)—but I don't think an option is to treat the customer obnoxiously. They would not even be receiving their measly paycheck from their employer if the customer were not patronizing the establishment. Bus stop (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Well I didn't suggest they should treat the customer obnoxiously (nor did anyone else). But I don't think either of your suggested options are realistic in the US considering the nature of the employer-employee relationship there, the power of each, the labour and unions laws and practices there etc, particularly of the employees we are referring to. More so in the current economy. In other words, while the employee should not treat the customer obnoxiously, it's silly to blame, as you seem to be doing, the employee for the current flawed system in the US or to expect them to be able to change it. Nil Einne (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't think you advocated that they treat the customer obnoxiously. I was just going on with my thoughts. But in response to your last post—I don't think the economy should be allowed to cause a decay in human relations. I have to say again that it is the employee's responsibility not to get caught in the bind in which passing along strenuous hints to the customer that they must tip sufficiently is a permanent part of their functioning as a working person. I am saying that the employee must accept that it is their employer's ultimate responsibility to pay them adequately—not the customer's. Bus stop (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

In fact it's the customer that is the sole reason the business exists. The customer presumably chose to eat in a restaurant setting because they desired an uplifting experience involving enjoyable foods and the pleasure of having other people prepare and serve the food. I find it to be a clash of aims to on the one hand try to enhance the customer's experience and on the other hand assure oneself of a good tip. If the customer choses to tip at the low end of the expected scale, I think that the employee should just accept that. There is no cause for the employee to provide any negative feedback to the customer. This is because the customer did not set up the business model. The customer merely chose to avail himself of a restaurant setting for a meal. The tipping aspect of restaurant-eating has to be accorded a low priority in such a situation. Bus stop (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not really sure what your talking about. No one was encouraging allowing the economy to cause a decay in human relations. Also no one in this particular thread (don't know about below) said that it shouldn't be the employer's responsibility nor that the employee shouldn't blame the employer. My sole point was that it's not the employees fault. And actually I would argue the customer has a lot more power then you seem to give them credit for. What you seem to be missing is that because (as you acknowledged) the customer is the reason for the businesses existance. Therefore it is in the employers interest (in some ways more so then the employee who may be able to look elsewhere for work) to ensure the customer is happy. The customer therefore can refuse to patronise businesses which do not pay their employees a decent wage (instead expecting them to make up for it with tips) and employers will have to change their practices. The customer usually doesn't need to patronise any business unlike the employee who does need to make a living to survive so the option is much more open to them then to the employee. (In reality, attempting to change social customs is not easy.) In other words, it comes back to what I've said all along, your blaming the employee is misplaced. Just to repeat what I said at the beginning, this has nothing to do with whether it is acceptable for the employee to treat the customer poorly since that was never the issue. Nil Einne (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, leaving a penny tip makes it obvious that you know a tip was expected, but you think the service is unworthy of a tip, as opposed to you being from a culture that doesn't give tips, or just being cheap. I have done the penny tip thing myself, when the bill was padded with items we didn't order. This particular establishment had done the same thing previously, and I chalked it up to a mistake the first two times. The third time I decided it was either intentional or extreme incompetence, and I used the penny tip to show my displeasure. I also told them I did not plan to return to that restaurant, and never have (if anyone is curious, it was an A&W diner). StuRat (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Note that restaurants often have a "mandatory gratuity" of 15-20% for large groups, a practice which I despise, as it being mandatory takes away any incentive for the servers to offer good service. StuRat (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It's just because 1. doing a good job for a large group is a pretty tall order, and 2. large groups are too much work without the guarantee of some kind of reasonable tip (and most of their wages are through tips). But hey — if you don't like it, skip those restaurants. They always make it pretty clear up front what their policies are. I'm not sure it takes away all incentive — large groups often overpay and overtip anyway if they've had a good time. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

In England you can refuse to pay the service charge, even if it's added automatically to your check, if the service was particularly poor. (Sources:[2][3] and Tip (gratuity)) --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

"Mandatory gratuities" are generally not mandatory - in many cases you can reduce the amount. I recommend you only do so if you issue a complaint to the manager about the service - it would take a horrendously ill-trained manager to insist on the full tip when there had been a complaint about the service! Collect (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

At my job (not restaurant service) I have had people add 50¢ to a payment made by check for a $10.00 bill. Seriously. I'm pretty sure that is more in the realm of cheapness/cluelessness than deliberate insult. I've also had people who seem to think a tip is some sort of down payment on future services, like they can pay less on the actual bill next time because they tipped today. Perhaps I should mention that I deal with a lot of drunks and people with mental and emotional problems at my job. A penny tip, however, could only be taken as an insult. I would also add that back when I was a cook I had numerous discussion with servers about the self fulfilling prophecy they sometimes engage in. They deliberately give bad, or at least lackluster, service to someone they do not expect to get a tip from, thus guaranteeing they won't get it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I've done the 'penny tip' thing before but only once. The service was horrible and the one thing I especially remember about it was the waitress was gone before the glasses stopped sliding across the table. I don't know if this has been pointed out to the non-Americans or not but wait staff is often paid about half what the regular minimum wage is for that area. There are two minimum wages, regular and that for wait staff. Tips are meant to be a way to insure good service because if the wait staff doesn't do well, they don't get tipped well. Dismas|^(talk) 19:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

A mandatory tip on groups, especially of businessmen and of teens and drunks is quite reasonable. Such groups demand a lot of work and they prevent the server from attending other paying customers. I served 13 Japanese businessman breakfast, they sat in three booths for half the shift making rude demands and left no tip on a $250 tab. That was half my expected pay for that morning. μηδείς (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, those are two relatively large and heterogeneous groups you just insulted (three, if you count the drunks). Anyway, if you leave no tip, the server might just think you forgot. If you leave 1 cent, it's clear you didn't forget but you are consciously pointing out the awful service. I've never seen this actually done. Some people I know will leave a 15% tip for mediocre service and a 20% tip for good service. Not tipping, as a practice, simply isn't done at the U.S., or is at least so rare that I've never seen it. Anyone who acted like that would be thought of as a big jerk by everyone around him. Foreign travelers should be reminded that they are essentially ambassadors for their country. If three customers are the first Australian people a waitress meets, and they leave a tip of less than 15% (or nothing), she might get the idea that all Australians are jerks, much as a stereotypical Ugly American would leave a bad impression elsewhere. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Insulted? I am sorry, who did I call a name? Actually having been a waitress, I think I have a leg to stand on. The problem with large parties that are not families is that there is often a squabble over who owes what and taxes and tip are mysteriously not taken into people's calculations when they order. As for explaining to foreigners the necessity to tip, your point is that I should have learned enough Japanese to insult my customers before they ordered, assuming they no nothing about customs where they are travelling? Those men didn't speak enough English other than to demand the name of the thing they wanted. Should I have refused to seat them? As for your sensitivity on behalf of Australians who might be viewed as cheap, that's a bizarre way of ignoring the fact that the tip is the server's expected salary. Not a favor or a compliment. Her living wage. Waitrons are typically paid half of minimum wage by the establishment where they work, from which are deducted payroll taxes, etc., in full. A typical weekly paycheck might be $15-30 after taxes. Sorry if you find that insulting. μηδείς (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, well that's about the entire point that was gotten across in the book I mentioned below, and that's why I'm not stingy..... She's right though that explaining tipping could and probably would be taken as grave insult by whoever you are explaining it too (actually I can't think of who wouldn't be insulted by that if they didn't ask about tipping custom first). My gf worked as a waitress at Moses Burger in Tel Aviv (damn good eats!) for a while and can pretty much back up this lady's story. Also, I only just noticed your name transliterated into Latin. Apologies I assumed you might be male (my Greek is really rusty... :() Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 00:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the same thing can happen when meeting many Parisian French, thus leading to that stereotype of them being highly obnoxious (most people have only met one or have heard things). Just because you have one sit next to you in Cancun and blow smoke near your face is no reason to think they are all bad. I have never heard of this one penny policy btw, but I cannot think it wouldn't be taken as a grave insult (then again if you don't plan on eating there again, there probably won't be any consequences unless they tell other people who work in that industry about you). Indeed, in fact that experience with Japanese customers is a bit odd as hotels, at least, generally love them. Apparently they always leave their rooms as tidy as they were when the occupants arrived. Maybe these businessmen have been Westernised, eh? ;) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 00:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, restau (French slang for a restaurant as I often forget the spelling) gratuity. Well, my family generally follows a 20-25% tip (especially my pops and I) and I generally leave about that or I sometimes leave 50% for a meal less than 15 USD where the servers are nice (gets you a free meal every now and then). I don't think that our tipping behaviour is normal, but around 15-20% is usual. It is almost unimaginable to not tip in a restau, but it does happen. For a good book on the experience of being a server in the US which deals heavily with tipping experiences (this is one third of the book, the other two thirds are working in Wal-Mart *lightning and thunder* and as a maid), please read Nickel and Dimed. You'll never be stingy with tips again, I know I'm not.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 00:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Mwalcoff up above speaks of foreign travellers being ambassadors for their country, and that some Australians leaving the wrong tip could lead a waitress to think all Australians are jerks. But the frequency of questions here shows that foreigners generally DO care, and find very difficult to get it right. I try when I'm there, but am never certain about what I'm doing. For info of Americans reading this, in Australia, we rarely tip anyone for anything. Nobody is paid a wage based so poor that there has to be an expectation that tips will bring their income up to something on which they can live. It's a different culture. It's what we're used to. If an American thinks I am a jerk if I get it wrong when I really am trying, it's surely the American who is being a jerk. HiLo48 (talk) 00:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Why do we have a practice of leaving a "gratuity" in a restaurant? Why is the practice not to pay a certain price for a product purchased—in this case a meal in a restaurant? Do we know the origin for this practice? Bus stop (talk) 01:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying you are a jerk, HiLo48, I'm saying the waitress will assume you are one for not leaving a tip, because in America, people who don't leave tips are considered jerks. The waitress probably has no idea what the tipping practices are in other countries and, even if she does, probably thinks patrons should do as the Romans do when in Rome. It's not fair that she judges Australians based on a single incident, or even a few incidents, but that's how some people think. Incidentally, I don't think Americans leave "big" tips because the waitstaff are paid less than minimum wage. I think they tip because of social custom and because they think it's the right thing to do. Tipping was standard practice before minimum wage laws. The waitstaff exception was presumably based on the pre-existing tipping practice. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's look at the terms for gratuity in other countries. Pourboire; Trinkgeld. The explanations I have heard is that they were originally payments for your server in a place like a tavern to buy a drink, and the terms in other languages seem to support this. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 01:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's a comment from an Australian: The usual justification for the practice of always tipping waiters something, no matter how poorly they may do their job (mediocre service still gets 10%; abysmal service still gets a penny), is that they're underpaid and hence it's the customer's responsibility to rectify this. Well, hell no! - is my response to that. Why let the employers off the hook? If they can't afford to pay their staff decently, then they should reorganise their staffing so that they can, or they shouldn't be in business at all. If they are just preying on the good nature of the customers in order to get away with underpaying their staff, then they are dishonest operators and shouldn't be in business. If you look around you'll find all manner of other occupations that have a case for claiming to be underpaid, so why isn't the practice of tipping extended to them? I'm not saying one should never tip; if you want to, do so, but do so because you want to recognise exceptional service that is clearly beyond the usual call of duty, not just because it's expected. I get that the penny for poor service is intended to be, and is received as, an insult. But this business of rewarding mediocre service with a tip is just rubbish. It becomes for all intents and purposes a tax, but a tax that never gets into the government's coffers to be used for the good of the whole community. Mandatory gratuities are to be despised, per StuRat, but not just because they take away any incentive for the servers to offer good service. They're also to be despised because "mandatory gratuity" is one of the most ludicrous contradictions in terms imagineable. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

"Mandatory gratuity" is an insult to my Anglican tongue. Bus stop (talk) 01:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Anglican? I thought you were Jewish. :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 01:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You should probably avoid America (and Canada) in your travels, then, Jack. It's all what you're used to, I guess. However, I do want to say that having dealt with shockingly, offensively bad service in parts of Europe (especially former Communist countries), where tipping is miserly, I came to believe that they should declare that as of a given date, customers at European restaurants will start tipping well and waiters and waitresses will start providing good service. Needless to say, my British friends weren't too keen on the idea. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

We are ranting here about what are now ingrained cultural differences. I've spent time in Australia and the U.S. and live in Canada, which is similar to the US in tipping habits. Each of us, as a traveller, has an obligation to fit in with the culture as best we can. We are guests in someone else's "household" and, if we really object to the local practices, we should just not return. If, when tipping, you end up paying, in total, more than you think the meal is worth, don't go back to that restaurant. That the "price" of a meal is in three parts (base, tax, tip) in some countries and only one or two in others, and that the third part may be optional, is merely a variation on a theme. Surely any one can look at the menu price, add 15%, and then decide if the meal is worth the investment. (One might be wrong, of course, but that's a judgement call that can't be made until the meal is finished.) However, if a traveller fails in his obligations as a guest, it ill behooves the host to make a fuss or, indeed, make the guest's experience any the less comfortable because of it. While this was a couple of decades ago, I have had tip money handed back to me in both Australia and New Zealand. In each case, I was embarrassed. I am a quick study, though, and then had to re-learn tipping in the big cities of Australia. Bielle (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Your comment is bizarre, Jack. This is not about rectifying anything. It is how the system works. The alternative of unincentivized waitpeople on full salary is available-no law limits that option other than the law of supply and demand. Children are brought up by their parents being taught how to act properly at restaurants. You go in knowing that the actress is working as your agent, and that tipping her is expected and proper. It is a direct feedback system, and a pleasure to the customer to overtip for excellent service. Bad waitresses don't last, and not because of bad quarterly managerial performance reviews after they are grieved to the union. Customers will switch restaurants to follow good waitresses, and request to be seated in their section. I have eaten in other countries and found the service about as pleasant as a trip to the post office. You don't hear Americans complaining about the system, or waitresses. For foreigners to complain about tipping is for them to complain that they see the transaction directly rather than having it hidden in higher prices for their meals and wait staff who treat the customer as a burden, not a source of mutual value. μηδείς (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

But a big part of the problem is that even when we ask here what we should do (and recent threads show that lots of people do), we get five different answers. Americans seem unable to tell us dumb foreigners what to do with any certainty, even when we mean well. I love visiting America, but I hate the feeling of uncertainty about tipping. HiLo48 (talk) 01:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be an odd notion that the situation in the US is a result of the law or some exploitation of the waitress. Not at all. Waitresses can easily make $200 a night in moderately good restaurants. This is cash in pocket, no records kept. Restaurants can pay higher than minimum wage to their wait staff. It is simply supply and demand--and there is great competition between the best servers to work the best shifts at the best restaurants. μηδείς (talk) 01:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bolsheviks believed that tipping was a demeaning practice. When Trotsky lived in New York, he refused to tip waiters on the grounds it was beneath their dignity. They weren't too happy about that. By the way, let's clarify what the tipping rules are in America:

• Good service -- 20%
• OK service -- 15%
• Bad service -- 15%, then post an angry one-star review on Google Maps. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Or an angry one-star review on yelp. 75.6.243.251 (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I started the other tipping thread. Anyway, I don't understand what a lot of you are saying. I tip based on the actual service. Nothing spectacular but regular service, I default to 15% for larger amounts, and always leave a whole amount for less expensive meals, rounding up, that is, if a bill is $9 in a diner with taxes, I'll leave $1.50, not $1.35. Better service gets 20%, excellent service gets 25%. Kinda poor service I leave 10%, bad service 5%, really bad service, I always leave nothing and I always tell the person that I am not a stingy tipper and why they are getting $0.00. However, I am also a person who doesn't mind confrontation. But I don't get this attitude of leaving 15% no matter what. Defeats the whole purpose if there is one. I would get rid of tipping entirely, but until they change the laws, it is unfair not to tip when service is okay. The waiter is not a lobbyist, they're a waiter (who gets half of the legally set minimum wage); don't protest the system by punishing them for its insanity.--108.46.107.181 (talk) 01:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Medeis, there are a number of reasons why Australians view the US behaviour as fundamentally immoral. These relate to the still influential and socially dominant principles lying behind the now defunct "Australian settlement" (as relevant here) of compulsory arbitration, a living wage for all, restricted profits for small capitalists and petits-bourgeois and a willingness to tolerate higher prices for internally produced goods. From this deeply ingrained perspective, the US practice is immoral and inhuman—and I'm not using these in a pejorative sense. To the Australian sensibility derived from the continuing influence of the Australian settlement, US practice breaks Australian moral codes regarding what a wage is, how a wage is paid, and how a price is presented to a consumer. From an Australian perspective, the US practice undermines elements of what constitutes the social human being—Australians view gratuitous or acted service behaviour to be an insult and have a complex culturally structured conception of what is and isn't insulting. Being mildly insulted by someone serving you is acceptable, for example, if it is an expression of their genuine being at work. Moreover, Australian expectations about centralised arbitration and bargaining, which have been especially cemented in the food culture due to the long and tireless work of the now Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union means that while Australians will be outraged at the wage conditions of US waitstaff, they don't see it as their personal responsibility to rectify an individual waitstaff's industrial circumstances. While some Australians are willing to assimilate to foreign cultures, others recognise the difference in culture but are unwilling to assimilate over this issue due to the fundamental and moral nature of the difference in food service in US and Australian capitalisms. The clash of cultures here is very deep, and at this level of depth of cultural dissonance, many people will be unwilling to culturally assimilate even when a guest. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly not a perfect system because participation is, in most cases, completely voluntary. On the other hand, when I was a cook I remember seeing servers counting their piles of tips at the end of a busy night and thinking to myself that no matter how hard I worked, how busy we were, I get the same thing every night, while they (usually) get a substantial bump on a such a night. One of them flippantly told me once that we cooks made so much money she didn't think we should care. Once explained what I actually made per hour (this was about 13 years ago, $8.50/hr nearly everything made to order and requiring some skill in presentation as well as cooking, required to come up with three unique specials per shift and two soups each day, do baking for the coffeehouse portion of the establishment, bring stock for about six coolers up from the basement 2-3 times a day, and work in a poorly-ventilated shoebox of a kitchen and we had to clean the place before we could go home, while the average price for a meal $10-$25 per person, the clientele generally did tip well and our quick hands in the kitchen meant they could "turn and burn" a table of four in 30-40 minutes even if they lingered to have coffee afterwards) she understood my point a bit better. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Guys, Wikipedia Reference Desks are no place for clashing over cultural norms. Let's look at this anthropologically. No one's practice is superior to anothers'. We all have our cultural practices for our own reasons. Let's not fight about them. This has the potential to spiral into a big conflagration. Let's not let it. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 01:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and it's also important to note the question was 100% answered by the first answerer, Marco Polo. Public awareness (talk) 02:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Beeblebrox has it right, I worked as both a cook and a waitress, but was usually hired as a cook because they were in shorter supply. Until I got a salaried position as the head closing cook with four shifts from 3pm to closing four nights a week at $600 (late 1980's) waiting was always a better proposition. Competition for waiting positions was fierce. How such a system--voluntary on all accounts at that--amounts to exploitation I do not know. μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That you don't understand that, and I can never figure out how much I should tip in America, both just highlight the cultural differences. Vive la difference. HiLo48 (talk) 02:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to drag this conversation on forever, but can you try to explain? I mean in Medeis' example we have a system where the customer gets good service, the waitress gets lots of cash and the business owner saves money. Everyone wins. How can this be exploitative? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Well all wage labour is exploitative, see Kazza. But Australians feel that this particular mode of payment is more exploitative than hourly wages. Why? Australia's union movement has been solidly opposed to piece work wages, which tip-dependent waitstaff are engaged in. Australians also view the "crap shoot" as being incompatible with the Australian conception of a living wage in capitalism. Australians also view it as a bull pen, the industry arrangement where employers control day labour—bull pens have been consistently opposed by the union movement since before the Dog collar act. As noted above, Australians view the waitstaff-customer relationship as not being one of false courtesy, so they view the requirement to act for pay as disconnected with the actual work. Australian waitstaff also have a guaranteed income well above the minimum wage, and so Australians would view the lack of guarantee as being exploitative. (Australia's current minimum wage is $589.30/wk, whereas a waitstaff without penalties or casual loading, and not having training responsibility, would be at $629.70/wk; this rate variable upwards by enterprise bargaining or above award payments). Fifelfoo (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is the correlation between gratuities and service that some are assuming. A water/waitress can be cloyingly servile too. A person who is doing their job well shouldn't be doing anything to excess. What is excellent service? I think that a person does a good job as a result of personal motivation. The connection between gratuity and service has been misrepresented in this discussion. Bus stop (talk) 03:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, I wish we were having a face-to-face conversation because what you're writing reads like a foreign language to me -- "bull pen" (the wikilink goes to the baseball term), "false courtesy," "disconnected with the actual work," "casual loading," etc. I understand what you're saying about Australian labor law but that notwithstanding, I still don't see how someone voluntarily taking a position that requires little education but can bring in oodles of cash can be exploitative, unless it's like exotic dancing or something. I trust your sincerity but perhaps we should continue this conversation on user talk pages, although I'm about to be away from my computer for a couple of days. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

From what people have said, I think it's clear many people from outside the US can understand the concept of tipping for excellent service but find it odd the way tips are expecting regardless of service. The alternative is not for the wait staff to receive less or for the business owner to operate at a lower profit, but for the business to charge more and use that to pay the wait staff more with the customer understanding that they are likely to pay what is in the menu (with an optional tip for excellent service) rather then expecting to pay more then on the menu because they have to tip regardless of service. Or even a system whereby the menu mentions a (truly) compulsory service charge of 15% or whatever (which is either distributed to the wait staff equally or which makes up part of the businesses profit which again is used to pay a decent wage to the wait staff). The complexities of business may mean some loss, but it seems likely the biggest loss will be that it's more difficult to cheat on taxes (whether income tax or sales/GST) which I don't personally have any sympathy for. And it seems to me the only real advantage of the US system is that it makes it easier evade or avoid taxes. (I haven't been to that many countries and don't visit restaurants that much anyway but of the people I've spoken to they haven't described the wait staff in the US as exceptionally better then countries where tipping is not expected all the time.) BTW, I call it an oddity because I'm not say that it's necessarily explotative as oppose to simply odd or strange to those not used to such a system. (It may be tipping is a bit on the low side in places like Australia, New Zealand and Malaysia, but while I can understand a greater usage of tips, the system of always tipping still seems odd. As VW noted below and to some extent BS elsewhere, one problem with the concept of tips is you are sometimes rewarding or penalising the wrong person.) P.S. Hopefully without taking this too OT, the fact that if some of the comments above are accurate, wait staff may end up better off then those cooking to me shows even more how strange the system is, since and hopefully I don't offend anyone by this, the cooking would usually be the higher skill job I would expect a higher renumeration. P.P.S. To some extent this reminds me of the US preference for sales tax not being part of the quoted cost. Don't get me wrong, I can understand why this is very difficult to implement in the US because of the wide variance in sales tax, it's just the fact that many seem to prefer to have the tax not part of the quoted price I find odd. Nil Einne (talk) 13:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

As an important point about the above : "Mandatory Gratuities" are not legally mandatory. Courts have ruled against them on the grounds that it's a contradiction in terms. (Gratuities are, by definition, non-mandatory.) Here's the best cite I can find quickly [4], but I know I've read others. APL (talk) 02:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

And that's where restauranteurs have failed to be clever/evil enough. They should just call it a "service fee on large parties" and not mention or imply that the server gets all of it. (in some cases they actually don't get all of it) People would pay it and tip. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's my 1c worth. What I find bizarre about this debate is that we are talking about waiters being penalized for substandard service, when a lot of the time a substandard meal is nothing to do with the waiters. It's not that hard to be a waiter, all you have to do is take orders and bring stuff to and from someone's table. If I've had a bad experience at a restaurant, it might be the waiter's fault, but it is more likely to be down to other factors – the food took too long to arrive (because it took too long to be prepared), the portions were too small, it didn't taste very nice, the music was too loud, the table was next to the toilet, and so on. How am I to express my displeasure at such an experience, other than by leaving a low tip? The fact that my leaving a low tip impacts directly on the waiter, even though none of it was his fault, proves that the system is fundamentally flawed. --Viennese Waltz 08:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

No, you don't express displeasure over bad food or atmosphere in the United States by reducing the tip for the server. If the bad food is delivered promptly and with a smile amid booming, horrible music, as a rat scampers across the floor, you either eat a bite to find out that the food is awful or not, then request the check, leave a decent tip, and leave the restaurant, never to return. I think most Americans understand that the standard tip is 15–20% and that you leave that amount regardless of the quality of the food or the venue unless there was something seriously wrong with the service. Marco polo (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Nobody tips me for just showing up and doing my job to a mediocre standard. Why should I be expected to tip my waiter? Astronaut (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

If "...most Americans understand that the standard tip is 15–20% and that you leave that amount regardless of the quality of the food or the venue..." then why don't these American establishments build into the prices of the components of a meal as found on a menu a "15–20%" increase in cost to the consumer? The practice of providing a gratuity seems archaic and less than transparent. The practice introduces a fudge factor that compromises the employee's (waiter or waitress) relationship to the restaurant owner. It is clearly simpler and more obvious for the consumer to see the price on the menu and for the waiter/waitress to know what their rate of remuneration is from their employer. This by the way is quite different from haggling. There are only two participants in haggling—the buyer and the seller. Being paid partly in gratuities is far more complicated. Bus stop (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that Bus stop's system would be fairer and more rational, established customs do not exist because they are fair or rational. Tipping is one of many suboptimal customs in the United States. However, every country I've ever visited has suboptimal and irrational customs. When visiting a country, one simply has to accept that country's customs whether one likes them or not. If a person finds a country's customs so reprehensible that he or she cannot accept them, then that person should avoid that country. As for why American establishments don't simply raise prices: 1) Owners like things the way they are. Customers who would not pay a 15-20% price increase will still come in, tip low, and provide the owners with undiminished revenue. Also, tips are a way to discipline waitstaff without requiring managers to do anything. 2) Any establishment that did raise prices would face a loss of business because their stated prices would now be that much higher than competitors'. Low tippers would go to competitors, where they could spend less for a similar experience. Even fair tippers might not realize that the establishment's prices included the tip, since that is not the American custom. Marco polo (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You say "If a person finds a country's customs so reprehensible that he or she cannot accept them, then that person should avoid that country." I do find it part way to reprehensible, but am willing to to try to deal with it in order to enjoy the many delights of the country. (As I said above, vive la difference. That's WHY we travel.) But more than reprehensible, I still find large parts of it incomprehensible. Restaurants are confusing enough, having to decide on the basis of both what's socially compulsory and what is deserved in return for quality of service. But for a tourist there are many other areas. I was part of a party of travellers containing a wheelchair user. We got wonderful service at many airports from people unhelpfully called Agents. Someone later suggested we should have tipped them. True? A package tour from Las Vegas to the Grand Canyon included a mini-bus trip to and from Boulder airport. Several passengers tipped the mini-bus driver, but I didn't see them tip the pilot. Were they right? There are many such non-mainstream examples. There can be no guide book to cover them all, and who's going to look it up every time anyway? I learnt from an Aussie ski-instructor working in the USA that they get tips regularly. Good looking females get a lot more than males. How is that fair? (Ski instructors in Australia NEVER get tips.) So, my question comes back to wanting to get it right, not wanting to offend or financially hurt someone, and having no idea how to achieve this. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You achieve it by reading the "tipping" section of your guide book, and by asking others. The same way you learn about any idiosyncratic, but nonetheless important, cultural practice. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I read the book. It didn't mention the two examples I gave. That's why I mentioned them here. Would you know what to do? I asked others. They were guessing too. HiLo48 (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The thing about archaic yet ubiquitous systems of culture is that they can't just be changed by wishing it was so. This is an unregulated cultural practice. In any case, it's not clear that either the consumers, the owners, or the waitstaff would prefer the system you suggest.

One additional wrinkle. I have a friend who, years ago, did a lot of research into the correlation of tipping with race. Unsurprisingly, whites tip Blacks a lot less than they tip whites, on average, and, in fact, Blacks tip Blacks a lot less than they tip whites, as well. This isn't super surprising, given that all of the fudge factors involved — sub/unconscious prejudice usually comes out pretty strongly in small judgment calls. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

For me, it's somehow surprising that blacks behave more or less like whites. Why wouldn't they tip blacks fairly?Quest09 (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably because they've internalized a good deal of implicit white racism and cultural norms (compare, even in this age of a Black President, the number of positive cultural depictions of African Americans one finds to the number of negative ones). See, e.g. the famous Clark doll experiments, among many other possible examples. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Technically, Barrack Obama is mulatto, or mixed race if you prefer a more PC term. Googlemeister (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The PC version is less precise that the term mulatto which actually means white + black. Quest09 (talk) 14:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The PC term is preferred because "mulatto" means "mule", and comparing people to animals is generally insulting; especially among African Americans, where it is very insulting. --Jayron32 03:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

In answer to HiLo48, in addition to hints in travel guides and watching other who go before you, ask yourself whether you could imagine getting the same sort of help for something from a perfect stranger, how much time and effort is put in, and the pleasantness with which the act is done. Consider the person's likely salary. If you offer a tip and it is refused, offer a second time, then pocket the money. Frankly, I find tipping to be a very pleasurable experience. Although it is not tipping per se, I was once waiting for an uptown 6 Train late at night. In the twenty minutes it took for the train to arrive, a guitarist on the platform happened to play three of my favorite songs. Passing to enter the train I dropped a fifty in his case. I can assure you that to this day remembering giving the gratuity I get more pleasure out of the experience than he did. See magnanimity. μηδείς (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, we do have buskers in Australia. Pretty sure there's no minimum wage there at all though. Their ONLY income is what people drop in the guitar case. Not a comparable situation. But back to the topic... You say above "Consider the person's likely salary." I'm a foreigner. I would have no idea in many cases. Do you know how much Australian taxi drivers get paid? How would you find out? HiLo48 (talk) 03:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

As a person who has worked several "tip optional" jobs and dealt with a fair number of foreigners I can tell you one simple way: just ask them if they take tips, or if you want to be a bit more subtle, ask how often they get tipped. If they have any sense they won't be offended because they will assume this is a question leading to a tip later on. A lot of jobs that are customarily tipped in the states, such as pizza delivery, are paid at least minimum wage as they are in the "optional" category. In many places taxi drivers are actually not paid an hourly wage, but rather pay out of their earnings for the day for the use of the cab vehicle, either a flat rate or per-mile charge. In either situation a tip is more like a bonus and is likely to make the driver remember you in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Adding

A related question to the above section (that takes eight presses of the Page Down key): Isn't the “service charge” or “tip” in the price of the item already? Seeing that food is so expensive “nowadays”, it should be. Thanks, 75.6.243.251 (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If a service charge is included in the price of an item that will be stated explicitly on the bill. μηδείς (talk) 02:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay. 75.6.243.251 (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Coupons?

A few of my friends have been in some quite lengthy discussions over this: If one is using a coupon, say, for a free appetizer (Normally ~10-12 dollars at the places we tend to visit) - when it comes down to the tip, should this 10-12 dollars be included in the tipping percentage? ^Avic_ennasis @ 07:26, 1 Tishrei 5772 / 07:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The coupon simply acts as cash and the tip should be based on the retail priceFroggie34 (talk) 08:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

And indeed, the big coupon sites these days, like Groupon, state this very explicitly. The tip is meant to be independent of the coupon price. Any other way just penalizes the wait staff. And if you don't realize how much it penalizes the wait staff, look up the minimum wage for tipping jobs in your state. It is usually much, much, much less than the normal federal or state minimum wage. The minimum wage in Massachusetts, for example (which is fairly progressive as these things go) is $8 an hour. For jobs where you take more than $20 a month in tips — 20 whole dollars... a month! — the minimum wage drops to $2.63 an hour!!! --Mr.98 (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the point is that is a stupid loophole designed to externalize the cost of restauranteurs in an abusive manner. I mean, what is the point of calling it a minimum wage if it is not really they legal minimum? Googlemeister (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

"... look up the minimum wage for tipping jobs in your state. It is usually much, much, much less than the normal federal or state minimum wage ..." - which perfectly illustrates the point I made up above, namely, that wait staff are systemically grossly underpaid and it has become the customers' responsibility to rectify this. My point was characterised as "bizarre", but it's anything but that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

As pointed out above, Americans don't tip because they want to rectify the labor laws. The practice of tipping waitstaff predates the minimum wage. The tipped-employees exception is in effect because it was assumed that the tips would more than make up the difference. The idea is there's no point in mandating that someone get paid $8 an hour if the person is going to make twice that much in tips alone. Why there's a minimum wage at all for tipped employees, I don't know -- $2.63 an hour is not much better than nothing. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least with Federal laws, if an employee is not making at least the federal minimum wage from base pay + tips, the employer is required to make up the difference. ref. Thanks all for settling the Great Coupon Debate for me. ^Avic_ennasis @ 05:39, 2 Tishrei 5772 / 05:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible that when the minimum wage law was drawn up in Massachusetts, someone piped up and said "but those waiters already get a huge amount from tips" and the minimum wage was thereby reduced for those who receive more than $20 in tips? If so, it seems that by tipping your waiter, you have managed to screwed them out of the legally mandated minimum wage that everyone else can demand. Astronaut (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

September 28

Unknown 4-Mast Wood Sailing Ship Identification Help Please (photo)

Ship in Philadelphia --is their George Washington Bridge in background. See here: http://itemofinterest.blogspot.com/2011/09/test.html Any ship ID ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cramyourspam (talk • contribs) 02:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

arr oops. asked by CramYourSpam. thank you, SineBot. Cramyourspam (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, there's no George Washington Bridge in Philadelphia. Looks like the Benjamin Franklin Bridge to me. Deor (talk) 04:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a schooner, all four masts are rigged fore-and-aft, maybe around 1000 ton. Looks like it is tied to Philadelphia's Municipal Pier #11. Any idea on the date of the photos? Are you sure it is wood and not iron?—eric 13:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

oops about the bridge. well done user deor. its benjamin franklin bridge. the photos seem to be mid-1920's to mid 1930's. not much later than that i'd guess just from the look of the filmstock. Cramyourspam (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the USS Robert H. McCurdy. The article says she was towed to Philadelphia in 1919. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

WOW. well done. many thanks Cramyourspam (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Saturn V Testing

I'm looking for basically a citation for the following; Lloyd Emerson (Moen) Knain, tested (vibrated specifically) the Saturn V vehicle. He put the vehicle together and the vibrated it for testing, all I am looking for is any information that is cit-able. Thanks. Jlk18000 (talk) 04:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What was his last name? Moen or Knain? Why did you write it with a name in parentheses? I found nothing at Google Scholar or Google books linking such a person with the Saturn V, and no scholarly journal articles by him. What is the basis for your belief that such a person was involved in testing the rocket? The closest I could find for any reference at all was a 1935 "Who's who in American Education" which lists JE Knain of North Dakota and Ida Moen of ND, with apparently Lloyd Emerson Knain as their child (it is hard to be sure what the snippet represents, with the omissions): "KNAIN, JE, Supt. of Schls., Milnor. ND; b. Northwood, ND, May 18, 1890; s. Mr. and Mrs. Edward NOK; BA, Univ. of ND, ... O. Ida Moen of Gales- burg, ND, Dec. 31, 1916; c. Ione Marion, Lloyd Emerson: Member; Phi Beta Kappa, Pi Gamma Mu. ...." Failure to find documents does not at all prove that he did not do the testing mentioned. I did find a publication on education, a 1933 Masters thesis by Joseph Edwards Knain of North Dakota, likely Lloyd's father: [5]. Many thousands of unheralded individuals worked for contractors and subcontractors all over the country involved in getting the US to the Moon. Edison (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about not making that more clear, his last name was Knain, and yes this seems to be the issue I am having... is simply put, theres nothing to say that he actually did anything, however I know he did. (I am a Knain myself, and closely related to him with personal writings in our Family Tree book with him stating he worked on that project, as well as many others, with many other family members (including myself) to back this up as personal record, however I, and it seems you as well, cannot find information regarding this. In fact, I'm actually surprised that you found ANYTHING about the Knain surname, seeing as how if their last name is Knain, I personally know them. If theres anything that you think could help find a reference, I have limited, but a size-able portion of information that might be helpful.Jlk18000 (talk) 05:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You might check to see where he worked. The more precise the information you start with, the more likely you are to strike gold in archives that are not available online, at the archives of NASA or at their contractors, in local newspaper archives, or in local historical societies. If he said he did that job, he probably did. I would have expected the job of "putting it together" to be assembly at the launch site, but vibration testing would likely have been done on non-launched test samples at a contractor/subcontractor. Look up which contractor produced the Saturn V. The article lists Boeing, North American Aviation, Douglas, and IBM as "lead contractors," but NASA politics dictated spreading out the contracting to as many congressional districts as possible. Here is a description of a "Saturn V Dynamic Test Stand" in Huntsville Alabama, which was used for vibration testing of the rocket in 1966 and 1967. Here is more genealogical information on this (your?) family. Edison (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

He worked at Boeing, was the Chairman in 1964. The link you gave Is actually mostly my work as it is, also sadly is just a dead-end for any information I'm looking for at the moment... Yes, the "Saturn V Dynamic Test Stand" is exactly what he worked on, the question at hand is finding something that ties him and the tests. I'll dig around online for a little longer, if all else fails its only a 2-3 hour drive to Huntsville, and if they don't have it I don't think anyone will. Jlk18000 (talk) 05:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I remember a newsreel which might have had this. The rocket assembly was horizontal and some kind of mechanical vibration was used with various sensors and inspections, but that's all I remember. 69.171.160.229 (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Psychology of thieves

I had a valuable bike stolen from me a few weeks ago and I've been bothered by it ever since. I can't really wrap my head around the selfishness of someone who thinks it's ok to cut a lock and ride off with somebody else's bike. I mean, there can't really be any empathy or decency there can there?

So my question is for anyone who's stolen something personal, i.e. not just from a store: what's the deal? How can you rationalize your act? Is the person you're stealing it from just some chump, and to hell with him? What's the deal? Vranak (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Once, many years ago, somebody stole one pedal off my bike. May seem trivial, but it makes it quite unrideable. I still can't really wrap my head around that one. HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I suppose no one here will admit that he has stolen something personal, so no one should feel entitle to answer your question. Anyway, I've met people in exactly the same situation as you. It's incredible how much feelings people can attach to a bike. Maybe, you could explain to us why does it happen. I mean, the attachment, not the stealing. The latter is easier to explain, even if you don't feel like that: I doubt any theft thinks about the harm being done. He will only think about the huge opportunity to steal a valuable bike. 21:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I won the bike in a hockey pool, and I used it frequently as a basic means of transportation. How could I not be strongly attached to it? It's irreplaceable because its value was so high and I am not willing to spend that amount -- especially knowing there's a shameless thief around. Vranak (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It'll fall somewhere on the scale from sociopathic behaviour through to simply being too stupid to appreciate the harm done to the victim. Being very stupid is a leading criminogenic factor. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Personally I've never stollen anything of value from anyone, but I think perspective is the key here. One factor here is desperation. People who have substance addiction often are in desperate need of money for a fix, they wont be thinking much about the consequences for themselves or the victim. Class can also lead to desperation. Many people have little opportunity for social advancement and will never be able to afford a bike like that, based solely on their circumstances, from their perspective you don't deserve the bike anymore than them so why shouldn't they take it from you? Property is theft! and all. From your perspective, you worked hard and made the right decisions to earn the bike. From the thief's perspective you received the bike due to your circumstances and don't really deserve it, you just feel entitled to it. --Daniel 22:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't afford that bike either though -- I won it as a prize in a Vancouver-area hockey pool with hundreds of entrants through careful consideration and ample thought. It was the year before the subprime market crash so they won't be putting up anymore as prizes. Vranak (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

But Vranaka, how can the thief know something like that? Winning a prize is not very common, what he/she may have thought was, more likely, that you are quite rich and could afford it. Unless you think that the thief knows you personally? I am sorry for your loss of property, but you have to understand that other people do not know what you know about your own life. A as said before here, some people are indeed very, very desperate (there have been drug addicts who have killed an old lady to be able steal 50 dollars from their handbag). --Lgriot (talk) 07:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

From my experience, people who claim that property is theft are rarely from the lower classes. They are much more middle class and stupid (and normally not criminal). I don't believe thieves have any ideology, it's just plain opportunism. Quest09 (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah but if our positions were reversed (me and the thief) I'd be wracked with guilt and unable to sleep until I got it back to its rightful owner. I can only assume that the perp has severe emotional blockage or a dysfunctional ethical system to not feel similiarly. Vranak (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

They certainly have to be somehow different: less empathy at least is a necessary condition. Anyway. Try to think about it in a more positive light: you had the chance of riding it for free for some years. Now it's gone, but you've learned a lesson in impermanence. (Note: report the theft and exact description of the bike to the police and do search regularly for it on sites like ebay, it might appear). Quest09 (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that the thief actually thought "property is theft," or bought into some kind of anarchist ideology. I was merely using a leftist lens to examine the situation. Feelings of desperations and alienation from other classes are very prevalent in lower classes and some definitely feel that higher classes do not deserve their wealth. Not all people have the same ethical system so the characterization of someone's as dysfunctional isn't always valid. On another note, I once had my bike stollen on my college campus. I found the guy riding it a few days later and chased him down he was likely from a higher social class than me, in this case I guess he was simply thrifty and didn't want to spend money on a bike so he stole mine. Quest's idea to look for it on eBay or craigslist is a good idea. I had another bike stolen from me. I went to replace it by looking for similar bikes on craigslist and found mine for sale. I just arranged a sale and when the guy showed up, I took my bike back. --Daniel 23:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, a wikipedia article on the profile of thieves could be interesting, I'm sure there are studies out there that break down the reasons people steal, and personal traits and upbringings which are linked to thievery. I once hungout with a group of 17year olds and some were thieves, including grand theft auto and house burgalary, many of them did abuse alcohol and various drugs, and many of them knew they had little prospect of a bright future as none of them would be attending university. There definitely is a lack of empathy, but there are other factors too. Some is a group mentality and peer pressure to also become a thief. If you hang out with thieves it makes it seem less worse, like it's normal. And than there are also some thieves who are just strung out crack fiends/base heads whatever you call them, they need money for drugs and that's all that is going through their heads. Public awareness (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That would be a lack of empathy, or the presence of apathy. StuRat (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Was in a rush, fixed now. Public awareness (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned previously, I'd say some portion of them are basically socialists, and feel they are just as entitled to your property as you are. Amazingly, though, this doesn't apply to others stealing from them. They feel that they are poor, so stealing from them is immoral, but not from you (yes, you may be poor, too, but they didn't think so, based on your bike). StuRat (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

A somewhat shaky, not to say complete and utter bollocks, understanding of socialism there, Stu. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It makes perfectly sense Stu: the whole thing happened in Canada, and they are all socialists over there. That's why there is much less stealing in the US. Quest09 (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

StuRat, please don't troll the thread. Public awareness (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That is a truly bizarre understanding of the word "Socialist". You probably shouldn't try to get your understanding of political concepts from the right-wing extremists on talk radio. APL (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Most revolutionary thought clearly distinguishes between personal possessions: things in more or less continuous individual use; and the means and tools of production that are property. Private property in the means and tools of production is considered "theft," the dividing line between the petits-bourgeois use of personal possessions to make profit, and the small capitalist making profit off means and tools is of course payment of wage labour to workers. Some past instances of working class responses to personal theft I've observed in the literature include beatings without reaching the point of wounding or maiming. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

But thievery is not selfish, Vranak. Far from it. It is an immature and parasitic dependence on others, certainly not a form of self-reliance or a cause of self-respect. Be sure that if caught the thief would lie or make up some embarrassing excuse for his actions. You should be proud that you don't know how to get into the mind of this person. And I'd recommend you also closely examine the motives of some of the rather bizarre rationalizations and guilt trips others have made on this thread--not for your pleasure--but as an example of yet another and even worse sort of immorality to protect yourself from than simple physical theft. μηδείς (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Part of the motivation may be not just the benefit the thief enjoys from selling the stolen goods, but the hurt the victim suffers. A comedian once talked about male rape in prison, and said "It's not just the pleasure he feels; It's the expression on your face!" Edison (talk) 04:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Note that Edison is an administrator here. μηδείς (talk) 05:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

And your point is, μηδείς? Edison is, I think, making a very apposite point. Some people positively enjoy inflicting cruelty on others in one way or another, and a thief (just as a rapist) may derive additional satisfaction, beyond hir acquisition of items of value (or physical pleasure), in the mental (and/or physical) pain caused to hir victims. In the case of rape this is obvious to most people; in the case of theft it may be less obvious, and hence worth pointing out by the analogy. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.236 (talk) 12:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Nobody has asked yet what the explanation for not stealing is. We're apparently all in this together and should love our fellow human beings, but for what reason exactly? User:Medeis observes that thieves tend to make up excuses - I heard somebody say "I see that guy at his window every night with his laptop, I'm going to steal it," and on asking him how this was OK he said that the laptop was sure to be insured and the owner was just looking at porn. However, the excuses for not stealing seem to be just as spurious, and typically circular, reducing to "it's bad because it's bad, and you shouldn't do it because you shouldn't, and because people don't and because of empathy and that's why you won't do it and shouldn't". The only time in my life I've heard a coherent explanation, I had to actively pursue the question for an hour with somebody who had ideas about moral philosophy, and even then I still wonder about the explanation and find it tenuous. The question of why we should bother to vote in elections is similar. Society seems to be protected from chaos only by vague goodwill and inexplicitly held moral theories. Also, I too hated it when my bike was nicked.  Card Zero  (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The best explanation I've heard (apart from "I don't steal because God will send me to Hell for eternal punishment if I do") is the concept of a social contract. I agree that I won't steal from you, and in exchange you agree not to steal from me. It's not that I wouldn't be better off in the short term if I were to steal your fancy bike, it's just that if I do, then there's no reason keeping you from stealing something else I value. That's a bit of a precarious situation, and relies on both of us believing that long-term maintenance of the social order is worth more than short-term selfish gain. This obviously opens itself up to the free rider problem, where someone ("a thief") abrogates their end of the social contract, while you're still fulfilling yours (e.g. they steal your bike, even though you have no intention of stealing their flat screen TV). In those cases society tries to use punishment (fines and jail time and/or threats of eternal damnation) as a deterrent, but that relies on the thief believing that the chance of getting caught and the punishment likely to be received outweigh the chance of getting away with it and the benefit likely to be gained from the theft. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If we consider the problem of not stealing from the standpoint of homo economicus then the cost (time, money, amortisation of anticipated gaol sentence) of stealing needs to be placed against the cost of an equivalent substitutable good. Bicycle theft has been heavily investigated for labour technique in the Netherlands: all bicycle locking systems can be easily defeated, the aim of buying a bicycle locking system is to buy one that makes defeating it not cost effective. (I think this kind of homo economicus view isn't particularly credible, given observed economic returns on bank robbing and drug dealing in the US. Also this only covers professional criminals, not amateurs or hobbyists.) Fifelfoo (talk) 03:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

By far the majority of thieves are in poverty, basically they are life's losers. Very very few actually make decent money or are rich. People like me have no compunction about finding them and sticking them in prison whatever sympathy we might feel for their plight. I am an atheist and don't believe in any of that punishment by God or moral stuff but none of my family way back has gone in for wrongdoing that I know of so there's no earthly reason for me or my children to do so either if we don't want to be life's losers. Dmcq (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You seem to equate morality with God and superstition. This mistake is usually made by the opponents of atheists, and used as ammunition against us atheists. Puzzled though I am by the details, I'm sure morality has a rational basis. Following family tradition, on the other hand, is not very rational. Consistently doing as your ancestors did would mean you had to attend church, and perhaps take up a profession like farrier, fletcher, wainwright or cooper.  Card Zero  (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

What on earth has rational got to do with it? I am here because my parents were here because their parents were here and I wish my descendants to be here as well in the same way that I am here and wouldn't be if my ancestors had not also wished that. It is written in my genes or upbringing or whatever. Rational is how to achieve aims, not how to give aims in the first place. It has struck me that I might be harming my children by not going to church and making out that I believed in all that rubbish but the hypocrisy would just be another form of wrongdoing as far as I'm concerned. Dmcq (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

This promises to be a great discussion, but I think I have to respect the "don't start a debate" and "keep your answer within the scope of the question" rules, so I can't continue. Pity.  Card Zero  (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

September 29

Will a medical office and hospital being build behind my home lower my property value and make it hard to sell?

I live in a small neighborhood that is surrounded by a field. The city would like to rezone the field behind my home for medical offices and a hospital. Will my home value suffer if they build the medical offices and hospital? Will the rezoning make it harder to sell my home? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.133.67 (talk) 01:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hire a lawyer or get some legal advice. Talk to your neighbors and contact the zoning board and attend any relevant meetings. You may be entitled to compensation if a change in zoning lowers the value of your property, although it may be a hard and losing cause to fight city hall. See takings clause. μηδείς (talk) 02:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the subject, but I don't think your property value would suffer. If it was an airport or a factory and you were being rezoned to industrial, than I would be worried. While your property value could go down from noise from sirens, your land value may increase as you become more urban and you may be able to sell your property for business use depending on the rezoning, which may bring more money than selling your home as residential. I too suggest you keep in the know about the building and zoning plans, but the high cost of a lawyer probably isn't worth it unless you own a mansion or you see something seriously wrong. Public awareness (talk) 02:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

My bad. Obviously the advice of someone whose name is "public awareness" is cheeper than and more relevant than that of a lawyer trained in the relevant laws. Never mind what I said about taking the issue seriously and getting professional advice. Just give up. μηδείς (talk) 04:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

My name was given to me by another editor when I finally got an account. [Can you imagine a world without lawyers?] Don't make me lawyer you with WP:COI. :D

You might be able to sell your house to a rich doctor. There's a conflict between negatives (noise, increased traffic, construction work, other development nearby, and a possibility of perceived social undesirables such as drug addicts arriving for treatment) and the positives (improved transport links, increased amenities catering to influx of people, near to major employer). It may be harder to sell in the short term while construction work is going on, but it's hard to know the long-term effect on house value, as this will depend on the existing area and the changes (houses in the middle of nowhere tend to be less expensive than those in built-up areas). You could check nearby property prices: find a similar neighbourhood with a hospital, and compare. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Land value tax

I'm having a bit of a problem understanding a part of land value tax.

"Because the supply of land is inelastic, market land rents depend on what tenants are prepared to pay, rather than on the expenses of landlords, and so LVT cannot be directly passed on to tenants."

Say you are renting space in a building and paying $1000/month. A new LVT tax is introduced charging the building owner and other building owners $XXXX/month. The rent I pay is determined through competition for my demand with other local buildings, so why would my rent not go up? Also how is land inelastic? If the owner of a 10story apartment building saw there was increasing demand he could build, in theory, another 10 stories ontop of his building. Is land slightly elastic, thus the statement at LVT wrong and there is a deadweight loss created. If rent goes up due to the tax there must be a deadweight loss. Please no discussion on whether LVT is good or bad, just on whether the quoted statement is true or not. Thanks, Public awareness (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If you build another ten stories on top of a building, you're not increasing the supply of land. Land value tax is typically calculated on the area of land, not on the floor area of the buildings. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Headphone cord curl

My headphones' cord (1⁄16 inch (1.6 mm) wide, wire encased in what seems to be some kind of very flexible plastic or rubber) has a tendency to curl. What can I do to either get rid of the curls or to prevent them from developing? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Untwist the cord. The curl is caused when the cord twists. Dangle the cord free, and watch how it untwists; let it unwind on its own, and throw a few additional "untwists" for good measure, and it should curl less. --Jayron32 04:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Expanding on that: In my house, this action is traditionally done by gently lowering the headphones (or the telephone handset, etc) over a railing/down a stairwell, allowing the cord to untwist on its own. Do this a couple of feet at a time until you're holding the plug; when the phones stop spinning, let it rest in that position if you can, otherwise pull it back up and let it lay flat on the floor.

"Works for me..." --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Native Americans and Kennewick Man

I just finished reading the article about Kennwick man and I am a bit uncertain about a point in the article. The writer stated, "In a publication about Kennewick Man, anthropologist Glynn Custred of California State University East Bay said "expert on Asian populations" "physical anthropologist" C. Loring Brace of University of Michigan" believed "people related to the Jomon" came before the "modern Indian" and that "two varieties of American Indian" arose from the former being "absorbed" by the latter with the "Plains Indian" resembling the older group.[4]", now, as I understand, the two varieties of Indian came from somewhere other than America. If this is a correct interpretation of reading, then the Indians came from Asia. This logically leads me to conclude that the term "Native American" is a misnomer. There seems, then, that there are no Native Peoples in America but that they all came from somewhere else. If I take a plant and go to Japan and plant my plant, even if it is there for a million years, it would not make it "native" by any stretch of the imagination. It would make it pretty darn old but even so, not a native plant. So, I'm wondering if I'm reading this correctly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.26.56.242 (talk) 04:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "native" is a relative term. See Indigenous peoples, especially phrases like "...before the arrival and intrusion of a foreign and possibly dominating culture", "...groups that existed in a territory prior to colonization or formation of a nation state", etc. Also see Settlement of the Americas. Pfly (talk) 05:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are no native peoples from anywhere, save Africa. The question then becomes how long does a people have to claim occupation to a land to be Native. There is some question about when the first people crossed the Bering land bridge to be the first pioneer population of Humans in the Americas; and even on how many crossings there were. There are competing theories on how the Americas were settled. One holds that the settling originally happened in a single crossing, and that this first pioneer population represents the sole ancestors of the entire population of the Americas. A second theory holds that there were multiple settlements, and that the people we refer to as "Native Americans" or "First Nations" may have actually been of a later wave of people who displaced the earlier settlers. (i've somewhat oversimplifed the two theories for the sake of keeping this short-and-sweet, but you can read about them at Settlement of the Americas) That's the crux of the dispute over the Kennewick Man. If you ascribe to the "single settlement" theory (called the "short chronology" in the literature), then all human remains are direct ancestors of the current Native American/First Nation peoples, and thus they have cultural rights to those remains. If you ascribe to the "multiple waves" theory (called the "long chronology" in the literature), then Kennewick Man may be sufficiently old as to have predated the arrival of the peoples we now call Native Americans, which would essential mean he doesn't "belong" to them. --Jayron32 05:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

There are also theories that humans came to North America from Europe, living at the edge of ice and fishing for sustenance as do Alaskan natives. Edison (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are probably theories that it was settled by space aliens as well; the scientific evidence (as shown by things like mitochondrial DNA studies and archeological finds) tends to support the settlement via the Bering land bridge as the main route. There are various theories of various groups of people who reached the Americas in the years between the initial settlement and the Colonial era, see Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, but to my knowledge there is no solid evidence of any pioneer settlement of the Americas via Europe directly. --Jayron32 22:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Pfly is correct that Native is a relative term. The claim that humans are native to Africa ignores that primates Euarchontoglires are native to Eurasia. The claim that the Americas may have also been settled in part from Europe is based on mitochondrial evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_X_(mtDNA)), hardly on the same level as spacemen theories, but of course ignorance and scorn together create a powerful explosive, so I won't criticize what Jayron32 has said, lest it come back to bite me. μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, there you go, that's an excellent reference! Well found. --Jayron32 04:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The article clearly states that the Solutrean hypothesis is not well supported even by the genetic data. Rmhermen (talk)

:) --Jayron32 04:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The Solutrean hypothesis noted the similarity of the Solutrean arrowheads to those found later in North America. It is inappropriate to ridicule it as being just like saying people came to North America from space ships. Europeans could certainly have migrated to North America when the North Atlantic had ice, but I have never understood how they could have transported flint working techniques over a long span of time while living on the edge of the ice. It is interesting that some scientists classify Kennewick Man as Ainu. That seems more credible than one TV documentary and much discussion in the blogosphere which noted that the skull with muscle and skin added (pic) looked remarkably like Jean-Luc Picard (pic). Edison (talk) 06:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You make some very well-thought-out and important points, Edison! --Jayron32 18:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Removed non-free thumbnails. —Akrabbim^talk 18:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Two identical questions about the difference between innovation and creation, which won't necessarily receive identical answers (maybe that was the point)

what is the difference between innovation and creation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.204.5.130 (talk) 09:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

what is the difference between innovation and creation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suraj kulkarni (talk • contribs) 09:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Nicely illustrated

. Warofdreams talk 12:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The article Innovation says innovation means making a substantial positive change to something. Creation or "to create" typically means to bring something into existence or make something happen[6]. So innovation is improving an existing thing, while creation is making something new. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Adam was the creation, Eve was the innovation. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Beauty

What is beauty? Why is it that computer rendered faces are so much more prettier than real girls? Money is tight (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you're not hanging out with the right girls. Since beauty is so subjective, it's hard (dare I say, impossible) for us to tell you why you don't find real girls as pretty as fake ones. Dismas|^(talk) 12:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What is beauty? I don't know, but John Keats had some observations on the issue. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.236 (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Faces with a left-right symmetry are perceived to be more beautiful than asymmetric ones. Most human faces are, to a greater or lesser extent, not completely symmetrical. Computer rendered faces are probably just more symmetrical. 194.176.105.147 (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Most people find truly computer generated faces to be quite disturbing. See Uncanny valley. This is different from faces which are modified by "touching up", which generally involves evening skin tone, removing blemishes, and that sort of thing. But a human figure which is created from scratch by computer tends to be off-putting. --Jayron32 12:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

D: Look at picture 4 on this page, for example. 86.162.71.40 (talk) 17:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a Japanese version of a Barbie Doll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say they are more attractive. They are more mainstream, and therefore, they appeal to more people. However, has some human ever fallen in love for a computer animation? Quest09 (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That would be kind of a high-tech Pygmalion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

S1m0ne (2002) -- Obsidi♠n Soul 15:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

We have a very good article on physical attractiveness. Looie496 (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Dismas, maybe I'm not hanging out with the right girls, but it's more likely you're not looking at the right CG animations. Look at [[7]] from 0:32 to 0:43. I finding her unusually attractive. I don't recall seeing any real person this pretty, including the best looking actresses out there (but I have seen prettier CG images, i.e. not animated in a movie). Money is tight (talk) 07:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Beauty must be very much in the eye of the beholder. That CGI person did nothing for me. Pfly (talk) 08:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks fake, of course. Put glasses on her and she would look like a fake Sarah Palin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok look at [[8]]. If you still don't think that's pretty, please give me a pic of what you think is pretty. Money is tight (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Not bad. That has more of a painting look than a CGI look. Regardless of the medium, you'd be hard-pressed to find a woman to compare with Ingrid Bergman in her prime. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I find her attractive but I wouldn't say unusually so and I definitely don't consider her more attractive then all real people. I do find her more attractive then the one in the wallpaper image who doesn't really do anything for me. Beyond the not 'hanging out with the right girls' thing, it may also be the 'girls' you do hang out with are CG so that's what you're used to and find attractive. Besides that, it's not clear to me if you played the Resident Evil games and watched the movie. If you did, your opinion on the above images beauty may be influenced by any emotional connection you formed with the Claire Redfield's character. Nil Einne (talk) 06:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Beauty in general is the result of unity of form. An impala is quite magnificent, but one mangled by a lion is not. Yet its bleached skeleton will be restored to a type of beauty. The same with buildings. A well kept, well designed building is beautiful, while an abandoned burnt out lot with broken windows is ugly. But return after centuries to look at ruins showing a form swept bare of debris and the beauty may be restored. In humans, unity of form is best exemplified by symmetry and signs of sexual health such as full red lips.

Here is a woman who puts Ingrid Bergman to shame.

μηδείς (talk)

Isabella's quite attractive, but I still prefer her mother, Ingrid Bergman. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I could not possibly argue with you there. Have you seen Cactus Flower (film)? μηδείς (talk) 04:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question, OP, maybe you have a paraphilia for computer generated images. You know, if it exists, there's a paraphilia for it. --Belchman (talk) 10:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Diploma

HELLO MY NAME IS CAMILLE HUDSON AND I GRADUATED FROM THERE I DIDN'T MARCH AND WHEN I WENT TO PICK UP MY DIPLOMA OR WHATEVER YOU CALL IT I WAS NEVER ABLE TO GET IN TOUCH WITH ANYONE SO HOW DO I DO THAT NOW IT HAS BEEN SOME YEARS . THANKS I WILL APPRECIATE A RESPONSE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.96.145.150 (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

(personal data removed.) This is Wikipedia, an internet encyclopedia, not the office of a high school. You are most likely to have better results contacting the school directly. Rmhermen (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Could I be an awful bore and ask you to turn off your Caps Lock miss? Thanks so much. Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do go back to your school or college. You might still be able to pick up your diploma. Good luck. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

eHOW Advice Article, Condo Regulations in New Jersey

The article by Elaine Severs, EHOW Contributor cites The New Jersey Common Interest Real Property Act of 1995 as one regulation regarding condos. I cited this in a conversation with an NJ official that works this arena and he said the cited "Act" is not a New Jersey law or statute. He said it might have been a bill. Could you look into this with the author and have someone call me. If the official is correct, the article should be corrected. HELP!

Jack <removed telf. nr.> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.105.208 (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is going to call you: any answers will be here. I think you are talking about an article on eHow: if so, you need to contact them directly: this is Wikipedia, and we have no connection with eHow. --ColinFine (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Number of Greenland Islands

What is the current thinking on whether the Island of Greenland is one island, two, or three? I see our article on Geography of Greenland says that "The ice is so massive that its weight presses the bedrock of Greenland below sea level and is so all-concealing that not until recently did scientists discover that Greenland might actually be three islands." The supporting reference, however, is just a passing mention in a newspaper article. Apparently the three-island theory is based upon findings reported in 1951, for example here, asserting that the icecap conceals two deep sounds running from coast to coast and splitting Greenland into three islands. Is this still considered a viable theory? There are, of course, small islands, such as Uunartoq Qeqertaq, that are concealed by the icecap; this isn't what I'm talking about. John M Baker (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't tell, but a separate tectonic plate for Greenland has fallen out of favor. Maybe [9] will have some clue. 69.171.160.237 (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Our article on the Greenland ice sheet has a nice map that suggests that although the central depression is below sea level, that area wouldn't be connected to the sea, so just one island. This older version [10], from the National Geographic in 1981 has the central depression connecting to the sea to the west, but basically still one island. Mikenorton (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Depends on scale. It's complicated. See: How Long Is the Coast of Britain?. μηδείς (talk) 03:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Miami News public domain?

Hi, I'm wondering if a 1958 issue of the now-defunct Miami News would be in public domain so that its images could be used here. Here's the article on Google News. Thanks. Delaywaves ^talk 23:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like to know the same thing about this 1961 Pittsburgh Press article. Delaywaves ^talk 23:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Likely not. Both articles indicate that the papers were acquired by other newspapers; that likely includes their intellectual property rights. In any case, it's very, very hard to establish whether something is a legitimate orphaned work — a work whose copyright status has elapsed because technically nobody owns it. Unless one has a very strong reason to believe that is the case, one cannot assume it. It's also not clear if the copyright to those photos was owned by the newspaper, or a wire service. In any case, the photos are not exactly very good quality, so I think the loss is pretty minimal. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

September 30

wikiHow

Does wikiHow have any policies similiar to the Wikipedia policy of “Not Censored”? 75.6.243.251 (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing here to suggest they do. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia's “Assume Good Faith” or “Not A Soapbox (and/or) Means of Promotion”? 75.6.243.251 (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many writeups describing its various policies. Does wikiHow not have similar writeups? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Uhh, I don't know, that's why I came here to find out... 75.6.243.251 (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

This list of wikiHow Objectionable Images seems inconsistent with a "Not Censored" policy. John M Baker (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so I guess I can rule that out. What about the others? 75.6.243.251 (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

They have a few policies here, but their approach is to establish an intentionally minimal number of policies. John M Baker (talk) 01:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay. 75.6.243.251 (talk) 01:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You can see what policies they have at the page I originally linked to. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is gold so valuable?

Why has gold always been so highly valued, especially in ancient times (in modern times it at least has some use as a good electrical and thermal conductor)? You can't eat it, it's not hard enough to make weapons to hunt for food or to make tools for other purposes, you can't build a shelter with it, it doesn't float. I don't see how mere rarity without practical value would have been any use to ancient peoples. It may look pretty but you can starve to death or die of exposure looking pretty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callerman (talk • contribs) 00:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The Gold article has some suggestions about it. It's been valued since before recorded history. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

A few thoughts:

1. Your "deficits" of why gold shouldn't be valuable are actually all great reasons it should be a form of currency. Currencies based on food, weapons, and shelter are not really very good currencies — that's just a form of bartering. A neutral currency with a known value (tacked, as the case of gold usually is, to the rate of production) lets you do more complicated transactions than otherwise. (What, you don't want my fish? All I have is fish! What do I do now?)

2. It's not clear that gold was overwhelmingly valued by all people at all times in the same way. The Incas valued it a lot less than the Spanish did, for example, and found the Spanish lust for gold to be laughable. (Everything's fun and games until the smallpox sets in.) Once there is a stabilized market for gold — e.g., people you know will buy it — then it can become more valuable to everybody who has it. Until then, its value will be based on exactly who you are selling it to.

3. You seem to be imagining hunter-gatherer types on the Savannah valuing gold. That's highly unlikely. They wouldn't have had access to much of it, in any case. Mining requires a high degree of organization, and there's only so much gold lying around waiting for you to pick it up without any processing. I suspect that gold was not especially valuable until more organized mining and metalworking was possible. Our gold article indicates that it has been known to be used by the Chalcolithic or copper age, which is pretty dang civilized as far as human development is concerned, even if it looks primitive from a modern standpoint. These aren't people living in bamboo huts and acting out some kind of parody of the "savage" — these are people who live in organized communities with leaders of some sort and make most of their calories based on farming, which allows them to support people who are full-time artisans or blacksmiths or miners and things like that.

4. In the end, things are valuable if people find them valuable. That's tautological, but true. If there's a guy willing to buy something of yours for a good price, you'll probably be willing to sell it to him for that price, even if you think it is worth a lot less. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Gold is pretty and resists corruption and causes few allergies, this makes it great for jewellery. Gold is easily worked, making it more desirable to work for decoration than, say, steel. Gold has interesting conductive properties for electricity. Finally gold is a commodity within which all other commodities find their value reflection (see Volume 1 Chapters 1-3 of Das Kapital). This makes gold, like the US dollar, or the Euro, or the Australian Dollar, or negotiable US bonds, or certain shares useable as currency. Unlike other currencies listed, many people (falsely) believe gold to have an "inherent" value as money. But gold as money does have some advantages: it isn't contingent upon the survival of particular states, it is dense and so highly portable, it is easily divided with a chisel making it readily negotiable. Historically some of these reasons were more important than others. "Before recorded history" wealth meant either possessing the military power to directly exploit villages, or possessing masses of slaves—here gold had a decorative purpose based on its lustre. In feudal societies gold was as much decorative as it was financial, it was used to resolve rare high value trades between rulers (such as ransoming a King stupid enough to get caught in battle), but people also valued it for its displays in cloth of gold etc. In contemporary society gold is both a currency (rarely directly traded, usually traded on certificates of ownership that amount to goldsmith's notes), but it is also highly valued for decorative purposes. Silver is more interesting given the vast decorative demand out of India. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It's as intrinsically valuable as any fiat currency is (or as much as currencies backed by other precious metals) outside of the small but significant intrinsic uses (gold has some good industrial properties in electronics, etc.). The special place for gold as a precious metal though is interesting. Some have suggested that the difficulty and random nature of gold finds helped maintain some price stability, although I've heard alternative variations of the same thing too. This book: The gold standard in theory and history, Barry J. Eichengreen, Marc Flandreau, has a lot of background on the historic gold standard.

It's also true that gold's emergence as a currency standard is rather recent. Historically it was silver until the 1880s, with Britain being a prime exception. Shadowjams (talk) 11:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Also note the historic value of salt in ancient times - it would still be valuable if it were not so common. Collect (talk) 11:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Also kind of hard to mint coins from. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but we only use coins because we use precious metals as money. If we used something else, we would store it in another manner more appropriate to that form, such as bags of salt, or perhaps a salt certificate for larger quantities. StuRat (talk) 11:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I think one factor in gold's favor is that it looks different, being yellow. There are more silver-colored or grey metals than you can shake a stick at, bringing down their value. StuRat (talk) 11:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, darn that worthless platinum, rhodium and iridium. Googlemeister (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Considering that silver was, for centuries, used even more frequently as currency than gold (owing to some rather large deposits that were discovered), I think that argument is fairly specious (pun intended). The fact that copper has never been so valuable as gold makes the argument even less likely. People who care about metals can distinguish between the various silver colored metals quite easily, and have been able to do so for a very long time. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

As already noted, gold is pretty, rare, and easily worked . But the suggestion that it is valuable because it makes a good medium of exchange is bassackward. Its high value (among other characteristics) makes it good a good medium of exchange. Also, note that not everyone has to be crazy about gold for it to function this way. So long as some people value it highly it is valuable to you as long as you can trade it. So the answer is, because a good number of people really like it.μηδείς (talk) 03:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

MeHag tattoo

A colleague has just come back from a doctor's appointment in Southsea, UK. In the waiting room he sat behind a woman who had 'MeHag' tattooed on the back of her neck. He could come up with no explanation for this, and couldn't pluck up the courage to ask her. He maintains it was certainly MeHag, and there was no possibility of the H being two L's etc. Does anyone have any idea what this could signify? Perhaps it was you? FreeMorpheme (talk) 12:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Were they diagnosed with a disease which causes people to tattoo nonsense on their neck ? :-) StuRat (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a lot of it about. I just wonder if, despite your colleague's certainty, the H is actually an N, and the tattoo is a mangled version of "Megan". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a misspelt Klingon word. Did she have a funny forehead ridge?μηδείς (talk) 03:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Could it be her name, Me.. Hag.. shortened? Unlikely to be able to rule that out. Or the name of a loved one, I suppose. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Titration

why is only 2 or 3 drops of an indicator is add in a simple acid-base titration.</ref></ref></ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.204.38.2 (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Try reading Acid–base titration and maybe pH indicator. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

What 19th-century ethnic hat is this?

What kind of hat is this? Better yet name the painting that this chromolithograph is based on. Sorry that the image has been collaged over - at least you can see the hats. I feel like I know but now I can't place it. Thanks in advance. (I asked this on Humanities but haven't gotten the right answer yet. Ruled out so far: an Ochipok; Hennins). Saudade7 18:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, but I think you'll get better answers for this question at the Humanities desk. --Belchman (talk) 09:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the hat or the original, but the collage is actually from 1942, by Kurt Schwitters, titled Merz 42 (Like an Old Master). See here (volume 83, hover over the image for the artist and title). ---Sluzzelin talk 10:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

You might receive more information from the Sprengel Museum (the pdf-file on this site is a form for inquiries on Schwitters' works). ---Sluzzelin talk 10:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Alas yes, I came here after no one at the Humanities desk knew (see original post up there), and I know it is from Schwitters and I am asking for a Schwitters scholar who is trying to identify this picture. I thought I would just start by identifying that hat. It's kind of crazy that this hat is so hard to identify. Maybe there is an international ethnic hat and folk costume museum? Thanks for the suggestions, Saudade7 15:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Facebook Notification

Everytime a friend's birthday comes up, FB notifies me a week ahead via email, and then, on his/her birthday, FB asks me to wish him/her after I log in. Well, I don't want anything similar happening when my birthday comes knocking. I don't want my friends (those who don't already know) to be notified about my birthday. I tried changing my date of birth to a date we've already passed by this year, but FB gave me an automated warning that I can change my date of birth a limited number of times. So, my question is: is it possible to prevent your friends from getting notifications about your birthday without tampering with your D.o.B in your profile? 223.190.208.203 (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

On your profile page, click Edit Profile. On the first page that comes up, Birthday is the 4th line. Set to "Do not show my birthday in my profile". It might have been quicker to look for this than to ask... --Saalstin (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

If you're concerned by this kind of things happening, your best bet is to avoid Facebook altogether. --Belchman (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I did do that. But I'm not sure that even when people are blocked from seeing my d.o.b, they'll be blocked from getting notifications about it. And, boycotting FB is not really an option for me, since it's the most crucial tool for my social networking and helps me keep in touch with whatever is going on in college, and whatnot. But I'd really like it if gazillions on half-known college acquaintances I'm not close to keep pouncing on me and wishing me "happy birthday" just because they'd happened to get the notification that morning. =_=" 223.177.242.93 (talk) 08:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

So delete your birthday then! --TammyMoet (talk) 08:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

You can't delete your birthday in FB. They need to know how old you are, and whether you are a minor, so filling in the date of birth is mandatory. 223.181.208.252 (talk) 08:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you could change the date to February 29 so you'd only be bothered once every four years? Matt Deres (talk) 12:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just done this myself. Next to the date of birth is a symbol. Click that and change the setting to "Only me". That should do it. Another thing to think about - I sometimes get notifications from people who want to add my birthday to My Calendar. Check to see if you've got this app in your Facebook, and delete the app. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Business ideas

For a book I am working on, anyone want to suggest something that a fifteen year old girl could do to earn a bit of money. It needs to involve something they won at a raffle, though what that is does not matter, so long as it is realistic. I thought something to do with making food or drinks, though I have heard that involves certain regulations and licensing and such like.

148.197.80.214 (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

She could win a bicycle and do deliveries. Googlemeister (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a sweet sewing machine and she either repairs local's clothing or she makes new odd, yet fashionable, clothing out of people's old clothes and sells them at the local market. Public awareness (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Those suggestions will get her arrested for unlicensed commercial vehicle operation and running a sweatshop in a zoned residential area. μηδείς (talk) 03:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Depends where you live. There's no requirement for bicycle licencing even for delivery people in NZ. She may need a bicycle helmet though Nil Einne (talk) 07:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this in America? Because God knows the British police can be arseholes at times, but arresting a girl for using a sewing machine with business intent? Really? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The OP is in the UK, the girl would no doubt be a [sole trader], no registration/permits, just go to work. There is nothing like [this] in the UK or Canada. Permits/licensing is only for certain areas, like taxi, electrician, nuclear plant owner, etc.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Public awareness (talk • contribs) 19:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

What's a "sweet" sewing machine, Public awarness? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Could be a sweet Singer.  Card Zero  (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps PA is thinking of a sewing machine make out of sugar? Or may be one of these [11] Nil Einne (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted an alliteration I guess, fancy, cool, neeto, groovy, spectacular, hip, fly, pretty, gnarly, awesome, amazing, pimpin', non-dull, just don't flow as nice. Public awareness (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there a book called something like "50 Ways to Make Money from Stuff You Have At Home"? She could win that... --TammyMoet (talk) 08:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps she could win one of those new fangled personal computers and start selling things on that ebay thingamabob? Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

She could win a RepRap, I can't guarantee she would make money off it though. I presume we're talking short term. You could obviously come up with something like she wins a book on biology which cements an interest in biology leading to her eventually getting her PhD in something in biology and eventually and goes on to form a biotech company becoming the next Bill Gates. I wouldn't say this is completely unrealistic but it would be a 15-20 year concept at a minimum. (You could perhaps change biology to something to do with robots and forget about the PhD.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The daughter of a friend of mine buys fancy colored duct tape at a craft store which she uses to make wallets and other items which she sells at a profit. I can't find any articles here, but suggest you look at this search: http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=duct+tape+crafts+for+girls&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 μηδείς (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Lough Erin

I have been listening to one of my favourite tunes "Lough Erin Shore" and am now wondering if there is anywhere in Ireland or Northern Ireland a Lough Erin? If not, where could the song title be referring to? Simply south...... creating lakes for 5 years 23:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You may want to see our article on Lough Erne. This appears to be what the song is referring to. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

We have an article Lough Erin Shore which redirects to Gleanntáin Ghlas' Ghaoth Dobhair. The English lyrics in our article don't mention Lough Erin at all, but refer to the "glens of Ghaoth Dobhair" which means "the aqueous estuary" and is Anglacized to Gweedore in County Donegal. Where Lough Erin comes into it is a mystery. Alansplodge (talk) 08:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

D'oh! Our redirect seems to be in error... Lough Erin Shore is quite different. However, here are the same lyrics but with a the title Lough Erne's Shore, so "Lough Erin" is propbly an oft repeated error - KageTora was right. We have a page on Erin but there doesn't seem to be a Lough Erin. Alansplodge (talk) 09:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I found a lake actually called Lough-Erin in the 18th century. Mentioned (and explicitly differentiated from the twin lakes of Lough Erne) in The Antient and Present State of the County of Down (1757) and The universal gazetteer (1795). Assumed from similarity to descriptions (near Annahilt two miles to the northeast, triangular, before the Bow lakes and a certain Lake Henney close to Saintfield, famous for its fish) to the 1960 Official Guide to Hillsborough, to now be the lake known as Ballykeel Lougherne (Google Maps).

But then again, we come across a ballad purportedly based on real circumstances in Northwest Ireland, "The Admired Love-Song of William and Eliza, of Lough-Erin Shore" discussed by Charles Dickens in 1852. The story is about an Irish farmer falling in love with an English lady. They elope to Dublin and then to London (thus leaving Ireland). The lady comforts him with:

For three months in great consolation [says William]

This lady she did me adore,

Saying, my Willy, do not be uneasy

For leaving Lough-Erin shore

The song ends with them getting married and returning to Ireland. In both mentions of 'Lough-Erin Shore', it is clear that it does not refer to a specific lake, but to Ireland itself. I don't speak Irish obviously, but is there a possibility that it may not mean "Lake Erin's shores" but instead "The shores of [the bays of] Ireland"?-- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

October 1

Riviera Country Club, Pacific Palisades, CA

The first line of the HISTORY section states: "The club was originally developed by a syndicate in the early 1920's, a principal member of which was Los Angeles oil millionaire Alphonzo Bell, Sr., AFTER WHOM THE CLUB IS NAMED TODAY. How can that be possible, if the name of the club is The Riviera Country Club? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsstix (talk • contribs) 00:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

That erroneous entry was posted last November,[12] by someone who appears confused. The Bel-Air community was named for Bell, not this country club. I undid that entry. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Interior of the Westgate Bridge

Hi - in news reports on the recent expansion of the Westgate Bridge, I saw that there's a huge workspace beneath the upper deck - can anyone provide an account of what that space is like? With pictures maybe?

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

You can see its box girder construction (the space) here.[13]--Aspro (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

place name

where is the place in the world were a mosque,a church,a temple a tree with a snake sitting on its branches, a buddha statue and a pyramid is build adjacent to each other.looking forward for your reply.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.47.124 (talk) 14:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If we tell you and you win, will you share the prize with us? --TammyMoet (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Addressing a professor properly

A question from the German reference desk: A graduate student has contacted an American professor re job opportunities, using the address "Dear Professor <last name>". The profesor has replied "Dear <first name>". What would be considered the proper way of addressing the professor from there? Greets 85.180.199.217 (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Sir?-- Obsidi♠n Soul 15:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason to become more formal by using the bland anonymous "Sir". Just continue to use "Dear Professor <last name>." It is far too early to become more familiar.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Use "Dear Professor X" until they say, "Please, call me Danny," or whatever it is. If you are still a grad student you are still on the "bottom" in this situation until invited "up". If you are both on more or less the same professional plane I think you are safer in making the jump if they initiate it, but if you're still a student, don't make the jump until invited. Not all professors care that much — but it's the ones that do that are the reason for the custom. (One professor of mine always, ALWAYS, signed her e-mails "Professor Firstname Lastname" which I thought took it a bit far. I'm not talking about her auto signature — that was her normal "sign off," even if you e-mailed with her on a daily basis. Even at elite institutions I have never seen anyone other than her do that, though.) This was my perception, anyway, when I was in grad school. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Generally, my professors are not so dear to me, so I simply open with "Professor,....." I have had professors that like me to call them by his or her first name in person, yet I have always opened my e-mails to them this way. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 18:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If you are an undergraduate, you should never call them by their first name unless they ask you to (which they really ought not to in most situations). --Mr.98 (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Is the US really that formal? One of the reasons for choosing the particular college I applied to at Cambridge in 1973 was that when I visited a friend who was an undergraduate there, everybody I met was on first-name terms, whether senior or junior members. (Note to Americans: "senior members" are roughly what you would call professors, though we wouldn't, unless they held chairs). --ColinFine (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Switch to Dear Dr. ____. It's slightly less formal. 75.71.64.74 (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)