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

May 6

What the heck is THAT?

Here is a Google Map view of the north end of Seattle-Tacoma airport. SEA has three runways; in the middle of the image (adjacent to the north end of 34R) is what looks like a swimming pool. It's the width of a runway -- 150 feet or so -- and if you zoom in close enough, you can see the joints in the concrete, so it's obviously neither a pool nor the roof of a building.

So, what the heck IS it?

--DaHorsesMouth (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Dunno, but it wasnt there in May 2004 according to Google Earth. I reckon it could function as a median for traffic. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd guess they painted it a different color as a sign to taxiing planes to go around it (to avoid collisions). StuRat (talk) 04:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

If you look carefully at the markings, it's a paved median between taxiways "C" (serving all three runways) and "D" (serving only runways 16L and 16C). Why it's paved rather than grass, I don't know. --Carnildo (talk) 05:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Roof of a bomb shelter, foundations for a public lavatory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.154.241 (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It appears to be painted on the concrete. Perhaps the area was originally part of the taxiway, but later was changed to a non-taxi area. Instead of chomping up the concrete to put in grass like the median below, they just painted it. Why that color I don't have a clue.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 08:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an expert but some googling finds a Standard for Airport Markings which says:

Although it is preferable for the inner portion of NO-TAXI islands to be unpaved, for example, grass covered, the inner area may be painted green or painted with striated yellow markings [...]

Green with yellow stripes seems to match the aerial image. Apparently green is simply the standard for no-go areas, due to them usually being grass. That's a pretty weird green; maybe they preferred high visibility to the natural look. 88.114.124.228 (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

As to why they chose to paint it rather than remove the concrete, it's probably quicker this way (assuming they use quick-drying paint), so they can put the runway right back into service. It also provides flexibility, should they need to drive over that area for some reason (like to dodge another errant plane). StuRat (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Y'know, I've heard that it rains a bit in Seattle, maybe this reduces the amount of mowing required!

Resolved

 – That a keeper, thanks!

--DaHorsesMouth (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

May 7

Immigrating to US

Is it possible for an MBBS graduate from Pakistan to immigrate to the US? What is the procedure? After immigrating, can they establish own private practice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toy Making (talk • contribs) 03:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Generally speaking, doctors and surgeons from countries outside the U.S. have to re-qualify by way of an accredited residency in the U.S. if they wish to practice in the U.S. Here is the American Medical Association's guideline for all doctors trained outside the U.S. and Canada. However, before a foreign national can take up a residency, he/she must first be certified as qualified for it by the Educational Commission of Foreign Medical Graduates, which has established a multi-step process involving the accrediting of foreign degree-granting institutions and the testing of clinical and technical knowledge, leading to a J-1 visa. The immigration part is handled separately by the U. S. Department of Immigration. Bielle (talk) 04:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Coroner

Why is county coroner an elected position? CTJF83 23:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I saw a recent expose on incompetent US coroners on PBS. The PC answer would be that this is so they will be more responsive to the needs of the public. The reality, though, is that this is needed to prevent the job from being given to incompetent relatives and contributors to the county executive or other officials as political patronage. When so appointed, the results are disastrous (such as murderers getting away with it). Even so, they often have too close of a relationship with police departments, such that they will find out what the police want them to report, and will report exactly that, regardless of whether it's true or not. (Note that the coroner often doesn't do autopsies and lab work directly, but hires the medical examiners who do.) StuRat (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

A comment by Tom Lehrer is reverberating in my cranium just now. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

As it turns out, I have a book on my bedside table that covers that issue in some detail. "The Poisoner's Handbook" (ISBN 9781594202438) gets into the birth of forensic medicine, and deals with the incompetence and corruption among coroners when it was purely a political patronage position. Interesting read, by the way. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I wonder what whoever sleeps beside you (if anyone) thinks of your current bedtime reading of choice.  :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You'd have to ask his soon-to-be-late wife that question, but you better be quick about it. StuRat (talk) 04:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It's next to the parasitology book. Hmm. Maybe she should worry.--jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The coroner does the legal paperwork surrounding reportable deaths, and is usually the one who decides whether an autopsy will be performed in non-criminal cases. Generally a county coroner has a background in the court system; many are former court clerks or deputy sheriffs. They're elected because they're loosely considered part of the judiciary, but problems with nepotism and privilege have something to do with it as well, as said above. --NellieBly (talk) 05:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that coroners are mostly not elected in parliamentary countries like United Kingdom and Australia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.55.174 (talk) 06:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

How do they solve the problem of incompetent party cronies being appointed ? StuRat (talk) 16:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Coroners in the UK are directly responsible to the Queen, and as such the Queen appoints them. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The queen appoints the Prime Minister too, it doesn't mean that the PM is beholden to the queen or that she directly oversees his effectiveness. --Jayron32 17:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, having the Queen appoint them solves some problems. Presumably she has enough money to not be very vulnerable to bribery, so won't be appointing judges or coroners in exchange for "campaign contributions" (as we call bribes to politicians in the US). And the risk to her of exercising inappropriate influence over them once appointed would be the potential to have Parliament eliminate the royal dole. However, I doubt if the Queen really can give much thought to each appointment, so must just rubber stamp a list written up by an underling, who then has the real power. Also, I'd have to think that somebody in the royal family who came before a judge or had an interest in having a coroner cover up a homicide could depend on the royal appointees to do as they were asked. StuRat (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think so. I mean, it was fairly minor, but the Princess Royal has been found guilty and fined for both a traffic offense, and an offense under the dangerous dogs act. It's actually pretty funny to imagine a judge 'doing as asked' on a homicide case involving the royal family. I mean, the press would be all over that, and there would be really nothing at all in it for the judge. Have you ever seen Utopia, Limited? 86.140.54.3 (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Surely the Queen could send a million pounds sterling their way, if nothing more subtle. StuRat (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Many Americans seem to have a Wizard of Id model of how constitutional monarchies and parliamentary democracies actually operate in the modern age. I'm not saying there's never been corruption in high places (there's been a lot of it); but to assume that, because the Queen is fantastically wealthy, she would choose to use her money to circumvent the law she has pledged to uphold whenever a case happens to involve one of her family, is an assumption that has no legs. Remember, politicians come and go; their time in the spotlight is essentially limited. But the Queen is there for life and is above shabby politics; she is the embodiment of the state itself. She doesn't have to submit herself to the judgement of electors, but she has to satisfy other, more ineffable criteria.

By the way, your template for the assumed lack of moral integrity of judges and others in positions of authority flies completely in the face of your arguments for the election of such people. Why would anyone ever bother casting a vote if the person elected is assumed at the outset to be corrupt or susceptible to corruption? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Jack makes an excellent point. Why would one expect candidates for coroner to be more honest or less corruptible than individuals running for other offices? Compelling coroners to run campaigns would seem to be one of the most potent ways to ensure that their offices are biased and politicized from the moment they get to work. In the United States (which seems to be the only democracy where this particular form of idiocy is practiced to such an extent) why would one expect a coroner elected with the assistance, advice, and funding of party apparatchiks and shadowy political action committees to be entirely impartial towards the organizations that got them their jobs? How many Americans carefully examine their ballots, tick the straight-ticket Republican box, and then say—"wait, I better have a Democratic coroner, just in case!"

The very first Google hit I got for Republican coroner was this editorial, regarding the Republican primary race for coroner in Indiana's Allen county. Apparently Indiana law doesn't impose any requirements for basic skills or qualifications on their coroner; you can become county coroner without having any medical knowledge whatsoever, as long as you can pull in the votes. And since Indiana lets you vote for a straight ticket (that is, cast your vote for the same party in all the races) by checking a single box, there are likely a lot of voters who won't even see the coroner's race, let alone carefully consider its candidates—so becoming coroner is actually just a matter of winning the primary for the right party. How many friends do you need to have to win the coroner's primary? Betcha it's not very many. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The difference is that coroner isn't a position leading to vast wealth and power, so candidates for that office don't do much campaigning. Nobody is going to give a coroner candidate millions of dollars, either. So, elections for such low-level offices are largely devoid of all the money which so thoroughly corrupts those seeking higher office. The most campaigning you're likely to get from a coroner candidate is an appearance on the public access channel. StuRat (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't really explain why you think that elections will protect us from "incompetent cronies", nor why elected candidates would be less susceptible to million-pound bribes.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

They would still be vulnerable to bribes and incompetence, but hopefully wouldn't work for a party boss who appointed them and would protect them (presumably the same party boss also appointed the District Attorney and/or judge, and can ensure that no charges are filed or else they are dismissed). StuRat (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all! CTJF83 09:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a wider issue than just coroners: the same difference in approach between the US and many commonwealth countries can also be seen in the appointment of judges. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

So how do you avoid the problem of corrupt and/or incompetent judges who dismiss cases against those who appointed them ? StuRat (talk) 16:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Multiple levels of government. If a county judge does something like that, the state courts might look into it. If the state court does that, perhaps federal laws click in. (For example, federal civil rights charges when the local judiciary is letting the good old boys get away with something.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

And what if the corruption is at the top level ? I'd also expect judges to mostly be smart enough not to do anything obvious enough to get them in trouble. StuRat (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

To answer StuRat's question from a UK perspective: (a) By having appointments performed by a committee (the Judicial Appointments Commission at present) - an individual member of the committee and an individual judge may be corrupt, but if the entire committee is corrupt, the system has failed altogether; (b) by maintaining separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary; (c) by cutting off the heads of persons who attempt to blur this distinction. I would also make the point that, OR though it may be, in my experience, persons elected by popular vote _have_ been known to be incompetent and corrupt... Tevildo (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

True, but that particular form of corruption, doing whatever it takes to please those who appointed you, is less of a problem when it's the public you are trying to please. It's also less likely that the majority of the voters will put something unimportant to the public, like how much a candidate contributed to various politicians, above competence, when deciding who to pick. StuRat (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

A valid point if judges are appointed by politicians (or kings), of course. Which is why we don't do it that way over here. :) Tevildo (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

So, to clarify, judges are appointed by committee, and coroners by the Queen ? If so, how do you keep politicians off the committee and from making the list for the Queen to approve ? StuRat (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Membership of the committee (largely, but not exclusively, other judges) and qualifications for coronorial office (being a lawyer with proven experience in the field) are defined by statute, so we're back to separation of powers - this time, between the legislature (which can do more or less what it wants to) and the executive. The legislature is the primary democratically-accountable body which the public can (theoretically) hold to account for making the wrong decision. Tevildo (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The Queen appoints people to an enormous number of positions, but she doesn't actually decide who to appoint. She always acts on the advice of her ministers. That advice may come from the Prime Minister, the relevant cabinet minister, or a committee (or maybe a committee advises the PM and then the PM advises the Queen). The British Monarch is an almost entirely ceremonial position these days. --Tango (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

To put a sharper point on arguments raised so far, the coroner's duties include determining the cause of deaths in police custody. I think it is potentially a very important check on police/administrative power, if things get very bad. Wnt (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This is perhaps a bit late in the day to respond to this OP, but given that many of the foregoing responses focus on the English aspect of appointing Coroners, can I just point out that in Scotland, which is also a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK for short), we do not have Coroners. Instead, we have Procurators Fiscal (PF), who approximately resemble District Attorneys in the USA. PF's are appointed by the Crown (not The Queen) and are responsible for the investigation and prosecution of suspected crime; and also the investigation of unexpected deaths. In the lower courts, they are responsible for conducting the process of Fatal Accident Inquiries (chaired and presided over by a non-elected Sheriff (a legally qualified and Crown appointed Judge)); or in cases of suspicious Murder or Manslaughter the PF would investigate the suspicious circumstances surrounding the death, and would then appoint Crown-appointed Counsel (senior lawyers of Queen's counsel (QC) ranking) to prosecute the crime in the High Court of Justiciary. Thus, the undesirability of political involvement is removed. Unless of course, you wish to consider the political interference of the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) Justice Minister Kenny McAskill in the "humanitarian" early release of the convicted Lockerbie Bomber Abdelbassett Ali Al Megrahi who was convicted of the murder of 290 innocent people both on Pan Am 103 (279 souls) over Lockerbie in Scotland and in the village of Lockerbie itself (11 souls), on the basis that he was dying of Pancreatic Cancer and only had 3 months left to live....nearly 3 years ago....since when he continues to live and breathe?????????????????????????.92.236.250.88 (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

That's an excellent example of what happens when political interference is allowed. Heck, even if he really was terminally ill, is it so unreasonable to expect a mass murderer to die in prison ? StuRat (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Except that the most serious political interference was much earlier, when he was convicted on the basis of no real evidence. Of course, the release was political too, because there had been enough recantations, confessions of evidence fabrication by then that the best way to prevent the original miscarriage of justice and political interference from being corrected and exposed by normal judicial process was the "humanitarian" release.John Z (talk) 07:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

In addition to that, I'm not sure the three-month figure is really very important. There has been criticism of the way the Scottish Government arrived at this estimate, but (at least according to our article) there are no hard limits on life expectancy for a compassionate release (and I'm sure we have all heard stories of people who were told they had months to live, and went on to live for decades - doctors aren't infallible). After reading the article about him, I'm now even more paranoid about the impartiality of our media - I knew there were doubts about the strength of his conviction, but that article makes it sound as though there is a strong consensus that he is completely innocent - why do we never hear about this? Anyway, trying to head back towards the actual topic - political involvement in pardons and commutation of sentences is quite common. I don't think this is as much of a concern as political bias in the appointment of coroners or judges as the process is accountable - we know what the original sentence was, and who has made the decision to commute it. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 11:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

So he's dead now, about 2 years and 9 months after his release or 2 years and 6 months after when it was suggested he would die. Nil Einne (talk) 04:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Directly in response to the foregoing respondent (103.)concensus means quite literally that EVERYBODY is AGREED..........which is not the case in this case.....and being paranoid about the IMPARTIALITY of the media suggests that you are HAPPY they operate in an IMPARTIAL manner i.e. non-judgemental? 92.236.250.88 (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

And here I thought a con census was when they collected demographic info on prisoners. :-) StuRat (talk) 04:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

May 8

Sig P210

Where/how can I find out more about the Sig P210 pistols with serial numbers start with P. Is it possible to trackl/trace who a specifically serial numbered gun was originally given to?Ace1654 (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The manufacturer records the serial number of all distributions of guns to dealers, and then all licensed dealers have to record the numbers of all sales. From that point, depending on state law, there may be additional tracking. However, unless you have a court order, I don't think that information is public. Nor would they tell you. There are some exceptions for older guns. For example, some manufacturers provide letters tracing the origins of older guns for collectors. I doubt that Sig Sauer does this for newer guns though.

The 210 is somewhat a collector's item though, and it may be that you could find information from collector's books. For example, the proof marks on the gun can tell you the manufacture date... if I understand the forum I found correctly the letters correspond to a number, A=0 B=1, etc. so JJ is 1988. You should check those forums. Just google for "sig p210 serial". Shadowjams (talk) 03:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Big Brother7 Africa

Big Brother7 Africa, what are the formation you gona use to nominate in VIP house? Why some country has got two represantives and others has three excluding the one from VIP HOUSE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.143.31.186 (talk) 11:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

This would be a good Q for the Entertainment Desk. StuRat (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, maybe someone over there will have a clue what the OP is asking about. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

May 9

my query about engineering subject's Q

what is common-source stage with diode-connected load....?????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamlu1990 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

A common-source amplifier is one of three basic single-stage field-effect transistor (FET) amplifier topologies 84.209.89.214 (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

William Prince bio

I noticed that the TV Soap, Young Dr. Malone" in which Mr. Prince starred in the late 1950's was excluded. Also, I believe he was in a film with Humphrey Bogart in the 1040" - not sure, but may have been "Treasure of the Sierra Madre". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.61.18 (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources for that information, you are welcome to add it to the relevant articles. If you haven't, then you shouldn't. (Note that IMDB is not usually regarded as a reliable source). --ColinFine (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Armed services which don't humiliate their recruits ?

Many armed services seem to feel the need to torture, stress, and humiliate their recruits in order to destroy their individuality, supposedly to make them work better as a team. So, are there services that don't do that ? If so, does treating recruits as individuals deserving of respect work as well ? StuRat (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking about American, or around the world? If American, I don't think recruits are "tortured". Stressed, sure. But probably nothing like facing like weapon fire. And persons obsessed with their individuality don't belong in the military anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

In the US officers are not allowed to hit any subordinates. Shouted at, at least as a group, seems to be a given. If someone cannot put up with that, then he's not made for combat, I suppose. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I bet that any recruit who reported a superior officer who struck him would be killed, thrown out of the military, or suffer some other severe retaliation. StuRat (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

A person who doesn't deal particularly well with military-style stress is not necessarily "obsessed with their individuality", Bugs. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

StuRat is referring to hazing. It has a reputation of being quite common in the US military services. But we should dredge up actual statistics before speaking out of our hats, as they say. As for whether hazing actually contributes to group morale, weeds out ineffective soldiers, etc. — again, let's take recourse in actual data, not hunches. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

That might be common in military academies (as with other schools), but in Basic Training there's no time for that sort of tomfoolery. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you regard the beating to death of Robert Champion as "tomfoolery", then? --Viennese Waltz 12:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Last time I looked, FAMU is not part of the U.S. military. And the type of thugs that killed Champion wouldn't last long in the military. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

See Rite of passage. Strip 'em naked, give 'em a new name (or number), and flog 'em with stinging nettles to make them yell. The military treats its 'newbornes' much the same way as other social institutions. Of course, they will rationalise it differently. But so does everyone else, while they do much the same thing... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

We have an article Bullying in the military. In the British Army, it has been forbidden for officers and NCOs to strike servicemen since the 19th century. It is necessary to introduce stressful situations into training as warefare is almost certainly going to be a lot worse and some coping mechanisms are required. However, where to draw the line is a hot topic in most Western armed forces at the moment; for instance Army trainers 'bullied recruits'. Such behaviour like this is now vigorously discouraged from the top; see An Equal Footing but making it work at the point of delivery seems to be a challenge. Alansplodge (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I would expect the training to be stressful due to difficult tasks, not bullying. The drill instructor would then assist the recruits with encouragement and promise of rewards (leave, extra rations, etc.) rather than insults and threats of punishment. StuRat (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Everyone seems to be focused on the physical violence aspect. How about the humiliation aspect ? That is, drill instructors constantly insulting the recruits, say with homophobic remarks (which would be insulting to them whether they are straight or gay). Is this type of thing universal ? Is it actually helpful in any way ? StuRat (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The British Army webpage that I linked to above says "In the Army you have a duty to treat everyone with respect. In return, you can expect to be treated the same way." Whether this reflects the reality, I can't say. On the specific issue of homophobia, This BBC report is very upbeat. Alansplodge (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The Gilbert and Sullivan approach: "Drop and give me 20, soldier... Uh, if you please." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Arizona State Route 264

The chart at the bottom of this article needs to be amended. Route 264 in Arizona also goes through Apache County where the Navajo capital of Window Rock is located. U.S. 191 crosses Route 264 in Apache County. I have no expertise about changing the chart to reflect that information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElkeWylie (talk • contribs) 22:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

You might be better off to bring that up on the article's talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I've emended the table. Deor (talk) 02:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Annulment (the soap opera concept thereof)

Disclaimer

Firstly, I make a disclaimer. I am hardly ever a watcher of daytime TV, and I am not a fan of soap operas at any time (particularly ones that take themselves way too seriously). But I have some time on my hands at the moment, and I’ve taken to keeping my other half company when he watches The Bold and the Beautiful. May God forgive me.

The plot part of the question

The current state of play is as follows:

Liam and Hope were an item and were planning to marry. She is a proud virgin who won’t give herself to anyone till her wedding night. She also wanted the perfect dream white wedding, which takes quite some months of complex organisation. Liam respected her principles on the virginity thing, but wanted the wedding to happen as soon as possible because he couldn’t wait to have sex with her. This was a cause of tension between them. Hope’s step-sister Stephie is also hopelessly in love with Liam, and he has romantic feelings for her too.

Liam and Hope split up due to a misunderstanding (Hope saw him give Stephie a peck on the cheek and assumed it was more than that). On the rebound, he hurriedly married Stephie. Liam’s father Bill manipulated Stephie into thinking she had a brain tumour, by swapping MRI scans, with the connivance of a corrupt doctor. This was done ostensibly so that Liam and Stephie could spend as much time as possible together and cement their marriage, which Bill felt needed some support due to the hasty manner in which it was contracted. The real reason was that Bill also has a romantic interest in Stephie, and wanted her around as much as possible so that, even if he couldn’t have her physically, he still could have her as his eye candy of choice and legitimately interact with her as his daughter-in-law. Then the truth came out: Stephie is perfectly well, and Bill’s the current Bad Guy.

In the meantime, Liam realised his marriage to Stephie was a mistake, and he still loves Hope more than he loves Stephie, and Hope is who he wants to be with forever. So he’s gone back to her, to her great joy and Stephie’s great devastation. Hope still refuses to have sex before marriage, but she no longer wants to wait for the months it would take to organise the perfect dream wedding, or the months it would take for Liam’s divorce from Stephie to be final. Hope has persuaded Liam to cut to the chase and end his marriage through an annulment.

This is where the plot parts dramatically from my idea of reality (if the foregoing wasn’t enough).

In this show, all that has to happen to dissolve a marriage is for both parties, in this case Stephie and Liam, to sign annulment papers their lawyers have drawn up, and the marriage is instantaneously over. No formal proceedings, no other documents, no decrees, nothing. On the very day that Liam signed his papers and had them delivered to Stephie for her signature, Hope held a press conference to tell the world she and Liam were getting married the next day. Literally the next day.

Now, the next day has arrived, the house has been hastily decorated overnight, a minister has been hastily dragooned into officiating and he’s arrived, and Hope is in her hastily-arranged wedding dress and is about to enter the room where the wedding is to take place. She is under the impression that Stephie has signed her annulment papers and there is no impediment to her marrying Liam now. But Stephie’s father Ridge, Hope’s mother Brooke, and Liam, all know that Stephie is refusing to sign. She is willing to agree to a divorce, but refuses to consent to a quick annulment because that would be like acknowledging the marriage was defective or in some way illegitimate, which as far as she was concerned was not the case. So, she has her principles too. The only person who doesn’t know about this pesky detail is Hope. Nobody’s had the balls to tell her, and everyone’s doing their darndest to persuade Stephie to sign the papers. Even 5 minutes before Hope and Liam’s wedding would not be too late for her to sign. But she’s holding firm.

Today, one of three things will happen:

• (a) Hope will get the biggest disappointment of her life when she’s told her marriage to Liam will have to be postponed because Liam is still legally married to Stephie; or
• (b) Stephie will capitulate and sign the annulment papers, giving Hope and Liam a clear run; or
• (c) the marriage ceremony will begin, but when the minister asks if anyone knows why these two people cannot be married, someone will finally speak up and then there'll be hell to pay, leading back to (a), but with the added complication that someone who knew what was going on (particularly Liam) could have told Hope before the wedding and spared her this colossal embarrassment, but they didn't, and now she's not sure she could ever marry such a gutless wonder like Liam after all; and since he's still legally married to Stephie, and still loves her, he'll seek consolation in her willing arms and they'll carry on as if nothing had ever happened. (Heck, I should be writing these shows. If you know what comes next, please don’t reveal it.)

That is an abridged version of a small bit of this insanely complicated program. I had to go into some detail to explain the situation that viewers have been presented with. We all know that disbelief is automatically suspended when we watch shows like this, but there are still some things they just can’t make up and realistically expect to get away with – except, they’re appearing to in this case.

The question part of the question

I was under the impression that annulment applied only in special cases, and there's a lengthy process to be gone through to establish these special circumstances, making it, if anything, a more drawn-out process than however long a standard divorce takes. That's even if neither party is contesting any of the facts.

So, is it really true that people in the US generally have the option of getting an annulment, rather than a divorce, for no better reason than that they want to end it quickly? Or if this applies in only certain states, which states?

And is it true that the marriage legally ceases to exist literally the moment the second party signs a document?

Surely the document has to be lodged with a court, and some judge or other person in authority has to make a formal written pronouncement that the marriage ceased to have legal effect on some specified day.

And surely the parties are not free to marry anyone else until such a formal pronouncement has been made?

And surely the whole process, from drawing up the documents through to signature and dissolution of marriage, cannot possibly take as ridiculously short a time as a day?

I await confirmation of this with some interest. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Geez, Jack, couldn't you have made your Q a bit shorter, like by leaving out the soap opera summary, perhaps (or at least hide it in a box) ? StuRat (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I indented it so that the eye can quickly skip to the question part of my question. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 02:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Laws vary from state to state. In California, for example, there are specific conditions that are necessary and sufficient for annulment: incest, bigamy, underage, prior existing marriage or domestic partnership, unsound mind, fraud, force, or incapacity. New York is very similar (it includes "solemnized by an unauthorized person"). Nevada it's much shorter: being so much under the influence you didn't know what you were doing; you married a first cousin or other close relative; you're too young; or spouse committed some sort of fraud in getting you to agree to the marriage (and this includes promising to have kids and then reneging.) In Delaware, it includes "One or both parties entered into the marriage as a jest or dare". Fun stuff. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

A ground for annulment I have not seen mentioned, and also does not seem to be mentioned in our article, is non-consummation. It was my understanding that, until the marriage is consummated, the parties can decide they made a mistake and end it with a minimum of fuss, both for civil and Catholic-church purposes. Is that not so? --Trovatore (talk) 01:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It's mentioned in Consummation where it's suggested it's a case for English law but doesn't mention the law for any part of the US. For the case in English law, [1] [2] suggest either inability or refusal are both sufficient grounds (and it can be even after 3 years). [3] in particular the 1975 seems to suggest it can be complicated, since inability is grounds, the reason for the rejection of the 1975 annulment isn't clear but perhaps it was felt the inability may be simply temporary. Of course in a case like that you outlined, if the marriage isn't consummated it seems likely an annulment would be possible since if one party decides they made a mistake, they can simply make it clear they will never consummate and therefore have grounds for annulment. (The source notes 'consummation' before marriage is irrelevent.) One thing I think is clear, particularly if one party is going to dispute it, there's a fair chance it won't be quick. Incidentally the talk page of the consummation article mentions a Supreme Court case, but since marriage is primarily a state matter, I'm not sure what it was about. Perhaps it was simply upholding the constituonality of a state law. The annulment article does mention the non-consummation for Catholic law, since it only describes the details for 2 other US states and nothing else, the lack of mention is perhaps not surprising. Nil Einne (talk) 02:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This RS [4] mentions Ohio as one state where it is grounds. The situation in New York is interesting [5] and raises another point. It sounds like the permanent inability (incapacity) to consummate a marriage is grounds for annulment (and if the party with the inability is the one seeking the annulment, they can't have known about it). In other words, unlike in the English case, refusal is not grounds and therefore the scenario Trovatore outlined probably lacks grounds. (Unless you make complicated arguments about the refusal being an 'inability' but it seems to me this will be difficult for the party doing the refusing at least, since the only 'cure' they need is changing their minds. This may be possible if you're exclusively gay or lesbian but were influenced by religious or bigoted literature in to thinking you could be 'cured' but considering the wide disparity in US states, I wonder if it will work in all.) These non RS [6] [7] mention 2 states where it may be grounds (Louisiana, New Jersey) and one where it isn't (Washington State) and the above suggests Nevada is another where it isn't. (The case of California will need to be looked at more closely to see what they mean by 'incapacity'.) www.ehow. com/about_6329364_conjugal-rights-grounds-divorce.html seems to be confusing annulment and divorce, but it's possible Alaska is another one where it's ground. (I don't know what to make of the Illinois thing; is it divorce or annulment it's talking about? Sterility not affecting the ability for complete and perfect sexual intercourse, isn't ground in English law or New York law and I haven't heard of it being grounds anywhere else, but it may be grounds for divorce.) P.S. Of course if the party didn't intend to enter sexual relations at the time of marriage but didn't let the other party know about it, the other party would likely have grounds under 'fraud'. Possibility for 'sterility' if one party was aware. Nil Einne (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the obvious 'soap opera' added drama scenario D. Similar to C, except no one objects to they get 'married' except of course their marriage is void given that he's already married. So 1 year later, she can find out and suffer a mental breakdown finding out she's been living in sin all this time and nearly commit suicide etc. Finally, after a few months, she can forgive him and they can get back together and plan to really get married, except in a moment of weakness while his 'wife' hated him and after trying for so long to get her to forgive him, her slept with his ex (in his mind even if not legally) wife. Of course they agree to keep it a secret, but we know it's going to come out, perhaps not long after the 'for real now' wife learns she's pregnant. (Alternatively that one mistake may have lead to a pregnancy.) And for added spice, the annulment they eventually got was based on non-consummmation. Nil Einne (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for those interesting replies, people. You've confirmed what I suspected: leaving aside different approaches from state to state, there must always be acceptable grounds for an annulment, and "I'm in a hurry to ditch my wife so that I can marry her step-sister and finally get to have sex with her, preferably tomorrow" is not such a ground. Obviously, any claimed legitimate grounds are subject to scrutiny, and there is a defined process that must be gone through before the annulment of the marriage can occur. In short, it's over when - and if - the legal system says it's over, and not before. Simply signing annulment papers is merely the start of a drawn-out process, and not the end of the process as this program would have viewers believe. There is a massive mismatch between the seriousness with which the show takes itself and which oozes out of every word anyone ever utters, and this sort of cavalier approach to real-life practicalities that cannot be glossed over by stroke of the scriptwriter's pen. Or, maybe the message is that these people are all beautiful and rich, and the ordinary rules of Planet Earth obviously don't apply to them. Maybe that would explain the attraction, and the long-running success it has enjoyed. Nothing else would. Thanks, again. (Sorry for the long-winded question, but grotesque absurdities have their own fascination.) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Given that TBATB is set in Los Angeles I know that only because I looked it up because of this question! Y'all don't think I watch that crap, I hope, the only jurisdiction that really matters is California. Not, I gather, that it changes the answer much for the purposes of what you wanted to know. --Trovatore (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I can confirm the show is indeed a highly developed form of crap, but I'm curious how would you ever know that unless you'd seen at least a bit of it, enough to make such a judgment on the actual evidence? I know, it's very tempting to equate "popular and long-lasting" with "obviously crap", but that wouldn't apply to the World Series, for example. I wonder why we make assumptions about other forms of "entertainment"? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 02:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have seen at least a little bit of some daytime soap opera; I couldn't tell you the title.

(Some of the nighttime soaps are quite enjoyable. I used to like Dallas, for example. Not to mention Coed Confidential.) --Trovatore (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

May 10

Wikipedia article "House of Lords"

Footnote 19 for "circumnavigation of power theory" reads "Treadwell (2010)" but does not link to that reference.

I have searched extensively, cannot find anything on Treadwell and the circumnavigation of power theory. Can you find it for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garthpool (talk • contribs) 01:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

When complaining about a lack of links, you should provide a link to the article in question: House of Lords#1997.E2.80.932010. StuRat (talk) 05:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, that took quite a bit of homework. The full details of the citation were removed in this edit. Either the full citation should be restored, or, if it's not a particularly scholarly work, all references to it should be removed. I don't know which it should be. --Dweller (talk) 10:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I see no point in doing what they did in that edit. StuRat (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Is Shaq's dissertation available?

(No need to repeat the question, I think.) --Trovatore (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You might want to explain it. Does he have a PhD ? StuRat (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

He recently received an EdD. --Trovatore (talk) 03:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

According to one of the sources in the Shaquille O'Neal article, he did not do a dissertation. This is the source: [8] RudolfRed (talk) 06:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:WQA is that way
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What is Shaq? Is it the aforementioned Shaquille O'Neal, of whom many in the world would know very, very little? Whoever it is, the question is very presumptive. HiLo48 (talk) 08:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC) I thought you might be paying us a visit, HiLo. --Trovatore (talk) 08:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC) And I find that an offensive post. Comment on the post, rather than the poster. HiLo48 (talk) 08:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC) I don't take orders from you. --Trovatore (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC) However, if you want a comment on the post, here it is: Those who do not recognize the context of the question are free to ignore it. --Trovatore (talk) 08:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC) We will do that. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC) My goal is to improve the standard of this global encyclopaedia. Experienced editors should do better. HiLo48 (talk) 10:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC) For a guy whose stated goal is to improve things, this is very trollish. Shaq redirects unambiguously. You are playing dumb to prove a point. That doesn't help anything. At least choose your battles more carefully — this (that a person by the name "Shaq" an English-language forum somehow might be interpreted to mean someone other than the famous basketball player and movie star and thus should be clarified or is worth an argument about clarification) isn't going to be the argument that convinces anybody of anything. Especially on the Reference Desk, where one should be ignoring questions you know "very, very little" about. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC) There is no link attached to the question. It was crap. Report me if you think this was a terrific question and that I am trolling. Trovatore should be reported for his personal attack. HiLo48 (talk) 11:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC) This the Reference Desk. We don't waste time calling other questions "crap". We don't waste time being pedantic. I see zero personal attacks from Trovatore here. You're acting like a jerk. Get a grip or take a break. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 98, the point is that saying Shaq is rude and presumptuous, since it assumes that everyone here knows who Shaq is. --Viennese Waltz 14:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC) It does not in fact assume any such thing. --Trovatore (talk) 09:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC) I had a very similar reaction to HiLo. --ColinFine (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC) People, life is too short for this stuff. A few questions: Would HiLo have reacted had the question come from some editor he'd never heard of before (and, in particular, someone not known to be an American)? Would HiLo have reacted had the question come from some editor who isn't a Ref Desk regular? Is it disingenuous of HiLo to say he's never heard of any notable person called "Shaq"? He's done a fair bit of travel in the USA, so he's ahead of me on that score, but I had no trouble understanding who "Shaq" is. It is unreasonable to expect readers not in the know to search for Shaq and see what comes up? Or is it a grievous omission not to link every possible word in a question? Does HiLo have a point in wanting people to explain their questions clearly enough for all possible potential respondents to understand without any further effort on their part? Well, sort of, but precisely because this is a global encyclopedia there are always going to be questions that seem clear enough to you but which someone else is going to struggle with. So, what about them? Is it fair enough to say "I understood the question and therefore it passes my personal criterion of clarity, and I don't care who else doesn't understand it as long as I do"? Is it enough that one person understands the question and has the answer the OP wants, even if everyone else is completely in the dark? That would seem to do the job, on face value. Are we here to be of service to the OPs, or to make life comfortable for ourselves? Was Trovatore deliberately baiting HiLo? If he wasn't asking the question in order to get a rise out of HiLo, was he nevertheless asking it knowing it would get such a rise? That seems to be the case. Is that Trovatore's responsibility? Is there an element of personal animus at work here? "I don't take my orders from you" seems a somewhat reactive comment in response to a HiLo's pointing out a Wikipedia policy of commenting on posts, not on editors. This could go on forever but, as I say, life is too short. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 00:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Hmm — interesting questions. I did not ask the question specifically to bait HiLo, but his potential reaction did occur to me, and frankly that was OK with me. I generally think HiLo is a valuable contributor, but this particular anti-American obsession of his (and I am not even particularly patriotic) is beyond annoying. --Trovatore (talk) 09:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC) The short and complete answer is that Hilo is first and foremost a drama queen. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC) I did not notice who had made the initial post. I just noticed that it was a very poor post. HiLo48 (talk) 07:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC) It was not the most interesting post ever. However, your particular criticism of it is essentially meritless. --Trovatore (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Gay marriage

If Gay marriage was legalized at the US federal level would that override state constitutional bans or would the US supreme court have to override all state bans by saying it's unconstitutional? Source if you have one, thanks! CTJF83 05:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think "legalized at the Federal level" applies here, since the states control this area. The closest to that would be a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage and denying states the right to redefine it. StuRat (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Defense of Marriage Act is federal legislation on this topic, so apparently the federal government does not agree it is a state issue. I think the courts are still sorting it out. RudolfRed (talk) 06:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The few parts of that which have been found to be Constitutional don't really do much. StuRat (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The repeal of DOMA could reasonably be described as "legaliz[ing gay marriage] at the US federal level", and in and of itself would certainly not invalidate any state-level bans. States (well, most of them anyway) did not perform gay marriages before DOMA, so there's no reason they would have to if it were repealed.

If DOMA were struck down, then it would depend on the reason. The most likely reason, in my inexpert view, would be that DOMA violated the full faith and credit clause. If it were struck down for that reason, then states might possibly have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, but would surely not be required to perform them themselves.

If DOMA were struck down on the grounds that marriage is a fundamental right, then I suppose it would depend on whether the court considered that right to be incorporated into the 14th amendment. But now I'm really out of my depth; hope this is helpful but I can't be remotely sure. --Trovatore (talk) 07:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It would almost certainly have to come down to whether these various state-level amendments, as well as the federal law, violate the 14th amendment, which is the closest thing the US has to an "equal rights amendment". With a Supreme Court divided along partisan lines, this means that this entire issue will most likely boil down to Anthony Kennedy's opinion on the matter. So it would be worthwhile to see what, if anything, he's had to say about it in the past. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

As opposed to "legalizing" via congressional action, it might be that certain state laws would be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, thus invalidating all such laws. The obvious analogy would be Loving v. Virginia . --LarryMac | Talk 11:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a great name for a case about marriage, sounds like "Sex v. Virgins". StuRat (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

OK thanks for the answers CTJF83 11:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Summing all this up, Congress and the President cannot legalize marriage at the Federal level, since marriage, under the Constitution, is considered a state matter. Congress and the President could repeal DOMA, in which case the Federal government would have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where they are allowed. The status of those marriages in states that ban such marriages would be uncertain, due to the full faith and credit clause, and would depend on a US Supreme Court ruling. I don't think that the Federal government can compel states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples unless there is a constitutional amendment or the Supreme Court rules unconstitutional state laws denying marriage on the basis of the gender of the persons involved. There are a number of court challenges of laws restricting marriage to heterosexuals that are now underway, and the Supreme Court will begin ruling on them over the next few months. Marco polo (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! CTJF83 23:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

There's a misconception here. Same-sex marriage is not "illegal" anywhere in the US. What's illegal in many places is granting recognition and consequent legal benefits to those types of marriages. They are unrecognized by the federal government, and by most of the states. But same-sex marriages or civil unions are de facto recognized by no small number of companies and their benefit plans. For example, the much-less publicized portion of the recent North Carolina amendment affirms that the amendment does not encroach upon private arrangements. Its scope is restricted to public policy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you're talking about 2 different things.

One is two males or two females who live together as a couple and are regarded generally by their friends, family and employers as partners, and are (ideally) treated accordingly. Many of the benefits once available only to people married to other-sex spouses are indeed now available to same-sex couples. Far from all, but it's a start.

The other is two people of the same sex entering into a formal marriage under exactly the same arrangements and using exactly the same forms as straight couples take for granted. This is relatively rare, because relatively few places permit it to occur. The question of recognition is a further layer of complexity, because even where one jurisdiction permits a same-sex marriage ceremony to take place, that's no guarantee another jurisdiction will recognise it as a legal marriage (as they almost certainly automatically would if it were a straight couple who married). In some cases, the people in the first group have become formally married, but most haven't, either because they just don't want to, or because there's no provision to do so in their jurisdiction, or their jurisdiction wouldn't recognise a same-sex marriage contracted elsewhere.

So, really, the question of the "illegality" of same-sex marriages ia a furphy. They're obviously legal where they're permitted; and where they're not permitted, they wouldn't happen to begin with. Unless you're talking about a celebrant in a state that does not permit same-sex marriage, who publicly and flagrantly flouts the law by "marrying" same-sex couples to make a point. IANAL, but I'd say the law would be indifferent to such spectacles, because the "marriages" would not be recognised anyway. Maybe if the minister continued to do this, he/she could be had up for making a public mischief or something like that. But they couldn't be prosecuted for marrying people in contravention of the law, because, as I say, the law would not accept that any marriage has taken place. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I am indeed talking about two different things. Marriage has two components, what I call "spiritual" and "legal". There is no issue with obtaining a "spiritual" same-sex marriage. A liberal preacher from a liberal church will be happy to conduct one. It's just that that marriage has no legal standing, except in a few places that permit it. The fight for legal recognition of same-sex marriage comes down to strictly material things: money, property, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Legally-recognized marriage also has implications for family-related decision-making, choices, and rights: issues which are not purely material in nature. Very basic rights, like the ability to visit a partner in the hospital or in a nursing home, are not automatically extended to same-sex couples in the same way that they are to legally-married couples. That leaves aside any question of legal rights surrounding actual decision-making in health care, which is its own morass. The rights of a same-sex partner in childcare are similarly patchy; however 'spiritual' their marriage, a same-sex partner may encounter difficulty with simple things like talking to a child's schoolteachers or signing permission slips for field trips. If partners separate – or if one dies or is incapacitated – many states offer them very different privileges regarding child custody compared to 'legally' married couples. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The same issues may often be true for opposite-sex couples who are unmarried, depending on the laws of a given state. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

That's absolutely true. When it comes to decisions about pulling the plug, for example, someone who's been the patient's life partner or live-in close friend for 30 years but has never married them may find they have zero say, and it may come down to a decision by some long-estranged relative the patient detests. I know this because there was an episode of The Golden Girls on exactly that premise, involving Rose's long-lost daughter (I always rely on impeccable sources). -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 09:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

And the dilemma there is that the life-partner (who should know of that issue unless they've been living under a rock) can remedy the problem by getting married. And that's the inherent unfairness from a legal standpoint: opposite-sex can marry and remedy the potential problem. Same-sex cannot, at least in most American states. I think the core problem in the US (aside from prejudice) is the gay movement's insistence on the term "marriage", which puts off a lot of people. If unmarried couples of both kinds had focused on the idea of a "civil union", their cause might be further advanced. However, as I've said before, it's going to boil down to Justice Kennedy's interpretation of the 14th amendment, "equal protection under the law". It's unfortunate that it has to come to that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

This is now getting wide of the topic, but I dislike the idea that marriage can be prescribed as a "remedy" for anything. If they've lived together for 30 years without the benefit of a legal marriage, clearly they have chosen not to go down this path, as is their right. In saying that, I know there are many such couples who would eventually say "Time's getting on, and I want each of us to have the final say about the other, so let's quietly tie the knot without any fanfare, before it's too late". But that would be their choice. There would be others who prefer to fight the system on natural justice grounds, without capitulating to what they see as the line of least resistance. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

A "remedy" in the legal sense. And I don't like it either, on principle. One thing, though, is that everyone acts like they're immortal, and they could be in for a shock at how little the law cares about their happy unmarried arrangement. There are good practical reasons for getting married - and in general, those practical reasons are unavailable to same-sex partners. That's the inherent unfairness that may lead to a Supreme Court case, though it will probably take some years to get resolved. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The debate between 'marriage' and 'civil unions' or 'registered partnerships' or whatever isn't just about the words, though. In the places where some form of same-sex civil union, but not marriage, has been recognised, it usually does not confer the same rights and responsibilities as marriage, even where politicians insist it does (see: the UK). There is also the argument that by accepting a lesser or different legal status for same-sex couples, you are helping to entrench the idea that same-sex and opposite-sex couples should not expect the same treatment more generally, as well as making it harder to campaign for full equality in the future (as opponents will claim that civil unions are enough). 81.98.43.107 (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Many American states have passed amendments against same-sex marriage, thanks in part to the insistence on calling it "marriage". So how's that working so far? And do you really want to put all your faith into the assumption that Anthony Kennedy will be sympathetic to the 14th amendment argument? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

But why shouldn't there be such an insistence? The idea is that all adult couples should have access to marriage, no ifs or buts. Is that so hard to understand or support? To create some legal status for gay couples that's for all intents and purposes marriage, but is not formally called that, is just playing with words. To give them access to anything that's different in some significant respect to that which straight couples take for granted is just a continuation of the discrimination that has been outlawed in virtually every other context. Marriage is a special relationship, which shouldn't lightly be amended, but I don't see the straight world making a particularly great fist of making their formal and binding lifetime commitments work. Gays also want a chance to make formal and binding lifetime commitments that fail. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

There "should" be, ideally, but the USA still has a lot of folks who either think same-sex violates Christian principles, or think it violates "nature", or violates what they think "marriage" really is, or are simply personally repulsed by it. It's come a long way in the last 50 years, from the time when homosexuality was regarded as a mental illness and/or a gross perversion. But it's not there yet. And pushing too hard can create setbacks, as with these many states that have passed marriage-restriction amendments. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying. There's a time to bide your time and get by on what crumbs fall from the table of justice, and there's a time to stand up and overturn the table. For some, that latter time will and should never come, so in a sense they're irrelevant to the struggle. For others, it's way overdue. These things are never easy, and reactionary attitudes are to be expected, but more and more people have stood up (not all of them gay, btw) and said the time for change is here. In a number of countries, the tide has not only turned but has well and truly come in, making it easier for some to come out and be who they really are. It's only a question of time now for the hold-out countries like Australia and the US. Sure, conservative legislators can change laws to make it harder, but laws can and will be changed. Bunnies can and will go to France. Cinderella will go to the ball. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 18:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

In the interim, the US President "came out", so to speak, and endorsed the legalization of same-sex marriage. A very courageous thing to do, and something that could both gain and lose him some votes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Manufacture of cars requiring leaded fuel.

I was told in the early 90s that there were road cars (as distinct from race cars like NASCARs) in manufacture at that time that required leaded fuel, and from the context, I believe that this meant for Western markets, including the UK. However, the only evidence I have found of vehicles requiring leaded fuel in the UK today are "classic" cars made long before 1990. I ask: which cars were being manufactured in the 1990s for Western markets that required leaded fuel, if any?--Leon (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The British AA claim that the last cars requiring petrol which were available for sale in the UK were pre-1992 - so, presumably, they were built in 1991. Unfortunately, they don't specify which cars they were. Warofdreams talk 15:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah - page 1 of this DEFRA publication: all cars sold in the UK which were manufactured after 1 April 1988 had to take unleaded petrol. However, catalytic converters (which are incompatible with lead petrol) weren't compulsory until 1993, so some cars manfactured in the meantime had owners' manuals which advised the use of leaded petrol. Warofdreams talk 15:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! Regarding the document you cited: it mentions that unleaded fuel went on sale in 1986, at a time when several countries had already phased out leaded petrol completely. Why was unleaded petrol introduced so late to the UK?--Leon (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, it was because HMG was unwilling to legislate (Mrs Thatcher didn't approve of the "Nanny State" you know) and the Great British Public didn't really want it, because (I think) it was more expensive. It wasn't until there was an incentive in the form of lower duty for unleaded petrol that people began to ask for new cars that ran on it or got their old cars converted. Alansplodge (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This paper on Environmental taxes backs me up; "Tax differential in favour of unleaded petrol introduced in 1987 at 0.96 pence per litre, subsequently widened to 4.8 pence per litre by 1995. Initial aim was to offset the higher cost of unleaded petrol, and subsequently to provide an incentive for fuel switching. Leaded petrol was removed from normal sale in the UK market in 2000." Alansplodge (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

average UK weekly shop content

Hallo all - I was wondering if anyone could help me find an article on what's contained within the average UK weekly food shop? Whenever I go looking, articles talk about 'a 5% increase in the weekly shop', or 'weekly shop stays the same', but it never seems to explain what's in that shopping basket - does anyone know? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.230.34 (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

When retail price inflation is calculated, they use a "basket of goods" which is described here, which links to the specific items and has an indication of the comparative weightings they give to the different categories. It's not quite a "representative Tesco receipt" per se,, as they're trying to capture the statistics of a broad swathe of households with one calculation. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Is this used to measure CPI ? StuRat (talk) 16:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Defra produce a family food report which gives a great deal of insight into British food shopping habits and may be of interest to you (http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/files/defra-stats-foodfarm-food-familyfood-2010-120328.pdf). Not exactly an average weekly basket but it does offer very interesting analysis in this area. ny156uk (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

graphic designers

i am studding graphics at the moment and am wondering what skills you nead — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilyxxx247 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Searching online will get you some good results...E.g. (http://designreviver.com/articles/10-essential-skills-every-graphic-designer-should-have/ and http://www.prospects.ac.uk/options_graphic_design_your_skills.htm). Your tutor should be able to give you good guidance on the skills required to be a graphic designer, similarly any decent university course descriptions should give you some 'outcomes' or list of skills you will learn that are directly useable in the line of work you are studying towards (or at the very least generically transferable). ny156uk (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

production

list and explain the importance of production — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.218.229.193 (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know.--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Cliff Notes version: Without production, there are no products. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't blame you for asking. If I were presented with that as a homework question I would be stumped at the first word. It makes no sense as written.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Only, he didn't ask. He just parrotted the demand question. He might have said: What does "List and explain the importance of production" mean?, but he chose not to do so. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

That would have been a hard question to answer. --Dweller (talk) 11:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure you haven't missed out a word or two from your question? "Explain the importance of production" is a tricky and massive question, but "List and explain" makes no sense. If you had the missing words, you might be able to answer the question yourself. --Dweller (talk) 11:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The IP appears to be from Ghana, so perhaps English is not their first language. But obviously it's a little insulting when it's assumed we will answer things like this. Shadowjams (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

In the OP's defence if English is not their first language:

• The word "question" has two meanings: (a) an interrogative sentence requiring a question mark in writing, or (b) a task in an assignment or exam. The latter form of "question" may well be interrogative ("What were the causes of the First World War?"). Or, it may be written as a command ("Explain the causes of the First World War"). That's all grist to the mill in the exam/assignment/homework context, but ESL speakers may not be aware that the sorts of questions we invite expect here are the strictly interrogative kind. Yet, to my knowledge, we have never made this distinction clear in our instructions, so it may not be unreasonable for an ESL speaker to assume that any homework "question" would be acceptable as a ref desk question, regardless of how it's worded.
• This is all completely aside from our policy of not doing homework questions; but again, the OP might be thinking of this as an "assignment", and might not cotton on that it fits into what we mean by "homework".
• Then there are cultural differences in how people ask for things, so what may feel very rude to us natives may be quite normal and considered not impolite where they come from. And vice-versa, of course.
• Or maybe they're just trying it on and hoping to get something they can use. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 09:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Traffic congestion: Reconstruction with Kerner's three-phase theory

I'm rather confused by this article. Is its subject substantially different from Three-phase traffic theory? The title makes me think that it's about a book, but the title of the article doesn't appear anywhere in the text. Nyttend (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You should definately look into merging one into the other. The Traffic congestion: Reconstruction with Kerner's three-phase theory is the newer article, and any of the material there can be merged into Three-phase traffic theory. This sort of thing looks a lot like a class project. Wikipedia gets a lot of good content from class projects, but sometimes new users mistakenly create a brand new article which duplicates an existing one. This looks very much like something like that. There's good stuff in both articles, so WP:MERGE seems the way to go. Tag them both, start a discussion and wait a week to see if anyone objects, then merge them if they don't. --Jayron32 03:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

May 11

The affect of foreign policy.

Is it OK to say the following? .... I think our foreign policy effects the situation. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 08:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Only if you mean that the foreign policy brings the situation into being, brings it about. That's what the verb "to effect" means. It does not mean "to change" something or "to have an impact on" something. That is the verb "to affect".

This affect/effect confusion explains why your header reads wrong: I think you meant "The effect of foreign policy". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The affect of foreign policy is the way foreign policy feels about other policies. --Trovatore (talk) 09:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The effect (result brought into being) of our foreign policy is to affect (modify) the situation. The effect (outcome) I experience while being bombed affects (modifies) my affect (emotional state, or reaction) negatively. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

A very effective affectation. Matt Deres (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

An XKCD reference, eh? Paul (Stansifer) 16:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Good pick, Paul. 'Tee hee hee'. Nice to see the views here. so my Q was effective.

Resolved

 – Thanks all

Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 06:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Original author of an article

How do I find out who is the original author of an article in order to contact them to find out if the information is the most up to date? I am researching the current status of the digtial television transition globally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.236.220.51 (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Is this a Wikipedia article, or one elsewhere? Warofdreams talk 13:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Assuming you mean on Wikipedia, visit the article you're interested in and click "View history" at the top of the page. You can then see all edits made to an article. However, I doubt any Wikipedia editor can tell you if "he information is the most up to date". Even articles about subjects from long ago, may have been affected by recent research we wouldn't necessarily know about. --Dweller (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

...as well as the "she information". :-) StuRat (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I need a new car stereo

My car stereo CD player stopped working (radio, tape player still work). I am going on a road trip tomorrow. I want to replace the stereo. I am very handy and am confident I can do it myself. However, I have no idea where to get a car stereo on short notice (like at a brick and mortar store). I know about ebay/amazon, but they won't ship soon enough. The only thing I can think of is Best Buy, but they are often way too expensive, and I'm not fond of them as a company. So where can I go to buy a car stereo for cheap? Maybe Walmart (but I'd rather not shop their either)? I really don't know. -98.164.125.136 (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Any big box store should have them, but you can also find stores which specialize in "Car audio", which are usually local small businesses that sell and install car audio systems. You can likely purchase equipment directly from them. --Jayron32 17:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't start such a major project with a car trip scheduled for tomorrow. Instead, I suggest you borrow or buy a portable CD player, preferably one with a power cord that plugs into the cigarette lighter, so you don't run through a lot of batteries. Another option is one that broadcasts on a radio channel, so you can use your existing speakers. However, you can expect occasional interference with such a system. If you have an open seat, strap the CD player in with the seat belt through the handle, so it won't go flying when you perform Dukes of Hazzard maneuvers.

BTW, I am assuming you want to share your music with others on the road trip. If not, then a portable CD player with earphones/ear buds is also an option. StuRat (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It is probably illegal to wear earphones in most places see here. --LarryMac | Talk 18:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I already have the old stereo out of the dash. A CD was stuck in it, I got the CD out, but doing that still didn't clear the error. So, buying a new stereo and popping it in (when the old one is already out) isn't some crazy project to take on (for my skills at least). A FM transmitter might not be a bad idea. If I was more familiar with my area, I might know of some local car audio shops, but I've only lived here a few months. I guess using the yellow pages might help in that regard. I just thought those types of stores specialized in high end custom stuff, where I just want a cheap replacement. Maybe a junk yard or something? ha-98.164.125.136 (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Definitely worth trying a junk-yard, I've got a few car-stereos for the various old bangers i've had from them. I would also imagine any of the businesses in Category:Automotive_part_retailers_of_the_United_States would sell car stereos...the equivalent British/English/Uk-ish ones do! ny156uk (talk) 22:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect to find a radio at those places - now if all you needs is a knob or an antenna... Rmhermen (talk) 05:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

If your tape player is still intact, see if they still make portable CD's that will plug into tape players, sending the audio signals through a specially designed cassette tape "frame". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

May 12

What the heck is this thing?

Anyone have any good guesses (or, heaven forbid, actual knowledge) of what this thing is going to be? My best guess so far is a resonator instrument of some sort (though I haven't found such a thing with two resonators, or what is that second inscribed circle on the thing?) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

My guess is that it's just going to be a standard resonator guitar, aka Dobro. The upper circle doesn't look like its going to house a resonator (look at the bottom circle, already cut out, and see the reinforcing braces to receive the resonator, the upper part doesn't have that). I think the upper circle is just a guide for finishing the top part of the instriment; i.e. they aren't going to cut another hole, it's just there to guide the shaping of the guitar. --Jayron32 04:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Another picture. Reso guitar kinda thing was a first guess. Interestingly, I'm visiting to the National Reso-Phonic Guitars factory on Tuesday; I'll ask the guys there. You're right about the shaping, I think. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a banjo to me, with the top part scheduled to be cut off, and the circular hole added, to make another (smaller) banjo. StuRat (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Other than the utter lack of any banjo-like features other than roundness, I guess that's a feasible suggestion. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Not really... They wouldn't make it curve perfectly into the upper half if they were gonna make two, they'd cut the top out before assembling the pieces. Plus the nails/screws are in already. Definitely something designed to make a louder sound. Whether its an instrument or perhaps some fancy looking speaker, can't tell at this point. However, based on the scale of nearby objects in the second photo, the body itself looks to be 3 feet tall at least, and the pear shape is very unusual for a guitar. Lute? Cello? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

No, lutes are not shaped look anything like that; nor do cellos. I guess I should have asked for informed guesses, not just throwing out words and seeing if they stick. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, you did ask heaven to forbid answers from anyone who has any actual knowledge of the thing. Be careful of what you ask for, you just might get it.  :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Capablanca Chess (10x10 version) vs Go:Which is more complex?

[I originally put this in computing reference desk by mistake. It probably could belong in entertainment or mathematics.]

Capablanca experimented with at least two larger boards...I'm asking about the 10 by 10 board here. The snap (and perhaps correct)answer is that Go is more complicated than Capa chess, but I'm not so sure. Thanks in advance for your responses.Rich (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Probably Go. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Very probably Go. If I calculate correctly, Capablanca chess has 38 opening moves. Go has 362 (19x19+passing). Even in the best case, Capablanca chess will have no more than 36 (queen)+8(king)+4*18 (rooks and bishops)+2*8(knights)+2*18(new pieces)+30 (pawns)+(maybe)2 castling possible moves at any time, i.e. less than 200 (and that's a generous estimate). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess you're right then. But shouldn't the opening 360 be divided by 8? (To get 45+1+1 opening moves, counting passing) The other thing, perhaps i'm grasping at straws, is game length--if for some reason Capa chess could take far more moves than regular chess, longer perhaps than the middlegame of Go, which according to article becomes more straightforward in its endgame. The base would be smaller but the exponent larger.Rich (talk) 00:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I've not played Capablanca Chess, but I have played Shogi, and it wasn't considerably more complex than western chess. The issue is what you mean by complexity. Go has one piece, with which you can do one thing. You put a stone on a spot on the board. That's it. It is a very simple game from a gameplay standpoint. Chess (and shogi, and others from the family) is a more complex gameplay in the sense that there are several pieces which you have to keep track of what they do, how they move, and weird quirks (like castling and en passant and stuff like that). So chess games are more complex in the sense that there's just more rules and moves to keep track of. Go is fantastically simple in that way. However, in terms of strategy, Go is way more complex because there are just so many more ways a go game can play out. Chess is still fairly complex, in the sense that it still hasn't been "solved" (every possible board position played to every possible end game), but go has more possible board positions, even though its gameplay is so basic. --Jayron32 04:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Although I cannot give a research answer on this, I can assure you that Go would remain more complex, although as pointed out, it depends on your measure of complexity. Basically, computers can only play a tolerable game of Go, whereas I see no reason to doubt they would be able to master Capa chess within a reasonable time, if it took off. The rules are basically the same; it is just chess with a couple of different pieces. There would be many quirks distinguishing the two "chesses", owing to the new pieces and the size of the board, but these would not fundamentally alter the complexity of the game (or so I would assume). Another way of looking at it: one measure of complexity I have come across is to use the ( Elo) rating difference between an expert and a beginner. That for Go is greater than that for chess, as far as I am aware, because of the deeper structural nature of Go. An expert must pass through many levels of understanding in Go, whereas a chess grandmaster can spend much of his time memorising openings. Chess is based on relatively simple repeating patterns, and once a grandmaster has memorised the 100,000 or so basic positions, there isn't much more to be done than to fine-tune the skills, and build an opening repertoire. I see no reason why Capa chess would be fundamentally different from chess in this regard. IBE (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems two me you are misunderestimating the profounditude of regular Chess. For Capa 10x10 chess I think there will be further structure because of greater distances (also, more nooks and crannies) leading to somewhat disconnected battles. (BTW, I'm actually interested in a Capa type chess with more shortrange knights rather than the longer ranged archbishops, to increase the distance effect.)Rich (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Intimate webcam meetings

Greetings! I have never had a girlfriend, even though that has always been my highest wish. This has led to a lot of hospitalisation (due to depression), and for many years now I am on SSRIs. The impact on my every-day life has always been profound (since the age of seven or so). For instance, today I cannot even read the news or watch TV because I cannot stand to be reminded about the fact that people my age and younger “already” have started to have sexual relationships. (I am 24 years old.) One way for me to get rid of some anger and sorrow, and to get some amount of female intimacy, is to be naked while a young woman (of my age) is watching via streaming video (webcam chat). However, I have realised that it is almost impossible to find women that are willing to watch. So, to my question: is there an online service (website), not necessarily free, where you can find such persons (in my case, women)? --81.170.174.36 (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

www dot livejasmin dot com is one such website. --84.112.145.34 (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I know about this site, but was under the impression that it is mainly (or only?) about watching the models, not the other way around (that is, being watched by ... the models?). In addition, if both "modes" are available, do you pay for a membership and hope to find someone able to watch, or are you basically guaranteed to get someone to watch? Thanks again. --81.170.174.36 (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't know the answers. Just browse the site and you may find what you are looking for. I was under the impression two-way webcam was possible, but maybe not. You don't pay for membership as such, you buy credit which gets used up as you go along. If you pay for a one-to-one session then you can dictate the terms of it. --84.112.145.34 (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

You could join www dot ypmate dot com , just ask the model if she likes two way cam, many do. There is also the option of travelling to a neighbouring nation where prostitution is legal... Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I just tried the first suggestion, LiveJasmin, and it seems to work very well (although it is very expensive). I will check out the latter one, too. As for travelling, well, Denmark is very close to Sweden, so I have thought of that as well. But doing such a journey regularly would be rather expensive. --81.170.174.36 (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

May 13

Comfort food inventors

Does anyone know if Natale Olivieri, inventor of Yoo-hoo^®, was related to Pat and Harry Olivieri, creators of the cheesesteak? (I am enjoying them both right now!) Thank you.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 00:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Distance to shore

Is there a list of countries/territories anywhere which shows the maximum distance from the shore of that country to an inland point? 92.80.57.27 (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

See Geographical centre. Tevildo (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

That's not quite the same thing. Imagine a large circular island with a long, narrow peninsula pointing north. The maximum distance from any shore would be right in the center of the circle, while the geographical center would be north somewhat from there (possibly within the peninsula). StuRat (talk) 03:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Some of the country-specific articles linked to from that article do give the point of maximum distance from the sea, though. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 09:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The concept is similar to pole of inaccessibility, if that's any help. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 08:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Update for United States Coast Guard Awards and Decorations article

How do I make a suggestion to update an article?

The article on United States Coast Guard Awards and Decorations needs to be updated.

Title II, Section 224, of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (signed by the President on 25 October 2010) authorized a new Coast Guard Cross Medal and Coast Guard Silver Star Medal. This should be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallups (talk • contribs) 12:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Go to the Talk page of that article by clicking on the Talk tab at the top, and make your suggestions by editing it exactly as you've done here. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 12:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Indicator of socioeconomic status

Hi. I'm interested in others' views (and, if possible, justifications) on which of the following is the superior indicator of a metropolitan area's socioeconomic status: the median property value of ALL dwellings, or the median property value of non-strata dwellings (i.e., houses). I'm leaning toward the latter because there seems to be a more realistic (noticeable) variation in the values, but I'm not sure how I could justify it. Thanks in advance for your thoughts. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

That seems a very narrow, single element in a complex situation. Many people of low socio-economic status live in subsidised rental accommodation, so the value of the dwelling becomes somewhat irrelevant anyway. And your measure would vary depending on where you are in the world. In some cities there are many more houses than strata dwelling, and in some the reverse is true. And there are many more factors in socio-economic status. I'm really not sure what you're trying to demonstrate with your proposed measure. HiLo48 (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure median house prices is going to work as an indicator of socio-economic status. The price of the same kind of house varies a lot from place to place, as well as the kinds of houses varying. Taking the median house price doesn't separate those to effects. --Tango (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm attempting to demonstrate a correlation between electricity consumption and socioeconomic factors. I wanted to use average household income, an obviously superior measure, but the most recent data is from 2006 because that's when the census was (in Australia). Can anyone think of a better measure of socioeconomic status for which recent data is always available? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

You might actually look into what stats the ABS offers? Here's the Labour Price index (six capitals) and here's six capital Employee earnings. This statistics package contains detailed indications of SES versus electricity consumption. (4.1% of the upper quintile of disposable income couldn't pay their utilities on time, a key indicator—and people say Australia's the lucky country? Tell 'em they're dreaming.)Fifelfoo (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for those links. I should have specified that I'm looking for an indicator for which there is data for individual LGAs in NSW. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Use Censuses to produce a time dimension and you can get good correlations. I'd suggest census data because you want to test for multi-variable correlations. Using a "land price" proxy will produce a less accurate result than using Census 2006. (Also, why would a correlation you can demonstrate in the last N censuses suddenly no longer hold?) Fifelfoo (talk) 05:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

There was an Australian census in August 2011. Surely some new data would be available by now. HiLo48 (talk) 08:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Surely not. A quick squizz at Census in Australia tells us "The first results of the (2011) Census will be released in June 2012 on the Australian Bureau of Statistics website." -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow. I didn't realise they were so (in)efficient. Anyway, June is just next month. HiLo48 (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as a former 8-year inmate employee of the ABS, I can tell you they do all they can to get the results out as soon as practically possible, but there's a huge, vast amount of work that has to happen behind the scenes. The measure of inefficiency is not "later than when I, personally, expected, with nothing more to go on than a completely uneducated idea of how long it takes to produce quality results on a national census of 20 million people spread over one of the largest countries on Earth". I'd have to check, but I'd be surprised if any country of comparable population and/or size does any better in getting their census results out. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

While this may offend JackofOz deeply, I find the ABS to be one of the most efficient, thorough and appropriate bodies collecting statistical information. They expose their categories and assumptions beautifully, critique their own work with a withering scorn that would scare politicians, and supply data with remarkable rapidity. Getting 2011 data exposed in 2012 is brilliant—though I assume that the initial data package won't be the complete census results. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why you'd think that may offend me, who defended the Bureau. Everything you say about their approach from your experience as a user is in accord with my experience from the inside. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to use the Australian ironic mode; it doesn't work so well in text as it does in person. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Real estate prices also seem like a poor indicator of socioeconomic status to me. Can't you get more direct measures, like average income for each area ? StuRat (talk) 03:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Median household income might be more meaningful. From memory that's something that the ABS publishes. I'm not sure why you would reject using this more direct measure just because the data is available only to 2006, are you going to be arguing that people's behaviour in electricity consumption has changed in some statistically significant way between 2006 and 2011? If not, why not just use electricity consumption statistics up to 2006 with income statistics up to 2006?

Property value is an indirect proxy for wealth and I agree with StuRat that it's a poor proxy. Many people pay more for their property for reasons other than that they can afford to (e.g. location of work), which only means their disposable income is lower and they are therefore, poorer in disposable income terms.

The only justification I can think of for using non-strata title property only is that strata title property may be inhabited by someone other than the owner more often than freehold title property. But even then, rental expense is generally correlated with property value, so excluding strata title property seems to me to do more harm in causing bias in your data than whatever benefit it brings. People who live in strata title properties tend to be either poor or young.

Unless your electricity consumption data is also broken down by strata and non-strata property, you will also get a mismatch between the statistics. Say Sydney has 50% strata title properties and Hobart has 10%, your result will probably come out with Sydney-siders using almost 100% more electricity per property than Hobart when in fact the per property usage is equal. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

May 14

Children of King George V

Pertaining to the article, "Ancestry of Elizabeth II" and pertaining to the chart, Ancestor Table, Generation 3 (Grandparents): It notes that George V and Princess Mary of Teck had 2 children. It is my understanding that King George V and Princess Mary of Teck had six children. Please confirm/verify. Thank you.Hamradio66 (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

"Father of 2" means the father of the person numbered 2 in that list, i.e. George VI. It does not refer to the number of children he had. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Educational records in the UK?

My son in law needs records of his education and of his A levels. He graduated 10 years ago. He is being told they don't exist. There must be records somewhere . It makes no sense. Here in the US and in Canada records are available for a very long time, and in the UK records are often available for centuries. He wants to go to university but this is causing big concerns. Does any one have any advice or thoughts on this where he might find these kinds of records Thank you for any help you can give.(76.76.228.132 (talk) 04:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC))

I doubt we can answer your question from the information you've provided. My understanding supported by the GCE Advanced Level article is there are a number of Examination boards who are responsible for the A-level so it will depend precisely who your son-in-law did his examination with. Our articles lists 5 main current ones although it mentions (as to the various articles) that there have been various mergers over the years so the board/s your son-in-law did his A-level with may be none of those 5. It also mentions many schools mix and match exams from different boards. A simple search for 'a level lost certificate' find [9] for the AQA and [10] for the OCR. If your son-in-law is not aware of the examination board he did his A-level with, he will need to check with the school he went to about what board/s they were using when he went there. If theythe school no longer exist, I guess he'll have to look for historical information or make enquires with the boards (since there's seemingly only 5 of them now and he could try all 5 although it's not entirely clear if the 5 exant boards have records for all historical boards). Alternatively, try asking old friends. As for records of his 'education' whatever that means, if the school he went to can't help (really can't help as opposed to 'we're too lazy to find them'), I'm doubtful anything can be done as it's unlikely the records are centralised. Realisticly it seems to me many universities aren't going to care about much about his earlier education beyond possibly his A-level results 10 years later.(Seems I'm wrong, see below. Note when I said records of his 'education' I presumed the OP was referring to records other then exam board records, like internal school exam results, co-curricular activity participation etc; not centralised-exam records which as stated you can get from the exam board once you work out which one.) P.S. There is also University of Cambridge International Examinations who offer A-level but in other countries only. Nil Einne (talk) 06:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Records are preserved for a long time and it is possible to track them. The school or college can easily, if they want to, find out when your son-inlaw attended and what exam boards he did his GCSEs and A levels with. If it was a maintained (non fee paying) school, ask the education authority for help. Under data protection legislation you have a right to see your own files. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ... and if this is in England or Wales, and all else fails, Local Education Authorities and central government started keeping individualised records of pupils achievements via UPNs (Unique Pupil Numbers) twelve years ago. See herefor details. Dbfirs 07:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Just in case this causes confusion, in the UK the word 'graduation' is only used in the context of a university-level degree - it would not be used to describe leaving school or passing A-levels. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 09:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I recently needed copies of my certificates for a job application and feared I had lost them. I discovered tat my secondary school had copies of my GCSEs and they could help me find which exam boards I would need to contact. However, the exam boards charge a not-insignificant fee for making a new certificate for you, I'm afraid. 130.88.172.34 (talk) 12:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much everyone this has been very very helpful.(76.76.228.132 (talk) 12:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC))

OLYMPIC FLAG

There are five rings on the Olympic flag. They represent fife continents. Could you tell me which colour of the ring represent which continent? thank you175.157.218.178 (talk) 08:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I quote from http://en.beijing2008.cn/spirit/symbols/flag/index.shtml.

Pierre de Coubertin, the father of the modern Olympic Games, explains the meaning of the flag: "The Olympic flag has a white background, with five interlaced rings in the centre: blue, yellow, black, green and red. This design is symbolic; it represents the five continents of the world, united by Olympism, while the six colours are those that appear on all the national flags of the world at the present time." (1931) Combined in this way, the six colours of the flag (including the white of the background) represent all nations. It is wrong, therefore, to believe that each of the colours corresponds to a certain continent! -- SGBailey (talk) 08:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Note that this is also found in our article on Olympic symbols -- what I'm curious about, though, is how "five [inhabited] continents" was arrived at; US educational convention is that there are six inhabited continents plus Antarctica. I assume Eurasia was mashed together? Or perhaps the Americas? — Lomn 19:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The Americas. Olympic symbols#Olympic rings says: "Prior to 1951, the official handbook stated that each colour corresponded to a particular continent: blue for Europe, yellow for Asia, black for Africa, green for Oceania and red for America (North and South considered as a single continent); this was removed because there was no evidence that Coubertin had intended it."[11] See also Continent#Number of continents. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

And maybe because "yellow for Asia, black for Africa" was a bit too unsubtle. Although I wonder, what's with the blue for Europe? Because of the long, frigid winters? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

From my studies of Avery Brundage, I don't think the Olympic Movement had arrived at that degree of enlightenment in 1951.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Oy! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Police killed in the line of duty in Germany

I read an article recently about how German police fired 84 shots total in 2011, and I wanted to compare this to police deaths in the line of duty. I can find this information for the US, but is there a central source that will show me all law enforcement deaths in Germany by year? Thanks! Meelar (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Gay Romney ad

A pro-Mitt Romney TV ad has Robert C. Gay, who was an employee of Romney at the time, stating that Romney helped find his missing teenage daughter, by taking time off work to set up a command center to track her down. My questions:

1) Is this true ?

2) Why was she missing ? Did she run away ?

3) What is her name ?

4) Do we have an article on her ? StuRat (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It's true. I was kinda amazed myself when I heard it.[12]173.32.168.59 (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The complete lack of any mention of the reason why she disappeared made me suspicious that they were hiding something. Apparently they were hiding that she went to a rave, took a massive dose of ecstasy, and shacked up with some random boy she met. I believe this might be considered inappropriate behavior, at least for a Mormon girl. :-) StuRat (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Every politician has skeletons in their closet.--WaltCip (talk) 01:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Subtle colored contact lenses

Hi all! I bought colored contact lenses, "splash of color 2" but the name is misleading. I'm looking for subtle colored contact lenses, just a tinge of color. These made me look like a clown. I couldn't even wear them. I just spent the last hour trying very hard to use Google and Google image search to find pictures, a chart, anything that would allow me to look before I buy. I am amazed at how difficult it is to find information. Does anyone have any recommendations from personal experience (or maybe better Google skills than I) to help me find some actually subtle contact lenses? Thank you.--Lady in polka dot (talk) 02:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

You might try looking for "tinted lenses" instead of "colored lenses". However, note that with lightly tinted lenses, the color people see is a blend of the tint color and your eye color. So, if you want to make blue eyes look a bit bluer, that will work, but if you want brown eyes to look blue, you're SOL. StuRat (talk) 02:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, a clue. I will now go google that. Thank you.--02:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lady in polka dot (talk • contribs)

Surfactant

1. Which have the best cleaning property : anionic surfactant, cationic surfactant or nonionic surfactant?

2. If we want to have good oil removing for the detergent, which kind of surfactant we choose :anionic surfactant, cationic surfactant or nonionic surfactant?