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

December 28

What model of car was used as the hearse in Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il's funerals?

Well for some reason they placed the coffins on top of a limo, perhaps so that the North Koreans can see them in all their communist glory, but what model are those cars? Are they Toyotas, Cadillacs, Lincolns or are they locally made cars? And is that information even available? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The vehicle carrying the coffin in this video looks a lot like a fifth generation (pre facelift) Lincoln Continental limo. I don't have any idea where or when the would have acquired such a thing, but it is probably a custom vehicle, some "Communist" countries had a habit of copying American luxury cars for their limos, but I don't know if this is an example of this habit or not. The other vehicles are not North Korean cars, the ones I spotted where Mercedes E Classes, S Classes and some Volkswagen Passats. --Daniel 08:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The LA Times says the coffin was on top of a Cadillac[1]. The car certainly looks like a ninth generation Cadillac Eldorado.  Card Zero  (talk) 08:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Was Dear Leader a fan of jazz? Swing Low, Sweet Cadillac: "I looked over Jordan, and what did I see, coming for to carry me home? An Eldorado, coming after me, coming for to carry me home." (lyrics by Dizzy Gillespie) Edison (talk) 15:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Heh heh heh. Who can say. I think Daniel is right, though, and all three limos (that I've seen pictures of) in the procession were Lincoln Continentals - the vertically aligned indicators look just like those on the picture captioned "1975 Lincoln Continental Town Car", and not at all like those on Cadillacs. Evidence of own eyes says Lincoln, only available source says Cadillac ... not an unusual Wikipedia situation. Oh wait, look what happens if you google "Kim Jong-il Lincoln" ... plenty of sources agreeing with that, in fact. Here's the New York Times [2] with a detailed discussion from a car expert (who they found on some forum on the internet, but it's alright if they do that because they're a proper newspaper). Here's the Associated Press [3] calling it "his father's Lincoln Continental".  Card Zero  (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The water is so transparent that it seems that this is a quite shallow lake. In fact, it’s very deep.

The lake is Swan Lake in Northwestern Montana, USA.I've search the web far and wide and could not find the answer to my question: "How deep is Swan Lake in Northwestern Montana"? All I get is it is "Very Deep". I really thought Wikipedia would have my answer but you don't.

Please respond to my question to: <email removed> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.133.6.3 (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

According to LakeLubbers it is 52 ft deep on average and 133 feet deep at the max [4]. I've removed your email address to protect your privacy. The Wikipedia reference desk does not reply via email. Dragons flight (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Alien-priest.jpg

I found this pic, and I heard its from a church in Russia, but cant find any info. TKS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.146.49 (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

What photo? You forget to include a link. RudolfRed (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

This article implies that it is a painting by Camilla Kesterton, an MA Fine Art student from the University of the West of England. --Incognito.ergo.possum (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

December 29

results of census 2010 of PRC by ethnic population

Where can I get census results 2010 year of People's Republic of China with ethnic population? --Kaiyr (talk) 02:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure you can trust their census ? I would guess they would intentionally under-represent their oppressed minorities, such as Tibetans. StuRat (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The OP has been working on separatists movements and therefore will know that an oppressive government statistics cannot be trusted. His question is not whether they can be trusted, but where they can be found, StuRat. Even biased or made-up statistics can be useful, to either remain neutral when writing a wikipedia article and have already given the opposite side's statistics. or to expose the government's scheme if you are a journalist, for e.g. --Lgriot (talk) 10:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Try here (see section VI) or here (see 3rd paragraph below the graph) Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 17:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

George Shum

I'm descended from George Shum (1751-1805) who was MP for Honiton from 1796 to 1805. If there is a painting or some other picture of him in existence, how would I go about finding it? Marnanel (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have an answer for your question, but for other readers—the borough in question is Honiton (UK Parliament constituency), and we're still missing an article on George Shum. In 1997, the constituency was merged to form Tiverton and Honiton (UK Parliament constituency). The current MP in that seat is Neil Parish, perhaps his office could put you in touch with an archivist? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The National Portrait Gallery, which specifically collects portraits of prominent British people. does not list George Shum in its collection (I just checked their website) However, it may be that they keep records of portraits outwith their holdings (for future acquisitions or general research), so an enquiry directly to them might bear fruit. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.78.56 (talk) 14:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

You could contact the Parliamentary Archives and the Devon Record Office. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed; another suggestion is the Allhallows Museum in Honiton. They mainly focus on lacemaking in the town, but the collection includes "momentos of... the Borough of Honiton". They have a contact page. Alansplodge (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The History of Parliament entry on George Shum is not extensive [5]. He lacks an entry in the Oxford DNB though is mentioned in the biography of his friend and business partner Harvey Christian Combe. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Singer of Parody

This is a link to a parody of Joan Osborne's song One Of Us : http://cannatrade.ch/news/audio/mp3/What_if_God_Smoked_Cannabis.mp3 The singer sounds pretty much like Joan Osborne. Is it Osborne herself? 117.227.0.224 (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of a mystery as to who sings this parody. Radio personality Bob Rivers apparently wrote the song to be included on his 1997 album The Best of Twisted Tunes Vol. 2 [6]. The name Kelly Gray appears as an "unknown contributor" on the album credits, and is the only name listed that might be a female (of course, the name "Kelly" could be assigned to either gender, but all the other names are obviously male, so process of elimination tells me this might be the person you're looking for.) By all accounts it is not Joan Osborne singing...and to further complicate matters, apparently Weird Al Yankovic also sings a similar parody on one of his albums, but whether it is a cover of the Bob Rivers song, or his own parody of Joan Osborne's song...I can't tell and have already spent too much time on this already. I'd start with looking into Bob Rivers. Maybe somebody reading this has the Best of Twisted Tunes (Vol 2) album and can check the credits listed on it. See also [7] and [8] Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 16:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Barbie doll for young girls with cancer

A question was asked this am on Facebook about "What if a Barbie doll could be made for young girls with cancer" so I thought I would ask...Would it be possible to make a Barbie with no hair, dress in pink and put something like HOPE on her outfit or even on the doll itself...and maybe donate some of the proceeds to St. Jude's ... You may have been asked this question before, but if not please consider my question and I think whoever started the idea on facebook it is an idea worth looking into....cancer is such a terrible diease for all and the young really need to have some HOPE.. Thank you for your time and have a good day and a Happy New Year... Mary Lou McGowan my email address is [redacted].... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.7.178.61 (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

This is not Mattel, this is Wikipedia, we can't control what a toy manufacturer does. --LarryMac | Talk 15:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure it is possible, in the sense that I'm sure someone could create a doll in the way that you describe. But if you wanted the doll to be part of the Barbie line, which is trademarked, I imagine the first step would be getting permission from Mattel. Here is a link to a form on Mattel's website to request non-commercial use of their trademarks: [9] I also suggest directing any further questions about this to Mattel using the contact listing on their website. Here's the link: [10] Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 15:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I googled [barbie doll hairless] and a petition came up. I'm not going to post that here, as it might be regarded as spam, but anyone who wants to can look it up. A couple of things occur to me. One is that the OP could always buy a series of Barbie dolls and close-crop their "hair" to get the desired effect. Another is that there are enough Barbie jokes already, and this approach could lead to more. For example, double-mastectomy-Barbie, albeit at some cost to her center of gravity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Glad you find the subject of breast cancer a suitable subject for humour, Bugs. My mother had a double mastectomy and I'm not sure she would have seen the joke. But you carry right on, no matter whether it's answering the question or not. --Viennese Waltz 16:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't find breast cancer funny. I DO find the Barbie Doll funny. And I did give the OP some information on the subject (via google), which is more than you can say for yourself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the the first part of Bugs reply (not commenting on that last part tho sheesh), though I think he was speaking a bit Tongue-in-cheek, the OP does not strike me as someone very familiar with this board's tendency for sarcasm, so I would strongly advise against altering an existing trademarked product with the intent on selling it, whether for charity or otherwise. Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 17:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Altering them and then selling them might be a legal problem, but altering them and then giving them away is entirely legal. However, if you shave a Barbie, this may leave visible hair plugs on it's skull, so you might want to go with a doll that comes already bald (intended to be used with wigs). Those are quite easy to find online. Here's a doll that already comes bald, specifically for sick kids: [11]. StuRat (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see anything in google, having apparently googled the wrong thing - but your solution is obviously better than mine. And a baseball cap, or any other head covering a chemo patient might wear, could be a good accessory. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, altering the dolls and giving them away (to cancer patients) would probably be OK, but I was specifically commenting on the OP's remark "...donate some of the proceeds to St. Jude's," which indicates an intent to sell them (albeit to raise money for charity). That could bring up some legal considerations if they use the Barbie name, and if Mattel is not on board with it. A more generic doll might around these concerns, though I think it is the "Barbie" name that would give the doll legitimacy and press coverage. Anyway, this is all kind of bordering on legal advice, and I am hardly an expert, so I digress. Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 17:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's any doubt that Mattel would have to be totally in the loop, especially if someone is trying to sell them for a profit. It could be a good publicity deal for Mattel, but it would have to be their choice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:28, 29 December 2011 (iUTC)

Are there any articles or links which would suggest why it would be illegal to sell modified Barbies? As long as the originals were purchased from Mattel and the final product was appropriately labeled, clearly indicating that it was no longer an original Barbie and was not being sold by Mattel, what cause for action would they have? -- 110.49.224.96 (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Provided the labeling made that clear, and that there's no software-style disclaimer on the box that "This product may not be modified and resold", you may be right. I suppose Mattel could argue that you were damaging their reputation. Not likely in this case, but maybe if somebody sold modified "Lesbian Barbie with strap-on dildo", they might sue under that logic. (Oops, didn't mean to give away my business plan like that. :-) )StuRat (talk) 04:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be going round Facebook, and to be honest as it's outside the purview of the RD, I'm inclined to call WP:DNFTT. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Ironically, there's a news blurb just today about a settlement in a suit Donna Douglas filed against Mattel for using her image without permission.[12] Having had their consciousness raised, I wouldn't put a lot of faith into thinking that an organization, however well-meaning, could get away with reconfiguring a "chemo Barbie" or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

December 30

need help locating a name of "syndrome"

This question was already asked at the science desk. As there, it has been removed because Wikipedia does not provide medical advice. --Jayron32 00:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Homosexuality & Christianity

After reading the article on this topic, I'm at a loss at understanding exactly what cause there is for Christians to be against homosexuality. What guidelines exist that allow for, say, the violations of woolsey-linsey (Leviticus 19:19, Deuteronomy 22:11), shellfish (Leviticus 11:9-12) and the mixing of milk and meat (Exodus 23:19, 34:26 + Deuteronomy 14:21) to be suspended, yet the ban on homosexuality to be maintained? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, not all Christians are particularly opposed to homosexuality (count me as one who is not). For those that are, there are New Testament passages that are used to justify it; Hebrews 13:4 is one, 1 Corinthians 7 is another, though the ringer is 1 Corinthians 6:9. For me, I tend to live by the words of Jesus at Matthew 22:36-40 and at Luke 6:37-38, which governs how I treat all other people. --Jayron32 00:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not quite the question the OP asked, Jayron32. (Though if I didn't know DRosenbach's track record as well as I do, I might suspect he was engaged in a bit of mischievous holiday trolling.) He wasn't asking which parts of the Bible specifically forbade homosexuality (however much or little interpretation or reinterpretation or translation might be required to reach that conclusion)—he was asking why so many of the Bible's other proscriptions against certain behaviors could be so regularly and casually flouted, seemingly without any hint of concern or censure by Christian clergy. In other words, why do so many Christian denominations stick so firmly to their guns on homosexuality, while universally neglecting other rules that seem to get a similar amount of attention in their scripture? (Regretfully, what we're going to get is a bunch of religion bashing – however well-justified – like Baseball Bugs has just offered below, without following up with any actual references like we're supposed to be providing here.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

While I wouldn't leap to disagree with the proposition that Bugs sometimes responds inappropriately, TOAT, I feel moved to say that his comments below, though admittedly not referenced, do not seem to me to be "religion bashing." Rather they make the entirely valid point that some religious activists interpret their texts in a way favourable towards their own prejudices, an observation I would have thought uncontroversial and apposite. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.116 (talk) 08:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that, TOAT, and yes, you've refined my question quite nicely. I suppose, with all I see above and below, that there is no easy answer to this question of mine. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

If the question is simply "Why do Christians not follow Old Testament commandments", the answers can be found in several places in the New Testament. That's actually a central theme of Christianity, which is the freedom from the letter of the laws of the Old Testament; the death of Jesus produces a "new covenant", whereby the Christian seeks to keep the spirit of God's Law (see Matthew 22:36-40 cited above) while being freed from the requirement to keep the various commandments of the old testament. Especially germain as to why Christians are not bound to keep the specific laws and sacrifices and whatnot of Mosaic law is Romans Chapters 2-7. The relationship between a Christian and Mosaic law is complex; the Christian is freed from the letter of the Mosaic law by keeping the spirit of the Mosaic law, to whit "Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law." Romans 3:27-31 and later "So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. For when we were in the realm of the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code." Romans 7:4-6. Christians are released from the pattern of listed violations and sacrifices of God's law in the Old Testament because the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus on the cross acts to undo all of those sins; and all sins not listed in the law as well. In other words, the Christian keeps God's law because of faith in Jesus, and the Christian is thus exempt from the requirements of the old Mosaic law. That answers the other part of DRosenbach's question. --Jayron32 01:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the question (asked from a Jewish perspective) is why conservative Christians get so hung up about homosexuality if they don't think the laws of Moses, with its prohibition on sex between men, applies to them? A similar question is why many Christians get all worked up about the Ten Commandments (demanding that they be displayed at courthouses, etc.) if, again, they don't follow the laws of Moses. From a Jewish religious perspective, the Ten Commandments are no more or less important than the law against getting a tattoo (Lev. 19:28). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

In addition to what Jayron says, there is also the point that two of the laws you bring up are dietary restrictions. There is a specific textual basis for the claim that all dietary restrictions were abolished by Jesus — see Mark 7:19. Now, to me, it kind of seemed like the gospel writer had missed the point of what Jesus said, but the writer did say it, and if you take the view that the writers were all inspired then you can take that as authoritative. (Then you have to figure out what to do with the passage in Acts that bans eating blood and food offered to idols; I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.) --Trovatore (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Had I known more about Christianity than I do, I would have chosen other negative OT precepts -- I merely chose them as they were at the top of my head. Feel free to exchange them for the prohibitions of shaving the corners of one's beard with a straight razor (Leviticus 19:27) and muzzling one's ox while plowing (Deuteronomy 25:4). DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Paul specifically addresses that, in passages I note below. Read Romans 14. --Jayron32 05:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To be fair, that was answered above, per 1 Corinthians 6:9. At least, that passage would provide justification for people who wish to cherry pick quotes from the New Testament while missing the whole point of it. The Christians aren't necessarily cherry picking Mosaic commandments, they are cherry picking New Testament statements. --Jayron32 03:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that's true. The Ten Commandments are special, and basic. Jesus was asked which is the greatest Commandment, and He said the greatest Commandment was to love God; and the second was to love thy neighbor as thyself. It can easily be seen that violating any one of the specific Ten Commandments also violates one or both of those greatest (or "generic", if you will) Commandments. As to why right-wingers of various faiths (not just Christianity) are so adamantly opposed to same-sex, there are endless discussions about it, everywhere. But it boils down to the idea that sexual relations have to do with being fruitful and multiplying. By definition, same-sex can't do that. It's strictly "recreational". Hence it's "sinful". If someone really doesn't get it, and wants references for the real reasons, spend a few hours with google. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

To comment on Bugs's point specifically, as well as any number of points generally, it starts to get really hard to provide references which could in an unqualified way speak for all Christians. To be sure, there are many people who call themselves Christians who do feel justified in persecuting homosexuals (not this person who calls himself a Christian, but those people do exist), and as such, it is at least worthwhile to look at the textual clues, however misread someone like me feels they may be. Such divisions have existed within Christianity since the very first century, see Paul's pronouncements at Romans chapter 14. The entire discussion there is that Christians are going to disagree over what Paul calls "Disputable matters", and how Christians are supposed to deal with such disagreements. One passage which is quite useful to this discussion, Romans 14:22 "So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves." --Jayron32 03:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone forgot to tell these supposed Baptists that God loves everyone

The Bible, the Quran, et al., are often used by individuals to justify/reinforce their own prejudices about any number of things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Amen to that. Some Christians have the unfortunate tendancy to use quotes from the Bible in this manner while openly ignoring the central message of Jesus, which was that maybe we should all love one another and treat people with respect even if we do not agree with them. At no time did Jesus suggest that people should be forced to do things the Christian way, the whole point is that you are supposed to choose to follow it. How many people fail to grasp this fairly simple point is simply the sad fact of organized mass religions, and is certainly not unique to Christianity. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

There are Christians who observe the dietary laws set out in the Old Testament to some extent, for example the Seventh-Day Adventists. 92.80.51.98 (talk) 13:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

As yet another Christian who, like Jayron, doesn't hold prejudices against homosexuals, I may not be ideal for answering your question, DRosenbach, but I think a portion of your answer is present (though hard to suss out) in our article Christian views on the old covenant. Basically, a wide swath of conservative Christians believe that there are meaningful distinctions between the Old Testament's "moral laws" and its "ritual/ceremonial laws". Other terminology is sometimes used, but the two categories are basically always the same. This is designed to address the statement Mwalcoff made above -- essentially, these Christians argue that the Ten Commandments are "moral laws" designed to be obeyed by everybody everywhere everywhen, but the prohibition on (for example) tattoos is a "ritual law" that God only intended for the Jewish people to observe in the time before the "new covenant" was made via the incarnation of Jesus. Peter's vision in Acts 10, whereby God releases him and other Christians from following the kosher dietary laws (this is, of course, only one interpretation of Acts 10, though I think it's fair to say it's a very popular interpretation among Christians), is usually used as evidence that God considers some of the Mosaic laws to be superseded by the Christian covenant. Some of Jesus' comments to the Pharisees and other religious leaders I think are usually taken in the same vein (releasing his disciples from observing certain Sabbath rituals, etc.). I personally think this approach is a dicey one--it still leaves us uncertain as to why the prohibitions against homosexuals from Leviticus are classified as "moral" and not "ritual" (though I think the New Testament passages mentioned above are usually seen as evidence in favor of a "moral" classification). And as Mwalcoff and others have noted, this distinction about Mosaic laws is not something acknowledged by Jewish scholars of the law (not in my experience, at least). But if you're wondering why someone can ignore the wool/linen law but accept the anti-gay law, I think the answer for most American conservative Christians, at least, can be boiled down to "wool/linen stuff is a ritual law that Christians are set free from, but the anti-gay law is a moral guide for all people everywhere". Jwrosenzweig (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

tennis match catfights and more petticoat catfights of the 1950s

I would like to know 'why "catfight 20" that shwoed ladies fighting and pulling hair in skirts and petticoats was removed from dailymotion and cna it be out back on? When can you show a tennis catfight with two woemn dressed in tennis outfits pulling hair and slugging it out after a match and have two teams of yound ladies fighting and rolling on the floor as bank tellers wearing skirts and slips and heels,pulling hair? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.244.234 (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 3.8 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. --Jayron32 03:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You will have to ask Dailymotion about the specific video in question. However, it was probably found to breach the company's prohibited content guidelines or terms of use. Astronaut (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

As for where can you finds similar material, I imagine searching for "catfight" would bring up many sites that will cater for that particular fetish. Astronaut (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Teenage object blindness or normal behavoir?

Is it usual for otherwise normal teenagers to be unaware of things happening around them? For example, my teenaged neice accidentally dragged a large handbag off a 4ft high shelf while getting someting else lying on top of the bag. The bag fell with a noticable thud, hitting the floor close to her feet. I suggested she pick it up (because in my experience she would have just walk away and left it for someone else to pick up), but she just stared at the ground and said "What?" After several long seconds of staring, she picked up the bag and said "You mean this? That could have been there before." It wasn't that she had accidentally dragged the bag off the shelf that surprised me, but that she didn't seem to even notice doing it or that it nearly hit her feet. I have seen similar things happen many times before over the years, but now she is pretty much an adult and is definitely old enough to be responsible for her actions. I suspect the explanation might just be 'being a teenager', but do other people experience similar things? Astronaut (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, you know no one can diagnose your daughter here, but to answer your question, this definitely does not appear to be an age-related thing. You said yourself she did the same things earlier in her life. Again, without speculating on what might be "wrong" with your daughter, remember that the human brain is a very strange thing and lots of people have different mental quirks. I've been known to walk to a room only to forget what I was planning to do there when I got there. If you're concerned about it, you can talk to a doctor. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I call that disease "obliviousness". It's widespread among the human populace in all ages. Even I suffer from it from time to time. 0:) The question would be whether it's severe enough to be a "disability", i.e. to significantly interfer with functioning in the world. If that's a big 10-4, then take Mwalcoff's advice and call a doctor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Forgive this old timer for rambling on, but kids today always seem distracted and oblivious to me. They pay attention to text messages instead of the real world and don't seem to recognize the distinction between entertainment and reality. Back in my day we had a thing called "go outside and play" that we didn't really need to be encouraged to do most of the time because it was fun. As a matter of fact, I spent most of today inside on the interweb, and I intend to make up for it by going snowshoeing tommorow. Even though kids are on Christmas break still, I doubt I will see any of them on the trail. Ok, the old man will shut up now. Return to your text messages and bluetooth borg implants. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

There's a problem snipers sometimes get called "tunnel vision" (not to be confused with the visual problem), where they are so focused on their target they lose sight of everything else, sometimes to a shocking degree. An enemy soldier could walk right up and shoot them, for example. This sounds similar. StuRat (talk) 04:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Or more precisely Target fixation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd wager it's deliberate. I have a boatload of siblings (a small boat, but still :P), and every once in a while one of them (usually one of my sisters) will do this. By turning the situation humorous you can usually get them to admit that they did notice it, they just chose to pretend it didn't happen to avoid the responsibility. Supposedly because they're too busy worrying about something else more "important".-- Obsidi♠n Soul 05:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd be interested in knowing how old the OP is. Something I noticed over the years, is that amongst friends that married both early and started a family early (in line with human evolution) they never felt nonplussed by the behaviour of their children. With the benefit of hindsight, I think it was because they where both there in that place only yesterday – an thus they took interest in seeing their children in the same place, that seemly, only just yesterday they found themselves. It was like the experience gave 'themselves' the second opportunity to 'replay' their own past and to explore different options which first time around they had not considered or known about. Those, on the other hand, that had delayed starting a family by just seven years. Appeared to have lost the instant gut memory of how it 'felt' when they were that age. Instead they just pigeon holed it – without being aware anymore of the context in which actions of youth happen. Perhaps, as someone grows older, there are so many life experiences that they can draw upon, and due to that, their ability to make that 'instant' connection with youth fades and they try to work things out with their brains instead.. The OP may be asking because he has petrified into just an' other old fossil ;-) --Aspro (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Shooting at playing cards

In the 19th century it was apparently common practice to use playing cards for shooting practice. "As Willich was a crack shot who could hit the ace of hearts at twenty paces...[13] "Even if one is protected by a pistol, and the proud consciousness of being able to hit the ace of hearts at fifteen paces..." [14] "I used to hit the ace of diamonds at twelve paces, nine shots out of ten..." [15] There's one thing that I can't seem to find by googling: does this refer to hitting the card itself, or the suit symbol in the center of the card? --Itinerant1 (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It depends on how good of a shot the shooter was. I've seen marksmen who could reliably hit a playing card edgewise from some distance. Annie Oakley was noted for that trick some 130 years ago. It's a very skilled, but standard element of Exhibition shooting. --Jayron32 03:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

With a modern handgun and ammunition, yes. But I'm not sure if it was possible to achieve that kind of accuracy with a 19th century smoothbore front-loader pistol that used lead balls as projectiles. --Itinerant1 (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Annie Oakley used a .22 Long Rifle. It was rifled (obviously), but I don't know how "modern" you would define it. Smoothbore firearms, aside from shotguns and things like that, were pretty much replaced by rifled barrels by the end of the U.S. Civil War, and certainly well obsolete by the 1880s. Firearms changed alot during the 19th century. --Jayron32 04:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Right. She would also use factory-made cartridges and her gun had a factory-made, precision drilled barrel. I'm interested in handmade pistols in use during American Revolutionary War. And I'm also wondering if those quotes refer to shooting a stationary card or a card that is thrown in the air. --Itinerant1 (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that changes things. You said 19th century. The American Revolutionary War happened during the 18th century. Had you said that, it would have changed the answers. --Jayron32 04:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I meant early 19th century, before the Industrial Revolution (the technology should've been roughly in the same place in 1780 and in 1840), but, just to be perfectly clear, I'm asking about late 18th century now.--Itinerant1 (talk) 10:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

And, on top of that, all these quotes refer to distances measured in paces. What exactly is "a pace"? I was sure that one pace is the same as one step (somewhere between 2 and 3 feet), but I just saw one discussion where it was claimed that a pace was really two steps, or 5 feet.--Itinerant1 (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

A pace is usually standardized as two steps, approx. 5-6 feet. See Pace (unit), though it can mean one step, or about 3 feet. It is quite hard to say which context is used in the above quote. --Jayron32 04:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The Knickerbocker baseball rules of ca.1845 specified home-to-second and first-to-third as "42 paces, equidistant". In other words, 126 feet, resulting in 90 feet between home and first, first and second, etc. So at least in that context, a pace was considered to be 3 feet or 1 yard. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Parent and child in national legislature

I just read that Ron Paul's son Rand Paul "is the first United States Senator in history to serve alongside a parent in the United States House of Representatives". What about other simultaneous parent-child constellations in the US House and Senate (parent in Senate, child in House / both in the same house, ...)? And does anyone know any memorable examples in other countries, where parent and child were making laws on a national level at the same time? Thank you in advance! ---Sluzzelin talk 06:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I know of 2 cases in the UK, both involving former Prime Ministers and their children:

• From 1922-24, David Lloyd George and his son Gwilym were simultaneously members of the House of Commons. From 1929-45, Lloyd George had both Gwilym and his daughter Megan as parliamentary colleagues.
• Margaret Jay was appointed a life peeress in 1992, joining her father James Callaghan in the House of Lords; he had been "kicked upstairs" shortly after retiring from the House of Commons in 1987. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You may have overlooked Stanley Baldwin, who sat alongside his son Oliver in the 1929-1931 Parliament. Stanley Baldwin was the Leader of the Conservative Party while Oliver was a Labour MP. There are many, many other cases of parents and children sitting in the House of Commons at the same time; the most recent was in 2001-05 when Ann Cryer and her son John Cryer were together. There are also several within the House of Lords. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I said the above two were the cases I was aware of. I never claimed they were the only such cases. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

In Australia, former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and his son Tony Whitlam were both members of parliament between 1975 and 1977. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

On a tangential note:

• Waldorf Astor inherited his father’s viscountcy in 1919, although he had already been an elected member of the lower house since 1910. He tried to disclaim his title but there no provision to do so in those days. His elevation to the Lords created a vacancy in his Commons seat, which his wife Nancy Astor won at a by-election. She remained in the House of Commons until she retired in 1945. Waldorf remained in the Lords till his death in 1952.
• Apart from Nancy Astor being the first woman elected to the House of Commons who took up her seat, what’s interesting about this couple is that they were both born on the same day, 19 May 1879. And they were both born Americans. in the USA, he to British parents, she to American parents. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Waldorf Astor had American parents. His father became a naturalized UK citizen when Waldorf was 20. Rmhermen (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops, thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Tony Benn and his son Hilary Benn were both MPs in the later stages of Tony Blair's first government. Austen Chamberlain and his father Joseph Chamberlain were MPs together for a whole 22 years from 1892 to 1914. --Antiquary (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Albert Gore, Sr. and Albert Gore, Jr. missed serving at the same time by about 6 years. --Jayron32 00:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy served in the Senate while his son Patrick J. Kennedy served in the House. --Jayron32 00:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You'd do well to have a long hard look at List of political families and all the links to articles on political families of particular countries. There's a huge amount of information to be gone through if you want a comprehensive list of all family members who've served at the same time. But be warned: it may not include all countries. I just restored the Australia link, which some bright spark commented out back in May. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

A writ in/of acceleration was a method of summoning the eldest son and heir of a hereditary peer to the English/British House of Lords in one of his father's titles. By definition, his father was still alive and a member of the House of Lords himself. You'll find a list (which the article asserts is complete) of such peers at writ of acceleration. There are also numerous examples of the sons of peers (both eldest and younger) being created peers themselves, often whilst their fathers were still alive (I haven't gone through them, but you're bound to find examples if you look through Category:Younger sons of dukes, Category:Younger sons of marquesses, etc.). A (relatively) modern example notable for the son being the senior peer is the 1st Baron Runciman and his son the 1st Viscount Runciman of Doxford. The House of Lords is of course far more fertile ground for such pairings because (with the exception of the bishops) its members generally remain members for life, and so active statesmen added to its ranks are far more likely to have fathers who are members despite the fact that their age may make them unlikely to take part in proceedings. Proteus (Talk) 23:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

(Original poster typing here) Thanks a lot! I didn't expect that many famous examples in the UK. Jack, a comprehensive list would certainly be nice, but probably couldn't be turned into a sustainable WP list-article, though who knows. It was mere idle curiosity that brought up the question. Happy New Year, everyone! (And feel free to add more, I'll still be following this thread). ---Sluzzelin talk 04:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Very poor ability to learn a new language

Have there been studies of people who are terrible at learning a language as adults? Suomedyi (talk) 09:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Not really, because "terrible" is too ill-defined and subjective to be an appropriate starting point. Does language acquisition or language education help?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone who's been poor at learning something thus far does not necessarily lack the ability to improve. It may be all about the way they've been taught, or maybe because they've never been "taught" in any real sense at all. For example, someone who migrates to a new country with a hostile linguistic environment but never has any instruction in the language of his new country might try to muddle through as best he can by watching TV and engaging in conversations with friends etc. He might eventually pick up enough that way to say he's "learnt" the language to a reasonable degree. Or he might not, preferring to mix with expatriates from his home country and only using the new language when he absolutely has to. Observers might comment that he's shown a "poor ability" to learn the new language given the length of time he's been immersed in it. But if he'd had proper instruction at an early stage, and ongoing instruction, he would probably have done much better. So, it's not about his ability per se.

But it's true that everyone's ability to learn new languages is different, and some are naturally better than others, all other factors being equal. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It is rather similar to dyscalculia. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 19:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Quarantine

does anyone know if the USA has any plans in place for a pandemic or epidemic? (or a more specific place i could ask this?) thanks, Jake1993811 (talk) 10:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

As our pandemic page points out, this is handled on a global scale by the World Health Organization (WHO). The Global Alert Response page on their website is possibly a place to start looking for further information. Individual countries may then have specific responses depending on their particular circumstances based on the WHO information, the expected impact on them, their financial capacities, etc. --jjron (talk) 10:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Federal Emergency Management Agency no doubt have lots of plans in place. I would check on their websites. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

thank you. Jake1993811 (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Question about template

how to fix The template (Portal box) is being considered for merging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lrtaher (talk • contribs) 14:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Your question is not very clear (and I've added a heading). Please indicate what article you are referring to, and what you want to know. --ColinFine (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

(Now answered at help desk.)--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Doing research for a stock market game

Hi ho! I have recently taken an interest in learning how the stock market works, so upon the suggestion of my wife, I started an online fantasy stock market game among my friends. Each player gets $10,000 in fantasy $$'s and 8 months to buy/sell/trade in real time with the stock market. The players are ranked by the value of their portfolio. Now I realize the flaw here is that the game duration is only 8 months, and that would affect one's strategy, but my goal is not to win the game. (The game is just a fun way to learn). My goals are to 1. Learn the basics of buying/selling/trading stocks AND 2. Make a profit (even if a small one). So my question is: in a broad sense, what are ways to go about prospecting for potential stock purchases, especially outside of the mainstream media (i.e. newspaper & cable news- I'm already following both of those)? I am interested in researching "up-and-coming" companies that would have potential for growth. Any suggestions for resources/strategies? (Note-I am not asking for specific suggestions of which stocks to buy.) Thanks, 71.195.156.105 (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I assume you mean that you'll spend 8 real months (in the future) following the real stock market - so the only difference between this and actual market speculation is that you're not spending any real money? -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk

Yes, that's right (sorry that was me as the OP by the way). No real money. The game starts on Jan 02-Aug 31. It is purely a learning experience. (As I understand it, a lot of people played similar fantasy games in high school and college to learn how the stock market works). But again, to be clear, there is no real money involved. Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 19:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Real investors, and particularly the analysts that advise institutional investors, know the market segment they work in very very well - they've got years, or decades, of experience in that segment (say semiconductors or automotive or fast food). They read every player's annual report, every regulatory filing, follow the progress of every major project or product, track the careers of major executives, and know ahead of time the effect that legislation, regulation, and trade agreements will have. They read economic projections that try to predict raw material supply and customer demand. They go to tradeshows, talk with executives, participate in analysts conference calls with executives. And they read every trade magazine, wire report, and mainstream newspaper article remotely related to their field that they can. And with all this, they're really not all that good at making actual predictions. All that sounds like a heck of a lot of work, and not really that much fun if you're not doing it for real money. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 19:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. But I could say the same things about writing for an online encyclopedia :) Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 19:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

True. I'd stick to the narrowest deepest segment of real industry that you already know as much about, and burrow down as much as you can. The upside, and the downside, of small companies is that they often sink or swim on the success of one or a handful of products. Whether SuperMediScan succeeds is down to whether their new scanner gets finished on time, works well, and sells; that can be greatly influenced by a single court case, or government ruling, or a hurricane in the country that makes an important component, or if their top engineer quits or is hit by a truck. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 19:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Here in the Uk there's a number of stock market magazines with tips and news - stocks to watch etc (e.g. Investors Chronicle. Regular reading of the business pages of any decent newspaper will help you get an idea of what the commentators on the markets are thinking/what's happening with big companies (e.g. Guardian.co.uk/business). I think Warren Buffet is credited with saying is that he never invests in a company he doesn't understand. I.e. if you can't understand how the business works/makes money then don't risk your (virtual) money on it. Finally I would say - hope it goes well. I did a similar thing a few years ago - found it very enjoyable and informative, hope yours turns out the same. ny156uk (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem with trying to "beat the market" is the Efficient-market hypothesis. This is the idea that if there is a reason for a stock to do well or poorly, it is already priced into the stock. There are plenty of analysts, strategists and fund managers whose job it is to pick winners, but their records are mixed, to say the least, and a stock-picker's past performance does not guarantee future results. In your case, the keys are that you're playing with pretend money and that you've got a short time horizon. In this case, the best thing to do, probably, is to buy the riskiest, most-volatile stocks that you can find. You may finish in last place, but you also may win, which is probably more than you can say about pretend-investing a "safe" stock like Johnson & Johnson. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

peter slipper listing

Good morning. When I edit my changes are reversed very quickly. For example I know Peter Slipper did not attend Pimlico High School even though I read in a paper that he had. Does this mean that an inaccuracy in one paper is to be perpetuated on wikipedia. I do not understand why my changes to Slippers listing are quickly reversed. Much of what is included in any listing is just opinion. Mountair — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountair (talk • contribs) 21:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

A newspaper account is considered more reliable than "some guy on the Internet". You will need to provide links to prove that you are correct. For everyone else's info, Peter Slipper is the article in question. StuRat (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It would seem that finding evidence of the years he was at Ipswich Grammar would be the solution. If they cover all his high school years, then it rules Pimlico out. HiLo48 (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried contacting the newspaper company in question? ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 19:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Facebook

Is there a way to force the "see more" tab on a shorter comment? CTJF83 21:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Unlikely. FB is pretty tight with allowing user control over much at all. If you really want to do so I'd say fake it, e.g., by entering a number of carriage returns (enters) after your comment. If it autoposts your reply when you hit enter, off the top of my head the way around that is to use <ctrl><enter> instead. --jjron (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I tried that, with like 10 spaces, and it closed the gap to one....oh well, thanks, CTJF83 12:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe put a period/full stop on each line just so that there's at least one character there? Dismas|^(talk) 19:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I use either a full stop or a middle dot, which are tiny enough to be almost unnoticeable. Also, a non-breaking space will accomplish the same effect. — Michael J 19:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The period works, thanks! BTW, where is a middle dot on the keyboard? CTJF83 19:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

PDF file

Could someone find the correct PDF file with the text "Cyclone Joy caused a rock slide that partially blocked the road and scoured some culverts"? Google is currently giving me this though it does not contain the text. HurricaneFan25 — 21:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Search doesn't find it in that PDF for some reason, but it's there. Last paragraph on page 2. Mikenorton (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason is that Google uses a far better optical character recognition system than Adobe Acrobat Reader uses. For example, Adobe yields garbage like "&RPPLWWHH�6HFUHWDU\" for the "Committee Secretary" in the heading. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Which has nothing to do with bad OCR, it's the actual text! This is a PDF obfuscation trick, in which the file contains "&RPPLWWHH" and a font in which the "&" character looks like a "C", the "R" character looks like an "o", the "P" character looks like an "m", and so on... so that it looks like the word "Committee". We've seen an example of this on the refdesk before. People who are afraid of the future do stupid stuff like this to try to hold us back, making computer documents almost as hard to use as dead tree documents. 68.60.252.82 (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Adding an academic reference to Cycle of Abuse

Smullens, SaraKay,"The Codification and Treatment of Emotional Abuse in Structured Group Therapy," International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 60(1)2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.120.237 (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You should put this info on the talk page for Cycle of abuse, not here. Also, is there a specific part of the article supported by this ref ? StuRat (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Railway Lockers (in films at least)

Many films (for example Bourne Supremecy) involve someone staching something in a locker. In some cases (for example Once upon a time in America) this seems to be 'their' locker for years. What is the arrangement? Are the lockers there for all and sundry, for whatever length of time? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.154.34 (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It's called a Left luggage locker. You leave a cash deposit or a coin-in-a-slot that is returned when you pick up your bags again. We stopped using them in the UK in the 1970s when Irish terrorists started leaving bombs in them - they rarely came back for them. Alansplodge (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The last ones I saw had something about a time limit (maybe 24 hours?) after which they would be emptied. Astronaut (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

24 hours seems rather short. Don't people often leave things there intending to pick them up when they return from their trip ? With that in mind, I'd think a month would be more reasonable. StuRat (talk) 04:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It was the August 1980 Bologna bombing in Italy that led the British to remove automatic lockers, concerned that the IRA might copy the tactic. As far as I can remember no such incident ever happened. Luggage lockers are still common enough elsewhere in Europe and visitors are surprised not to find them in major stations in e.g. London. The main use is for people visiting a city for a single day. to allow them to deposit their luggage and visit the place unencumbered - so 24 hours is reasonable. Sussexonian (talk) 11:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You're quite right, I stand corrected. However (trying to recover some self-esteem), IRA bombs exploded in the left luggage offices at Tottenham Court Road and Leicester Square Underground Stations in 1939[16]. Alansplodge (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

24 hours would only be reasonable if that's the ONLY use. I don't see any reason why such a short period improves security, as presumably any terrorist leaving a bomb could have it timed to go off as soon as he is out of range. StuRat (talk) 16:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It's likely not just for security. A 24 hour turn around time means a high turnover, which means more lockers for other people as well. If I were running a train station I wouldn't see much benefit in letting people leave things for long amounts of time; it seems like it would run into a lot of potential difficulties. If the terms are clear (24 hours), people can make other arrangements if they need to store stuff for a month. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't you want to make money off those customers, too ? Just like they have short-term and long-term parking, you could have short-term and long-term lockers, at different rates. StuRat (talk) 09:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

But does anywhere really have lockers with keys that you can use for an arbitrary period of time? Or is this something from the 1970s that's been replaced by modern computerised systems? Based on my travels in North America and Europe, airports, railroad stations, etc now require you to pay before you open the locker, which would be less dramatic in a film (three years at $2 per day, woah!). The sort where you remove a key seems only to be found in places like museums which expect you to only use the locker during your visit, and they presumably check the lockers from time to time. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Take this for what it's worth. My dad worked as an internal auditor for the Santa Fe Railroad back in the 60's. He remembers the key lockers being quite common. According to him, arrangments varied, but for the most part a person could rent a locker, cash in advance, for any duration he/she wanted. They were then given a key and a receipt. There was only one key. The station master did not keep a spare copy. If the person lost the key, they could still claim the locker with their receipt, but forfeited the deposit and had to pay an additional fee for re-keying the locker. Anyway, if the rental term expired, the station master would break the lock. Any items inside found inside were logged, and kept for a period of time. Otherwise, after 90 days or so, valuables would be sold to an auction house, and other items were simply discarded. For the most part, lockers opened by the station master contained nothing...but it was also apparently common to find pistols (go figure). Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 16:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Not to gainsay Quinn1's dad's experience, but when I was a station supervisor for Amtrak in the early 1970s, we did have baggage lockers for passenger use. As station supervisor I did have a master key for those lockers. It would have been far too expensive and time-consuming to drill open a locker whose key had been lost. The lockers were rented a limited time--it may have been a week, I don't recall. A baggageman would note the lockers in use. After seven days, he could remove the contents and leave a note that the keyholder could claim them at the baggage room on payment of a fee. For the most part, though, the locker-using clientele were local street people who apparently felt their goods were safer in Amtrak's locker. (At many larger stations, even at that time, lockers were removed; passengers wishing to have baggage stored for a few hours could check it at the baggage room.) --- 108.28.72.88 (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

December 31

List of National Days in date order?

The National Day article lists them in country order. As a teacher, I'm planning to use national days as a trigger for activities on each day I see a particular set of students. I could trawl through the list in that article, but a list already in date order would make my life easier. HiLo48 (talk) 02:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

See Help:Sorting for how to convert the data in that article into a sortable table. It would take some work, but then it would only have to be done once. Since you already have to trawl through the list to gather the information anyways, might as well improve the usability of the article. --Jayron32 02:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This seems a rather odd omission for an encyclopedia that has sortable lists of everything under the sun. It was discussed beteeen 2007 and 2009 @ Talk:National Day#Fomatting the list, but it went nowhere. A job for a list guru. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. Hands up all list gurus. (Keeps hands firmly stuck in pockets.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Not me. --Jayron32 02:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately the list in National Day is not in a table format, otherwise it would be easy. Maybe it would be possible to split it up in something like Excel and then reinsert in the article, but then creating a wiki table from the ground up is pretty tiresome. And dang, List of national days is just a redirect. --jjron (talk) 06:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

And what do you do with the ones that "float"? Instead of a table, it might be more elegant to simply create a second list that's by date, and the floating items could be inserted at their approximate date, e.g. "first day of summer", or whatever, would be around June 21. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that celebrated as the "Longest Day of the Year", and always on 21 June, regardless of the solstice. It's certainly not the "first day of summer" in most of the world! It wouldn't take long to create an Excel or Word table with all these dates. I can't do it just at the moment, but if you give me a day or two ... (but then I'd need an expert to turn this into a Wikitable). Dbfirs 09:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The summer solstice is by definition the start of summer, according to the "astronomical" convention, which is the one generally considered "official" in the States. I know that Europeans tend to put it at the start of a month, but to me that's just weird -- months are artificial; seasons are natural, so seasons can't be month-based. It's true that there's still some arbitrariness in the astronomical definition (in some sense they're shifted by half a season, which corresponds roughly but not exactly to the temperature lag) but at least it's not based on the artificial calendar. --Trovatore (talk) 09:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

No, astronomers regard the solstice as the middle of summer. There is no "astronomical definition" for the start of seasons. I don't know where this "official" idea comes from, though it makes good sense in regions where the temperature lag is about six and a half weeks, as it is in some parts of the USA. Do people in Florida follow the convention? Anyway, the disagreement doesn't matter here because the date is June 21st regardless of either summer or solstice. Dbfirs 13:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to flatly contradict you. There is in fact an astronomical definition for the start of seasons. --Trovatore (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

All the astronomical sites that I can find talk of the mid-summer solstice, contradicting your assertion. I'm puzzled, though, about where this idea of an astronomical definition came from. I agree that many people claim that it exists. Is it an astrological notion? Dbfirs 23:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about astronomers. It's "astronomical" in the sense that it's based on an astronomical event, not in the sense that it's particularly useful from an astronomical point of view. I don't think it comes from astrology though I couldn't be sure of that. --Trovatore (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

There is an American astronomical definition for the start of seasons, which happens to coincide with the American traditional definition. Personally, I always found both very unnatural. As you say, it implies a 45-day temperature lag, and that lag is normally smaller. It is particularly obvious if you live in an area with permanent snow cover. For example, in Montreal, Canada, daily mean temperatures go below freezing on November 21 and back up above freezing on March 23. In Warsaw, Poland, freezing lasts just under three months, December 8 to March 2. In Barcelona, Spain, historical mean temperature on December 1 is 11 C, and it reaches the same point around March 12. In all three cities, winter thermal lag is almost exactly the same, it works out to about 28 days. This would make the calendar-based definition (starting seasons on December 1, etc) considerably more accurate than solstice-based definition in all three.--Itinerant1 (talk) 23:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, the problem with the calendar-based definition is that it uses the calendar. I'm sorry, that's right out. That means that if different political decisions had been made in the past (e.g. the length of February) we'd have a different start of summer???? That's just not acceptable.

Around here, the astronomical convention works reasonably well for summer, maybe not for the other three. August is usually the hottest month (and it can easily be September). --Trovatore (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Around here (which is, I think, almost the same as where you are), seasons are very vague and having a start date arbitrarily off by a month is not a big deal. Back in Mother Russia, no one would consider the solstice convention credible, because December 21 is deep winter by any reasonable standard and it's not uncommon to have temps dipping below -20°C at night. Likewise, mid-June ("spring", according to the solstice convention) is considerably warmer, on average, than mid-September ("summer"). (daily means in Moscow on June 15: 17°C, on September 15: 11°C.) --Itinerant1 (talk) 02:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see that Trovatore meant "a definition based (arbitrarily) on an astronomically fixed event", rather than "a definition used by astronomers", so we are in agreement. I'm still puzzled about how so many people seem to believe that the equinoxes and solstices begin the seasons, even in areas where this convention is totally inappropriate. Some seem to think that astronomers have decreed this "definition"! Dbfirs 17:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the summer solstice. In any case, if you tabularize it, how do deal with something like Burma's national day, which is "10th day following the full moon of the month of Tazaungmone (beginning of Student led protests against British colonial government in 1920), in late November or December"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

An awkward aspect of that is that the summer solstice is the same instant across the Northern Hemisphere (actually the whole planet, except that in some places it's the winter solstice), so which day it falls on, in addition to varying from year to year, also depends on your time zone. --Trovatore (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Any suggestions? I suppose we could insert the date for the coming year, but then we'd have to keep updating the table. Myanmar (Burma) seems to be the only country that doesn't have a fixed date in the Gregorian calendar, but some others have "first (weekday) in (month)". ... (later) I've used the 2012 dates, but with a note explaining the variability, and just put Burma between November and December. Dbfirs 13:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

To clarify some of the above comments (although I'm pretty sure HiLo48 knows this), ~ the 21st June is not universally the summer solstice nor universally the longest day of the year. Also Season includes various definitioons including the astronomical one and concurs with Dbfirs on that. Nil Einne (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

... nor universally the "first day of summer" in the north, and never "the first day of winter" in the southern hemisphere, but it is the fixed date of Greenland's National Day, irrespective of the date of the solstice. Ought we to include other national days such as Sami National Day? Dbfirs 13:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Going back to the original question, I've got as far as July with the list in date order, using Word and Excel, but I'm not likely to have time to finish it off on Sunday. There are rather more national days than I anticipated. I'll have a try at turning the list into a Wiki table, but I don't know much about tables -- I've only ever edited them, not created them. Happy new year to everyone (within the next 12 hours for some). Dbfirs 23:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually quite surprised at the professed level of non-competence about table creation from most users on this thread. I'm no great shakes at complex tables, but I have created a few dozen simpler ones in my wiki-travels. They're not hard; just find an existing one that fits what you want, and then replace the data. With experience come a few little tricks. I'm sure I could create the table HiLo is after, but I'm recovering from a 3am finish to a NY Eve party, and I just don't have the energy, or to be honest, the interest. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not technically difficult, it's just tedious. And working from an already-built table is definitely the way to go. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

... (after reading Help:Table) ... Yes, it's not as difficult as it looks, especially if you use double pipe. Already-built tables are fine for small amounts of data, but it would be very tedious to insert hundreds of cells. I started with a table in Excel, then edited it in Word, then inserted the Wiki markup globally into spare Word columns, then converted to plain text and, rather to my surprise, it worked first time with only very minor errors. It needs a bit of cleaning up, but I've created a collapsed sortable table that I've added at the end. See Talk:National Day Dbfirs 07:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Excellent work, Dbfirs. Before this question was raised, if anyone had asked me if we had such a list, I wouldn't even have bothered to check. I would have just taken it for granted, and I would have assumed it was a very early addition to the encyclopedia, c. 2003 vintage. Yet here we are in 2012 and it's only just happened. Amazing what can fall through the cracks when we're not practising eternal vigilance. I wonder what else we've forgotten to attend to. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

And it's all because I'll do anything to try to gain and maintain the interest of my darling Year 7 students. HiLo48 (talk) 09:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Police communication practices

I don't know whether this happens in other countries, but I'm seeing it more and more here in Australia. Some incident occurs in which someone loses their life suddenly and violently. It could be a traffic accident, a murder, a farm or industrial accident, a dog attack, a child taking tablets from the medicine cabinet thinking they were sweets, anything that requires a police presence. Police go on TV to report the basic facts of the case, what investigations they're carrying out, maybe call for public assistance, whatever. In amongst the factual stuff, they'll often say things like "This incident was an absolute tragedy for the family/community concerned" or similar such words (and it's always an "absolute" tragedy, never just a tragedy).

Can anyone tell me what these expressions are designed to achieve? My view is that it isn't the job of the police to be telling the community that such and such an incident was "an absolute tragedy". If the families concerned think it is, they'll have worked that out for themselves without anyone having to tell them. But if they ever did need anyone to tell them, the last group of people they'd go to for an opinion would be the police. No offence to police, but their role is to examine these sorts of incidents rationally and dispassionately, and not to let their personal feelings get in the way of cold, logical analysis. So, what gives? Are they trying to appear more human, more empathetic, less authoritarian? My concern is that if they decide that incident A is "an absolute tragedy" but incident B is not to be described in such terms, then they might be tempted to invest more resources into A, when B may be just as deserving of their attention.

I also hear police telling us after a holiday period when too many people were killed on the roads (I never know how they decide how many is too many and how many is perfectly OK) that "The message is just not getting through". I always feel like I'm in a school classroom of naughty children when I hear that, or I'm being given a damn good talking to by an angry parent who's fed up to the back teeth. The reality is that the number of people on the roads at these times is way more than usual, yet the number of deaths is a tiny, minuscule percentage of road users. I'm not diminishing any road death, but I do take issue with this didactic approach the police take when they seem to be talking sternly to the whole community, when their remarks ought to be addressed to the tiny proportion of drivers who speed, drink-drive, drug-drive and commit other illegal acts. The vast, overwhelming majority of people don't do anything to be criticised for; indeed, the police ought to be congratulating them, in amongst the brickbats for the offenders. They ought to be acknowledging that the do-gooders vastly outnumber the offenders. But no, we're all tarred with the same brush together with the offenders. If the police deliberately set out to antagonise people, they couldn't have picked a better way.

The 2 matters I raised above seem to show police acting in ways that are not consistent with an overall strategy. On the one hand, they seem to be wanting to be kinder, more warm, more human (that's when they want our help); but on the other hand they're going out of their way to be hypercritical of the whole community because of the actions of a few (that's when they just want us to comply). They probably wouldn't see it that way, but I certainly do. I'd be very untrusting of a person who acted in such manipulative and two-faced ways: being all nice when they want something but being an arsehole otherwise. Maybe different arms of the police force run their own show and have their own ways of dealing with the public, I don't know. Does anyone have any inside knowledge of their thinking about these sorts of communication practices? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding messages on speeding, many drivers (perhaps more than half depending on the area etc) speed at least sometimes [17][18][19] You say "their remarks ought to be addressed to the tiny proportion of drivers who speed, drink-drive, drug-drive and commit other illegal acts" but how are the police supposed to know who these people are and direct a message only to them? In fact based on who speeds they need to speak to a significant proportion of the population, and I'm sure people who don't drive but are concerned about being killed by speeding drunk motorists are also grateful for these messages.

As for police saying something was a "tragedy", with the rise of 24-hour news (both on TV and internet) they're increasingly required to go on television and give statements and press releases. If they only make clinical statements like "the body was hacked into thirty pieces and blood smeared all over the wall", then people attack them for being heartless and having no respect for victims of crime; if they don't talk to the press at all, people attack them for that and stories are leaked anyway in an uncontrolled manner (possibly giving away details they want kept secret); as you say, people do not want to see them go the other way and weep uncontrollably with emotion; while you object if they try and express some sympathy.

It seems you want the police to remain out of sight, emerging only to track down criminals, not speaking to the media. However, most police forces consider it essential to maintain good relations with the public (see e.g. [20][21][22]). This allows for "policing by consent", where the population obeys the law not simply through fear of being caught, and willingly assists the police, provides the police with information about crimes, and avoids rioting and similar public disorder, and avoids situations (found e.g. in certain poor black areas of the USA, and formerly in parts of Britain's inner cities) where the police function as a paramilitary organisation only moving into an area to arrest suspects, shooting first, and asking questions later. Part of this relationship-building is expressing sympathy with the public, and part of it is being seen to be taking action on issues that are important to the public (cracking down on crime and "antisocial behaviour").

Related to this, many in the police force see that they must take action to prevent crimes, which includes providing public information on crime prevention, and delivering stern messages to people not to break the law. In view of the effort required to catch and prosecute a speeding or drink-driving motorist, it is probably cheaper to discourage a motorist from breaking the law via public statements, public information films, etc, rather than to catch that same individual (especially if the state will have to pay for damage they cause). --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

In the US, at least, traffic tickets are a major source of revenue, which makes cops go out of their way to give tickets to people doing nothing dangerous, in various forms of speed traps. StuRat (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

please. My googling found nothing to support that but angry blog comments with no sources. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Proper speed limits are always going to be matters of opinion, not fact, but here's a rather reliable-looking commentary on a couple speed traps in New Orleans: [23]. Note that the author comes down for stricter enforcement in ticket collections, so they aren't just a Libertarian who wants all traffic laws repealed. Here's another from the Baltimore Sun:[24]. Understanding the conflict of interest inherent in having the people who decide what is illegal also benefit (directly or indirectly) from having more things be illegal makes it clear that speed traps are inevitable in such a situation, especially when the fines go disproportionately to people passing through who have no vote in that community (a form of taxation without representation). There is at least one state (I forget which) that has a law that any community with over a certain percentage of their income from tickets loses the ability to give out tickets (the state takes over). This is a step in the right direction, but will result in communities keeping their percentage just under the limit. Here's an article about a proposed law in Michigan to limit speed traps: [25]. StuRat (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Those links do not state that tickets are a major source of revenue. In fact the last one talks about a revenue drain of contested tickets. Rmhermen (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, here's an article about a study which proves "that local governments use traffic citations to make up for revenue shortfalls": [26]. Here's an article about a state which limits local revenues from tickets to 35 percent, and had one community up around 80%: [27]. Sounds major to me. StuRat (talk) 02:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

A 1995 law in one state that has been violated a total of twice since then. Rmhermen (talk) 03:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

No, they only CAUGHT two communities. As the 2nd article states, no agency is assigned to enforce the law. Under those circumstances, it's amazing any get caught. StuRat (talk) 09:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

@ Colapeninsula: how are the police supposed to know who these people are and direct a message only to them? - I wasn't suggesting they get down to that level of individual personal detail. I was suggesting they use wording that recognises their main message does not apply to most road users. When I hear a senior police official saying "We are extremely disappointed at the high road toll over the Christmas-New Year period. The message is just not getting through", I feel I am personally being criticised for some error of commission or omission, along with every other member of the community. Yet, almost all of us have done exactly what we were asked to do: drove within the speed limits, never drove while drinking or drug-taking, always used seat belts, never talked on our phones while driving, etc etc. But what do we get for our efforts? We're told the police are disappointed in us, and we're not listening to their messages. So, I have now become responsible for the driving behaviour of millions of my fellow citizens I will never meet, which is an absurd position to arrive at. Imagine if the murder rate went up beyond expectations, and stayed up: would the police come out say how "disappointed" they are in the trend, and would they tell us "the message is just not getting through"? Of couse not. All their communications would be about specific offenders, or offenders generally - not about law-abiding citizens. OK, most adults are road users, while most adults never have any involvement in murder cases; but law-abiding road users no more deserve criticism than law-abiding non-murderers do.

Another thing is that when a communicator acknowledges their communication has failed (which is what "The message is just not getting through" does), it's up to them to communicate differently to make sure their message does get through. But the tone they use when they trot out this line time after time is that it's the community's fault for not receiving the message. It really is an extremely simplistic and ignorant approach to communication, one that doesn't even work when directed to school children, let alone adults. Which is why I wonder who devises their communication strategies for them and where they did their training (the local after-school care centre, perhaps). -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

1) Saying something is an "absolute tragedy" helps them sound less cold, say when they blame the parents for leaving pills where the toddler could get to them. Since the chief of police sheriff is often elected, PR is quite important if he wants to keep his job.

2) Saying "the message isn't getting thru" might be a way to move public opinion towards more strict law enforcement practices, like sobriety check lanes.

3) I've also noticed they never call anyone a "suspect" anymore, they are just a "person of interest", presumably so they don't get sued for calling somebody a suspect and ruining their reputation when they have no evidence against that person. StuRat (talk) 15:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The Chief of Police (or equivalent rank) is seldom an elected official in the united States (see Chief of police), and the practice of electing senior police officials is even rarer in other nations. (It is unheard of in Australia, for instance, which is the jurisdiction about which the OP asked his question.) While this does not entirely obviate political concerns for these senior police officials, they are not directly at the mercy of a fickle electorate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You've not provided any evidence that's it's unheard of, in Australia, for the lead law enforcement officer to be elected. I suppose I could ask for your qualifications on the matter, but consider doing so to be rather petty. StuRat (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Take it from me, and I'm sure HiLo will back me up here, Stu, the concept of police officers and judges and governors being elected is completely foreign to Australia. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Yep. HiLo48 (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It can be rather difficult to find references saying something doesn't happen when that it doesn't happen isn't remotely notable. Elected law enforcement is a peculiarly American concept and is unheard of pretty much everywhere else (there may be a handful of exceptions). There is a plan to elect Police and Crime Commissioners in the UK, but they will just oversee the police they won't actually have police powers. The second paragraph of Sheriff#United_States says: "The political election of a person to serve as a police leader is an almost uniquely American tradition." (It gives one minor exception.) --Tango (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no special qualifications in police studies; none are needed to read the article I linked, nor for general knowledge of Commonwealth police services. If you're looking for further sources, however, they're readily available in Australian Federal Police, Law enforcement in Australia, and the linked pages for the assorted Australian law enforcement agencies. Moreover, even a brief examination of sheriff or Sheriffs in the United States would have revealed that elected police officials are a nearly exclusively American phenomenon.

It is petty of you to pick on a point like this just because I pointed out that you were making up (bad) numbers in one of your responses yesterday. Nevertheless, I can't help but notice that you've edited your original post in response to my first note here. I'll take that as acknowledgement that however gracelessly you're handling it, you're aware that you made another mistake in your off-the-cuff remarks today. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Whether the elected law enforcement officers in question are called Chief of Police or Sheriff is hardly central to my argument. StuRat (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Sheriffs aren't elected in Australia either. There are such people here, but their public profile is WAY lower than what we see on American western films and TV.

The very idea that law enforcement officials of any kind are political animals rather than government appointees and/or employees, is anathema to us. Very senior police officers like Police Commissioners and their deputies are directly appointed by government; lower police ranks are employees of the state whose progress up the ranks is based on qualifications, experience and perceived merit. Our counterpart of your District Attorneys are usually called Director of Public Prosecutions, and they're government appointments, as are judges.

Only the most senior law officer in each state and federally, the Attorneys-General, are elected, but they're elected as members of parliament first and foremost; their appointment to the A-G portfolio or any other portfolio is a matter for the government of the day, but given the formal tick by the relevant state governor or governor-general, who is also an appointment by the government of the day, but given the formal tick by the Queen, who gets her job by heredity, but ultimately because the law says that's how the system is; the law is made or changed by parliament, whose members are all elected by popular vote, and countersigned by the Queen or her vice-regal representative (see above).

The only people in Australia who get their job by popular vote are legislators at the federal and state levels (members of parliament, senators, etc) and local government level (aldermen, mayors). -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 04:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Right Jack, they aren't elected there. But did you want us to limit answers to Australia only ? You didn't say that, did you ? StuRat (talk) 07:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I specifically mentioned other countries in my opening sentence. But we were discussing your argument that certain senior police officials (whatever their titles may be) are "often" elected. TenOfAllTrades covered that with "The Chief of Police (or equivalent rank) is seldom an elected official in the united States (see Chief of police), and the practice of electing senior police officials is even rarer in other nations." I was just adding some more facts to that counter-argument, hopefully to demonstrate that the practice of electing law enforcement officials, let alone judges, is a peculiarly American idea (and I mean peculiar).  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

[ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14888118] is an article about the recent appointment of a new Metropolitan Police Commissioner, the UK's senior police officer; "He beat three others to the job after interviews with the Home Secretary and Mayor of London." No election. Alansplodge (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Police have always had a particular form of language. I'll never forget "The female person ran from the member". HiLo48 (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused why JackofOz thinks saying something is a tragedy is inconsistent with an overall strategy. Here in NZ, it's very common for the police and others to say something is a all the more tragic because it could have been easily avoided etc. A quick search shows this happens in Australia too. [28] [29]. They also say something could have been a tradegy. e.g. [30] [31]. As StuRat said, saying something is a tragedy helps them sound less cold, particularly when they go on to use it as an example. They definitely aren't going to say 'the only people who died were completely at fault, so it wasn't a tragedy although a clear reminder to people not to do the same thing. They could perhaps not bother to say it is anything but simply use it as an example, but it's not clear that this would be more effective, particularly since it could easily cause controversy. Nil Einne (talk) 09:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Jack, you can actually contact the vic police media unit, (perhaps email and ask for brief call) and discuss this with them. Have a go. Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 09:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I might do exactly that. Thanks for the tip. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand, are you disputing that some terrible murder or deadly house-fire is a tragedy? Or are you simply wondering why the cops waste precious seconds saying so? If the former, I don't know what to tell you, but if the latter I'm sure it's to avoid appearing overly gruff or unfeeling by simply standing up there and rattling off the facts of some gruisome death. It's a social nicety. Like starting a conversation with "Good morning" even if any fool can see that it's a nice morning. As for your second part, it's entirely possible that they feel that their public service announcements aren't penetrating the populace as much as they would like. This is often an issue with marketing campaigns with low budgets. If that's the case, since the police are public servants, I don't see any reason they shouldn't say so clearly and in no uncertain terms when discussing the matter. If they were hoping that a public awareness campaign would reduce holiday accidents to some number X above average accidents, and they've fallen well short of that goal, then the simple fact is that their message is not getting through to people as much as they had hoped. (Probably because they have no budget, and the news stations don't like publishing boring public safety press releases as much as they like reporting on the accidents afterwards.) APL (talk) 11:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

New camera resolution

The time has finally come to replace my old camera, and here I have the opportunity to get a better one. Even at just 6 megapixels, the old one took pretty deecent photographs, crisp and clear with all the details visible, so I am sure anything more than that will be sufficient for my uses. However, the trouble comes when I want to film something, which I have started doing a lot more just recently. I have no idea how the specifications for the clarity and detail of moving images works on cameras, but I do know that my old one is not very good, producing rather smudgy and blurred films. Meanwhile, though, I am not interested in spending a lot more than I have to on getting the very best that is available, so I am wondering, roughly what sort of specifications should I look for to get a camera that can film at a similar quality as my old one took those photographs? Most of the time stuff I have filmed would be put on my computer, so if I can have it looking reasonably clear on a 17" or 19" screen like that, I'm sure I don't need to worry about showing anything on a huge HD TV screen.

So, in conclusion, roughly what sort of camera video specificatons should I be looking for, to get a decent quality without paying a lot more for something only noticeably better when studied closely on a large screen?

79.66.109.0 (talk) 11:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm to understand what matters is both resolution and frame-rate. Resolution wise it doesn't sound like you'd need full HD (1080) but it would seem sensible to pick something that does at least 720. You may not ever show it up at a higher resolution but if you want to send it on to family/friends they may. Frame-rate wise again my understanding is limited but the suggestion seems to be that for picking up anything quite fast moving you'd be looking for about 30fps (frames per second). Generally my understanding is that a lot of the point and shoot cameras these days allow you to specify a few different settings - e.g. sacrificing a bit of resolution to bump up your frame-rate and vice-versa. In terms of quality I think there's a lot of difference out there between how well the video processes and deals with things like changes to lighting/changes to focus etc. I'd highly recommend the site dpreview.com - it's quite technical and most goes over my head but they do good in-depth reviews of most cameras. ny156uk (talk) 14:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Many sites that review digital cameras (e.g. Steve's Digicams, DP Review) offer downloadable samples of video footage. You could check out some of these to get an idea of what is on offer. It will depend on things like the quality of the video processor chip in the camera and the speed at which the sensor can output image data. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Also note that the total time you can record at max resolution and frame rate might be tiny. Look for ones which allow you to expand the memory the most, by adding SD cards, etc. Sound should be considered, too, as some cameras, like mine, don't even record sound, and others are lousy at it. StuRat (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

my old camera was not that good with sound either, so I have been using a microphone as well. Trouble is, though, I am looking at a few camras and cannot actually find out many of these specifications, and so cannot find out how good any of them are. Where can I go, then, to find video recording specificatons for variosu cameras, the site given above seems to have only a few, mostly expensive and very high quality, whereas the various online shops I have looked at give pages of details on each camera, on all the little tricks it can do that will be rarely of any use, without giving the slightest hint whether it can even record films at all. 79.66.109.0 (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Once you narrow your list a bit (based on price, screen size, etc.), you may want to do a Google search by the make and model and look for Owner's Manual or Specifications to figure out what screen resolution ranges are available for movies (which may well be less than for stills) as well as the frame rate. You could also look for user reviews, but it can take a long time to read through all of those. StuRat (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

spot welding

IF TWO PLATES OF 1.5mm AND 2mm IS SPOT WELDED EARLIER AND THIS IS AGAIN SPOT WELDED TO ANOTHER PLATE OF 4mm THICKNESS whether we have to take 1.5mm (lowest thickness) or we have to take 3.5mm (1.5mm+2mm) for checking (load) during the tensile shear test.kindly please give the standard reference also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.165.132 (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Which school class gave you this homework assignment? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

If it is only spot welded and not arc welded, I would say you should take the thickness of the thinnest plate for the tensile shear test. You may want to check out some of these articles. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Currency conversion

Can someone convert $300,000,000 1991 AUD to 1991 USD? Thanks (and please give me the link where you converted it :). HurricaneFan25 — 16:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The site x-rates.com (http://www.x-rates.com/cgi-bin/hlookup.cgi?ccode=USD&ccode2=AUD&frMonth=0&frDay=01&frYear=1999) shows that 1 AUD was worth 0.618204 USD on January 4th 1999. Making $300,000 AUD worth around $185,000 USD (or $185,461.20 if you just plug in $300,000 * 0.618204 into google). ny156uk (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

They asked about 1991, not 1999, but that site can handle that year, too. The conversion factor seems to have been between about 0.76 and 0.80, depending on the date. StuRat (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops - hard to believe I used to be a proof-reader sometimes! ny156uk (talk) 20:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It's always easier to find mistakes in other people's work than in your own - that's why proof readers exist! --Tango (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

January 1

Muslims in Samoa missing a day of prayer?

Has anyone heard how Samoan Muslims reacted to the absence of a Friday this week? I've looked around for relevant information on Google, but the only articles that mentioned religious issues (sample) concentrated on the fact that Samoan Seventh-day Adventists will now be worshipping on Sundays. Nyttend (talk) 04:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I heard that both of them were very upset, but I that may have been just a rumor. --Itinerant1 (talk) 05:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

LMAO! In all seriousness though, a census puts the population of Muslims at 61 in Samoa as of 2006, and 12 in the American Samoa as of 1990. Both are 0.03% of the total population.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 05:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't realise how few of them there were. Religion in Samoa mentions them, and while I understood that they were small compared to Christians and Bahá'ís, I didn't realise that they were that small. Nyttend (talk) 06:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, a couple people asked a rabbi what Jews should do about Shabbat [32]. After drafting a two page opinion, he tried to find out how many Jews were actually affected. They found one peace corp worker. I'm sure he'll figure something out. Buddy431 (talk) 18:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The must face that problem any time they cross the date line, not just the unusual way where the dateline moves around you, but also the mundane case where you move past the date line.

As many Muslims have traveled by sailing ship, I'm sure they've long ago worked out the rules for what to do in that situation, and were well equipped to deal with the situation. APL (talk) 10:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Robert E Lee Museum, in Biloxi, MS

How can I find who the current caretaker is for the Robert E Lee Musemum, in Biloxi, MS.? Thank you Clair — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.134.236.179 (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, no such museum exists in Biloxi, MS. PaoloNapolitano 19:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

This page lists the museums in Biloxi. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

How can I find who the current caretaker is for the Robert E Lee Musemum, in Biloxi, MS.? Thank you Clair — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.134.236.179 (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you PN for commenting on my question "How can I find who the current caretaker is for the Robert E Lee Musemum, in Biloxi, MS.?" Maybe I should of asked for the Ulessy S Grant Musemum; since none is listed for Lee. Thank you again, Clair — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.134.236.179 (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I should of asked who is the current caretaker for the Ulysses S Grant Museum, in Biloxi, MS; since none is listed for Robert E Lee Museum. Thank you again, Clair — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.134.236.179 (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

are you looking for Beauvoir, the Jefferson Davis home in Biloxi? Rmhermen (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I thought it was called the Ulysses S Grant Museum, in Biloxi,MS. It could be the Bouvedere, I've seen reference to that name. Are they one in the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.134.236.179 (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Rmherman I'm not sure, I thought it was called the Ulysses S Grant Museum, in Biloxi,MS. It could be the Beauvoir, I've seen reference to that name. Are they one in the same? Thank you for responding, Clair — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.134.236.179 (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a "Bond-Grant House" museum in Biloxi, but it is not associated with Ulysses S. Grant. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I find it hard to imagine that anyone in Mississippi would want to build a museum dedicated to Grant. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Stranger things have happened. Two examples that piqued my interest of late have been the WWII museum in, of all places, New Orleans. And the Iwo Jima memorial in Connecticut which I saw a sign for last weekend while visiting that state though I didn't get to see the memorial. Dismas|^(talk) 01:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

As noted in the article, the WWII museum started out as the D-Day museum, which made some sense as the landing craft used in D-Day were manufactured in New Orleans. It was later expanded into a full-blown WWII museum. Actually its presence there makes more sense than does having the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame being in Cleveland, and much more sense than does having the Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum in a small town in upstate New York. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

If you were wandering idly through the sprawling campus of Sulabh International Social Service Organisation, a pioneering non-profit voluntary organisation (NGO) in the field of Sanitation in India, at Mahavir Enclave, Palam Dabri Road in New Delhi, do you think you’d expect to find ... an International Museum of Toilets? No? Well, luckily the world has Dr. Bindeshwar Pathak, the founder of the organisation, whose "mind was long engaged by the idea, eventually leading him to make hectic worldwide search for minutest details of the evolution of toilets, and envisioned the need for the setting up of a museum of toilets in of his central office". I kid you not. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Which, of course, should be located in Flushing. StuRat (talk) 07:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2

Bulls in India

What does happen to the Bulls in regions of India were cows are sacred? Are they somehow sacred or just another animal? Do they leave them walk free through the streets? 88.8.76.174 (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you certain that it's not merely a colloquialism when people say, "cows are held sacred in India," and that it's really cattle (including both males and females) that are held in such regard? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

That was part of my question: do 'cows' include bulls? And, if yes, do they really let the sacred bulls running around at any street? 88.8.76.174 (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Our Cattle in religion article seems to specify cows in relation to Hinduism. Alansplodge (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

There's no way you could allow bulls to walk around freely, unless they were castrated. It would be massive devastation. Cows are naturally passive unless threatened, but bulls are very aggressive. Looie496 (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Iowa caucuses

After reading this article, I'm still a bit confused as to why other states who would want the publicity/political clout don't just advance their primaries ahead of Iowa? Why wouldn't, say, Nebraska, just announce, "Our 2016 primary will be held 4 days prior to the Iowa caucuses!" DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe that this was asked 4 years ago as well but I can't recall the answers and have no idea how to limit the search to a specific time frame. But if you want to search and know better how to, feel free. That said, I'm curious what the answer is (again) as well. Dismas|^(talk) 01:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

There are a few issues. According to our article, the Republicans don't try to enforce the "Iowa first" rule, but I'm not sure that's right. This article suggests that the Republican Party does have rules on the matter. No doubt someone could look up those rules and see what they say. Apparently, in 1996, the Louisiana Republicans had a caucus or primary before Iowa. The Democratic Party enforces the rule by announcing that delegates selected in another state before the Iowa caucuses won't be seated at the Democratic convention, thus depriving that state of an actual (as opposed to a possible opinion-shaping) impact on the nomination. I suspect that Republican party leaders use more informal levers to enforce party discipline on the matter. Beyond that, "Iowa first" is a somewhat hallowed tradition in American politics, and I think many politicians would be reluctant to challenge the tradition. Another issue is that many Americans feel that the presidential campaign is much too long as it is, and there could be a backlash against political leaders in a state that tried to set an earlier date than Iowa. Marco polo (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I decided to follow up on my hunch, and, sure enough, the Republican Party does have a rule allowing Iowa to go first and forbidding most other states to precede it, though it does not seem that the rule will be strictly enforced. The article that I linked in my previous post indicates that Florida is breaking the rule, prompting an avalanche of violations by other states. Incidentally, I have corrected the erroneous text in our article on the Iowa caucuses. Marco polo (talk) 02:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

In 2008, there was an issue when Florida and Michigan held their Democratic primaries earlier than they were supposed to. You can read all about it at Florida Democratic primary, 2008 and Michigan Democratic primary, 2008, or in consolidated form at Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008#Disputed_primaries. Basically, the candidates (pressured by the Party) refused to campaign in the states, and some of the candidates (including Obama, but not Clinton) got their names removed from the ballots. The Party said that the elected delegates would not be able to vote at the convention, if they didn't move the primaries back (they didn't). The turnout was quite low, with Clinton, predictably, winning. Only once it became clear that Obama was going to win did the Party agree to seat half of the delegates from Michigan and Florida. Buddy431 (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

DRosenbach, I think the other responses cover most of the ground here, but I'll note that there was a stretch this fall where it appeared that New Hampshire might schedule its primary in December, days (if not weeks) ahead of Iowa. This had, in part, to do with the scheduling of the Nevada caucuses and a bizarre New Hampshire state law requiring that their primary be set x days earlier than everybody else's (except Iowa? I think there was some language about "comparable contests" or something of the sort). I read about it on several national political blogs, as I recall, but the first online citation I could find was from Florida [33]. It's my impression, based on what I recall of the discussions then, that Iowa and NH have been given a sort of free pass from both parties, but that this era is probably coming to an end. All Nevada has to do, for example, is pass its own law similar to New Hampshire's, which will then create a death spiral on the level of dueling algorithms on Amazon. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

british royal marine uniform

what is the white pouch worn on the back of the white shoulder sash on the dress uniform of the members of the Band of the Royal Marines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenerly (talk • contribs) 01:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a "dispatch pouch" for those important messages from the CO. The only picture I could find on the internet was a cavalry officer's one [34] from an auction - the catalogue says "a belt with dispatch pouch". Alansplodge (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

How to launch a sequential gearbox without launch control

Many car with sequential, automated manual gearboxes, such as the Nissan GT-R, have a launch control feature where the computer controls how much power goes to each wheel and clutch engagement to maximize acceleration from a take-off. In one episode of Top Gear, host Jeremey Clarkson eschews this feature and relegates it as a feature for "inexperienced drivers." However, how would one launch a car with sequential automated manual gearbox as quickly as possible without launch control? Does one just rev to around the torque peak of the car's first gear while in neutral and then suddenly flick the paddle shifter to engage the clutch? If so, doesn't this engage the clutch entirely instead of little by little, which is optimal?

In a manual, there is of course, a cluck pedal that allows the driver to control exactly how much the clutch should be engaged. But in the absence of the clutch pedal and launch control, how does a user launch a car as quickly as possible? Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a technique called powerbraking, where you step on the brake with the left foot and on the gas with the right foot, and then release the brake when you want to go. However, it is very tough on transmission and generally not recommended. I don't think there is a universal and safe method to launch a clutchless manual without launch control. --Itinerant1 (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

measuring usage in hours vs miles

Why is wear on car engines measured in miles, while wear on aircraft engines is measured in hours used? Same for driver/pilot exiperience -- why are truck drivers rated on miles driven and aircraft pilots measured on hours flying? RudolfRed (talk) 05:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite that simple, but I'd say the basic reasoning is that aircraft tend to be flying for the majority of time that their engines are running, and while they are flying the engines are generally working pretty hard. Mileage may not matter so much as they will work the engines similarly hard whether say flying into a wind or with it, but the time in the air will then differ. For cars, many of them spend a significant amount of their time in traffic jams and travelling at very low speeds where the wear on the engine and components is less (while stop/start city driving and frequent engine starts is pretty hard on the car, just sitting there idling for half an hour a day doesn't do much). Even when on a highway cycle, they usually travel at low engine speeds, which is similar, for example many cars can do a standard type of speed limit of around 100km/h at between 2000 and 3000 rpm, which is quite 'comfortable' for an engine. In terms of drivers/pilots, well it's the same argument - you don't learn that much about driving while sitting in gridlock, even if you're there for 3hrs. I started by saying it's not that simple though. What I meant was that for example where I live learner drivers are currently required to get 120 hours experience before they can sit for their licence; no criteria about distance travelled. Similarly, many people who sell their car will advertise it as 'country kilometres' or something along those lines, meaning that "yes this car may have seemingly high mileage, but it wasn't done in stop/start city driving, it was done at cruisy highway speeds where the engine was running at a consistent speed, brakes were getting little use, gearbox wasn't changing up and down much, the actual time the car has been in use hasn't been as long as it would be in the city, etc, so the car hasn't had as much wear and tear as you might think from the mileage". --jjron (talk) 08:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Some of the reason may also be of simple convenience and tradition. A car already has an odometer, and writing down numbers from it is easier than installing a timing device, or remembering to keep track of time every time the driver stops for a cup of coffee. A plane's takeoff and landing are more dramatic events than stopping a car, and pilots can be more rigorously trained to follow routines like noting the time a log book. 88.112.59.31 (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Construction equipment with large diesel engines often measure use in hours instead of distance as apparently do large boat engines. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Correct way to address an unknown academic

If I am writing to a professor who I don't know via email, should I call said person "Dr. so and so" or should I call him by his first name? I'm from Australia, where we tend to be fairly informal, although from undergrad students, I've heard of the professors being called Dr. or just their first names, with seemingly the most common being first name. I'm a postgrad, if that helps, and most of the professors in question are overseas, eg. the US. t.i.a. IBE (talk) 10:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

When you're introducing yourself, "Dr. XXX" is the correct form of address, though, when you two get to know each other, first-name basis may become acceptable.--Itinerant1 (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

He may not literally be a doctor though. "Prof. so-and-so" would work too (although he may not literally be a professor either). Adam Bishop (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Can't some internet research give you the right answer? 88.8.76.174 (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

As a reasonable rule of thumb whenever you're dealing with people you don't know, you should start formal and work your way up to the more casual. "Dr. so-and-so" is almost always fine, unless you hit an adjunct professor or lecturer who doesn't hold a Ph.D. With academics who hold virtually any university appointment, "Professor" is a safe bet. (This covers you on the occasions when you hit an adjunct professor or lecturer who doesn't have a doctoral degree; the risk of this varies with institution and subject area.) Individuals with an M.D. or other medical degree may be more used to being addressed as "Dr." simply from their professional experience.

As others have noted, once you get to know someone informality often follows. (In my own workplace, the answer to the question "What do you call someone with an M.D. and a Ph.D.?" is "Jennifer", or sometimes just "Hey you".) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree that in the case of a known academic, "Prof." is the safest way. But the whole "Dr." vs. "Mr." or "Prof." form of address, as Peter Griffen would say, "really grinds my gears" sometimes. I have found that some people will take extreme offense to being referred to by the incorrect title, regardless of whether any reasonable person could possibly be aware of said title upon first introduction...and will pointedly (and condescendingly) correct you. (I'm sorry that I didn't automatically assume that an eight grade phys ed teacher with a "PHD" in education from a city college prefers the term "Doctor So & So".</sarcasm>) Regardless, I've used "Dear Sir/Madam" in some such cases where it was unclear, and even in one case included in my introduction that I was unsure of their "preferred term of address", and "respectfully request that you include your official title and contact information in your reply", which resulted in him replying with "just call me Bill", and to this day I am the only person in the company than can (safely) refer to him as Bill...so it turned out well just being honest about it. Quinn ^➳WINDY 17:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

talk : roommate, account and pw

My desktop was broken so I borrowed my roomate's laptop & logged in to my yahoo and facebook accounts. Private conversations are saved purposedly on those 2 accounts of mine. Unknowingly her laptop saved my emails and their pw. This confused me for I remember when I tried to log in on her laptop there appeared a message bar saying "Do you want this computer to remember your password?" (or message similar to that) and it was so clear to me that I clicked "no". When I tried to log in again (specifically on FB) using her laptop, I was surprised when it could still remember my pw. I just ignored it at first because I trusted her. I began to worry when she would say something..well not straight to the point and let me feel "hey I know your secret, better be kind to me or else.." (it's really hard to explain, but I know you understand what I'm trying to say). I'm no expert in computer so I tod my ex-roommate my concern. I don't know what she did but she managed to make that laptop not remember my pw. After sometime, out of curiosity I borrowed my rm's laptop again and guess what? her laptop still remembers my pws. What she's doing is really raising my blood. We go home together at night because she works part time in our company. However, it's really hard for me to start talking with her about it because she's 42 and 13 years older than I. I was able to change my primary email on my FB but I have no inkling if she can still open it though. I'm more concerned about my yahoo account. How can I protect my yahoo account from her? Is it possible to change its email or something? If I change its pw, is it still possible for her to open it on her laptop? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.148.210 (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Changing your passwords should be enough. Change the email password first. APL (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

In my experience computers will often "remember" user names and passwords, even when you have or haven't ticked the appropriate boxes. Yahoo is particularly BAD at this. I would never share a computer with anyone, but if you must share, ensure both of you log in to the operating system as different users with different passwords and then log out after you've finished.

I'm not quite sure what it is that "what she's doing is really raising my blood", I can't quite follow that bit, because it doesn't seem she's doing anything. Anyway, as above, just change your password/s while using your own computer. If you change your Yahoo password and your FB password then there's no way her computer can figure out what you've changed them to, so the problem is solved. There's no need to change the username/s. Yes, her computer will still remember your username (who cares, if she's got your email address she knows that anyway as do probably a billion other people), but once the password has been changed there should be no further problems. And be more careful in future. The Yahoo login clearly has a checkbox that you can untick for it not to keep you signed in, so once you log out it can't get back in unless the password is remembered. The remembering passwords is part of the browser, but it will always prompt you even if it is set by default to remember passwords; personally I don't 'remember' them even on my own computer, and uncheck that setting so it defaults to not remember. Oh, and if you're super-duper worried about this, then deactivate those accounts and create new ones; seems an awful lot of trouble for nothing though. --jjron (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You said you trusted her, but you apparently don't because now you think she is reading your social media pages. What is it you think she is doing? Do you really have "secrets" that could be used against you posted on Facebook? Not a good idea. Either way, just change your password and don't borrow other people's computer to access personal info. My laptob has all kinds of personal settings and mods on it to make usability for me easier...it is not intended to protect the privacy of someone else. I'd say it's akin to using my home phone. I would make efforts to give someone a their privacy, but if I happen to hear someone yakking about stealing from work or cheating on their husband or whatever...well, I can't "un-hear" it, and you probably shouldn't have had such a conversation on someone else's phone. In short, often blame is a two way street. Quinn ^➳WINDY 17:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Cleaning a mobile phone

Good afternoon (London time) wikipedians, and happy new year. I have been reading news stories recently about how dirty mobile phones tend to be, since we handle them all the time, keep them near our mouths and they have hard surfaces for bacteria to survive on and it struck me that keeping this object so close to hand in such a state probably wasn't hygienic or good for my health. I therefore have two questions:

1. Is this a reasonable concern, given available evidence?

2. How would I go about most effectively cleaning my mobile phone with things I can either buy cheaply or have around the house. Normally if I was so bothered about cleansing something like this I would simply sterilise in boiling water, but I'm thinking that isn't appropriate in this case.

Many thanks, 86.171.88.197 (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that we cannot give medical advice on the Reference Desk, so do not take any replies here in a medical context, this is just a general discussion. Re question 1, if you have solid evidence from a reliable source about this then analyse it carefully and come to your own conclusions; for me however, I have seen a number of popular-media based health scares on this topic over a number of years, mainly from tabloid style newspapers and TV programs, but am yet to see anything with much substance to them from what I would regard as reputable and unbiased sources. Look, yes phones are filthy things, and have been for 100 years, but I'm unaware of any significant outbreak of disease or pestilence leading to major widespread sicknesses or deaths directly and exclusively tracked back to phone usage. The media love these types of scares though. Re question 2, a simple Google search such as this returns antibacterial phone wipes for (in my opinion) the paranoid. I personally wouldn't waste my time or money. FWIW, I'd suggest mobile phones should really be less dangerous than the shared home phones, office phones, and public phones we have been using for the previous hundred years, given that it is mainly just our own germs that will be on them. I'd say the evidence would show that you're far more likely to 'get sick' or die from your mobile phone by using it while your are driving, than you are from any germs that may be residing on it. Nonetheless, if you are particularly concerned about something you have or may contract from your phone, please seek out the appropriate medical advice from a qualified professional. --jjron (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't be paranoid about it, but I wipe mine with pure alcohol when it gets really sticky; same with the bottom of my mouse, btw. But that's just me... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not germophobia, it's just practicality. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

See also "Telephone Sanitizer" from HHGTTG. Collect (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Snow Goose dramatization by Nat Wolff

"I am looking for a copy of the Snow Goose Drama - written by Paul Gallico - adapted by Nat Wolff - a drama with sound and music. Starring Herbert Marshall and Joan Loring. It was produced by Brunswick - LA8508 - we have the original vinyl but it is very scratched and would like a cd version. 41.213.33.253 (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The Snow Goose: A Story of Dunkirk. Looks like is is available on CD as Wartime Memories.[35] ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

NOT medical advice :P

I've noticed two intriguing (and unrelated) things that happen to me.

1. When I cry very heavily for a very long time, I always end up getting a headache.
2. When my periods are about to begin, I get a sudden outburst of pimples.

Has anyone else noticed this happening to them too, or has some kind of study been done to relate each observation to the apparent cause? Does anyone know why these occur? 117.227.81.212 (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the second point, as our acne article points out, "Hormonal activity, such as menstrual cycles and puberty, may contribute to the formation of acne". A Google search on acne menstrual cycle turns up a mass of further information. I'd never heard of the crying/headache thing, but again a Google search turns up many results. The Livestrong site for example says that it could be from dehydration from the fluid loss, stress from whatever caused you to cry, or irritation of the sinuses if you are prone to such things. These things could be plausible. --jjron (talk) 15:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Both phenomena sound familiar, based on anecdotal experience, However, as always, if the OP has genuine concerns, they should see a doctor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

celtic godess.blodaiwythSuzukialf (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

hi i am trying to research information,regarding a mythical godess.i am unsure of the spelling.so no results.i am unsure if she was a celtic godess or norse.she was regarded as very beautiful.she could be very kind but also very bad.the closest i can get to the spellig is blodaiwyth.i saw a picture.she had long flowing hair and piercing eyes.that is all the information i can supply,sorry.any help would be fantastic.many thanks.

>> Celtic pantheon or maybe >> List of Germanic deities. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

>>Perhaps this is "Blodeuwedd" old boy? See http://yplantdon.com/MathE.html and an illustration at http://yplantdon.com/blodeuwedd.jpg. Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

How do you call...

...the thing in front of the nave? Thanks.--♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 18:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)}

See church architecture and Architecture of cathedrals and great churches. Dependes which direction you count as in front of. Usually the basic cruciform shape is nave (east-west axis), transept (north-south toward eastern end), crossing (the intersection), choir (eastern extension from the crossing). But there are many minor parts and many, many variations. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The western face (entrance) is apparently just called the facade which may be what you are looking for. Can't really see if there is a choir from that picture. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

thing? Do you mean the Chancel--Aspro (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC) area?

(ec) :When you say 'in front of', do you mean outside the church at the left boundary of the photo, or do you mean deeper into the church, to the right? You may find Architecture of cathedrals and great churches a useful reference. To the left of the nave in the photograph, the exterior face of the building is the facade, with its circular rose window. To the right of the nave (deeper into the church), and sticking out to either side is the transept (one semitransept on each side of the church). The tower above the center of the transept is the crossing tower. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

2x (ec) No, I meant the thing that looks like a lamp, located in front of the church. It is not part of the church. ♫GoP♫_T^CN 18:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean the thing with two round shiny bowls on top of it? It's a spotlight I think. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks.--♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 18:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)}