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

October 30

Onions

Are onions (typical white onions that you would buy in a grocery store in the US) less strong / pungent (both in terms of taste and smell) than they were approximately 15 years ago? Are children more sensitive to onions? Or is there some other explanation for the weak onions I have observed? 184.98.189.222 (talk) 03:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure you didn't luck out with some nice Vidalia onions, which are noticeably milder and sweeter than the regular ones? Onions being Texas's major crop, the Texas A&M website has a detailed history of the development of onion varieties over the past century. If that doesn't answer your question, you might email the good folks at the National Onion Association, who do a lot of public education. Or perhaps easiest of all: next time you are in the grocery store, ask to speak to the produce manager, who likely has vast knowledge of the particular onions being sold in your locality. Textorus (talk) 13:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Without making rude assumptions about the age of the OP, this article: The Effect of Age on Taste says, "Scientists have known that as a person's tongue ages, it will naturally lose taste buds. Hendricks, Calasantiand Turner (1988) noted that the number of taste buds on the tongue do stay constant until the age of fifty when their numbers begin to decline. When this happens, any certain number of taste buds could be lost, thus causing a decrease in taste ability." Another article: The association between smoking and smell and taste impairment in the general population says, "Heavy smokers of 20 or more cigarettes per day had significant increased risks for impairment in both senses" (ie sense of smell and taste). May I suggest that you discount these factors before you blame the onions. Alansplodge (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The answer is mainly economics. Farmers have been steadily increase the amount of potash fertiliser to increase yields and shorten growing time. Grow them in the garden with low-potash organic fertiliser and they'll make you weep. Plant early and leave them in longer and they can still reach the same size. See section here on Feeding Onions for the reason why.[1] This applies to a lot of crops, even apples orchards are best fertilised by sheep alone, since too much potassium leaves the apples tasting very bland because they grow too fast without taking up the other minerials that boosts the flavour. Also, I now remember from personal observations, that even heavy smoking (circa 60/day) does not provide protection against syn-Propanethial-S-oxide. Conflicting interests: I have grown onions – organically. So blame the supermarkets for putting profit before flavour. --Aspro (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

There's several possible reasons I can think of for an objective change in pungency. First off, there's been a rise in the popularity of sweet onions (low sulfur onions) over the years. When I was growing up, you could get them occasionally, but they were much more expensive than regular onions. Now with modern shipping practices, you can find them much more readily and cheaply. Another issue is location. I don't know if you've moved in the past 15 years, but I did to Washington state (home of the Walla Walla Onion) and here about half the onions in the supermarket are sweet onions, which cost about as much as the "regular" onions, so if you aren't paying attention you can easily pick up sweet onions instead of regular onions. (Sulfur content in the soil has an effect on onion strength, so even if it's the same variety, being grown in a different soil could change pungency.) A final point, you mention "white" onions. There is typically a distinction between "white onions" and "yellow onions". The more common yellow onion typically has a much stronger flavor than the white onion. So if you grew up using yellow onion, but are now using white onions, that may account for the change. -- 174.24.217.108 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC).

Could I get any compensation for filming crimes in progress?

You see, if the world doesn't end by December 21, 2012, I'll give society a 1-week grace period, in case they try to put off self-destruction in order to wait for a lot of us to crawl out of bomb shelters, or something.

Once that grace period ends on December 28, if my life isn't improving the way I'd hope, then I may go to Quindaro street or its vicinity; the worst part of Kansas City, Kansas, and try to film crimes in progress from my cameraphone as I either drive past, or am parked from a curbside.

If a perpetrator notices and shoots in my direction, I'll still attempt to flee, but if they make a successful hit, I will either get injured and race to the hospital, or have died a hero. Maybe my family will be compensated well.

But if I survive regardless, could turning in video evidence of crimes earn me a reward for every crime I turn in? (What other results would occur, and after I upload them onto YouTube?) The idea here is to resort to catching crimes on video in order to pay off big college debts with the rewards, because in this economy, it's harder to have access to a "normal" type of income. --Geroya Riskami (talk) 06:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

_{PS: The Lord wouldn't confine me to hell for knowingly taking a life-threatening risk in order to turn my life around, would he? If so, what passage of the Bible and/or any religion's scriptures backs it up? --Geroya Riskami (talk) 06:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)}

Ya know, bud, I think your chances of winning the lottery are probably as good as this dream scheme. You'd be almost certain to make more money, and make your family a lot happier, by mowing people's lawns or shoveling snow off their driveways, IMO. PS - I checked my email and God says, listen to good advice when you hear it. Textorus (talk) 07:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I am already 9 years along in college. I wanted to quit long ago but I was already over my head in college debt. The last event I wanted was for it to come back early and overtake the little income I have after rent. --Geroya Riskami (talk) 07:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

You've been in college for 9 years and still haven't graduated? You need to learn when to quit! Drop out of college (you clearly aren't getting anywhere with it and are just building up more debt) and get a job. I know the job market isn't great the moment, but there are still jobs out there if you look for them and are open-minded about what you do. --Tango (talk) 12:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Generally speaking the only way you're going to make money fighting or filming crimes is if there is a reward, or if you are in some form of law enforcement. I'm also a little confused by your conjunction of what appears to be Christianity and Mayan eschatology. Why don't you just become a police officer or something directly useful, if that's what you're interested in doing? --Mr.98 (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Bizarre question. DO NOT ATTEMPT (This borders on medical advice) The only crime you are likely to find going on in broad daylight in that part of KC is drug dealing. Violent crime is too rare to catch on film without weeks of work (unless you bring it on yourself), even in the most dangerous neighborhoods. The police aren't going to give you money for videos of drug deals (insufficient evidence to make an arrest anyway). Drug dealers don't like to be filmed, believe it or not and if you carry out this plan the only result I can imagine is that you will become the victim of a crime. If you get your ass kicked for filming someone with their "custies," no one is going to call you a hero. As for the biblical legality of this "plan", I'd take a look at the Parable of the Good Samaritan and think about how it might apply. --Daniel 15:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Medical advice?! So what's the illness, what are the signs and/or symptom? Nah, I think you mean legal advice. Whacky ideas don't have disease classification AFAIK. Richard Avery (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

No I meant medical advice. I was joking, but the scheme is likely to land the OP in the hospital. --Daniel 16:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Prevention is better than cure! Alansplodge (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Move to Korea Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank-goodness that some people want to get off their **** and explore the real world. Whilst one has a moral and legal duty in many countries not to withhold evidence which may be useful in the solving of crimes (for no reward), it is the normal day job for many free lance photo-journalists to work on the fringes of normal society to earn their honest dollar. 'Compensation' is in loose legal terms, a remedy for a loss suffered, which is not applicable in this scenario – so if your going into journalism, a good dictionary would also be of asset. News only has a sort life, so you might want (really need) to find organizations that can syndicate you footage both quickly and for the best price. Citizenside is one organization that comes to mind. Also, choose some suitable equipment. WiFi cards now exist so that even if you get the Camera stolen the footage can still be sent as it is recorded to a recorder securely bolted in the trunk or some place. Get and keep receipts for everything you spend so that you can claim it back against tax. Good luck and if it does work out badly, make sure your family lets us know where to sent the flowers. --Aspro (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Best case scenario if you try this is to receive a sever beating and earn the ire of the local cops. Worst case is getting killed. Bad idea, don't do it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Then you can't be the same Beeblebrox that was voted "Worst Dressed Sentient Being in the Known Universe" (seven times). Yeah, but maybe he's right Geroya Riskami. Stay under your rock and don't poke your head out. Remember that old adage: born under a rock, died under a rock. It's a dangerous world out here. So I'm going to treble-bolt my doors and blast away at anyone that tries to enter. Quick! Where's the bleach -there's a spider in my bath!--Aspro (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Aspro, there might be slight difference between hiding in your house shooting anyone who knocks and making a unauthorized documentary about your local dope spot with the intention of showing it to the police. --Daniel 21:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

If you find you have hours to spare, want to do some work and earn money without being able to get a proper job, have you considered trying magic, learn something like telekinesis in your spare time. much less dangerous, and potentially greater rewards. My reccomendation would be to get two rather small plants, same species, same size, put them in the same pot, give them a couple of days to get settled in, then pick one of them and sit watching it, trying to induce it to grow faster. It may take some weeks to pick the trick up, perhaps a couple of hours a day at it, maybe more, not that long compared to some full time jobs. Then, once you have finally managed to persuade something to grow an extra few inches more than the other, I suggest switching over, trying to make the smaller one catch up, to effectively double check your results. My theory is that if you can do something three times in a row, and I would count that as two, then surely you must be having some effect (If it doesn't catch up the result may have been contaminated, so start again, though with all that experience to make it quicker). Having made that start, then you can move onto larger projects, but don't mke the mistake of trying them out for a month or so, finding that nothing much is happening and, having forgotten by then about the plants, just assume it is all a waste of time. 148.197.80.214 (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Why do we save old keys?

The other day one of the door knobs at work was changed. The contractor keeps the original and cut ten for our use. On one keyring we have the truck key and two door keys. I went to use the door key and found it didn't work. I assumed that the key hadn't been cut properly and went to get another. I then noticed that there was an extra key on the ring that was for the new lock. The person putting the new key on had left the old key on even though the old lock had been thrown out. I realised that we had lots of useless keys around, including some that are for buildings we no longer use and now belong to others. I'm not exempt from this and have about a dozen outdated keys of my own but why do we do it? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Cannot say WHY, but you are definitely not alone in this. I used to keep many old keys, keys I found, keys for places I no longer live at, keys from lost padlocks and suchlike. Okay, now that I wrote this sentence I kind of thought of a reason for this, though it's stupid: A large set of keys looks nicer (in what quantifiable terms I do not know) than a small one. This used to really piss of my ex-girlfriend, who said the constant jingling used to drive her crazy. Maybe it's a psychological thing: having keys means you can get access to places, or you feel secure because you have a tangible connection to your home, i. e. a place you go to that you can lock and keep safe from the outside?

Counterexample: my folks had bought a house in the country three years ago, and they, in principle, only have ONE front door key, which stays in the door most of the time anyway, because there's literally always someone home. So, they don't actually have a set of keys, they have ONE key. Now that's weird for me. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

In olden days having lots of keys was of evolutionary benefit, increasing the number of descendants of collectors of obsolete unlocking devices. The relevant genes of compulsive-obsessive key-savers thusly survived.

Those who discarded useless keys snuffed it without progeny and became extinct. --Incognito.ergo.possum (talk) 11:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Almost spilled my tea giggling. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Spilled your tea while reading about someone trying to get a bit of crumpet ? How apropo. StuRat (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting question, Cambridge Bay. I think this tendency is widespread. Perhaps part of the answer will be found at hoarding? (Oh too weird - I went to check the link before saving, and found that what I wanted was Compulsive hoarding, whereas what I had almost directed you to, Hoarding, comes up on Google Search with the first line "A Thule culture food cache near Cambridge Bay, Nunavut Canada", its image caption.) BrainyBabe (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I keep them because I can't remember what they're for after awhile, and every once in awhile — one or twice in a decade — I find some lock and say, "how do I open this?", and sure enough, I find the key on my "giant old key ring". --Mr.98 (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Do we really know the key is for the lock that was thrown away, better keep it just in case. MilborneOne (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Privilege and power are very closely connected. There does appear a strong psychological drive to hold on to keys because they can continue to serve as symbolic reminder to privileges of access once held. One friend, was a little puzzled (but felt honoured never the less) to be given a pocket book from his Grandfather, that contained all the old combination filing cabinet codes that were once in his charge. Not only were all the combination changed on his grandfather’s departure, but the cabinets themselves were long since deposed of. Yet they were a very important keep-sake 'witness' to the responsibilities Grandpa once held. This to me, explains why they have value beyond their current usefulness. One might ask: why keep old photographs. They are 2 D visual connections with their past that people use, to give themselves the feeling of continuity in an ever-changing world. Primitive societies (savages to use the old term) have only their oral tradition to tell of important happenings and individuals who was once very important. --Aspro (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all the replies. I think we all compulsively hoard stuff to a certain extent so that may account for it. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Isn't a noun missing there somewhere, or something else? --Ouro (blah blah) 06:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Parse it as: I think we all compulsively hoard stuff to a certain extent, so that may account for it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, right, sorry about that. Thank You, Jack. --Ouro (blah blah) 09:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Old dinosaur says, "See? Punctuation does matter." Textorus (talk) 10:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

We live in a small Arctic community where all perishable items, fruit, milk, punctuation, etc, has to be flown in. The weather was poor and the plane didn't make it in. Thus we ran out of commas and bananas by Saturday. A new supply was flown in today. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Old keys serve a psychological function, connecting us to days gone by. We save them to retain a connection to psychological states of mind that were dominant yesterday but just memories today. Bus stop (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

In your particular case, the person putting on the new keys likely didn't feel it was their job to remove the old ones, since you could just as easily do that as them. And, in general, not having a key you need is a far more serious problem than having an extra key. Myself, I tend to remove old keys from my key ring, but then keep them in a junk drawer. This is because the "old key" is invariably one I can no longer identify, not one I am certain is useless. On a side note, do you really want the contractor to have unlimited access to your office by retaining a key ? That would worry me. StuRat (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This wasn't our office but was the hydrogen generating shed. We only go there twice a day so it's easier for the contractor to have a set of keys for when work needs doing. He is well aware of hydrogen's interesting properties and takes the necessary precautions. Also, it's a small place, and everybody knows everybody, and what they are doing at 3:00 am going into her house. Actually it was a co-worker who put the building key on the ring. And it turns out the door knob used was a safety issue and it has been replaced again. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Milwaukee prohibition era news article -- chief won't fix dry agents' parking tickets

This is driving me nuts, and says something about the limitations of Google's news archive search.

Earlier today I came across an article in the archives. Later, I tried to find the article again using about a million different search techniques, but couldn't find it.

1) It was in either the Milwaukee Journal or Milwaukee Sentinel. 2) Federal prohibition agents, "dry agents," got parking tickets in Milwaukee for taking up all the spaces near a post office. They did this all the time, but finally were ticketed. 3) The police chief, Jacob Laubenheimer, refused to fix the tickets. The paper did a "humorous" bit about this, comparing Laubenheimer to Sitting Bull and saying "no fix 'em, no fix 'em" (20s or 30s stupid stereotype). 4) In the bit, the paper called the chief "implacable" and "inscrutable." 5) It was toward the second half of the prohibition era, not the first. No earlier than April 1924, and probably after 1927 or 28.

You'd think with all that, I'd be able to find the article again via Google news archives. But nooooo.

Would appreciate help.76.218.9.50 (talk) 09:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

And something as simple as trying your browser's browsing history didn't help? --Ouro (blah blah) 09:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I had cleared it without thinking.76.218.9.50 (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Google News didn't work for me, strangely enough, but after a few false tries, I googled this up on the regular Google page using "Laubenheimer agents 'post office'" - "Police Tags Bloom at Federal Building," The Milwaukee Sentinel, Feb. 27, 1932, p. 1. Textorus (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, thanks. The mistake I made was using search terms in Google news ONLY (for more than an hour) -- I should have tried regular Google too. I won't forget that!76.218.9.50 (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Yeah, I've run into that problem before too. It's a very odd bug in the system. Textorus (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Can people spread a venereal disease, if they have never had sexual contact?

Note: I use the term "sexual contact" to cover all types of sexual intercourse -- anal, vaginal, and oral. Can people spread a venereal disease, if they have never had sexual contact?

Let's imagine a hypothetical case. Person A and Person B never have sexual contact before for whatever reasons. They fall in love; they marry; they copulate to procreate young. Can Person A spread a venereal disease to Person B, or vice versa, upon first sexual contact with his or her significant other? Can Person B die or become gravely ill from the venereal disease? 75.185.79.52 (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it may be possible to spread syphilis in this situation, if one of the partners has congenital syphilis. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Some STI's are not exclusively transmitted sexually. Like herpes.124.170.121.252 (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

There's also a remote chance that one partner could get infected via a freak accident, like receiving an unscreened blood transfusion. But if both people remain totally monogamous forever, the likelihood is very low. There is no spontaneous generation of VD bacteria, if that's what the OP is worried about. Disease results from infection, not from sex itself. Textorus (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes (see below). Dualus (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

What are all the conditions needed to maintain a 0% chance or near 0% of spreading a venereal disease? 75.185.79.52 (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Complete isolation from humans. A number of venereal diseases such as herpes and HPV can be spread through non sexual contact. --Daniel 15:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

In short, you'd have to dig a hole, completely disinfect it, shield it from any contaminated air and live there until you die. Good luck with your food-supply. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Can a person still spread a venereal disease, if he or she fulfills these conditions?

-the person's mother has never been infected by any known disease, and the person in question has never faced such an illness in childhood. The person may have had illnesses like chicken pox, cold, flu, pneumonia, but that's it.

-the person donates blood, but never receives blood

-all blood donations use needles that have been sterilized, as required by law

-the person maintains absolute abstinence from all sexual behaviors and feels perfectly fine with this lifestyle, because it is his or her personal choice to remain healthy and live as long as possible

-the person is obsessed about a cleaniness

-the person does not use finger-genital contact

Now, if these conditions apply two both partners in marriage, then can the couple still spread a venereal disease? Also, can chicken pox, cold, flu, and pneumonia spread sexually? 75.185.79.52 (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I think "complete isolation from humans" and the dig-a-hole story already answered that. If you're seeking more detailed medical advice, please consult a doctor or licensed practitioner. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Some of the conditions that the OP mentions are likely to decrease the chances of contracting an STI, but the fact remains that STIs can be transmitted without sexual contact. The non sexual infections you name are spread through physical contact, so it is certainly easy to spread them to your sexual partner, but they aren't sexually transmitted diseases as such. --Daniel 16:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

HSV can technically spread via a handshake (see PMID 15623779) and hepatitis C can spread on shared razors or toothbrushes. Dualus (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I realise that HIV is not a venereal disease as such, but isn't it possible to acquire it non-sexually and spread it sexually? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Last time I checked, the HIV virus is transmitted by contact with another person's blood, semen, vaginal fluid, or breast milk; the virus is also detectable at extremely low levels in saliva, sweat, and spinal fluid, but - again, last time I checked, some years ago - no cases of infection via those fluids had been documented. So yes, doctors, nurses, lab workers, etc., who come in contact with the first four and have a skin tear that allows the virus to get into their bloodstream, can indeed be infected non-sexually. See HIV#Transmission. Textorus (talk) 03:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Also via an infelicitous blood transfusion or a pre-loved drug syringe. Having got it this way, a person can then spread it sexually. Or vice-versa. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Not just drug syringes: there was an article in the Guardian just this week that claimed the number of deaths due to infection from reused needles was higher than the deaths from mosquito-borne infection, and pointed out the discrepancy between number-of-injections and number-of-needles-imported in many developing countries. Stories of parents being asked to choose a pre-used needle to be used on their child from a tray of them. It should be noted that this isn't generally true for vaccines, as the organisations that run global vaccine programmes generally send out preloaded syringes. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 12:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

According to Origin of AIDS, it looks like that the origin of AIDS comes from eating bushmeat. So, it may be possible that SIV is transformed to HIV, when a person, who has eaten bushmeat, copulates with another person. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

can chicken pox, cold, flu, and pneumonia spread sexually? I suggest you read the articles common cold, Chickenpox, influenza, and pneumonia. Most spread via the air, though pneumonia has a wide range of causes. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but just as easily through non-sexual close contact. Dualus (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Guatemala syphilis experiment is a pretty nasty case of sexual disease being spread deliberately and very probably some of those spreading it were obsessed with cleanliness and never engaged personally in risky behaviour. 17:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

October 31

contractor in need

I'm a general contractor in need of customers. I specialize in kithcen and bathroom remodels, we do everything from electrical, plumbing to wall additions. I need to bring in customers, i've tried many avenues. I'm asking for advise. HELP!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mibebita (talk • contribs) 04:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, we won't directly help you bring in new customers, but we can give some advice on advertising, marketing and things like that (right?). So, tell us what you've tried already and we'll see what we can do. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Depending on where you are located, there may be a local small business association (no article!) of one type or another that you can ask questions of. Dismas|^(talk) 09:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd advise building up a good reputation in your locality. Have you some satisfied customers who would be willing to provide a reference or be willing to have their names mentioned? Have some flyers printed and go round your locality in person, speaking to householders and leaving a flyer. Stress that you will be able to do work at a time convenient to the householder and that you will not go away to another job leaving their kitchen or bathroom half-finished (assuming that these promises are achievable). Supply your name, address and contact details so that potential customers know how to get in touch with you if there is a problem. Stress that you are a local and reliable contractor. Dbfirs 09:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The Small Business Administration has some programs to advise or mentor small business owners, and there's probably an office near you. I have no experience with them, but it wouldn't cost you anything to give them a call or email and see what they could help you with. I'm sure a lot of other contractors are feeling the economic pinch these days too. Good luck to you. Textorus (talk) 10:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Administration!! Dismas|^(talk) 10:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem likely has to do with the economy. In uncertain times people are loathe to spend money on "optional" things like remodeling. The key to overcoming this might be in the way that you market your services. Viewed alone, they can be seen as an "unnecessary expense", but viewed as an alternative to buying a better (and more expensive) home, this alternative may compare favorably. Another thought, if you can find a backer, is to buy cheap homes and remodel them, with the hope of reselling them later for a profit, once real estate prices recover. Or, perhaps they could be rented out, possibly subdivided into apartments. So, you need to "think outside the (tool)box". StuRat (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Here in the UK, we have a TV show called Homes Under the Hammer, which airs once every weekday. At least twice a week one of the people buying a house at auction for renovation explains that they are in the same position as you - a specialist contractor where the work is drying out. They have decided to buy a property at auction and renovate it, so that they can sell it on at a profit and keep their staff in work. Might be worth trying, although obviously I have no idea what the property market is like in other parts of the world. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The Black Adder TV Series

Listings show episodes 2 Born To Be king & 4 The Queen Of Spain's Beard----but they are shown differently in the introduction of each episode( for example--The Queen Of Spain's Beard is displayed as episode 2).Were these programs aired in the correct order? Very Confusing.94.9.66.170 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC).

See Talk:The Black Adder#Episode Order. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Another landlubber question - the Channel crossing

The White Cliffs of Dover as seen from France: so near, but yet so far.

Students of English history know that for centuries, down to the age of steamships and even beyond, the Channel crossing was dreaded by nearly all travellers, high and low alike. Letters, diaries, biographies, and histories are full of innumerable examples like this one (p. 7) of otherwise butch, brave men being reduced to quivering lumps of jelly by it - to say nothing of what the crossing did to the, um, weaker sex, as it was then supposed to be. Even the mere contemplation of the journey was fearsome, and many times affairs of state had to wait for days or weeks because somebody just couldn't make that short hop. The question in the back of my mind for a long time has been - WTF?? It's only 20 miles from Calais to Dover, and even on the slow sailing ships of the time, that wouldn't take more than what, two, three hours at most, right? Even a rough, choppy trip would be over very quickly. What could be so bad about that? Textorus (talk) 12:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC) <---- whose main seagoing experience was in a large canoe on a small creek

The English prince William Adelin thought exactly the same as you, and look what happened to him! --TammyMoet (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Judging by the state of the sea depicted in Turner's Calais Pier, the journey could be very rough. I've also experienced a very rough crossing some years ago onboard a large and fast catamaran... the bar closed, the alcohol shop closed and a lake of mixed spirits leaked out from under the door, people were vomiting everywhere - I've taken to calling that trip the rivers of puke and have never crossed by sea since. Astronaut (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The Hoverspeed catamaran from Folkestone to Bolougne was known to locals as the "Vomit Comet". Alansplodge (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Textorus, as we saw with sailing routes out of Venice, early modern or medieval sailing ships were capable of about 6 km per hour under the best conditions. From Dover to Calais is about 24 miles or 38 kilometers, so let's say at least 40 km accounting for slippage due to tide and currents (about which more later). That works out to a 7-hour passage, and that's how long the journey took under the very best conditions. One reason that this passage was treacherous was the action of the tidal currents. See this page on swimming the Channel for some background. Tidal currents in the English Channel often run at 3 to 4 knots (6–7 kph). As you can calculate, an early modern sailing ship would make no headway against such a current, even with a favorable wind. Of course, this was a cross current, and it changed direction every 6 hours, so a ship crossing the Strait of Dover would typically travel in a V-shaped course: east-southeastward during the flood tide (toward Belgium), then south-southwestward (toward Calais) during the ebb tide. Another issue is that when the prevailing westerlies blow against the ebb tide, the friction causes a harsh chop to develop. (These are short, spiky waves that would toss a ship of pre-industrial size and tend to cause seasickness.) With a less common easterly wind, the same phenomenon would happen during the flood tide. Finally, the English Channel is completely open and exposed to westerly storms and winds blowing in from the open Atlantic. As such, winds can be quite fierce and wave heights higher than you would expect in an enclosed body of water. The Strait of Dover is relatively (but only relatively) sheltered from such winds compared to other parts of the Channel. However, it wasn't always convenient, for political or other reasons, to cross the channel at Calais. Sometimes it was necessary to cross a broader, rougher part of the Channel, where the passage (involving a zigzag course due to tidal currents) could take more than 24 hours and where an unexpected storm could founder a ship out of the sight of land. Marco polo (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

And don't forget there's also the Goodwin Sands to contend with, where "more than 2,000 ships are believed to have been wrecked", and Varne Bank.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Apparently these are just two of several banks or ledges that pose a shipping hazard in the Dover Strait alone. See this chart showing several others. Marco polo (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The waves hitting the ship sideways caused rocking action that caused seasickness in lots of passengers. Henry Bessemer, co-inventer of the Bessemer steel process, spent a large portion of his fortune as well as investments by others designing and building a ship to make the crossing smoother, the SS Bessemer. It had an internal passenger compartment which was able to swing port and starboard to cancel out the rocking and remain stationary. It did not address and longitudinal rocking, which was less of a problem. It was opersated by a hydraulic system powered by a steam engine. As tested, it was controlled by a seaman rather than an automatic gyroscopic system, but automatic operation was envisioned for later development. The ship was designed to be reversible, so no turn-around was needed in harbor. It would just "back" all the way back to England. On the maiden voyage, the anti-rocking system worked brilliantly, but poor design of the vessel's steering caused it to crash into the dock at the French harbor. Rather than perfecting the steering, the project was abandoned, which seems a shame. Edison (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

William Adelin should have checked with the Reference Desk first. Thanks for the great answers, y'all; I get the picture now. Textorus (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes it is not the crossing that is the trouble, a while ago my ferry from France to Dove could not dock in Dover because the seas were too rough even in the harbour, so we had to return to France and come home by train thru the tunnel.85.211.229.139 (talk) 08:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

But that troublesome stretch of water has (together with some vigourous defensive measures) saved us from all kinds of unpleasantness over the years: see Battle of Sluys, Spanish Armada, Napoleon's planned invasion of the United Kingdom and Operation Sealion. Alansplodge (talk) 12:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, quite. Textorus (talk) 23:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands.

William Shakespeare, Richard II (Act II, Scene 1)

"less happier lands". Tut tut. didn't 'whoever wrote the Shakespeare plays' learn grammar? ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Sink in Laundry Room

I am purchasing a new construction home and have the choice of purchasing an upgrade to a sink in the laundry room which is downstairs. This will be my first home, and am unsure of whether or not I will use a sink in the laundry room. I am most concerned about resell value, and whether or not spending $1000 on a sink would be worth it.

It is a nice stainless steel sink with a granite counter top and cabinet underneath (downgrading to a cheap sink is not an option).

Do you kind folks value having a sink being in a laundry room? Is it something that would impact your buying of a house? Many thanks, TheGrimme (talk) 14:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Not having a sink in a laundry makes no sense to me. IMHO it is an absolutely essential item, not an optional "upgrade". A sinkless laundry is terriby impractical. Roger (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I use the sink in the laundry room for cleaning boots, garden tools, etc. that my wife would not want me to use the kitchen sink for. There is an entrance to the laundry room from the garden and I also use it a s a "mud room" to wash hands and clean myself up before going into the rest of the house. To me a sink is pretty well essential - though any sink would do this is not one of our "fine" rooms where we would bring guests (except for muddy kids who have been playing in the garden!). -- Q Chris (talk) 14:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I get by just fine without a laundry sink. If something is really dirty, the hose outside does the job. For anything else, the bathroom sink or bathtub works. So I don't think it's a necessity. If you like the idea of a laundry sink, I would do a little research and see if you can have something functional installed for less than $1,000. The granite counter top for a messy laundry room sink just sounds excessive. Unless you are in a very upscale neighborhood where buyers expect luxury in every corner of a house, I doubt that ordinary buyers would care enough about fancy fittings in the laundry room to bid more for the house. Marco polo (talk) 14:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Might be worth checking that, if you reject the $1000 sink, the builders will at least leave you with the plumbing for a sink in case you later decide you do need a sink. Astronaut (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

(OP) I thought about rejecting the $1000 sink and having a contractor put in a sink. The plumbing is directly behind the wall, but I figure to have them put in a decent sink it will probably cost at least $600. At that point, it makes sense to spend more and get a premium sink that matches the rest of the house. TheGrimme (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I suspect what you ought to do is call a real estate agent and ask them if laundry room sinks generally affect the re-sale value of a home. They probably know better than we do whether there's a lot of demand for that sort of thing amongst buyers — whether it's the sort of thing that will really be important to someone out there. It may well be; I haven't the foggiest idea. As to whether it is practical or necessary or not, that depends on your habits. I've lived in places with sinks and without them. One can easily adapt to either situation. Personally, I think every additional sink you add also adds a significant chance you'll have to call a plumber, someday! ;-) --Mr.98 (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

$1000 sounds high. Can you break that down by parts and labor? If there is already laundry room plumbing, I would think the installation would cost much less. This how-to guide says $500-$1,000. Dualus (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I recently had a bathroom sink and counter installed for $550: $250 for a very nice sink with a fancy real marble countertop and stainless steel fixtures and $300 for labor using a licensed plumber in expensive Massachusetts. Of course, we had a vanity in place which we kept. Still, even adding the price of a vanity, which you could have installed by a handyman for much less than the plumber would charge, I think you could get a basic sink and counter installed for no more than $600. Of course if you are buying a premium home, $400 is probably trivial. Marco polo (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Addressing the OP's questions: 1) Yes, I would like a laundry sink. 2) But it wouldn't make-or-break my buying a house. 3) However, a laundry sink is a "feature" that realtors and prospective buyers will be impressed with, whether they need one or not - how much reward you get at resale time is hard to say, fluctuations in the RE market might outweight that one item's value - but if the $1000 isn't keeping you from buying groceries this month, do it up pretty and relax. 4) Make sure your spouse agrees and likes it, or you may never hear the end of it. Textorus (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I only use my laundry sink for one thing, to receive the drain hose from the washing machine. If you don't get the laundry sink, make sure you at least have a drain suitable for use with a washing machine. StuRat (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If I may, what kind of sink are we talking about here? The OP mentions a marble counter and such but I can't think of any laundry sink that has been that elaborate. This is what I think of when I think "laundry sink". My parent's house had one and it came in handy. And I'd really like to have one in my current house. I'd have put one in already but other things keep needing the money more (like the mortgage to have the house in the first place). It wouldn't make or break the purchase of a house for me (obviously as I don't have one now) mostly due to the low amount of trouble it is to put one in. Dismas|^(talk) 01:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I would think the general expectation that there be a sink in the laundry room would depend on where in the world you are talking about, as well as the general price-range/overall quality of the house. Of the two houses I've lived in the longest, one in Buffalo and one in Seattle, neither has a laundry room sink. In fact in both the "laundry room" seems to have been almost an afterthought--crammed into whatever extra space there was. It's possible my experience is unusual, but I would find a sink in the laundry room a welcome plus, but not at all something expected as the norm. Pfly (talk) 09:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Who needs a laundry tub in Seattle ? If you need to soak your clothes, just hang them outside. :-) StuRat (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Changing plea = perjury?

I was watching one of those many, many legal shows on TV (can't remember the title but this one starred Kathy Bates). The story raised for me an interesting point. The accused had pleaded not-guilty and had undergone cross-examination in front of the jury. Some way through, the accused said he wanted to change his plea to guilty. The prosecution asked why he didn't plead guilty earlier. That got me thinking: could the accused then have perjury added to his charges and potentially ended up with a stronger penalty (jail time or file)? After all, earlier in the trial he must have lied under oath in order to try to make himself seem innocent. Astronaut (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Unless there are lawyers watching this page, your best bet would be to read some wikipedia articles about plea bargain and such stuff as that. Something to think about, though: How often do you ever hear of someone who is found guilty, also being charged with perjury just because he claims he's innocent? I'm thinking, not often, or maybe never. Now, if a witness lies, that's another matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This isn't legal advice and probably a lawyer will laugh at it for being too simplistic and inaccurate. But as our article notes, you can only be charged with perjury for lying under oath or affirmation to tell the truth. So if you just plead not guilty (which isn't under oath) or say your innocent in public or whatever, this doesn't mean you're guilty of perjury even if you're guilty. The problem only arises when you testify in your defence, which isn't required and can't be forced in a criminal trial in the US and quite a number of countries. And while I don't know how true this is, my impression is people are often advised not to testify in their defence, particularly if their lawyer believes they're guilty (partially because they know it's easily possible they'll be caught lieing which even if they aren't charged with perjury isn't going to help their defence and even if you don't caught in a lie it's still hard to sway a jury in your favour but easy to push them against you). And as anyone who's watched enough legal shows know, your lawyer can't subborn perjury, so can't encourage you to testify if they know you're going to lie, or encourage testimony which they know to be a lie (so they can't for example tell you what to say if they know it's not the truth) although this is a complicated issue (see our article for example) that also involves ethics, see [[2] for example.

Anyway [3] and [4] and [5] (see last post by Danimal) suggests in the US even when the defendent does testify in their defence and is later found guilty they're almost never charged with perjury, as it's generally going to be seen as a waste of the everyone's time since the original sentence is likely to be far longer then any perjury conviction and you still need to prove the person commited perjury and the sentence may end up being concurrent anyway. They also suggest if the person is found not guilty but it later becomes clear they perjured themselves in their testimony it's more likely.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It is typical practice to only prosecute the most serious crime committed. It is obvious that during the commission of a murder, you are virtually certain to commit unlawful act manslaughter, assault (either technical or battery, probably both) probably occasioning grievous bodily harm (depending on how you killed them); you also could be found guilty of attempted murder (the attempt being successful!). So missing out perjury seems to fit this rule. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's really the same thing. Most of the stuff you're referring to is part of committing the same crime (and I strongly suspect you're wrong on the attempted murder and manslaughter bit). Commiting perjury when you are on trial for a crime isn't generally seen as part of the original crime. Nil Einne (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

There do seem to be some crimes where they "throw the book at them", and charge them with all the "lesser included offenses", as well. Where this actually matters is sentencing. If the sentences are served concurrently, then only the longer sentence matters (although I suppose they could be pardoned or paroled on that one, in which case the others might still matter). But, when sentences are to be served consecutively, then the lesser included offense can have a major effect on the total length, and may even (collectively) dwarf the sentences for the main crime. I've never really understood the decision process behind consecutive versus concurrent sentences. StuRat (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The lesser included offenses merge with the original crime. The perjury charge would be separate though. Shadowjams (talk) 02:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

That's an incorrect interpretation. A person can't be convicted and sentenced for the lesser included offenses as if they were committed separately from the most serious offense. As Shadowjams notes, the merger doctrine precludes this outcome. (Among other things, it would violate prohibitions against double jeopardy.) In situations where they 'throw the book at someone', each charge represents a unique crime that may have been committed at the same time as the major offense. Consider a bank robbery—there might be a charge of armed robbery, and another of possession of an unlicensed firearm, and another of dangerous driving (in the getaway car). The defendant could be independently convicted of, and sentenced for, all three offenses. On the other hand, if he were charged with larceny (a lesser included offense to robbery), he would have to be sentenced for one or the other, but not both. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you're saying is incorrect. Charging an armed robber with possession of an unlicensed firearm, commission of crime using a gun, driving offenses, failure to stop, resisting arrest, etc., is exactly what I'm talking about. If all those are included and sentences are consecutive, then the prison term may be far longer than for armed robbery alone. StuRat (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The point is that those offenses (possession of an unlicensed firearm, dangerous driving, etc.) aren't elements of the offense of robbery and therefore aren't lesser included offenses. They're separate crimes that the defendant has also committed and for which he might also be charged. You're misusing or misunderstanding the specific term of art lesser included offense; it would help a great deal if you read the articles that I and Shadowjams had linked, which explain these principles. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

But whether they are "elements of the offense of armed robbery" seems open to debate. Can you commit armed robbery without a gun ? Possibly, but it's not likely to succeed. Can you commit armed robbery without a car or using a car which is properly licensed and displaying the license plate as required ? Again, it's possible, but highly unlikely to succeed. StuRat (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Elliptical philosophical digressions aside, you're being obtuse for obtuseness' sake. Go read term of art. "Elements of the offense" are specific components of the legal definition of a particular offense—conditions that must be met for a particular offense to have been commmitted in the eyes of the law. "Elements of an offense" are not the same thing as "plot devices and props which must be present to satisfy a scriptwriter". That's as much time as I'm going to waste leading you by the nose. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for Ten's extended explanation. As for the ad hoc "practical" lines of thought, they don't tend to fly on the bar exam or in court, although I realize that's how most people think of the law. Element have very limited scopes of interpretation. Shadowjams (talk) 10:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep, common sense has no place in the law, which often prides itself on being illogical. Legal fiction comes to mind as an example. StuRat (talk) 01:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you can commit armed robbery without a gun. Someone was in the news here recently for a series of armed robberies that involved the use of a knife. --Carnildo (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

That's nothing - here in London, you can get away robberies armed with a cucumber. Alansplodge (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

One he was apprehended, he was in a pickle. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I can see the headlines: "Nation survives cuke attack !". StuRat (talk) 04:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The TV show is Harry's Law, with Kathy Bates as "Harry". StuRat (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That would be the one, yep. It occurs to me that if a guy changes his plea to guilty, why would the prosecutor do anything to try and dissuade the accused from doing so? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

How about if the prosecutor considers the case an easy win, and wants the publicity, to assist him in seeking higher office ? StuRat (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

microwave ovens

why does the inside plate holder rotate counter clockwise inside a microwave? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.78.56.25 (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

They definitely don't all rotate counter clockwise. I've owned several that rotated clockwise. --Daniel 17:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I think most I've owned have reversed everytime you start them although [6] and [7] suggests it's more commonly technically random (which may have been the case for mine too, I didn't pay that much attention). Nil Einne (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Mine alternates direction every time the door's been opened. Textorus (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Mine always rotates clockwise, though I think it sometimes used to rotate anti-clockwise about 20 years ago. The direction of rotation makes no difference to the heating, of course. This reminds me of older electric clocks that sometimes used to start going backwards after a power-cut. In theory, synchronous motors can run either way, and starting direction "ought" to be random, but the starting-position is critical to the direction, and wear will probably determine a pattern for the position of the motor when it stops. Dbfirs 22:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

And to answer the question that the OP might have been going for... The plate rotates to provide even cooking for your food. Dismas|^(talk) 01:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Ding ding ding, we have a winner! Beeblebrox (talk) 02:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Mine just goes 'Ding' Richard Avery (talk) 08:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Whereas mine goes "Beep. Beep. Beeeeep." Also, like Textorus's, it reverses the direction of rotation every time it's restarted: I conjecture that this is because many microwaveable products specify a pause, with or without stirring, during the heating period, and the reversal may further contribute to the evening-out of the cooking process, though I don't immediately see how. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.254 (talk) 12:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Coriolis effect - which way it spins depends on which hemisphere you're in. ;-) However that brings me to another question, if anyone would like to chime in. Why don't manufacturers have it so that the plate returns to the same position each time (e.g., when you put a cup in you put it at the front - wouldn't it be nice if it always returned to the front when the time was up to make it easy to get out)? Surely this would be easy enough to program? Has anyone ever seen a microwave with this function? --jjron (talk) 14:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Usually there is a set number of seconds per revolution - if you wish the cup handle to end up in a given place, either place the cup in the proper position for the amount of time you wish, or adjust the amount of time to get an integer number of revolutions. Collect (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

...not to mention a huge 'geek credibility' increase ;-) Richard Avery (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

That would be nice though at some point, you'd have to program it not to spin at all because the cook time was too short. Imagine if you put something in for five seconds and it took ten seconds to go through one full rotation at normal speed. If the object has to now spin around in half the time, you might spill your coffee or whatever you're heating. Dismas|^(talk) 20:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

And people can stop it early, too, say when it starts to boil over. I just wait 'til the time is almost up, then stop it when the object is near me. (Or add an extra few seconds when it stops on the far side.) StuRat (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Guffaw. This rather elite sub-discussion over the extremely minor inconvenience of extending your hand a mere couple of inches further reminds me of a counter-Occupy poster I saw a few weeks ago: "To the rest of the world, you are the one percent." It doesn't come up in a Google image search, can anyone else find it? Textorus (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The good thing about our microwave is that it keeps turning after it stops cooking. Though, that does mean I can't calculate the time in sets of 6 seconds to make sure it always ends up back in the right place at the end. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 08:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ha, I do like the concept that others have thought about this somewhat nerdy problem. Yeah, I had considered the problem of too short cook times making it spin too fast, but the above IP's comment raises the possibility that it could be programmed to continue to spin after the time is up in order to return it to the starting position (i.e., spinning without cooking), which would be an elegant solution to this dilemma. Re calculating the cook time to return it to the front, or stopping it early or adding extra time at the end, well maybe I'm a bit lazy, but that seems like too hard work to me :). The point is I put something in, wander off to do something else, then come back when it's finished and I'd like it at the front - I don't want to have to manually monitor the machine, and I have very precise cooking times for various things (and to be honest I'm not sure any of the ones I regularly use spins at a consistent speed, as despite starting things at the same spot and using the same time they don't always end up at the same spot). And I think this has real practical considerations; consider my cup example - when the cup finishes in the wrong spot, it's not just a matter of inconvenience to have to reach to the back of the oven, but the handle is on the wrong side to grab, potentially leading to injuries such as burns (perhaps a lawsuit would set the manufacturers straight!). --jjron (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If you're over the age 10, that's a truly pathetic complaint. If you are really soooo scared of burning your widdle hand in that big scary machine, why not place the cup in the center of the turntable to start with, or alternately, with the handle facing the center? Duh. Man up, dude. Textorus (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

No need to be insulting. Burns to the hand can be quite serious, requiring hospitalization. Placing it in the center reduces the distance somewhat, but doesn't address the handle being on the wrong side. StuRat (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Which is why mommy shouldn't let you play in the kitchen until you are big enough to figure out how not to burn yourself. Get real, bro. Textorus (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Textorus, I'm liking you more and more every day. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You too, Jack ? jjron and I are trying to think of ways to make a safer product, what exactly is wrong with that ? If you two don't want to participate, then don't. StuRat (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Humans have been aware of the possibility of burning themselves in kitchens for a very long time. That's why we have protective items like kitchen gloves, oven mitts, teatowels etc to distance our skin from hot things. That's the simple, practical, effective and cheap solution to this issue, not programming the microwave to always finish with the handle in a desirable spot. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Why not ? Having it do an extra half turn at the end to return to the starting position would take less time than digging up oven gloves and then trying to fit your finger through the cup handle with those clumsy things on. Sounds like a nice feature to add, to me. StuRat (talk) 04:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Placing it in the centre significantly reduces the benefit of the turntable Nil Einne (talk) 06:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course, what you need is a cup with two handles. And perhaps a lid with a little hole to drink through, to avoid spills. My brother has one such that he takes to bed with him and it works rather well, though I am not sure it is microwavable. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 08:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, perhaps if you can't make sensible and civil contributions Textorus and others you shouldn't be involved here - please take time to go and read some policy pieces such as this to try to understand useful ways to contribute to Wikipedia. FWIW, if you had any understanding of the issue you would know that putting something in the middle of the microwave oven defeats the purpose of the thing spinning, as Nil says (and if you wanted to be smart you could have suggested just taking the turntable out and sitting the thing at the front edge, as then it would be exactly where it's needed at the end, which would be much better than having it in the middle of the thing with the handle probably facing the wrong way anyway). Thanks Stu and others who have made intelligent contributions. --jjron (talk) 06:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm rather shocked that Jack cheered on the attack on you. BTW, my microwave has the option to turn the rotation on and off. I thought this was in case you had something too large to rotate (because it would keep hitting the walls), but perhaps it's also for cases like you mentioned. Incidentally, there was an alternate design without a rotating turntable, where instead the microwaves were deflected by a rotating disk at the top. I'm not sure why this design never caught on, but it would fix the "handle on the far side" problem. StuRat (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You should know me better by now than to think I would ever engage in or support a personal attack, Stu. It was by no means an attack on jjron or anyone else. Textorus made light of jjron's argument, not of jjron personally. There was nothing malicious about it; its acerbity was sit-up-and-take-notice-worthy but very fitting, and it appealed to my sense of humour. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's see, Textorus implied he was immature and belittled jjron's issue: "If you're over the age 10, that's a truly pathetic complaint" and "mommy shouldn't let you play in the kitchen until you are big enough to figure out how not to burn yourself". Then he talked down to him: "soooo scared of burning your widdle hand in that big scary machine". Then he finished up by questioning his manhood: "Man up, dude." How is that not a personal attack ? How would you feel if someone said such things to you ? StuRat (talk) 02:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

"Belittled his issue" = he did not belittle jjron personally. No personal attack there.

"Talked down to him" - maybe, but that's still not a personal attack.

"Man up, dude" - this is encouraging him to drop what Textorus considered a trivial complaint, and should not be seen as anything like "questioning his manhood". That really is drawing a long bow, Stu.

How would I feel? It'd depend on the context. In this context, it was all part of the cut and thrust of debate, the hurly-burly, the give and take. These discussions are never going to be sweetness and light at all times, and that's perfectly fine as long as lines don't get crossed. I am yet to be persuaded that Textorus went anywhere near such a line. I do acknowledge you feel differently about it. Maybe we can leave it at that, because further discussion is unlikely to be fruitful. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Considering how sensitive you've been to perceived insults to homosexuals in the past, I'd expect you to be more sensitive to insults to others. StuRat (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's not go there, Stu. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

My fact for the day: the Welsh for microwave oven is Popty ping. Alansplodge (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

November 1

face vail

I was told that at my birth I was born with a vail over my face. have you ever heard of such a case before? And what does it mean if anything. Thank You <e-mail and full name removed> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.248.34.124 (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

A little Googling with the more likely correct spelling for "born with a veil" takes me to the Caul article. The line from there that you will probably most appreciate is "In medieval times the appearance of a caul on a newborn baby was seen as a sign of good luck". HiLo48 (talk) 01:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Right. In the US, Vail is most commonly thought of as the location of several fine ski resorts. In that context, any reference to 'birth' and 'vail' in the same sentence probably means your mother didn't get off the slopes in time!

--DaHorsesMouth (talk) 02:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Ouch, that was rude. Textorus (talk) 23:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

HEY READ THIS!!! (how to make a wikibot)

How do you make a wikibot,I'm doing it for the Sonic News Network?~Tailsman67~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.52.26 (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia:Bots will be helpful? --Ouro (blah blah) 15:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Cool thanks.:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.52.26 (talk) 15:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't SHOUT, especially not to get attention. --ColinFine (talk) 23:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

But he got to his senses later, didn't he (it's the brackets, they're like a mild sedative for the mind). --Ouro (blah blah) 06:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is Indian yogurt so delicious?

A couple years ago, I was traveling in India for a couple months. What I remember most about the food there was the dairy products, particularly the delicious yogurt. Is there anything in particular that makes Indian yogurt so delicious? Is it just a matter of people eating it just after it is prepared? Or that it is probably raw milk fresh from the cow? If I made yogurt in my house, would it taste as good? Any other tips? Thanks! Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Context can matter. Check this out. Bus stop (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but I'd be the first to admit that there was a decent amount of crappy food there too - e.g. the ubiquitous mixed veg curry, which could be pretty bad when longhaul buses stopped at stalls along the road, or really bland (but hearty) food typical of the far north... I swear that it wasn't just context--the dairy stuff really stood out! :) Also, somehow I thought all the dairy products I ate in Varanasi were particularly good, and I was later informed that Varanasi is known for its dairy... I'm not sure how one city could have better milk than all the other cities, but who knows! Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Could it be unpasteurized? Many people believe unpasteurized milk products taste better (see e.g. United States raw milk debate). --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, like I said above, I bet that it was raw milk. I'm not sure if that's where the taste difference came from, though. If someone from India passes by, they could chime in, but I doubt that any of the silver containers of milk being transported around town had been pasteurized... Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Indian yogurt frequently is made from full-fat mik or even cream, with about 10% of fat content. Most "yogurt" in the US, by comparison, is made from water, gelatin, starch, sugar, whitening agents, acidifiers, and homeopathic amounts of pasteurised reconstituted Ersatz skim milk ;-). Seriously, check the fat content. It makes a lot of difference for yogurt. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Have you had Greek yoghurt? That redirects to Strained yoghurt, and mentions India. Greek yoghurt is usually live, although that article doesn't mention it and yoghurt only has a sentence about live cultures. (It's apparently low fat. I am surprised by that.) 213.122.59.44 (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe many yogurts in the US also contain "active yogurt cultures" (live bacteria). StuRat (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Indians generally sweeten their yogurt, if I remember correctly. Dualus (talk) 08:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• I assume you talk about Lassi, right? Then you will find the reason in that article. --Nepenthes (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

No, not just lassi. Indian yogurt in general (typically called "curd") is delicious. Of course, by extension, yogurt-based products like lassi and raita are also good. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow you folks are all missing the obvious simple answer - Indian dairy products are so good because the milk comes from sacred cows. Roger (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Coming to this late. I think the factors are: new full cream milk, yoghurt consumed soon after making. Making yoghurt at home is dead easy. Get a yoghurt you like with a live culture, choose the best milk you can and follow instructions you can easily get online, then it should taste really good. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yogurt is made from milk. Milk is not, forgive the pun, a homogenous product. It its flavour depends on the breed of cow and the diet the beasts are fed. No doubt there are Indian specificities to these factors. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Date of publication

Can someone identify the actual date of publication (not July 7 - that doesn't make sense as it didn't lash the Carolinas until the evening of July 9) for this? Thanks. HurricaneFan25 21:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Um, the page bears the date "Thursday, July 9, 1959" (click and drag the page to see it at the top). Deor (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Oops, thanks. HurricaneFan25 22:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2

adding information on a persons history

TO WHO IT MAY CONCERNE,

HOW DO I GO ABOUT GIVING YOU INFORMATION TO BE ADDED ON A PARTICULAR PERSON THAT IS ON WIKIPEDIA REGARDIND A FAMOS MUSICIANS FAMILY TREE.

THANK YOU FOR ANY HELP.

ELLEN MULE' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellenkimby21 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Before information can be added to a Wikipedia article, it needs to have been published elsewhere first in a reliable source. That is because, in order to be trustworthy, everything in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable. If the information you wish to add has been published in a book, magazine, journal, website, etc. and said source is reasonably accessible, then you may add it to an article, so long as you properly cite the source it came from. If you are adding this information solely from your own personal knowledge, or your own original research, and the information is not accessible elsewhere, Wikipedia cannot accept it. If you are having trouble with the technical aspects of adding the information, you can provide the sources on the article's talk page (click the "discussion" tab when viewing the article) so that someone with more experience may help. --Jayron32 03:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Red Star Belgrade tickets

Can someone please advise me on how to buy advance tickets for the home matches of Red Star Belgrade? The English version of their website is here but I don't see any information there on how to buy tickets (the 'Shop' section is just for merchandise). Thank you, --Viennese Waltz 08:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the embassy can advise you?

They are at: Embassy of Serbia and Montenegro in Austria, Address: Rennweg 3, A-1030 Wien, Phone: +43 1 713 25 95, 712 12 05. That is close to the Lower Belvedere, if you contact them in person. --Incognito.ergo.possum (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Red Star Belgrade's website has email contact details and the phone number to buy tickets[8] (probably they have an English or German speaker there) or you could email Belgrade tourist information[9]. Also check out the TripAdvisor forums, e.g.[10]. I gather that attendances aren't high, unless it's a local derby against Partizan, so it should be easy to get a ticket. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Football loving friend tells me this is a site from which they purchase tickets for Crvena Zvezda (when they are playing on Marakana). The news item about the upcoming game versus OFK Beograd on 05.11.2011. say that the ticket selling will only start tomorrow. --91.150.127.105 (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

How did this seller make a profit?

I recently purchased NBA 2k12 online from a site called "eCrater". It didn't look extremely reputable, but it was selling a brand new game for $40, free shipping, when all the other major online retailers were selling it for $60. I was a bit hesitant to buy from this source at first, but seeing as it had by far the best price on the net that I could find, and that the seller accepted Google Checkout and PayPal, I felt it was a safe enough purchase.

Abysmally slow shipping aside, I'm overall very happy with my purchase; the item was exactly as described, and I saved a cool $20. I'm confused as to how this seller is making any profit, though. The seller included an invoice with the game, and the invoice stated that the seller had purchased the game from walmart.com and had it shipped directly to me: for $59.97!

How is the seller making money by charging my card $40 and buying the game for $60, then having it shipped to me? Is something fishy going on? If it helps, the return address for the shipper was Canadian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtzen (talk • contribs) 13:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see whether that is what they usually do. There could be many reasons: maybe they're new on the market and are trying to get customers through low prices? Or, maybe they usually buy wholesale and had JUST ran out of stock and needed to keep their promise (hence the slow delivery)? --Ouro (blah blah) 14:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Those are both definitely possibilities. I think eCrater is a startup online marketplace: I bought the game from a third party seller through their website. I'm still mystified as to why the individual seller would charge me $40 and then buy it online from Walmart at $60, then have it shipped to me. If this site is anything like Amazon or eBay marketplace, why would this third party seller do this? Mtzen (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like a loss leader special to me. Take one or two products, sell them for less than list and hope they entice you to buy something else (at full price) or, at a minimum, to come back and shop them again for something else (again, at full price). Enjoy your game and the money you saved! --McDoobAU93 14:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't tell if this is a 'proper' shop or not. If not, it's not always about making a profit in reselling, but a profit versus the intrinsic value of the stock (in this case a small lump of plastic and metal). If someone bought me a game I didn't like, or was incompatible for my games machine, for $60 and gave it to me with the receipt, but the shop wouldn't refund/exchange it, I'd probably be happy to get $40 less shipping for it as it's worth nothing to me, except as a paperweight. --Dweller (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I expect that the seller had some other, cheaper source that fell through (hence the delay), then went to Walmart in order to meet its obligation to you. John M Baker (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Why would the seller send you the invoice from Walmart.com? My suspicion is the invoice was spoofed; the seller didn't pay retail for a game they were selling you at a discount: They paid wholesale and bought the game from the game distributor like every other store does; so maybe they pay the wholesaler like $20 bucks for the game; and sell it to you for $40, making a profit. Then they include a fake invoice which makes it look like they sold it to you for a loss, and you're thinking "Awesome! I'm getting a real deal on this game. Haha!" That may make it more likely for you to come back and shop... --Jayron32 16:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I bet they bought a total of one unit from Walmart, and copied/altered the receipt for each customer, so they feel like they are getting a great deal. Is there a serial number listed on the Walmart receipt ? Does it match the serial number on the box ? Your game may even be pirated. StuRat (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

What would be the point to such a maneuver? Individual sellers on a site like this aren't trying for any sort of brand recognition. No, almost certainly this item really was direct shipped from Walmart. The only question is why. Probably it was a common form of credit card fraud as I've outlined below, but there could be innocent reasons for it too. Perhaps the seller had Walmart store-credit that he needed to turn into cash. Or perhaps he oversold his stock and had to fill orders at a loss from Walmart. APL (talk) 01:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think it was a person they bought from, but rather a retail online store. Reading the post again, it's not really clear which it was, but I got my impression from the phrase "make a profit", which to me implies a retailer, not an individual. StuRat (talk) 01:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

eCrater seems to be a site where any individual can set up a "store front". Like ebay, but without the auctions, only the "stores". APL (talk) 01:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I suspect credit card fraud.

Imagine that you've got a stolen credit card number, how do you get money out of it? You can't simply have items shipped to your house or the police will know your address. So here's what you do.

• You advertise some product. Say, a $1000 camera, for a phenomenal price : $750.
• Joe Consumer sees the great deal you're offering, and sends you $750.
• You go to Cameras-R-Us.com and use the stolen credit card to buy the $1000 camera, and ship it directly to Joe Consumer.
• You now have $750 that you received through entirely legitimate channels.
• If the police investigate the stolen credit card, they'll go to Joe Consumer's house, not yours.

This sort of thing was once relatively common on eBay. (And it may still be, I don't know.) Does eCrater work in a similar way?

Keep your records for this transaction. The police may contact you wanting to know why a game bought with a stolen credit card was shipped to your house. APL (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not going to work, though, is it. When the police show up at Joe's house, he'll simply tell them where he sent the money to. Before long, they'll be knocking at your door. --Viennese Waltz 08:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments and advice. I will definitely take what you have said into consideration. I took a look at the invoice and I don't think it's forged; I could upload a picture if you'd like. I also doubt that the game is pirated. I'm a bit worried that it is credit card fraud, but I don't know for sure yet. I will make sure I have all records in order and will keep you all posted if anything happens. Mtzen (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The old joke is "You're losing $20 on each transaction!" "Yeah, but I'll make it up in volume." Edison (talk) 04:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

An early personal computer manufacturer did just that: each month's expenses were paid off with the next month's sales. Since the market was growing explosively, this worked just fine -- until one month when sales didn't grow as fast as usual. The next month, the company went out of business. --Carnildo (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

My credit card company gave me a $50 gift card to Best Buy. I purchased a game for $50, then sold it for $40. This person could have had a non-refundable walmart gift card, and a need for quick cash. Of all the things you could buy at walmart, I think media and electronics would be the ones you could resell with the highest demand and the lowest markdown. Other stuff like clothes or jewelry would have much more significant skepticism or markdowns from the retail price. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Damage total?

Can someone find a damage total for Hurricane Cindy, July 1959 (preferably from a .gov source)? If you can, post the link here :) Thanks! HurricaneFan25 | talk 17:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Clothing style name

Is there a name for a woman's top with a hole through which cleavage is visible? (See commons:File:3-promotional-models-fenasucro.JPG, commons:File:10-promotional-model-Fenasucro.JPG, and commons:File:13-promotional-models-Fenasucro-2010.JPG for examples.) Thanks. --Kramer Associates (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

There are names for the hole: boob window and cleavage window. There's even a sweater with two boob windows. I guess that would be a fashion boo(b)-boo(b). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If you'd like the "official" name, by which dressmakers and designers know this feature, it's a keyhole neckline. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Highway lane uses

Ok, so on divided highways in the United States with two lanes each direction, the right hand lane is used for normal driving and slower traffic and the left hand lane for faster, passing traffic. When the lanes in each direction are upped to three or more, what happens to the "primary use" of each of the lanes? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

In reality, the "drive on the right, pass on the left" rule only works when there's not a lot of traffic. On busy highways, you often wind up driving in whatever lane is available. Often one finds himself driving in the left lane to avoid a line of big trucks going 45 MPH only to be tailgated by a maniac who races up to your behind at 80 MPH. They usually only build 6-lane highways if there is too much traffic for 4 lanes, so any 6-lane highway probably has too much traffic for much of the day to stick to the right lane except to pass. Ideally, the right lane would be for regular driving, the center lane for passing vehicles in the right lane and the left lane for passing people in the center lane who aren't going fast enough for you. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Add to that, the HOV lane which is often found in major cities. Dismas|^(talk) 23:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's how I use them with 3 lanes or more in each direction: I leave the right lane clear for merging and exiting, and leave the left lane clear for passing. The rest of the lanes I use for regular driving, and try to go further to the left the faster I am going relative to the other traffic. Note that some highways split into "express lanes" and "local lanes". (Another reason for this is so that bridge spans on overpasses can be shorter, with columns between the two.)

I've often thought it would be nice to formalize this, and have the right lane with a 55-65 MPH speed limit, the next lane at 60-70, the next at 65-75, etc. Thus, with maybe 10 lanes, we could get up to a reasonable speed. :-) StuRat (talk) 01:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

As a tourist in Germany I was astonished at how well the drivers stuck to the rule of never passing on the right. Because of this, and with no maximum speed limit, On roads with any amount of traffic the sort of tiered speed you describe seemed to happen naturally. Amazing. American drivers could never be so disciplined without stationing a cop every quarter mile. APL (talk) 01:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems like you need another ingredient to make the voluntary system work, you can't have idiots creeping along at 45 in the fast lane. StuRat (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with StuRat in terms of how I treat the lanes: For three or more travel lanes in the same direction, I stick to the middle lane(s) for long-distance travel; the left is strictly for passing and I only move to the rightmost lane to prepare to exit. If there are only two lanes, I will generally travel in the right lane, but will move to the left lane when approaching an exit or entrance to give oncoming cars the space to get on the road. If the road has only two travel lanes and lots of frequent exits/entrances I will end up traveling in the left lane to avoid frequent lane changes. --Jayron32 02:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

In practice, using three lanes in that way means there is an impenetrable wall of traffic in the middle lane, densely packed with long-distance drivers blissfully unaware of the needs of drivers to either side, prone to bunching up and sudden stops (causing "phantom traffic jams" and accidents) if anything should slightly delay a vehicle. People who move out to pass get trapped in the left lane; drivers in the right lane who wish to make room for merging traffic have nowhere to go. It's possibly one of the worst ways to use a highway. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Um, no. Your mischaracterization of my post results in you drawing false conclusions of my driving practices. In heavy traffic, I will modify my driving to match the conditions. But if I've got half a mile on all sides between me and any other car, I stay in the middle lane. --Jayron32 03:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you folks have any idea how hard this topic is to grok for us that live in countries that drive on the left. On the fly mentally editing every mention of "right" to "left" and "left" to "right" is really hard! Roger (talk) 08:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I had to concentrate hard to produce a mental mirror-image. The answers all apply equally to those of us who follow the older convention, except that driving in the middle lane, though sometimes seen in the UK, is generally considered not the best practice. It becomes a problem only when the driver totally ignores faster traffic approaching from behind. Dbfirs 10:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Gaa, my pet hate. Middle lane dozers, with their car in 5th and brain in neutral. Show some lane discipline and consideration for other users of the highway, by keeping to the inside lane unless passing slower traffic. Rule 264 of the UK's Highway Code say you "...should always drive in the left-hand lane when the road ahead is clear." I'm sure other jurisdictions have similar wording (switching left for right if appropriate). Astronaut (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, although I think I hate impatient speedhounds more. If a load of lorries are going 55 in the left-hand lane, I'm going 60 to overtake them in the middle-lane because the cars in front are going 60 and I don't want to get us dangerously bunched, and cars on the right cannot go fast enough to quickly overtake me, but are also not willing to allow me in front of them, it is not okay to whizz impatiently up to my bumper, tailgate me with impatient wiggly manouvers, then rush to the left hand lane in the little gap between lorries, undertake me, and cut straight in front of me (in the nice safe gap I'd left) so that I have to brake hard. Thankfully, you then cut in front of the bastards to my right and very slowly got ahead, so I didn't have to worry about you anymore. Also, if you try very hard not to let me into your lane to the right of me, even though you can see that someone or someones are merging slowly into my lane just ahead on a busy road, I will occasionally have to rudely nose gradually in front you. Beep all you like: I don't want to crash, and you could have either slowed down to let me in, or moved right. Middle lane hogs are annoying, but they don't raise my blood pressure like some! 86.163.1.168 (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of generic understanding, it might make more sense to refer to the "express" lane (the one nearest the barrier between the two directions of the traffic) and the "local" lane (the one typically nearest the exit and entrance ramps). Then there are one or more "middle" lanes, in either scenario. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest "fast lane" and "slow lane", since "express lanes" mean those without access to exits and "local lanes" mean those that do have access to the exits. It gets even uglier when you have the occasional exit from or entrance directly into the fast lane, preferably at a 45 degree angle with no room to accelerate before entering the expressway, my personal fave. :-) StuRat (talk) 04:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I miss Hartford, Connecticut sometimes... Good ol' I-84. --Jayron32 04:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, Hartford needs to support the local economy by making everyone go out and buy life insurance, and nothing accomplishes that like a good old FUBAR expressway. But, of course, they do need to be able to pry their white knuckles off the steering wheel to sign the check. :-) StuRat (talk) 04:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Recently, we've taken the further step of turning off the majority of traffic lights. It's fun to see which drivers remember what to do when the traffic lights are out. (Pro Tip : You treat every intersection like a four-way stop, you do not sail through at top speed.) APL (talk) 07:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Here in Detroit, when we were hit by the East Coast power failure a few years back, we found better ways than that to handle no lights at an intersection. For intersections where one road is a major street and the other is a small drive, we treated it as if there were yield signs on the small drives, meaning those on the drive just had to wait for an opening. Also, where the roads were equal in size, we almost treated it like a 4-way stop, except that cars didn't go through the intersection one at time, but more like a half dozen at a time. This was a lot more efficient. StuRat (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

This parody from a website called the Middle Lane Owners Club pokes fun at drivers who won't pull over to let faster traffic past (apologies to American folk for the British terninology, but you'll get the gist of it). Alansplodge (talk) 12:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

November 3

Is masturbation a high-risk sexual activity?

I was reading Wikipedia's article on masturbation, though I had to raise some questions while I was reading the text. Given that masturbation involves finger-genital contact, and that the fingers can be contaminated, would masturbation count as a high-risk but "normal" sexual activity? Do the benefits outweigh the harms, or does the person who masturbates is doing more harm than good for himself or herself? Can washing hands with soap and water prior to masturbation enhance safety of this activity?

Intuitively, I would think that it carries some sort of health risk. However, more often than not, my intuition can also be wrong. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 01:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Washing the hands with soap and water after masturbation is probably also a good idea. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.254 (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't imagine that masturbation caries any more health risk than other activities you do with your hands. After all, your hands touch your food, repeatedly; you ingest this. Your hands touch your genitals when you use the rest room. Honestly, if your concern is the contact your own hands make with your own genitals, there is nothing inherently more risky about the act of masturbation in that regard than any other random thing you do with your hands to your body. Contrawise, (for men at least) there is some health benefit from masturbation with regard to prostate health, see Masturbation#Benefits (NSFW). Depending on the technique, frequency, and "aggressiveness" of the act, there can be risks as well, and those are covered in the Wikipedia article. But those sorts of risks are inherent in any strenuous activity, and not unique to masturbation. --Jayron32 02:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Why should one wash hands with soap and water after masturbation? To reduce the spread of venereal disease upon contact when one places his or her hand(s) on a public object or on another person? 75.185.79.52 (talk) 03:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have it at hand right now but in an issue of Playboy about a year or two ago, someone wrote in to their Advisor column asking about men washing their hands after urinating. The magazine's response was basically that it's a fairly clean process. They argued that a relatively clean person will take a shower in the morning, put on a clean pair of underwear, and the penis would remain in this fairly clean state. There may be some sweat and such but otherwise, you have clean skin wrapped in clean clothing. They maintained, and our urine article pretty much agrees with the idea, that urine is a fairly "clean" fluid if you're dealing with a person of good health. In answering the question, they maintained that the process of urinating was a fairly clean act and that hand washing, while not a bad practice to keep up, isn't absolutely necessary for a clean and disease free person. The most dirty part of the process was the possibility of splash back from the urinal. That's all from memory though... Dismas|^(talk) 03:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Relatedly... --Mr.98 (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile, my sister assured me, in a completely unrelated discussion, that the hands are the cleanest part of the body when it comes to bacteria and such like, simply because they are used so much for so many things, making them a rather hostile environment for anything living on them. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 08:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hands are also washed, wiped, rinsed, incidentally immersed in water, far more often than any other body part. In a healthy person urine is sterile and can actually be used as a "disinfectant rinse" in "stranded in the wilderness" survival situations - according to a urologist friend (yes it's 2nd hand OR). Roger (talk) 09:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, how about plainly washing hands after masturbation for the sole and express reason of removing the (subtle but noticeable) specific smell left behind on them after prolonged contact with the penis? --Ouro (blah blah) 09:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I've never received any complaints, but someone with a stinky penis needs to concentrate on washing more than just their hands, don't you think? Textorus (talk) 11:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ahem, I'd strike the word washing as well, and all offence aside, I was just saying. --Ouro (blah blah) 14:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Back to masturbation (which is a trollish question to start with): If it makes you sick, don't do it. If thinking about doing it makes you sick, see a psychiatrist. Textorus (talk) 09:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

From a feminine point of view, it is possible for masturbation to introduce unwanted bacteria in to the vagina, which could result in nasty infections. But then the same thing is possible during intercourse anyway. I'd go with the washing hands afterwards too. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You need to wash your hands after touching your genitals because your genitals are covered in fecal bacteria. These bacteria are not removed from the groin by normal washing. You should therefore wash your hands after touching your genitals for any purpose.[11] --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I've seen Cecil's column cited here before, but I'm not sure I buy it. I don't see why the penis, which is some distance uphill from the anus, should be infested with fecal bacteria. (Of course, anal sex could lead to such infestation, in which case hand washing after urination would be called for. But the questioner didn't mention anal sex, so we shouldn't assume that he practices it.) Is there a scientific reference that could be cited for widespread coliform infestation of penises? I would think that hands, which get exposed to fecal bacteria after defecation, would be a more likely refuge for fecal bacteria, even despite washing after defecation, than the penis, which is not remotely affected by defecation. I'm not sure what another round of washing after every urination would do for the bacteria hiding out underneath fingernails and such, but it certainly dries out the skin in a way that can be harmful in a dry climate. Marco polo (talk) 14:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Whether this allegation is true or not - and I've read a report that even your toothbrush kept hanging on the bathroom wall is likewise infested with fecal germs - it can't possibly be significant, or else we would all have died long ago from some loathsome disease. Get on with enjoying your life and don't waste time worrying over theoretical irrelevancies, is what I say. The real truth is that some folks just love to terrify other people with gross "truths" and thereby manipulate them. Now that's nasty. Textorus (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Textorus hits it right on the head here: The proof is in the pudding: If something were risky, we'd see the results of that risk. The fact that one can find bacteria on your hands/junk/toothbrush/whatever is irrelevent if we don't find widespread disease as a result of it. If it wasn't making you sick before you knew it was there, why does it suddenly matter if you now know it was? All that's changed is your knowing it, and that should have no effect on the inherent risks involved. --Jayron32 16:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

People carrying Mycobacterium tuberculosis or MRSA are usually healthy, and it's normal to have meningococci up your nose.  Card Zero  (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you to some extent but I'd look at this from a different way, what's the pudding? The claim that these are simply 'theoretical irrelevancies' or we aren't seeing the result of the risk has no real evidence. To be fair, the SD article may be a bit extreme. And I'm not saying there is definitely a risk. I'm saying we don't know. Obviously it's unlikely millions of lives in the developed world could be saved by better hand washing after urination by males. This doesn't mean there is no risk that may make it worth males washing their hands after urination. I suspect many of us have had a stomach upset or mild diarrhea who's cause they are uncertain, usually most people make the assumption it's something they ate even if they don't really know what, and I suspect in many cases it is, but I doubt there is sufficient evidence to establish none of these could be prevented by better hand washing after urination and definitely no one has presented any here. If some of these are, is the time it takes (and whatever other negative effects) for hand washing worth reducing your risk of getting these (or spreading problems to others)? Well that's up to the individual to some extent (although if you are preparing food for others or whatever, it does seem you should consider them) but obviously knowing helps them make a decision. (It's also worth considering how easy it will be to change your habits and whether you might be at higher risk when you are older.)

Let's consider another thing, even for things like H1N1 flu, not everyone agrees regular hand washing has much of a benefit [12] although it's usually still suggested [13]. Regular hand washing in general is usually suggested as beneficial in reducing the spread of various diseases including flus and colds so if it does help, it may be hand washing after urination also helps even if it's just because it means you wash your hands more often (hopefully with proper drying). (Reducing how often you touch your mouth, nose and eyes is another thing suggested to help.) Of course this shouldn't be surprising, epidemiology is not simple. In any case, most organisations recommend handwashing after visiting the toilet whether or not defecation is involved, e.g. [14] [15] [16] even if their evidence may not be great. Some which specifically discuss the urination aspect [17]. [18] (look for answer by researcher) is also of interest.

TL;DR, the idea that health risks are always easy to measure or detect and therefore there must be no risk because we haven't clearly detected one (presuming we haven't) is flawed. Even more so since there is substanial evidence regular hand washing after going to the toilet is beneficial, particularly in the developing world where gastrointestinial diseases are more common and so far no one has presented evidence that the same benefit is obtained when you wash your hand after defecating only.

Nil Einne (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

And so, Nil, your argument differs from hypochondria how, exactly? And I beg to differ: it would be very easy to determine the risk you are so afraid of by a very simple experiment, a version of which we performed in my 10th grade biology class: collect skin scrapings from a large, random set of penises, transfer them to a nutrient medium in a petri dish, and see what develops in a few days or weeks. (In fact, we found that clean skin scrapings taken from one another's arms or hands, in contrast to scrapings from other surfaces around campus, produced practically no observable results: I remember that very clearly.) It ain't rocket science. Surely if there were a major health risk going on, we would have heard about it long before now. Scientists are not clueless on this topic: a whole 150 years ago, Louis Pasteur did some work along these lines that you may want to read up on; it's not much of a problem for healthy people (absent a specific contagious disease) unless the uglies from your skin are coming in contact with someone else's bloodstream, gut, or other innards. And indeed, for that reason, many generations of children have been taught to wash their hands before meals, and we expect professional food workers to do the same at work, etc. But Nil, you have to remember there is another side to this story: humans come with built-in defenses against bacteria, which are all around us, all day, everywhere you go. You cannot get away from harmful germs no matter how you try. Do you run wash your hands each and every single time after you have touched a public doorknob or stair railing, or used a common pen or pencil, or handled a dollar bill or a quarter, at work, at school, in stores and shops, buses, trams, public parks, etc.? Of course you don't, and nobody else does either. Even though, I'd wager, every such public surface is practically encrusted with other people's germs. A million-zillion times more than my penis after a morning shower, and protected under three or four layers of clean clothing. And yet - surprise, the human race still carries on somehow, and even thrives, with a steadily increasing lifespan overall. So, my friend, as with asteroid collisions or alien invasion, you can either worry yourself into a tizzy over every hypothetical threat to your bodily purity - just like the cooties we used to torment one another with in 3rd grade - or you can relax and enjoy your life, without casting a guilt trip on everybody else over something that is merely a very remote, implausible possibility. The choice is yours. Textorus (talk) 07:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, you seem to be going rather off topic with stuff that is not related to what anyone else has said. I don't know why you brought trying to get away from all pathogens as no one here suggested it. Nor was anyone trying to guilty trip anyone in to anything. And what's this bodily purity nonsense?

There's quite a good chance you can get culturable coliform bacteria from many penises if you try hard enough. (Even more likely you can detect them with PCR.) But who cares? I don't think anyone here does and it was never relevant to the discussion nor a consideration until you brought it up. What's much more important is whether failing to wash your hands after urination leads to an increased risk of catching some diseases from these coliform bacteria and other contaminants, and how great that risk is, and what the risks are, all of which are far harder to measure. This is a complicated issue since as most of us know, there are a variety of complicating factors like the human immune system (which I didn't forget about), number of pathogens transferred, type of pathogens (an important point you don't seem to understand based on your surface comment) etc.

However, as I've already said, the general advice is washing your hands after going to the toilet, including urination is likely beneficial, even though you claim it is not, without evidence. However as MP has said, it's not clear how strong the evidence for this is, it seems more based on theoretical considerations, as with a fair amount of health advice, but that doesn't mean it's wrong, and despite your confused statements, you've provided no evidence it's wrong. Some sources have suggested, again based on theoretical reasoning (but often without seeming to consider all issues) that there's no real need. Personally I stick with the health authorities, but clearly at least in this thread, insufficient evidence has been provided to be that certain either way. (Personal revelation which I might as well make, note that I'm a male and I don't always wash my hands after urination, it doesn't mean I'm going to make the claim there's no appreciable risk when I have no evidence for the claim and reasons to believe it may not be true.)

As for actual evidence, you obviously can't do a double blind. You could do a non blind test where you assign one group to wash their hands, and one group not to but that's still an expensive and difficult exercise and will depend on how well your participants follow your request. And trying to do a survey would have quite a few confounding factors (like possible correlations). In any case, it's not clear that any of these have been attempted. One of the reasons is probably because it doesn't seem that important to most including those making the recommendation (as I've said, for a variety of reasons they feel it is the right recommendation to make, including I suspect simplyfing the advice and increasing hand washing in general, remembering you're usually near a sink if you urinate). Indeed from what you've said so far, it seems likely you're not going to change your mind even if there is excellent peer reviewed science of the benefit of washing your hands after urination, and frankly I don't care much either except unlike you, I don't go around making the claim there's definitely no significant benefit just because there's no conclusive evidence for a benefit (although in reality, I've searched a bit but not that hard and I'm not sure anyone else here did).

Also, you still seem to be missing the point that healthy people can and do get sick all the time, many of these are minor conditions but from a personal POV, it may still be worth avoiding them by simple precautions like washing your hands after urination. As for 'like the cooties we used to torment one another with in 3rd grade', well that's a dumb thing, which no one did or I'm pretty sure does, in Malaysia (most probably barely recognise the word).

Ultimately all of us are going to suffer and die, it's not unresonable for us to want to know what resonable precautions we can take to reduce the former and increase the time before the later while still enjoying our life (it's not like washing your hands after urination is some extremely arduous task for most of us), which was what this discussion was about.

P.S. An improvement in hand washing after going to the toilet is very likely one of the many reasons why there has been a steadily increasing lifespan in many countries, although as I said before how important the 'after urination only' component to that is, is unclear.

Nil Einne (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually it occured to me I was doing a general search rather then a journal search which in retrospect was a bit silly. Anyway I found [19]/[20] (largely same ref but published in different journals) which if I understand it correctly (I didn't read it aall) found among hikers, washing hands after urination was correlated with a reduced risk of diarrhea although the authors acknowledge it may simply be because this is an indicator for good hygeine, and in particular more frequent hand washing (the later point is only mentioned in the first ref). BTW they also found no clear reduction in diarrhea for washing without soap after defecation (although I don't think this is that surprising a result). Anyway it wouldn't surprise me if there are more refs, I'm not really that interested to search more and a fair amount of stuff doesn't seem to seperate defecation and urination.

Oh and as for my earlier statement about culturable bacteria on the hand after urination [21] mentions a study which found during an outbreak, among children (who may of course be less careful about what they touch), some had Shigella sonnei on their hands after urination (I presume these were cultured since the study was in 1956). This is probably both sexes, but didn't find the full text for the original study [22]). As I said, I don't think this is a startling revelation. Not males but if I understand [23] correctly, it found an increase in E.coli count on mothers hands even after handwashing with soap, the highest increase of those activities measured so in fact higher then for defecation or cleaning a child's feces (sweeping was second highest). For enterococci, urination was the second lowest increase however.

Oh and [24] which mentions a case where a cook urinated into salad while asymptomatic for Hepatitis A and also mentions Salmonella Typhi and Salmonella Paratyphi in the urine of people with infections (the presence of pathogens in the urine was also mentioned in the refs I provided the first time I believe) reminds me of another thing I neglected to directly mention. Other then the possibility of habits going with you to old age when the risk may be higher, there's also the risk of habits remaining the same when you are sick and the not washing therefore leading to you potentially spread the disease via contact (let alone food preperation even non professional). Particularly since as the Hepatitis A case demonstrates, you may not know you are sick.

P.S. Just to be clear when I mention the possibility of infecting other people, I'm not trying to 'guilt trip' anyone. I'm simply mentioning that there may be appreciable risks to others that some people will consider relevant (particularly since in many cases the person you're most likely to spread it to is someone you have frequent contact with), when deciding whether or not they should wash their hands after urination (which was the issue that started this sub-thread) which aren't 'hypochondria' (or whatever you suggest).

P.P.S. I decided just to say this since I don't think I'll be coming back to this thread, perhaps the key point which I suspect you're still missing is no one is suggesting this is something of extreme concern. Rather what people are saying is there is likely some benefit to washing hands after urination sufficient to outweight the costs, therefore it's probably good practice. It's also recommended by health authorities. Either way, many are ready to accept this without needing a lot of evidence or thinking or worrying about it much at all. You seem to disagree it's beneficial but have not provided evidence and in fact it's not clear to me you're interested in evidence. Of course you can believe what you want, but if you're going to come to the RD and make the suggestion it's not beneficial, then you should provide some references (or at least better arguments). The related question of whether there really is any benefit and if there is how much and why is an interesting consideration to some, but it doesn't mean these people are hypochondriacs or worrying about needless risks, simply that they find certain things interesting even if they aren't important.

Nil Einne (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

"I've read a report that even your toothbrush kept hanging on the bathroom wall is likewise infested with fecal germs"

I've seen a Mythbusters episode on this that found that the bacteria was found everywhere in the bathroom, but it was in too low levels to do any harm, and that it is completely impossible to avoid. As to whether masturbation is dangerous, well no. Sure a girl can get a urinary tract infection if she is using sugary foods, but it is actually healthy for you, and not a risky activity.AerobicFox (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

My father once said that the enlargement at the top of the member was a safety feature. It reduces the likelihood of the hand flying off and hitting one in the face, while oscillating at high speed. 98.220.239.210 (talk) 04:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

UK Data protection act: Do passwords have to be reveled in reponse to a subject access request.

If someone makes a subject access request do you have to send passwords, online user IDs etc. to them? -- Q Chris (talk) 09:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Doing so would be a contravention of principle 7: "Appropriate technical and organisational measures shall be taken against unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data and against accidental loss or destruction of, or damage to, personal data." Dbfirs 10:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Surely a subject access request (i.e., somebody requesting data held about them) would be authorised, though? You should definitely not be storing (unhashed) passwords anyway, so they should be impossible to provide if requested. I imagine whether a user ID counts as 'personal data' would be debatable - and there are presumably rules on what evidence somebody has to provide that they are the subject in question to make a request. Of course, if this relates to a real situation, you should get professional legal advice. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 11:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The requester has to provide validation that they are in fact the data subject. If some of the information held is the data subject's user ID, then that could be provided to them. It's personal data after all. As 130.88 says, organisations that handle user passwords should not really have them available to hand over. If they did, these and other similar data (the answer to your 'secret question', the 'secret phrase' that you have to give three letters of etc) should be handed over if requested, and if the organisation is satisfied that the requester is the data subject. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't listen to random people on the internet, ask a lawyer. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Or contact the Office of the Information Commissioner. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Rockefeller's shoe shiner

"In 1928 in New York City, or so the story goes, John D. Rockefeller was having his shoes shined. The shoe shine boy, presumably not knowing who Rockefeller was, started giving him stock tips. J.D. took his shoe shine boy’s advice – but not in the way you’d expect. He decided that if a shoe shine boy – making a penny a shine – was giving stock tips – it was time to get out of the market. He did – and it’s the reason his family was able to stave off the Depression, and continued to be one of the richest in our history."

Does this story refer to John D. Rockefeller Senior or Junior and is it true? --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Apocryphal in any case - also attributed to Joe Kennedy [25]. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If the Rockefellers owned a lot of stock (and I'm sure they did), I'm sure any short-selling on their behalf would have a major impact on the economy. The severe drop in the NYSE would probably be more than enough to provoke panic selling from other investors. In a sense, it might be argued that the shoe-shine boy caused the Great Depression, if the story was true, of course.--WaltCip (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

In the recent Ken Burns film Prhobition, there's a related comment allegedly made by Al Capone, to the effect that he didn't do the stock market because "it's a racket" (and rest assured that he knew a racket when he saw one). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

bonds (YTM)

Can someone please explain to me how bonds work? I understand coupon rate is basically the interest gained, and in the end the value is computed by adding this rate of return with the face value (the money I put in the first place). But what does this have to do with "Year to Maturity", which is also called interest? Thanks, signed noob — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.132.72.96 (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The coupon of a bond is the interest rate paid on the bond at face value. That is to say, a bond with a face value of $100 and a coupon of 5% will pay the holder $5 per year. "Years to maturity" is just the number of years before the bond ceases to pay interest and can be redeemed for the face value. Now, if you buy a bond when it is issued by the government, you will pay face value for that bond, and your interest rate (uncompounded usually) will be the same as the coupon on the bond. However, bonds may gain or lose value before they reach maturity. So if you were to purchase a bond that has already been issued, and if you bought it at a different price than its face value, then your effective interest rate would be different from the coupon rate. If the bond had gained value, your effective interest rate would be lower than the coupon, and if it had lost value, your effective interest rate would be greater. For example, Greek government bonds now sell at a steep discount to their face value and offer a much higher effective interest rate than their coupon. This is so because buyers are assuming a degree of risk that they will not receive the principal at maturity due to a possible default by Greece. Marco polo (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's what I wrote when someone asked a similar question (about government bonds) a few months ago: The government wants to borrow $100 for five years, so it issues a (say) 5% coupon bond with a 5-year maturity and par value of $100. You pay the government $100 and get a piece of paper back saying that it will pay you $2.50 every six months for 5 years and then give you your $100 back. A couple years pass and your company is having hard times, so you decide to sell your bond. Unfortunately, it's also just come out that the government of this country was faking its books or something, so I won't buy the bond for $100. You agree to sell it to me for $60. Now the government will pay me $2.50 every six months instead of you until the bond matures (or the government defaults). Since I'm only paying $60, but I'm still getting $5 a year, I'm in effect getting more than 5% interest a year. I'm getting 5/60 or 8.33%. That's the "current yield." But you've also got to consider that I'm also going to get $100 back at the end of the 5 years, even though I only paid $60. Plus I can take the $5 a year you're getting and reinvest it in something else. So the "yield-to-maturity" -- which takes those things into account and is the yield I really care about -- is going to be higher than 8.33%. Does that make sense? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If you have seen the abbreviation YTM and assumed it means "years to maturity", then this could be where your confusion lies. YTM actually stands for "yield to maturity" which Mwalcoff mentioned above. The YTM is the internal rate of return of the bond's cash flows if you buy it now, collect coupon payments at regular intervals, and hold the bond until it matures. So you can take a bond's current market price and calculate its current YTM or you can take a minimum YTM that you want earn (based on, say, market interest rates plus an adjustment for credit risk) and use this to calculate the maximum price that are prepared to pay for the bond. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Chamberlin 200 Keyboard ,Tilton Belt Size Used.

Can anyone help me find the Titon Belt's size information, used in my Chamberlin 200, Dated 1951-1959, this information is found on the old belt's in the machines. mine is missing. thank you. mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.31.140.163 (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

ghost

is there any notable ghost sightings that cant be explained by science? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.2 (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing this isn't the answer you are looking for, but yes, there are plenty. Like UFOs, they have proven not to be. That's not to say there aren't any, just that none have evr been priven to exist (and aren't likely to.) If 'science' did prove it, don't you think we would have heard about it by now? 184.71.167.166 (talk) 23:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Oops. Totally misread the question. Nevermind what i just wrote. 184.71.167.166 (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

There are thousands that haven't been explained by science due to many reasons: Lack of interest by scientists, lack of data, etc. Dismas|^(talk) 23:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

i mean maybe a case where it is almost authentic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.128 (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

See our Paranormal article. Alansplodge (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

OP, that's a confusing question. Has science by not being able to figure out why something happened therefore proven that a ghost is real? No. Absence of evidence is not proof of anything. Just because they can't figure it out doesn't mean it can't be figured out. As said above, if scientist had proven ghosts exist, that would be a mighty big news story. Mingmingla (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

To do a scientific study, one would first have to define what a ghost is alleged to be (and it may not be as obvious as you think); and most importantly, how you would test for its presence or existence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

A white sheet on strings, isn't it? That's pretty easy to test for. Mingmingla (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps if we could just slightly rephrase the question so that it's more addressable: if you said "is there any proven notable 'ghost' sightings that cant be explained by science?" then the answer would be "No". That is, anything where there's enough data or evidence to actually investigate a 'ghost' sighting in any meaningful way turns out not to be a ghost in any sort of traditional definition of the term. --jjron (talk) 05:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The alleged presence of "ghosts" or "spirits" usually involves "sensing" them in some way. This often includes experiencing a chill as the alleged ghost walks near or through the person, who might either be an alleged "psychic" or just a tourist who might or might not know ahead of time that the place is alleged to be haunted (y'all can't count up the occurrences of "alleged" here on your own time). So one test might be to somehow detect physiological changes in a person at the moment they have allegedly experienced the presence of something supernatural. That wouldn't prove the existence of ghosts, but it could demonstrate whether the person is really experiencing something, as opposed to making it up. My guess is that the average scientist is more interested in practical matters, such as finding a cheap way to extract shale oil, than in spooky stuff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The University of Edinburgh has a dedicated Parapsychology Unit which seems to focus on why people believe that they've seen a ghost. Alansplodge (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Do they express their purpose in that way because they have very scientifically decided that there's no such actual thing as a ghost? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

November 4

Office Chair Wheel

Hello.

I have a broken chair wheel from an office chair, similar to the one shown in this picture (i.e I have the wheel attached to some length of the chair leg). http://www.championseating.com/storefront/images/items/320x320/soft-wheel-caster.jpg Now I have no interest in fixing the chair. I'm instead looking for weird/novel uses for this thing. The wackier the better, but I'm looking especially for ideas which involve modifying the wheel/leg (albeit simply). It doesn't have to be a sustainable thing; if I can do it once, that would be enough for me to say "Wow look at how wacky I can bee with this broken chair wheel).

Many thanks.

128.250.5.248 (talk) 04:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Backscratcher ... or more of a self-massager than a scratcher. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

A rather narrow Rolling pin that would leave interesting tracks on your pie crust. A good talking point at dinner parties perhaps. Alansplodge (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The wheel on a hobby horse. Dismas|^(talk) 17:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Police Line

Something like or is what I would call a "police line", and given the names of those files I'm evidently not the only one. However our police line article is a redirect to caution tape, which is clearly something completely different. I can't find this definition of 'police line' as 'a line of police' really mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia, and a Google search turns up plenty of results, but nothing (at least in the first three or so pages) I'd really say could be used to base an article or article section on. What are other people's opinion on this term? Is there an alternative term that is in more common usage? Can anyone locate decent refs? Thanks, --jjron (talk) 05:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

IMO, it's not worth an article. It's a line of police. What more is there to say? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but the question wasn't whether or not it needs an article... --jjron (talk) 06:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

D'oh. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The term is used ambiguously for a line of police, and also for a line designated by the police. Dbfirs 08:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Our article on Kettling (a UK police tactic for isolating and detaining a crowd to prevent disorder), uses the term "cordon" for the line of police that you describe. The associated wikilink isn't very helpful, but I believe it derives from the French term Cordon sanitaire. Alansplodge (talk) 09:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Why do you say it derive from "cordon sanitaire" rather than just, you know, "cordon" - which in ordinary English means "a separation or barrier"? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Because it's a loanword from French which just means "string". It doesn't make any sense unless you go via that route. Just my opinion; I'll try to find a reference. Alansplodge (talk) 10:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

No, you're quite right PalaceGuard; "Sense of "a line of people or things guarding something" is 1758." while "Cordon sanitaire (1857), from French, a guarded line between infected and uninfected districts."[26]. We live and learn, but grow not the wiser. Alansplodge (talk) 11:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Cheer up, Alan - "The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - therefore, because you know you're not wise, you're wise after all. But only because "Shakespeare" says so, not because you say so.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Some big cities in the US traditionally had things like wooden sawhorses which were about 14 feet long had "POLICE LINE" stencilled on them. They were phased out in first decade of this century in favor of "French barriers" made of aluminum, which look like bike racks. There is plenty of material for an article about "police lines." Reporters for many years in the US have referred to these physical barriers, made of wood or even wire fence as the "police line," but they also referred to a line of police standing still or charging at a crowd as a "police line." 1900 example: the police line was just a line of police. 1919: "police line" and "police band" used interchangeable.1937 example: the police line charged the strikers. 1933 example: crowd breaches police line made of wire fence. The New York City police made very frequent use of such barricades to keep crowds away from something, like when the Beatles visited in 1964. Lesser towns would have just stationed police at as close intervals as their numbers allowed and told people to not cross their "line" or they would be arrested. Such a low-budget police line might also stretch yellow caution tape to mark the line, so it is easier to determine when someone has transgressed and deserves arrest. During the Bush II presidency, police started using lengths of snow fence to encircle and capture masses of demonstrators, along with a few "innocent bystanders," so they could be handcuffed with disposable plastic handcuffs and locked up somewhere behind chainlink fence to prevent continued demonstrations, an effect that would not have worked with sawhorses or plastic tape. During the 1968 demonstrations at the Democratic convention in Chicago, the police had to grab individual demonstrators, beat them into submission, and collect them in paddy wagons, a far less inclusive process that the use of lengths of snow fence to collect a crowd as if they were livestock. Chicago likely had the sawhorse barriers, but in the 1968 protests, "police line" usually referred to a line of police, who might be marching forward to push back demonstrators. It might also be a line of police and National Guard forces in Jeeps blocking a street. Edison (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You may be interested in this newsreel of a 1961 anti-nuclear demonstration in London. The police method of holding back the crowd was to link arms and push (seen after 1:50 of the video). As they found out later, with less amenable crowds, this left no means for the policeman to defend himself. Alansplodge (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Loan

I intend to purchase a two wheeler which is likely to cost around Rs 53,000/. I have enough money to fund the purchase without any loan. However, my organization is offering me a loan of Rs 40,000/ at 10% interest( monthly rests) EMIs to be paid either for 24 or 36 months( as I choose). I am debt free at present.Which is financially more prudent, to take a loan or to fund it in one go using my own resources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.180.190.128 (talk) 11:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This depends on whether you can invest your savings with a return greater than 10% (unlikely in the current economic climate, but possible with some risk). Check exactly how the 10% will be levied (is it a true Annual percentage rate?), then set up the repayments on a spreadsheet to see how much you will pay in total. Do the same with your savings and see which option leaves you with more money at the end. Dbfirs 12:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You should get financial advice from an independant financial advisor, not random people on the internet. --Tango (talk) 12:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Really Tango? That would be a very inefficient way to figure out the best course of action. 53000 Rs is USD 1000, there is no way that an independant financial advisor would cost less than the interest on 1000 USD for 36 months. --Lgriot (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

True, it is probably in the OP's interests to get advice from us. It is not in our interests to give it, though. Giving professional advice (other than to friends and family) without being a professional is not a good plan. --Tango (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there such thing as a budget adviser in India? I can't find any evidence from a search. In NZ, there are non profits who help with this sort of low level budgeting advice for free [27], including I'm sure helping to work out whether you have much chance of making a net return (as said above, seems unlikely). I agree getting an independent financial adviser probably won't be cost effective (note the loan was Rs 40,000 not 53,000) although suspect it will depend if the OP can find someone willing to advise on relatively simple matter like that without a large upfront fee. According to [28] the maximum hourly income for the related financial planner in India would be ~US$30-US$40 although fee charged on an hourly basis, and you can expect to pay Rs 10,000 - 25,000 for a financial plan (which is clearly way beyond what the OP is looking for). Nil Einne (talk) 22:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

---No, it would be monthly rests. That is to say, interest would be calculated after deducting the principal component every month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.99.92 (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Unless you have something better to spend the Rs 53,000 on, I suggest buying it yourself. A loan is an ongoing liability and you have no idea what will happen in 12 months, let alone 24 or 36 months; for example, will you even be with the same employer? What happens if they let you go or you find a better job, will your current employer want the loan cleared before you can move on? Astronaut (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Beatles Song

I listened to this thinking this was the original version, until I got the real version (shorter by almost a minute) and realised this has been covered by someone else. Can anyone tell me who the singer is? Here's the url: http://media.bellsmedia.com/devaprem/trackz/mp3/Miscellaneous/youve_got_to_hide_your_love_away.mp3

Thanks in advance. 223.190.199.235 (talk) 12:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Bam! Please see the WikiPedia entry for this song. TheGrimme (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Yup, done that, so how does that help? Richard Avery (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I've already read that article. Knowing the names of people who cover versions of this song won't help me to identify who did this cover, will it? I don't know enought to tell from the person's voice alone, but I was hoping someone from the desk will have heard this version somewhere. 27.57.204.36 (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Not that it's of any help (but it might spare others the hassle), I used Shazam for about four different segments, and got nothing. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Passenger Ships

I'm supposed to travel from the States to Australia in February. I don't fly unless it's absolutely necessary, and would like to look into making the trip by boat. I'm not looking for a cruise ship, but rather a passenger ship. Do they even exist anymore? I called a couple of travel agents from my local yellow pages, and you would think I was asking about the next shuttle to Pluto. If anyone could offer me any advice on where to start looking, it would be greatly appreciated. I'm not looking for luxurious accomodations, but would still like to travel reasonably comfortably. I live in the Philadelphia area, but would likely sail from New York. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably the best you'll do is a cabin on a cargo ship - see this Observer article. Your trip will surely be shorter, cheaper, and less arduous if you travel overland (train?) to a west cost port like LA. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Finlay has it, as I was going to say much the same thing. You may also wish to consider the Baracus method, though I'm not sure how many airlines would be willing to render you unconscious before takeoff. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

For an idea of times and costs, this company has some itineraries. They have one ship that does NY->Sydney in 33 days; at a €110/day that totals about $5,000 USD and a month to go one way (so two months and $10,000 for the return trip). I imagine it's a deal shorter and cheaper if you sail from LA, but you may need to change in Singapore, Hong Kong, or Shanghai. Flying takes about a day each way and (an Orbitz search I just did suggests) costs about $1,700 return. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 14:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Also regarding cargo ships, Strand Travel has a voyage Long Beach, California to Sydney taking 21 days for c. US$4000.[29] You should note that this sort of voyage isn't any good if you have to be there for a specific date: there is a limited number of sailings, you often have to book far in advance, and there are frequent changes to schedules - Strand's FAQ is useful.

Alternatively, you say you don't want a cruise ship, but some cruise companies such as HAL[30] sail from the USA (Florida) to Australia; for that sort of thing you could contact them direct or speak to a travel agent. Again, you will not have much choice when they sail. Note that going by boat will always be far more expensive than flying, which is probably why there are so few passenger vessels. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Questions like this come up on the Reference Desk several times a year. The website http://www.seat61.com has some info on ground-based travel, though mostly trains. You could also check Cunard, a cruise line that still does long crossings of oceans. This search will give links to some of the previous discussions on the Reference Desk. Another option might be to go the other way around the globe from New York, through Europe and then either Russia/China or India. Jørgen (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey Joe, I can relate to the white-knuckle syndrome (a few stiff pre-boarding drinks helps a lot). A cursory search shows that lines such as Princess, Carnival, Royal Caribbean, Holland America, etc., offer cruises from San Diego to Honolulu. Then other similar companies have cruises from Honolulu to Sydney. If you are flexible in your dates and money is not a big problem, you could probably cobble together your own itinerary, and on much more comfortable ships than a freighter would likely be (not that I've been on either kind). The two sites I glanced at are here and here. Also, if you search under the Cruises tab on travelocity.com, there are some round-the-world cruises that leave from San Diego and include Sydney among their ports of call - I don't know if it's possible to book passage for just that segment of the trip, but a phone call to the cruise line (Holland America) wouldn't cost anything to find out. Hope this helps, and good luck to you. Textorus (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Although I understand that it can be very difficult to fly if you have a condition, loosing 33 days of my life on a boat with nothing to do seems a very, very extreme solution to a psychological problem. But, yes, everyone above is right, passenger ships do not exist any longer for long distance travel, it is all either cargo ships or cruise ships now. --Lgriot (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

However, if you want to break your neck falling off a mountain top, blast into outer space, or go swim with sharks, it's quite easy to arrange nowadays. As my travel agent told me, "Much Madness is divinest sense . . ."[31] Textorus (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

My partner has a deathly fear of flying, but his doctor has prescribed some kind of sedative (sorry, I can't remember what it is) that he takes 30 minutes before takeoff. It makes him very laid back, a bit cheerful, and dopey. He still has a minute or two of (muted) anxiety during takeoff but then tends to fall fast asleep for the remainder of the flight. Maybe you should see a physician who could prescribe something suitable for you. Traveling from the east coast of the US to Australia, you will probably have to take off at least twice, so you may need more than one dose. Marco polo (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all for the many responses! I certainly haven't ruled out a cruise ship. I just wasn't sure if a cruise ship would be able to accomodate my return trip. (I was of the notion that cruise ships only stay in each port for a short time.) And yes, when I must fly, stiff doses of drink and and a few benzodiazapines do take the edge off; it still leaves me uncomfortable. When I'm over land, I can generally tough it out, but no amount (at least no safe amount) of pills seems to comfort me when I'm over water. I do realize it's a ridiculous amount of time and money to spend to avert a simple, extremely safe airplane flight. I'm still not sure as to which option I'll take, but I certainly appreciate all of the advice!! Joefromrandb (talk) 01:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You could save nearly all the money, but at the cost of an even more ridiculous amount of time, by sailing there directly as a volunteer crew on a private cruising sailboat. There are several websites, such as this one which aid the matching of prospective crew with the captains of small boats seeking help for long passages. -- 110.49.251.173 (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You might also consider signing on as the crew to some ship headed there or back. I'm sure they have some jobs that don't require any experience, like handling a mop. I doubt if they pay much, but free room and board ought to be included. Be sure you find out the exact arrangements, though, or you might end up in a hammock in a room with several other workers. Right about now $10K might be looking like a real bargain. :-) StuRat (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde's wallpaper

There is a famous Oscar Wilde quote, "My wallpaper and I are fighting to the death, one of us has to go", which he is supposed to have said about his room at the Hotel d'Alsace in Paris a month before his death. What I'm wondering is, are there any descriptions or perhaps even any photographs of this wallpaper? 114.74.182.189 (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's the room, but it's long since been redecorated. However, in the late 19th century, when wallpaper was the Next Big Thing, people went a little crazy with big, bold repeating patterns, and that's the background of the famous short story The Yellow Wallpaper. Textorus (talk) 15:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow... It's certainly looking a lot more luxurious now than it would have in Oscar's time. 114.75.14.103 (talk) 16:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Half a Shandy

Transatlantic quandary: can anyone explain why half a shandy is more exciting than an O.J., exactly? Textorus (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Half a shandy at least has some alcohol content to it (being a mix of lager and lemonade). Orange juice is described as boring because it is non-alcoholic. --Viennese Waltz 21:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a lot though - typically it's 50:50 mix of lemonade and a weak bitter, so probably 3% alcohol in the beer, diluted to 1.5%, and volume half pint (285 ml), around 0.43 UK Unit of alcohol. I doubt if you would even notice any effect - well I wouldn't! BTW, if it's a purchased ready made shandy in a tin, it's likely to be less than 1%.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Beer and lemonade?? SRSLY? Textorus (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yes. Transpacifically speaking, it was the 1950-1970s equivalent of a low-strength beer. My Dad often had a shandy in mixed company, and women would frequently have a shandy if they were tired of "Pimms No. 1 Cup". Very uncommon these days. Btw, it's just called a "shandy" here, not "half a shandy". To us, a half a shandy is a glass half full (or half empty if you're that type of person) of beer mixed with lemonade. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course lemonade in the UK is a artificially sweetened, carbonated, slightly acid drink, a bit like 7Up without the flavour. Richard Avery (talk) 22:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Right on. Beer mixed with lemonade made from your actual lemons would no doubt be somewhat ghastly, hence Textorus's reaction. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

In the UK, "half a shandy" is an order for a (full) half-pint glass of shandy as opposed to a pint glass half-full of shandy, since we order beer in (usually specified) halves or (default unspecified) pints (⅓-pint glasses are also legal, though sadly uncommon - they allow one to sample a larger number of different beers before becoming too drunk to appreciate their subtleties; draught beer must by law be served in multiples of ⅓ or ½ of a pint). A stronger variation is the bitter or lager "tops", in which the glass is filled with beer/lager to an inch from the brim and then topped off with lemonade. Shandy is perhaps more generally drunk in the Summer in order to quench thirst without getting too drunk, tops suits some of those who dislike the degree of bitterness in the beer or lager in question. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.78.58 (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know offhand -- can a Little Deuce Coupe really do 140?

Miles per hour. Seems rather unsafe to say the least, but I was wondering if it was even mechanically plausible. Vranak (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Quite likely. I've exceeded 100 mph in a 1983 Toyota Tercel; which was not a car known to be optimized for speed. If that tiny 1.2 liter, 4-cylinder engine can do a buck, a Duece Coupe with a 3.6 liter Flathead V8 engine should be able to do 140 quite easily; especially if optimized with things like blowers and turbo chargers. --Jayron32 23:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

One word: location, location, location. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

year book

hi my name is john jmarucheau my dog tag b15-38-70 i was in the navy from 68 to 72 did my training in great lakes i never got my year book i would like to no if i can still get one if so please call <phone numbers removed> if you need to ask me anything. i was on the uss newport lst 1179 in little greek va so please let me no if you send a year book. thank you for your time E3 deck hand marucheau — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.192.236 (talk) 22:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

phone numbers redacted per Wikipedia policy --Jayron32 23:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This is an online encyclopedia, John. We do not have anything to do with providing year books or anything else except information, and that's all viewable here. We don't contact readers individually. You may need to get in touch with your naval records department. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Sonic Heroes Blender 3d

I'm making a Sonic Heroes fan game,but I need Blender models,where can I get some\? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.62.59 (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)